Marriage is for Life — Not from Wife to Wife
When the standard Protestant teaching of open divorce
was adopted by the Worldwide Church of God in 1974, most members accepted that
enormous change without giving much time to its consideration. No one was encouraged to go to God to see if
this old Protestant teaching really was “new truth.” The members were given this “new truth” by God’s ministers. God’s ministers were given this “new truth”
by headquarters. And with HWA always
running around the world, headquarters was a man who was giving Solomon a run
for his money —
Adopting Protestant Marriage Practices
For forty
years, from 1934 until 1974, the Radio/Worldwide Church of God taught marriage
for life. Students at Ambassador
College were required to take Principles of Living and Family Relations
classes, where we were taught to take great care in getting married, and then
take great care of that marriage. — because marriage is for life.
At the time
we were in Ambassador, no AC grads had ever gotten divorced. For over twenty years all those people who
had been taught that marriage is for life kept their marriages intact. An incredible record.
But Herbert
Armstrong was surrounded by men through whom God had never miraculously worked,
as God had with him. HWA was especially
subject to the influence of one man, a quick thinking, glib talking, handsome
man of great talents. This man was Herbert Armstrong’s opposite, in flair and
fashion, and in his approach to God.
For example,
on the Sabbath commandment, Herbert’s thinking was, “What can I do to honor God
on His Sabbath?”
The other
man asked the rhetorical question, “If, on the Sabbath, I am passing by the
swimming pool on a hot southern California Saturday afternoon and fall in, is
that breaking the Sabbath?”
He then extended this thinking: “If I take a short, refreshing, uplifting dip in my pool on a hot California Sabbath afternoon, is that breaking the Sabbath?”
His
interest was in finding all he could get away with on the Sabbath, and still be
considered technically obedient. His
focus was on himself, not God. This
thinking finally found its full fruition when he was videotaped naked chasing a
masseur around her parlor, on a hot Texas Sabbath afternoon.
This man,
with this spiritual approach, was the prime agent for changing the church’s
teaching that marriage is for life.
This change was supposed to be for the good of the people — he saw
himself as a helper of their joy — and this change was supposed to allow the
church to enter a new phase of astronomical growth.
This man
and his close associates heavily lobbied Herbert Armstrong to change the
church’s teaching on marriage for life, but the stubborn old man was stuck on
the principle that “what God has joined together, let not man put
asunder.” But that principle was put
asunder, and the “new” old Protestant teaching was jammed down the throats of
the ministry at a ministerial “conference” in 1974.
It wasn’t
really a conference at all. There was
no conferring. It was a cramference,
where this new teaching was crammed down our throats in a few days. We were not told to pray and study and ask
God if this new teaching, which wasn’t new at all because most other churches
already taught it, and which totally contradicted everything we had believed up
to that point, was right. We were
simply told to swallow it.
After those
few days of re-teaching, any who still believed what the church had taught for
40 years were told to leave. The giver
of truth was the true church, and they were giving it to us. No need to double check with God.
In
presenting this new teaching, the extreme rhetorical question was again
used: If a primitive heathen tribe
performs some strange wedding ceremony where they dance in a trance around a
campfire all night long and do exotic, mystic rites, is God in that marriage?
Naturally,
to us European types, jungle wedding ceremonies did seem a touch weird, so the
conclusion was reached that God was not in those strange marriages. From there the next logical step was that
God is not in any marriages at all outside “His church.” God was only working in “His church.”
Therefore God only bound marriages in “His church.” His church was The Worldwide Church of God, Post Office Box 111,
Pasadena, California.
Thus the
teaching was that there was one law for Worldwide and another law for the
world. This was an incredible teaching,
because it meant that all those people outside WCG who thought they were
married were merely fornicating freely.
If only
they had known.
Consequently,
when people outside God’s church divorced, they were not putting asunder what
God had joined together, because God had never joined them together in the
first place, since they had not been married in God’s Church, The Worldwide
Church of God, Box 111, Pasadena, California.
With this,
HWA’s objection was satisfied. By
teaching married people to remarry, they were only putting asunder what God had
never joined together, anyway. He and
Stan Rader left the country after the cramference in 1974, while the ministers,
who had just had the pro-divorce teaching crammed down their throats, then
crammed it down the throat of the whole church.
I don’t
think we ministers had thought of it — I guess we were like zombies, so maybe
those native wedding ceremonies weren’t so weird, after all — but many church
members immediately brought up an obvious question: “Since we were married before we came into God’s church, The
Worldwide Church of God, Box 111, Pasadena, California, do you mean our
marriage is not bound by God?”
It was not
clear whether these people were angered or excited at the thought that their
marriages were null.
These
startled people were assured that their marriages were now bound, once they
were entered as a member into the WCG computer, or for those early members,
into the card file. At the time they
entered WCG, that was the marriage that God bound. That was the marriage that was to be for life. Divorce is a sin in the past for those
people who suffered it, and that sin can be forgiven just like any other
sin. But the marriage in existence at
the time of entry into God’s church was then bound for life.
Or so they
said. But that was a lie.
This was
the same procedure that Satan used with the later WCG spiritual dictators. They would move the church one step toward
lawlessness, and then say that was all.
Just that one little step. And
they were lying. It was just one step
at a time, and once you took that one step toward lawlessness, you would take
another one. That’s why Satan uses the
dictatorial form of governmental. It
makes it so much easier to deceive the masses.
It was the
same back in 1974. Different dictators
in charge, but being led by the same lawless spirit, and using the same
method. One step at a time.
First they
said that all non-WCG marriages were not bound by God, so those marriages could
be put asunder. They led HWA to
conclude that non-WCG marriages were not bound by God, but that WCG marriages
were the ones bound by God for life.
Surely some marriages had to be bound by God, he thought!
However,
once they broke the marriage for life principle, —
When they had gotten the church to accept that enormous first step, that all marriages are not joined by God for life —
They then
easily jumped to the next step — that no marriages are joined by God for life.
The WCG
immediately preached that there is never a point where marriage is for life.
Never!
If a WCG
member committed any type of activity which could be considered by a mate, or a
minister, as illicit, or if a member left the church, for a sufficient period
of time as determined by a minister, then the other mate was free to divorce
and remarry.
No marriage
is ever joined by God for life! That’s
the doctrine that all of you believe.
All you Meredithites, Dartites, Unitedites, Flurrites and Humites — you
all believe that God never joins any marriages for life. You all believe that there is always some
circumstance that can end every marriage.
This was a
total contradiction. HWA had gone along
with the liberals to say that all non-WCG marriages weren’t bound by God for
life, but that all WCG marriages, including those in effect at the time of
baptism in WCG, were bound for life.
However, from that point on, there were never any marriages that were
considered bound for life. None. Any marriage could be ended by certain
circumstances.
They taught
that no marriage is ever joined by God for life, while saying they taught that
marriage is for life. What a farce!
But it was
smooth, wasn’t it?
The right side of the glib mouth spoke of being married for life to the one you are with at baptism, while the left side of the glib mouth spoke of all the ways to end a marriage. And it worked well.
Thousands
of members ended their marriages.
So if you
wonder why the minister who preaches to you that marriage is for life has taken
more than one wife — that’s why. In the
Churches of God, marriage is never really for life.
The church accepted this teaching in very short order. No one was encouraged to fast and go to God or to check the Bible closely to see if this was the mind of God. The members checked with God’s ministers. God’s ministers checked with headquarters. And headquarters was —
Whose Mind Did
We Follow?
The
destruction of the marriage for life teaching in the church, led by a man who
for over 40 years has had not the slightest understanding of marital fidelity —
a spiritual Wilt Chamberlain, was total and complete.
When this man was temporarily out of the church in the early 1970s, a relative of his, at a regional ministerial conference in Cincinnati, gave an estimate of how many Pasadena women God’s evangelist had laid. “A couple hundred,” the head of ministerial administration figured. And decades later, when the everlovin’ evangelist should have been a wise grandfather, giving his grandchildren tidbits of wisdom from his life, he was still chasing women. Who knows what his total was by then, or with Viagra, will be?
How likely
is it that with his life’s record, God is going to let his mind understand deep
spiritual truths?
The
disobedient mind only understands disobedience. God only gives increased understanding to those who obey
Him. To those who disobey God gives a
reprobate mind.
With this
man’s thinking, as expressed in his personal actions over and over and over
through all the decades, what other conclusion on marriage could he possibly
have come to? His disobedient mind
would have to conclude that marriage is not sacred. That’s all he knows.
Yet it is
his mind, more than any other, which is responsible for the Church of God
teaching on marriage today.
A
supporting pillar for this change from marriage for life to marriage from wife
to wife was that the Worldwide Church of God alone is God’s true church.
Believers
were only in Worldwide. Only Worldwide
marriages were bound by God, they pretended.
No other marriages or divorces really counted.
An
unbeliever was very easily defined as anyone who left WCG. If an emigrant went to the Church of God (Seventh
Day) or one of the Yahwist groups, even though they might become more obedient
to God than they had been in WCG, as many did, they were considered
unbelievers, and their marriage was vulnerable to destruction. Anybody who left Worldwide was subject to
being divorced and his mate considered free to remarry, because he had left the
one true church.
Notice the
increasing control given by the teaching that only Worldwide was God’s true
church. WCG controlled eternal
salvation. You couldn’t be one of God’s people unless you were in God’s
church. And WCG controlled your
marriage. Your marriage was bound only as long you stayed in God’s church, the
Worldwide Church of God, Box 111, Pasadena, California.
Today the
concept that believers were only in the Worldwide Church of God seems
ludicrous. Almost no present or former
Worldwiders now believe that. It has
become evident that often it was the believers in God who were leaving WCG and
the unbelievers who were staying.
The
teaching that the Worldwide Church of God was the only true church on earth was
simply used as a snare to see who would individually obey God and who would
obey men instead. It was nothing more than a bronze serpent. Yet that precept was used as the basis for
picking up the marriage teaching that most of the other churches already had.
So if two
United young people marry, are they not bound because they are not in WCG? If a couple in the Living Church of God
begin living together in holy matrimony, does God not join that marriage? Or will some teach that now God only joins
the marriages in UCG, or LCG, or PCG, or Dave Hume’s CG, and no others count?
Was Herbert
Armstrong, born of Quaker parents who were not at all in God’s Church,
illegitimate?
This is all
absurd.
It was
always absurd. No church ever stands between man and God. When a man and woman vow to mate, God sees
that. Wherever. Whenever.
WCG, Church of God 7th Day, RCC, Methodist, or native. Just as John held the Gentile Herod
responsible for his marriage, and Christ held the Samaritan woman responsible
for her marriage, when you vow to marry someone before God, you got it.
Two ironies
here:
One is that
most ex-WCG people now realize that the man who was most responsible for
engineering the destruction of marriage in WCG has led an unholy, unconverted
life. Yet those people almost
unanimously follow his teaching on marriage, which he maneuvered into the
church.
The second
irony is that this change in teaching, which was supposed to lead to
astronomical growth in the church, brought a huge curse on the church from the
day it was instituted. This change was
immediate and catastrophic. The church
soon had a high rate of failing marriages, probably higher than the general
population. Whereas the church formerly
had whole, wholesome families sitting together, this soon turned into families
with holes. The astronomical growth
that was expected in the church never happened. The opposite occurred.
This curse
also fell personally on Herbert Armstrong’s private life, with his marrying and
divorcing a divorced woman, the most shameful part of his public life.
When this
change occurred, the change in teaching that marriage is for life, the whole
church was cursed, HWA was cursed, and many individual families suffered
enormously.
The belief
that Christians can marry multiple mates has been an integral part of
Protestantism since the Reformation.
The Roman
church had always taught that marriage was for life. In practice, though, they could be bought off. If the person who wanted a new mate could
pay the required fee, the church would declare that his marriage had been a
fraud to begin with and annul it.
Therefore, the marriage was as if it had never occurred. The Roman church presumed that it had the
authority to do this. In our time,
Herbert Armstrong presumed the same thing and would take it upon himself to
annul a marriage and a family that had been continuing for years, thereby
freeing the parties to keep the same partners they had been committing adultery
with.
Because the
Roman church presumed that they could stand in the place of God, and because of
their gross hypocrisy in taking bribes to slither around their own teachings,
at the time of the Reformation they received stinging criticism on their
marriage teaching. One of their prime
critics was Erasmus. He taught that
love exceeded law. If an unhappy couple
was forced to stay together because of the marriage law, that was not
love. If that couple could divorce and
remarry, they could find happiness, and that was the loving approach.
He also
believed in the concept of two laws. He
said that when Christ taught marriage for life in Matthew 5, He was
speaking only to the disciples, who were the purest ones — the true church, as
it were. But there were others, he
said, who were not so pure and had need of disobeying Christ in different
matters, such as taking more than one mate.
Erasmus
never broke with the Roman church, even though he criticized it broadly. Martin Luther, who was put out of the Roman
Church and spearheaded the Protestant Reformation, shared Erasmus’ view that
marriage was not for life. He concluded
that since Old Testament law required that adulterers be stoned to death, if a
mate committed adultery, he could be counted as dead. Thus the other spouse was then free to remarry. One sacred name group teaches this approach
today. However, if the adulterous mate
later repents of his sinning and wants forgiveness, this dead mate doctrine
allows no room for resurrection.
As always
happens when the law is loosened a little, it soon becomes a lot. The Protestant reformers broadened their
dead adulterer doctrine to include deserters.
If a man left his wife and children, he was no better than an adulterer,
so his mate was free to remarry. If a woman
refused to submit to her husband as Vashti refused Ahasureus, then he was free
to find his Esther. If a man was
impotent ... Well, there was no question that he was dead, so he could be
divorced, too.
The
Protestants, then, since the early 1500’s, left the Biblical law that marriage
is for life, and replaced it with love and human reason. This is basically the new truth that WCG
picked up 400 years later, in 1974.
It has been
shown by different studies that the Bible Belt, and Christians in general, have
more divorces than non-Christians.
Christians
know that God hates divorce. So, of
course, being good Christians, they hate divorce, too, and really wish they
didn’t have to get divorced themselves.
But they do. Over and over. More than the people who don’t hate
divorces.
Churches
set up divorce support programs. They
know that tearing marriages asunder is a great evil and causes individuals
great trauma, second only to death. But
like the government welfare system, which causes what it aims to prevent, these
divorce support systems encourage Christians to go ahead and end their
marriages, because they know a lot of people will support them when they do.
These
Christians have their cake and eat it, too.
They hate divorce, and they get divorced all the time. Apparently they don’t hate divorce nearly as
much as God does.
So it is
with the churches of God, which adopted nominal Christianity’s teaching on
marriage. They say they teach that
marriage is for life, all the while having divorce as an ongoing practice. They have their cake and eat it, too.
Seven times
the New Testament teaches that marriage is for life. Four times in the gospels, once in Romans, and at the beginning
and end of I Corinthians 7, to set the boundaries for everything else
that is said in that chapter.
Indeed, the
Churches of God say they believe in marriage for life. But at the same time they say that marriage
can be ended in a number of ways.
All those
people you have seen get divorced and remarried in the Church of God were
supposedly married for life. If they
were married for life, how is it that they are now remarried? So now they again maintain that they are
once more married for life. Until they
decide not to be.
If you can
remarry if your mate commits adultery, you are not married for life. You are only married until your mate — or
you — commits adultery.
If you can
remarry if your mate leaves your religion, you are not married for life. You are married only until your mate — or
you — finds a new church.
By the
non-life marriage teaching, it is relatively easy to put a marriage
asunder. Just renege on your marriage
vow and commit adultery. That frees
your mate to remarry, which, logically, frees you, too. You can’t have one party unbound and the other
bound. Then you can marry your new
found love and put it all behind you, since divorce has to be forgiven just
like any other sin, and again sit in a congregation of God’s church.
Renege,
remarry, repent, and resit.
That’s not
marriage for life at all.
Marriage
for life has to mean that you are joined together, no matter what, as long as
you both have life. In sickness and in
health, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse, till death do you
part. That is marriage for life.
To say that
marriage is for life and then allow all these early exits is a Clintonistic
prevarication. Bill-babble. What is “is”?
So even
though they proclaim that they believe that marriage is for life, the churches
of God are filled with divorce. Because
they don’t really teach marriage for life.
They only say they do. In
reality, the churches of God teach that marriage is never bound until death.
Just as
with Christianity in general, by accepting any divorces at all, the Churches of
God have become filled with the practice.
For
example, a church member divorced his/her mate, married another church member,
divorced that one, then remarried the first one. This, of course, is nothing more than mate swapping, papered over
with state marriage licenses. Such
perversion of the marriage principle was not allowed even in hard hearted
Israel, but it was allowed in God’s church.
A minister
committed adultery with the wife of a member, divorced his own wife, and
married the other woman. They were all
together in God’s true church: the minister, the member’s ex-wife now married
to the minister, and the minister’s ex-wife, looking for a new husband, within
God’s church, and all the kids therein involved.
The only
one who wasn’t there was the member who had his wife stolen. He was put out for a bad attitude.
A man
commits adultery with another woman in the church, divorces his wife, and
remarries the other woman. This new
marriage ceremony is conducted by a Church of God minister, gifts for the newlyweds
are brought by Church of God members, and on some Sabbath the minister gives an
appropriate sermon about the meaning of marriage.
You
probably know of a situation in your local group which has made a mockery of
marriage. People commit adultery, get
divorced, then remarry, repent, and resit in the congregation. Over and over and over this happens. It’s all legal, according to the Talmudic
rules of Christianity.
The
churches are filled with divorce, marriage is mocked, God hates it and the
fruits show it.
The fact
is: if you accept divorce and
remarriage in any form, then you accept it in all forms. What is intended to be a teeny tiny crack
becomes a cavernous carnal chasm.
But this
chasm is not just theoretical theological tidwinkle. This chasm crushes the lives of all who fall in it.
Pro-divorce
advocates often use liberal buzzwords concerning the church’s original teaching
of marriage for life. They call the
teaching that marriage is for life, instead of from wife to wife, “abusive” and
“cursed,” They feel that people need to
divorce and remarry to be happy.
Let’s
disabuse ourselves of the notion that marriage for life is abusive.
At the time
of this “abusive” teaching, no Ambassador College graduates had ever gotten
divorced. In the college and in the
whole church, we were carefully taught to take care of our marriages, love our
mates, and be dedicated to them for life.
At that
time, the church was filled with wonderful families, row after row of mother,
father, and their kids sitting together peacefully. The church itself was full of life and love. God Himself was working within that church
then. Many people were being called to
a better way. The church was not close
to perfect, but they tried hard to be obedient, and God was working with it.
When the
teaching of marriage for life was changed to the teaching that marriage is not
for life — that is, you can remarry if your mate commits adultery, leaves
Worldwide, sells the goats (!), etc. — what happened?
In the last
25 years, Church of God people have suffered terrible trauma, depression,
suicides, and broken lives, all because of the present abusive treatment of the
church —
Which is —
Encouraging,
directly or indirectly, their members to divorce their mates.
You can’t have
it both ways.
If you
teach that marriage is for life, then remarriage families are split up.
If you
teach that marriage is not for life, then original marriage families are split
up.
When the
pro-divorce people talk about the “abusive treatment” of the former Church of
God, they are only thinking about the remarriage families, where some decided
to reunite with a former mate or live singly with God rather than remarry. How about all those more numerous original marriage
families that they have broken up since?
How many
thousands of Church of God children have been forsaken by parents who were
force fed, without open study or discussion, the anti-life marriage
doctrine? How many church of God
ministers today stand before their congregations with no fire in their hearth,
having been deceived into not being careful with their marriages, and who left
the wife of their youth and picked up someone else’s?
What is the
cost in human suffering of breaking up all these homes?
The Ten
Commandments place adultery just below killing. On a stress scale, psychologists place divorce just below a death
in the family. Children of divorces
have been repeatedly shown to have lasting chronic scars from the shattering
experience. When we worked in a
Christian school, we could consistently pick out the children of divorces
without ever asking. They played angry
basketball!
Just as
political liberals concentrate on the woes of the criminal and overlook the
victim, so all these thousands and thousands of destroyed original families
have been cruelly overlooked by those hollering about the divorce and
remarriage abuse of the church. And
just as the political liberals, through their form of love, cause more crime
and more victims, so those who advocate multiple marriages, their form of
mercy, actually cause divorces and shattered lives.
Naturally
pro-divorce people don’t say they are pro-divorce, any more than pro-abortion
people say they are pro-abortion. They’re pro-choice. But pro-abortion people — such as Planned Parenthood, N.O.W. and
Hillary, all of whom really don’t like abortions — cause abortions. And those who teach multiple marriages, even
though they profess to hate divorce, cause divorces.
Political
liberals try to disassociate AIDS from sodomy, and religious liberals do not
associate accepting divorce with busted families. But sodomy causes people to get AIDS, and teaching divorce
directly causes mates to leave their mates and families to be fractured.
If you
teach that marriage is for life, then remarriage families are split up.
If you
teach that marriage is not for life, then original marriage families are split
up.
Ex-Worldwiders
can easily see that after 1974, when the church began to teach that marriage is
not for life, the WCG hurtled downward as Satan fell from heaven. Even those who helped cause this demise
declare that the early 70’s were the peak of that church. When the church taught marriage for life,
the church was alive. When we entered
the period of open divorce, that church choked and died. Within 20 years of this cataclysmic change,
the Worldwide Church of God ceased to even pretend to be a commandment keeping
church of God. Their trip down the road
of permissive Protestantism was complete.
Because of
the hard-hearted teaching that marriage is not for life, divorce and remarriage
in the churches of God is not some sin from the distant past that has been
repented. It is an ongoing, life
shattering, never ceasing practice.
Further, a
great number of these remarried divorcees divorce again, and suffer further
bitterness.
Pro-divorce
advocates call the church’s original teaching cursed. But that church wasn’t cursed.
Today’s church is.
Some
pro-divorce teachers admit that Christ taught that there is to be no divorce at
all. But they go on to reason that the
way of mercy is to allow divorce and remarriage.
First of
all, this makes the teacher of divorce more merciful than Christ himself. As if Yahshua, Yhwh’s salvation, who gave
Himself in a cruel execution for the repentant sinners of the world, did not
understand mercy. But Christ taught
that divorce and remarriage, which was allowed to Israel under the Old
Covenant, was not merciful, but hardhearted.
That which
human reason says is merciful, Christ called hard hearted. Not being forever true to your original mate
is hardhearted.
How so?
An example:
A woman
left her husband and her children and her church and walked on the wild
side. Evidently she felt that she had
been missing something with her kids and her husband and God, so she left to
find what she had been missing.
The
husband, of course, was extremely stung by the stunning actions of his
wife. He remained stable, took care of
the kids, and continued in church as always.
The wife
went through taverns and tramps, and after a while, realized she hadn’t been
missing anything but taverns and tramps.
The forbidden fruit was seedy.
She became sorry for what she had done, and she wanted to go back with
her husband and her family.
She wanted
mercy. Just as Christ forgave the woman
taken in adultery, she wanted to be forgiven.
Her husband
would not grant this. He would not take
her back. The church he attended taught
divorce and remarriage as a way of life, and did not teach mercy and continuing
love for the fallen mate. His wife had
left the “true church,” she had committed adultery, so the husband was free to
remarry. Which he did.
The
church’s teaching had no mercy for the prodigal daughter.
The kids
forgave their mother. She was their
mother, their only mother for this lifetime.
With them, there was no question whatsoever of their divorcing their
mother. No matter what she did,
adultery or not, she would always be their mother. And when she asked them for forgiveness, they had mercy on her,
and they took her back as their mother.
A perfect
love of one mate for another is this same kind of perpetual love. No matter what, he/she is the mate for
life. And if he/she asks for it, the
mate will give mercy and forgiveness, even to seventy times seven. Just as these kids did for their mother.
When an
unbeliever departs, and the “believing” mate remarries, what if the unbeliever
repents? What if he/she is the lost one
that left the 99, and then comes back?
Where is mercy? Where is concern
for that one that left? When should you
stop seeking for them?
Never.
The present
teachings of the churches allow no room for mercy for the original mate. Hardhearted. They completely miss the essence of Christianity.
Another
example: a man molests his daughter for
some length of time. The family does
not imprison him, but puts him out of the household to protect the
daughter. The wife and husband divorce
and soon he remarries, making the females he has mated with include his
original wife, his daughter, and now his new wife, and possibly someday some
new daughters. His original wife, who
never remarried, comes down with a serious disease, no doubt in part caused by
the perverse husband and his sins against his family. At this terrible time, she could have used a husband who had repented
of his awful sins, and who was loyal to and supporting his wife and family in
this time of great stress, even if he wasn’t living with them. This was what needed to be done. Instead, because of the Church of God
teaching of multiple mates, the man quickly remarried, totally forsook the wife
of his youth, the mother of his children, and gave no support to his original
wife and family, all the while following Church of God doctrine.
This is so
hard hearted Satan himself would be proud.
A
characteristic of liberal love is that it applies to general groups, but fails
with individuals. The Clintons and
their sycophants are great illustrations of this. They have great love for the poor, but some of Clinton’s top
level cabinet appointees had not paid the pittance of Social Security taxes for
their Hispanic maids. Liberals have
great love for women in general, and spout out often about “women’s rights,”
but the individual women Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaderick were physically
attacked by Clinton and then vilified by his feminist followers for daring to
tell about it.
So it is
with Christian liberals. Their love and
mercy applies to women as a whole. They
say we have to allow remarriage, for the sake of the poor women who suffer from
divorce. But their love and mercy does
not extend to the poor women who are being divorced.
You either
have multiple marriages, or you have marriage for life. And Christ clearly said that having multiple
mates is hard hearted. There is no
mercy for the original mate.
When the
anti-life marriage doctrine was adopted, it was said that all divorces in the
past would be forgiven, and they wouldn’t divorce any more from that point
on. Those who were living with someone
other than their original mate would stay with the one they were with at the
time of conversion, and that particular marriage would be for life.
Why didn’t
God allow the pagan wives to stay with Israel at the time of Ezra? Why not just allow those families to stay
together, and say that from that point on they were not to take any more pagan
wives?
Almost all
Christians would follow this reasoning.
The Israelite men and pagan women already had kids, and were functioning
families. Let them stay together, and
from then on, the men wouldn’t take any more pagan wives. Human mercy, human love, and human
understanding would do that.
But that is
not what happened.
At the time
of Ezra, what if Yhwh had allowed them to keep their pagan wives, and only
forbade them from repeating that mistake in the future?
The sin of
idolatry would have remained in their midst.
They had just returned from captivity, having been taken captive because
of idolatry. The whole nation of Judah
was at risk.
Likewise,
what is the harm if a second wife stays with her new husband after
baptism? In looking at the history of
this policy for a quarter century in the WCG, what is the harm that has been
done?
The harm
that has been done is that the institution of marriage has been destroyed in
the Church of God, as it has been in Christianity, as it has been in the whole
country.
Look around
you at the families of your acquaintance that have been destroyed because of
the teaching that marriage is not for life.
Thousands of church of God families and dozens of ministers’ families
have been shattered, simply because they believed they were not married for
life, and acted on that belief.
Many other
families that are still together live under a constant cloud of doubt. Husbands and wives have “problems,” and they
don’t know if it will “work out” or not, because they’re not committed to a
lifetime marriage. There’s always the
possibility that one will make a mistake and the other will leave. There is the lingering idea with some that
maybe “God” wants them to leave, and find a better relationship. The marriage is under a cloud of doubt,
instead of a covenant of commitment.
The family is fragile and fractious.
Marriage is
never sacred in Christianity and in the churches of God. At any given time, any marriage is subject
to destruction. The wife commits adultery and it’s “Goodbye, Gertrude.” The husband changes churches and it’s “Chuck
it, Charlie.”
This is the
harm that has been done. The institution of marriage itself has been defiled.
Marriage is never for life. In that sense, it has been destroyed.
Why didn’t
God allow the pagan wives to stay in Israel?
Because the whole nation of Israel was at stake.
Why doesn’t
God allow people who are remarried when they are baptized to stay with their
second or third mate?
Because the
whole institution of marriage is at stake.
Look at the
history of the Worldwide Church of God and its ragged remnants in the last
quarter century. Not very long in
history, yet look at the change. Not
only the institution of marriage was destroyed, but the whole church was
afflicted. All because of human mercy,
shortsighted human love, saying — All these divorcees will stay together, and
we just won’t divorce any more.
It didn’t
happen like that. Divorce is not some
distant sin from the past. It is a
constant, perverse practice among those called to be God’s people
WCG said
that all past sins, including the sin of divorce, were washed away by the blood
of Christ at baptism. They said that
divorce was a sin that could be forgiven like any other sin, and that any
previous marriage was done away by Christ’s sacrifice.
What
happened?
Those
divorces that had to be forgiven in the past also had to be forgiven in the
present. If marriages in the past had
been washed away by Christ’s blood, then many marriages in the present could be
washed away by Christ’s blood. Any sin
that was forgiven in the past had to be forgiven in the present.
So all
those divorces that were to be left in the past kept recurring.
This is a common
occurrence in the churches . A man
commits adultery against his original wife. They then divorce, and he marries
the woman he was committing adultery with.
Next, he repents of his divorce sin, while staying married to his new
wife.
Doesn’t he
now have to be forgiven?
Divorce is
a sin that can be forgiven like any other sin, isn’t it?
So by
normal Protestant theology, which WCG adopted, the man and his new wife have to
be considered in full fellowship, because the previous marriage has been washed
away by the blood of Christ. And, of
course, he and his new bride are now married “for life”.
But — the
prime sin here was adultery. The man
was dissatisfied with his wife, lusted after another woman, and went out and
got her. Under the Protestant teaching,
— amazingly — this stolen relationship is continued, while the original God
ordained marriage, and the first wife, is washed down the drain by the blood of
Christ. The man who lusted after the
other woman gets to keep her. His lusts
are fulfilled, and he gets the blood of Christ to cover them.
This
practice may even be repeated by the same man or woman, divorcing and marrying
again, each time “for life,” always with the church’s blessing.
But this is
all a farce. It’s just open divorce,
covered with a communion cup.
It sounded
so good. Divorce is a sin in the past,
to be repented of like any other sin, and all marriages from baptism on are for
life. But it didn’t happen that way at
all.
There is no
halfway ground. It’s all or
nothing. Either marriage is for life,
or marriage is meaningless.
There are
only two possibilities: marriage for
life, or open divorce and multi-mating.
When the
Worldwide Church of God picked up the teaching of divorce and remarriage as new
truth, they were only adopting what nominal Christianity had taught for
centuries. This was one of many moves WCG made in this direction, where they
came up with old Protestant doctrine as new truth.
With
marriage practices, there is no real difference between the churches of God,
and ordinary Christians, and the world at large. They all divorce and remarry freely. It’s just that the world is more open and honest about it, while
Christians try to sugarcoat their divorces, classifying them as good divorces
and bad divorces.
All theirs
are good.
Yhwh
himself never gave detailed rules for good divorces and bad divorces, even when
divorce was allowed. Because of that,
the Jews had continuous arguments over the grounds for divorce.
The
churches today, Christian and the Churches of God, have merely continued the
arguments of the Jews. They spend their time trying to determine what is a good
divorce and a bad divorce.
It’s not a
question of good divorces and bad divorces. You can’t have just a few good
divorces and multi-matings. It is a question of marriage for life, or marriage
from wife to wife. Either marriage is
for life, or marriage is meaningless.
Any divorce
allowed in the past has to be allowed in the present and will always pop up in
the future. Whatever mistakes have been
made in the past will always be made in the present. Any allowance of divorce in the past must always allow for
divorce in the present. Thus it becomes
a normal, established practice. An
attempt is made to put a theological cover on this practice, but there is
always a theological exit. Marriage is never for life. Always from wife to wife.
This is
what Christ had to change: the
teachings of the Jews, the very same teachings and practices that the Churches
of God and Protestant Christianity have today.
Pro-marriage
people are accused of making divorce the only sin that can’t be forgiven. Pro-divorce people make adultery, mating
with someone besides the original mate, the only sin you don’t have to repent
of — to actually stop.
What does
it mean to repent of a divorce?
To repent
normally means that you stop doing whatever’s wrong.
What did
the Israelites do when they repented of being married to pagan wives? They ended the marriages.
But all
these Christians who have repented of their divorces —
What do
they do differently?
Nothing.
They do not
honor their original vow or covenant.
They still stay with the same non-original mate. Nothing changes. They simply say they have repented of their divorce sin.
The wrong
with divorce is the succeeding adultery; that is, continuing to mate with
someone other than the original mate.
To repent of a divorce means to stop living with someone besides your
original mate. As long as you keep
living with someone other than the one you divorced, there is no
repentance. Nothing changes.
If a person
is a practicing Sodomite, living with his homosexual partner, as many do today,
and repents of that, what should he do?
The
repentance of the pro-divorce teaching would have him go on as always, still living
in the same forbidden relationship.
What he needs to do, however, is stop the continuous breaking of the
seventh commandment. That is
repentance.
Christ said
that anybody that marries a divorced woman commits adultery. So adultery, not divorce, is the real
problem. You may separate from a mate
and then live singly, as Paul said, and not be living in sin. But if you are married to a divorced person,
a person with another living mate, you are continually living in adultery. To repent of that, you have to stop living
in adultery.
The
pro-divorce teaching makes adultery the only sin you don’t have to repent
of. A divorcee repents of his divorce,
while continuing to live in adultery.
Further,
you will notice that it is not actually the divorce which is said to be washed
away by the blood of Christ — It is the previous marriage which is being washed
away.
It’s not
the divorce that is forgiven. It’s the
marriage that is forgiven.
Did Christ
die to end marriages?
At
marriage, a man and woman have taken a vow, to each other and to God
Himself. Why would Christ want you to
break a vow which you made before God?
Would not Yahshua, the perfect Law-keeper, the Living Ten Commandments,
want a follower of His at conversion to then keep his vow?
Would
Christ the humble Law-keeper want you to go back and honor the covenant you
have made?
Today it is
easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of a used car
contract. But God doesn’t end these
marriages, because God doesn’t teach the breaking of vows. That breaks the ninth commandment. He teaches the keeping of vows. When you vow to make someone your mate, you
are vowing that before God, and that vow lasts as long as both of you are
alive.
When people
say they have repented of the sin of divorce, it usually means nothing, because
nothing changes. The parties continue
to live in what Christ called adultery.
The pro-divorce teaching makes adultery the only sin you don’t have to
repent of.
If Christ
had taken a physical wife, do you think He would have ever forsaken her, no
matter what she did, after He had vowed to be her husband? If she committed adultery, would He go find
another spouse, too? If she became an
unbeliever, would He give up on her, or consider her the one lost of the
hundred?
Christ
would have been loyal and faithful to her, for all His physical life. If she asked to be forgiven, He would
forgive up to seventy times seven times.
If she did not, then He would look at her as the one lost who left the
99, and He would seek for her and wait for her. He would never give up on his wife, never forsake her no matter
what, and He would never take another bride until physical death came to one of
those two.
Christ did
have a wife spiritually. The one who
became the Messiah acted under the name of Yhwh in the Old Testament. He was symbolically married to Israel.
Was that a
bum deal! Worse than any mate any of
you ever married! Every kind of
whoredom and idolatry — total adultery, perfect porneia — was practiced
by his bride Israel whom he had plucked out of the trash dump of Egypt. He was so disgusted He even wrote her a bill
of divorce, but then He said he was still married to her, (Jeremiah 3).
What’s
more, He did not get remarried. Do you
read in the Bible where Egypt became His wife?
Or Assyria, or Babylon?
No. He took no other nation as His bride. Instead He went to his death without
remarrying, because He already had a wife.
It was she who killed Him.
Hateful hussy!
After that
death, the reborn Christ is now free to remarry. This time the bride will be spiritual Israel, the obedient ones.
Christ
plainly said that any man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. He taught that marriage is for life. Perpetual fidelity, forgiveness forever,
love without limit. One man, one woman, till death do them part. Perfection.
But the farther along we go in human history, the more this law is
broken. So many families have been torn
apart, in society and among Christians, so many lives affected, that it is
difficult to even discuss the subject.
The law, however, is not the problem.
Breaking the law is the problem.
That is where the heartache and suffering have their cause. But in Christ, in His example of obedience
and in His comfort, is where we have our remedy.
For forty
years the Radio/Worldwide Church of God taught marriage for life. Now it has been nearly thirty years since
they picked up the Protestant teaching that marriage is not for life. In the first 40 years, many were blessed by
the church’s teachings. In the past 30
years, many have been cursed by the church’s teachings. Each of us now realizes we stand before God
not as a corporation, but as an individual.
This carries great responsibility, but it also gives great comfort. Yhwh gave His only Son for you, the
individual. That Son took the whip
lashes for you, the person. The pole
with its human attachment was hoisted for you, the deceived sinner. And the sharp pointed spear poked in His
side for you, the repentant, obedient believer.
If you have
been trapped by Christianity’s anti-marriage teaching, and you have to bear the
burden of that, there is someone standing beside you ready to help carry your
pole. Your ultimate healing will not
come from any earthly marriage, but from your spiritual wedding to Yahshua,
Yhwh’s salvation, which He provided for you.
Chapter 2
Matthew
19 — the exception that became the rule.
It is an amazing feat, testifying to the deceptive power of the human mind, that theologians take such a plain statement, repeated four times in the teachings of Christ, and then conclude exactly the opposite of what it says.
Mark
10:11 — “Whosoever shall put away
his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband,
and be married to another, she commits adultery.”
Luke
16:18 — “Whosoever puts away his
wife, and marries another, commits adultery:
and whosoever marries her that is put away from her husband commits
adultery.”
These
statements are as plain as can be. But
the pro-divorce teaching uses the “exception clause” in Matthew, which Mark and
Luke did not even bother to include, to claim that Christ taught multiple
mating. This clause is strongly used as
a reason for supporting all the divorces among Christians today. There are several simple reasons why Christ
was not advocating divorce and multiple mates with this “exception.”
1. Hillel or Shammai?
The Messiah
was not like the Jews thought a good messiah should be. He worked at a common job, carpentry. He wasn’t good looking. He had a common name, Yahshua, the same as
the man who led Israel after Moses died.
He was not proud and pompous as a king normally is. And He did not think as the Jews thought.
The Messiah
wasn’t like today’s Christians think He was, either. He wasn’t the wimpy little lord Jesus that you see hanging on
walls, with long, girlish hair and a mucky look on his face. And He often taught just the opposite of
what today’s Christians believe.
The religious Jews were always trying to trap Christ, trying to get Him to cross what they considered absolute truth. They had accused Him and His disciples of eating with sinners, not fasting, eating with dirty hands, and breaking the Sabbath. In all these cases, they had not understood His thinking.
Now, in Matthew
19, they had a new trap for Him — divorce.
“The
Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, “Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (All quotes, unless otherwise noted, are from the King James
Version, with archaisms changed.)
The Jews
disagreed among themselves about who could divorce and remarry. The followers of Hillel said a man could
divorce his wife and be free to remarry for the flimsiest reasons.
“The
following women may be divorced: She
who violates the Law of Moses, e.g. causes her husband to eat food which has
not been tithed... She who goes out on the street with her hair loose, or spins
in the street, or converses with any man, or is a noisy woman. What is a noisy woman? It is one who speaks in her own house so
loud that the neighbors may hear her,” (from the Jewish Mishna).
But the
followers of Shammai thought that a man could divorce his wife only
if she committed adultery. The husband
was stuck with the loud talking and loose hair, but if she committed
adultery — then he could dump her.
That’s just
like the Christian teachings of today.
Most
Protestant Christians believe that you can divorce for any reason you
want. But some believe that you can
divorce only if your mate commits adultery.
Isn’t it
ironic that the Christians wound up in the exact same theological pickle as the
Pharisees? To the human mind, these two
are the only possibilities.
The Jews
had argued over this for hundreds of years.
The Christians have argued this for hundreds of years, too, mostly since
the Protestant Reformation. But they
all agree that at some point, a couple can divorce and remarry.
There was
only one possibility they did not include.
Again the
Pharisees’ question: “Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” NKJV.
Such as
talking too loudly? Would Christ side
with Shammai, or Hillel?
“And He
answered and said to them, “Have you not read, that He which made them at the
beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one
flesh? Wherefore they are no more ,two
but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let not man put asunder.”
No divorce
at all, Christ answered! Two people
became one entity, not two, and one cannot be separated.
The
religious Pharisees hadn’t even seriously considered the possibility of no
divorce, because Moses had indeed written that a man could write a bill of
divorce.
“When a
man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no
favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her: then let him
write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of
his house,...,” Deuteronomy 24:1.
The Pharisees understood very clearly that Christ meant no divorce at all, so they asked Him why Moses had said that.
“They
said to Him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and
to put her away?”
He said
to them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away
your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be
for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commits adultery
(moicheia); and whoso marries her which is put away does commit adultery.”
Now
Christ’s own disciples were astonished.
Christ had not said that you could divorce a wife for loose hair or
talking too loudly. Nor had He agreed
that you could divorce your wife for committing adultery, because that was
hardhearted.
He had
given a totally new teaching. Marriage
for life, for better or for worse, loose hair or loud talking or adultery, till
death do you part.
No divorce
at all was more than even Christ’s disciples could comprehend!
They
blurted out, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to
marry.”
Obviously
some of these men were married to loud talkers.
The thought
of having to stay with their wives, no matter what, weighed heavily on their
minds. They knew that Christ was saying
that you stayed with a wife for life, no matter what. And they figured it would be better not to get married at all
than to face loose hair, loud talking, even adultery, and still have to love
that wicked woman.
From now on,
every time they looked their wives in the face, they would realize, “Oh, God —
this is it!”
We have to
appreciate just how awful humans can be.
Ministers who can be reprobates, friends who can be treacherous,
relatives who can be unfathomable. And
a mate who can at times be detestable.
Surprisingly,
your mate has to face the same thing — a self-loving, ugly mortal.
The Ten
Commandment stones were carved only by the finger of Yhwh — twice. These holy statements could not be defiled
by man’s carving. The whole stones at
the entering of Canaan had never before been carved on by man. The tomb that Christ was placed in had never
held the body of a sinful, stinking human.
And the
Father, when His only Son was on the stake, withdrew from Him, even though the
Son was perfectly clean, except that He carried on His shoulders our dirtiness.
In a
marriage, each mate has to accept that the other is a vile human being. Then try to help them overcome that, and
never forsake them.
Never
forsake them.
This
concept of love without limit astonished the disciples’ carnal minds.
“But He
said to them, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it has
been given; For there are some eunuchs,
which were so born from their mother’s womb:
and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be
eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s
sake. He that is able to receive it,
let him receive it.”
Some would
have to live single, or be a eunuch, without the physical joining to a
mate. That is, some who had been
married and then split from their mates would not be able to be remarried.
In this
episode, which Jewish teacher did Yahshua side with:
Hillel:
divorce for loose hair and loud talking?
or Shammai:
divorce for adultery?
Which
Christian view did He side with?
Divorce for
any reason at all?
Or divorce
only for adultery?
Neither.
If Christ
had taught that you can divorce and remarry for any reason, the Hillel people
would have laughed with glee, the disciples would have felt no anxiety
whatsoever, and they would have told their wives to shut up and put up; that
is, to cut out the loud talking and to get their hair under control.
If Christ
had taught that you can divorce and remarry only when the mate commits
adultery, the Shammai people would have gloated, “Told you so! Yada, yada, yada!” And the disciples would not have been amazed at all, because
that’s probably what they already believed.
There would have been no painful talk about having to be a eunuch for
the kingdom of God.
In the
incident cited by Matthew, Christ gave a new teaching, and everyone there, the
Pharisees and the disciples, knew it.
Everyone there believed in marriage from wife to wife, and He spoke of
marriage for life. This was not the
thinking of Hillel. This was not the
thinking of Shammai. This was the
thinking of God.
2. Christ
Introduced A New Way of Thinking
Matthew
5 also includes the “exception
clause.” In this sermon on the mount,
Christ magnified the law, as Isaiah had prophesied. “He will magnify the law, and make it honorable,” Isaiah
42:21.
He
introduced a whole new way of thinking.
He
magnified not killing into not even hating.
“You
have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not kill... But I say to you, that whosoever is angry
with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”
He
magnified not committing adultery into not even lusting.
“You
have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not commit
adultery. But I say to you, that whosoever
looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in
his heart.”
He
magnified love your neighbor into love your enemies.
“You
have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your
enemy. But I say to you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
And He
magnified giving your wife a bill of divorce into giving her a lifetime of
love. He specifically mentioned divorce
here precisely because He was introducing a new way of thinking about marriage.
“It has
been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement. But I say to you, That
whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes
her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits
adultery.”
Remember
what the Jews already taught on marriage:
divorce for any reason, or divorce only for adultery. Christ introduced the new thinking on
marriage: no divorce at all. If you
divorce and remarry, you are committing adultery.
In the
Sermon on the Mount, Christ contrasted the natural mind with the spiritual
mind. All these things that He taught
are extremely unnatural for the human mind.
Not lusting; loving those that persecute you; committing to a marriage
for life, no matter what: this thinking
is the opposite of the normal human mind.
That’s why
the Jews and Pharisees of 2,000 years ago and the Christians of today wound up
with the same teachings on marriage.
They used the same human reason, and that human reason concludes it’s
much too hard to be committed to one mate for life, no matter what, so it must
not be so.
It is
impossible for the desperately wicked human spirit on its own to think as
Christ taught. Ben Franklin laid out
all his principles for good character, then brought his illegitimate son home
for his wife to raise. Origen castrated
himself to try to keep sexual lust out of his mind. And that probably did work.
But it cannot be overstated how hard these spiritual things are for us.
If someone
slaps you on the face, it is humanly nearly impossible not to slap him back.
Attending a
church service where ladies wear skirts up to their thighs and underwear that
is nipple friendly makes it difficult not to lust.
And being
committed to a mate for life, till death do you part, is enormously difficult
for the human mind to accept.
That’s why
Christ included it in the magnified law.
He wants us to treat our mates the same way He treats us. When we fall,
He’s always still there.
The human
mind being what it is, though, theology is able to take the most direct, plain
statements of Christ on marriage, and then conclude that Christ taught the same
thing the Jews taught all along.
How could
He possibly have made it any plainer?
You simply can’t say it any plainer than He said it.
“Whosoever
puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery: and whosoever marries her that is put away
from her husband commits adultery.”
Protestant
theology, however, comes up with the same teachings that Christ had to
magnify. They ignore the whole context
of His teaching, they ignore His plain, straight statements, they concentrate
on the selected meanings of one word in one book, and conclude that He was
teaching what the Jews were teaching, after all. Divorce and remarry whenever you really think you need to.
But He
wasn’t. In the Sermon on the Mount,
Christ was teaching a whole new way of thinking: on killing, on adultery, on marriage. The spiritual mind contrasted with the natural mind. They already had the teaching of multiple
mates. Christ’s new, magnified teaching
was to have only one mate for life.
3. In the
Beginning
In Matthew
19 Christ began His answer to the Pharisees by going back to the original
principle of marriage.
“And He
answered and said to them, “Have you not read, that He which made them at the
beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one
flesh?”
How was it
at the beginning?
There was
Adam, and there was Eve, and that was it.
One of the
great principles of the Bible is the restoration of all things before sin
entered the world. From the beginning
of creation, God intended for one man to have one woman for one life. That is the loving, unselfish way.
This was
perverted into one person taking more than one mate, either all at once or one
at a time.
For the
believer in Christ, we must go back to the original perfect principle, and not
the practice given to hard-hearted Israel.
That original principle was one for one, when a man would cleave to his
wife, as Adam did to Eve, for over 900 years.
That’s the way it was in the beginning.
And that’s the principle Christ went back to.
In reality,
serial marriages and open adultery are the same thing physically. There is no practical difference, only a
paper difference. If a man “marries”
one woman for five years, then another for five years, then another; or if he
simply lives with one woman until he gets tired of her, then lives with another
for a while, then another —
There is no
real difference in the two approaches.
Only a paper difference, where some governmental body issues a license
saying that two people are “married,” until they decide not to be “married” any
more, when the governmental body issues a piece of paper that says they are not
“married” any more. This government
paperwork has more to do with property than it does with two people’s
commitment to one another.
Many people
nowadays are doing away with this governmental paperwork altogether. They live with one person awhile, then they
live with another, and so on. And there
is no physical difference between that practice and multiple marriages; only a
paper difference for property rights.
Sometimes these people who live together get officially “married” after a while, but then 80% of
those who had lived together get divorced.
So the “marriage” was hardly different than just living together. Just paper, for property.
This type
of marriage is morally meaningless. It
will continue only as long as the parties want it to. Thus it is no better morally than a live-together arrangement.
If marriage
does not mean mated for life, then it has no real meaning at all. It’s just living together for a while.
We have
some neighbors who have each, both man and woman, divorced their original
mates. These two then lived together
for years, but without officially getting married, because she was getting
child support from her original husband.
Had they not been able to get along during this time, one would simply
have moved out, and that would have ended the arrangement. After the children were gone, they then were
officially married. That is to say,
they got a piece of paper which gave legal standing to what they had been doing
all along. But now that they are
married, if at some point they are not able to get along, they will officially
separate and divorce, and one will move out, just as they did with their
original mates.
So what’s
the difference between their live-in arrangement and their marriage?
Nothing. Only paperwork. For property considerations.
Most
Protestant churches would say these two were committing adultery at first, when
they were living together without a marriage certificate, but then came within
God’s law by marrying. But the only
real difference in the two situations is the paper. In both cases they will stay together only as long as they choose
to.
Some
Christians are now just living together without the paperwork of a marriage
certificate, since it is meaningless if it doesn’t mean a life covenant. This is still condemned by the churches, but
there is no practical difference between living together for a while and moving
out, and the common Christian practice of marry and divorce, marry and divorce.
If marriage
doesn’t mean one mate for life, then it has no real meaning at all. Marriage with limits is the same as no
marriage at all — just living together.
That’s why
Yahshua corrected the old covenant practice.
If a man lived with one woman in open adultery, then tried another, and
then another, that was no different than marrying one wife, giving her a bill
of divorce, marrying another, giving her a bill of divorce, and marrying still
another. God had them go through the
formality of marrying and divorcing to point out the sanctity of marriage. But just as sacrifices did not erase sin, so
this permitting of divorce and remarriage did not uphold the principle of
marriage.
Christ
renewed the principle of marriage as it was in the beginning. One man, one woman, one life together.
4. One Flesh
“And
they two shall be one flesh,” Christ
taught.
What did He
mean by one flesh? One at a time? Or one for all time, as long as the human
life continues?
In the New
Testament, there are no cases at all of believers being divorced and
remarried. Never a listing of the first
and second and third wives of believers.
This, in spite of divorce being practiced in the society around them. Instead, because of this practice around
them, there are the strongest admonitions against taking more than one mate.
“A
bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,” I Timothy 3:2.
“Let the
deacons be the husbands of one wife,” I Timothy 3:12.
“Let not
a widow be taken into the number under sixty years old, having been the wife of
one man,” I Timothy 4:9.
“...ordain
elders in every city... if any be blameless, the husband of one wife,” Titus 1:5, 6.
These
verses are not talking only about polygamy, because they apply to both men and
women. They are warning against the
divorce and remarriage practices around them.
I heard one
minister who had taken a second wife himself add “one wife at a time” when he
read one of the preceding verses. It is
conspicuous that Paul, for all his complicated, encompassing style of writing,
did not write it that way. The minister
himself had to add those few little words to scripture.
“A bishop
must be blameless, the husband of one wife at a time,” he read it.
Is “ one at
a time” God’s principle? Wives without
limit, as long as you only have one at a time?
Is that what Christ meant by “one flesh” — Just one at a time?
This can’t be what God means, because
physically — anatomically — it is impossible for a man to be joined with more
than one woman at a time, anyway.
Solomon had a thousand women, but physically he could never have joined
with more than one at a time, and by the time he got to number 999, even that
might have been a little difficult for him.
If one
flesh meant only one at a time, then open adulterers would be following that,
as long as they joined to only one at a time, which is the usual mode for
adultery.
Marriage is
not merely a property contract between two beings. Marriage is not merely a partnership between two beings. Marriage is the union of two beings into one
entity — one flesh. They are joined for
life: one female, one male, making one
complete entity before God. They are
made to go together, physically and psychologically.
Adultery breaks
this principle of one flesh, the governing principle of marriage. Two becoming one before God.
Many
Christian churches today encourage their young people to remain virgin until
marriage, to be chaste in a sea of sexual sin, to save themselves for that one
special person. But then the churches
don’t teach these people to be true to that person for life. So why save yourself for that special one at
marriage — and then have more than one after marriage?
One flesh
means two people mate and they are joined for life. That is the principle.
Stay virgin until marriage. Mate
at marriage and mate with only that one as long as that one is alive. Not one at a time. One for all time, as long as the human life continues.
5. Christ would not have said adultery...adultery.
Why did the
Bible use two different words in the “exception clause”? Because they mean two different things.
“And I
say to you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication
(porneia) and shall marry another, commits adultery (moicheia); and whoso
marries her which is put away does commit adultery (moicheia).”
The Greek
word moicheia means specifically adultery, while porneia includes
all possibilities of sexual deviance.
However, it is obvious that not all possible meanings of porneia
are included in each occurrence of the word.
It may only refer to one type of porneia.
For
example, in John 8:41, the Jews said to Christ, “We be not born of
fornication (porneia); we have one Father, even God.”
In this
instance, the word porneia in the Greek New Testament is obviously not
meant to include sodomy or bestiality or even adultery. The Jews were saying that Yahshua was born
from fornication, since Mary got pregnant before she was officially married. They probably weren’t speaking Greek, but
when God recorded this for us in the Greek New Testament, He used porneia. Here the word porneia, even though it
can mean any kind of sex sin, only refers to fornication.
In the King
James New Testament, the English word fornication is always translated from
some form of the word porneia.
When Yhwh wanted to say fornication in the Greek New Testament, porneia
is the word He used. When the book of
Matthew used the word porneia in the “exception clause,” it had to mean
only fornication, just as the verse in John 8.
First, if
all possible meanings of porneia were included, then Christ would have
been agreeing with Shammai that adultery breaks a marriage. Remember that’s what they already
believed. There would have been no need
to even continue the discussion after that.
Christ would have said, “You’re right, Shammy,” and He would not have
expanded further.
Second, if
all meanings of porneia were included, then even pornography would end a
marriage. Christ said that “whosoever
looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in
his heart.” The English word
pornography is directly derived from porneia, so if all possible
meanings of porneia can break a marriage, then lusting after another
woman, even with pornography, will dissolve a marriage. No one suggests that watching an everyday TV
sitcom or looking at a porn picture ends a marriage.
So the
pro-divorce teaching, then, does not include all the meanings of porneia,
either. That teaching uses only
selected meanings of porneia.
Third, the
“exception clause” uses two different words because it means two different
things. Moicheia is sex sin
after marriage. This is contrasted with
six sin before marriage, for which porneia is used. It is nonsense to read it as “whoever shall put away his wife,
except for the cause of adultery, causes her to commit adultery,” which is a
logical impossibility. For the passage
to have any logic, it must read “whoever shall put away his wife, except for
the cause of sex sin before marriage, causes her to commit sex sin after
marriage.”
Matthew is
the only writer to include this exception.
Mark and Luke did not even include it in their records of Christ’s
teaching on marriage. Paul did not
include it when he quoted Christ on the marriage law. This exception is based on the principle in Deuteronomy 22,
establishing that a person who thinks he is getting a virgin at marriage, and
finds out that is not so, has been defrauded.
Matthew is also the only one to mention that Joseph was going to put
away his betrothed wife Mary when he found that she was pregnant, which would
fit the principle of the exception that Matthew included. Matthew wrote of Joseph being minded to put
Mary away privately, and he also later included the exception clause, the
grounds on which Joseph was minded to act.
If this porneia exception included all sorts of sex sins after marriage, then surely Mark and Luke would have included it in their writings, because all marriages would be potentially affected by such a significant factor. On the other hand, the number of marriages which involved outright fraud before the marriage would be relatively small, and therefore not a great oversight to omit such an exception, as they did.
It bears
repeating that in spite of the repeated strong statements of Christ that anyone
who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, the pro-divorce teaching ignores
these, concentrates on their selected meanings of one word, porneia, and
then says that anyone who marries a divorced woman does not commit
adultery. This completely contradicts
Christ’s plain statements, and ignores the whole context of the discussion with
the Jews.
6. Where Is the
Adulterous Marriage?
If porneia
breaks a marriage, then you wouldn’t be committing adultery by marrying a
divorced woman.
The first
time that adultery is committed by the divorced party, the previous marriage
would be torn asunder. So you could not
be committing adultery by staying married to the divorced woman, because all
previous marriages would be broken.
This means
there could never be a situation as Christ described, where a person commits
adultery by marrying a divorced person.
If porneia breaks a marriage, then what Christ described is not
possible.
The only
way it is possible to commit adultery by being married to a divorced woman is
if adultery does not break a marriage.
The man that marries a divorced woman is committing adultery, only
because the original marriage is still valid.
A couple’s sexual sins after marriage do not conveniently end the
marriage, which is what a sexual sinner often desires, anyway.
Where are
the cases in the churches today where a man is considered an adulterer because
he married a divorced woman? Over and
over we see the divorces, and then the second or third marriages, but their
original marriages are always considered ended. You never see the case Christ described.
Some
Protestants have held that after adultery, the innocent party determines if the
marriage is ended or not, and the guilty party is bound unless the innocent
party frees him. But if adultery breaks
a marriage, then it has to break it for both parties, not just for one. One party can’t be bound while the other is
not bound.
Notice that
once you get away from the simple teaching of Christ, how quickly the manmade
rules become complicated and confusing.
“And I
say to you. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, commits adultery; and whoso marries her which is put
away does commit adultery.”
Who in the
church today would be considered in this situation that Christ spoke of?
In Sum
The
exception of Matthew has to refer to a sex sin before marriage which annuls the
marriage. Once the marriage is joined
together by God, nothing humans can do can break it. That’s what a marriage is.
Christ did
not agree with Hillel or Shammai. He
introduced a magnified thinking on marriage, just as He did on lusting and
hating. He went back to the original
principle of the Garden of Eden — one man, one woman, one life. They became one flesh, joined for life. The passage only makes sense rendered as the
King James did, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and
marries another, commits adultery. If
adultery breaks a marriage, then you wouldn’t be committing adultery by being
married to a divorced woman.
It is an
amazing feat, testifying to the deceptive power of the human mind, that
theologians take such a plain statement, repeated four times in the teachings
of Christ, and then conclude exactly the opposite of what it says.
Mark
10:11 — “Whosoever shall put away
his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband,
and be married to another, she commits adultery.”
Luke
16:18 — “Whosoever puts away his
wife, and marries another, commits adultery:
and whosoever marries her that is put away from her husband commits
adultery.”
This is the
overall law. The “exception” cannot
nullify the law, or the law is no law.
The law is marriage for life, and the “exception” is a defrauding sex
sin before the marriage which makes the marriage null at the time of the
marriage. There is nothing that can
occur after the marriage that can put asunder what God has joined together.
Chapter 3
Three times
Paul stated strongly that marriage is for life, repeating what Christ Himself
had taught.
Romans 7
In Romans
7, Paul’s subject is not marriage, but justification by works of the law or
by faith in Christ. He uses the law of
marriage until death to show that it took Christ’s death to free us from our
sins under the law.
“Know
you not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has
dominion over a man as long as he lives?
For the
woman which has an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he
lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then
if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called
an adulteress; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law, so that
she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Wherefore,
my brethren, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that
you should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that
we should bring forth fruit to God,” Romans
7:1-4.
This short lesson from Paul shows three things:
1. The
whole basis of Paul’s analogy is that marriage is binding until death.
Paul used this example only because marriage
is binding until death, showing that we need to die in Christ to free us from
our sins. If marriage is not binding
until death, there is no analogy.
2. This
shows that adultery does not break a marriage.
The woman
who marries another man while her husband is living is an adulteress only
because her original marriage is still valid.
If adultery broke a marriage, she would not be committing adultery by
being married to another man. If
adultery breaks a marriage, a woman would not be bound to her husband as long
as he lives, but only until he committed adultery.
3. This law applies to everyone.
There is
not one law for Worldwiders and another for Outsiders. “Now we know that what things soever the
law says, it says to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be
stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” Romans 3:19. If there were exceptions to the marriage law
of being bound until death, then there would be exceptions in Paul’s lesson
about needing the death of Christ.
There are no exceptions, no different groups. All need the death of Christ, and all marriages last until the
death of one of the mates.
I Corinthians 7
The subject
of I Corinthians 7 is whether or not a person should get married.
“Now
concerning the things whereof you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own
wife, and let every woman have her own husband,” I Corinthians 7:1, 2.
This sets forth the principal of one man and one woman. Under the Old Covenant, men had more than one wife, either by polygamy or by divorce and remarriage, which is serial polygamy. But the New Covenant principal is one man, one woman, one life. There are absolutely no examples in the New Testament of believers having more than one mate, either by polygamy or by divorcing and remarrying.
Paul then
tells the unmarried that it is good if they remain unmarried.
“I say
therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even
as I. But if they cannot contain, let
them marry. For it is better to marry
than to burn,” verses 8, 9.
Paul does not include the divorced here. He only talks to the unmarried and the widows. Why does he not include the single divorced people here when he says it is better to marry than to burn? Because they were never permitted to remarry, unless they became widowed.
We must
note this point in reading Paul’s comments about marriage: Paul does not think it is necessary for a
person to be married. He even thinks it
is better to be single. Therefore, if
someone were to be separated from a mate and not remarried, he would not
consider that a curse but a blessing, allowing more time to concentrate on
God. Pro-divorce teachers say that
divorcees get healing from getting remarried.
Paul never said that. If a
person needed healing, that would come from God.
It is
impossible for those who do not put God first to grasp this point. The natural mind feels that a person has to
have another person at all times to be happy.
They cannot match Paul’s thinking that it is better to be single and
devote all your mind and energy to God, as he did.
But that’s
what Paul said: “it is good for them
if they remain even as I am,” NKJV.
He then
talks to the married.
“And to
the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from
her husband: But and if she depart, let
her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife,” verses 10, 11.
Paul points
out that he is quoting Christ directly.
Like Mark and Luke, Paul does not include the “exception clause” from
Matthew. This affirms that the
exception mentioned there does not refer to something so common as adultery,
which would put every marriage in potential jeopardy.
This life
marriage principle applied to everyone, regardless of who you were married
to. Both the disciples and the
Pharisees understood that Christ was applying the marriage law to them all, in
the teaching that Paul quoted. This is
the same law Paul mentioned to the Romans.
In I Corinthians, he purposely begins his instructions to the married by
restating this foundation teaching of Christ:
marriage is until death.
Paul also
ends his discussion of marriage by repeating this basic principle, just to make
sure they get the point.
“The
wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives: but if her husband be dead, she is at
liberty to be married to whom she will;
only in the Lord,” verse 39.
Paul starts
and ends his discussion of marriage by reminding them that marriage is for
life. In so doing, he is careful to
establish a boundary for everything that he says about marriage. Everything he says about marriage must be
understood to fit within this law. When
considering whether or not to be married, he cautions them to remember that
marriage is for life. Stay with your
mate or stay single. Nothing he says can contradict this law.
Paul is
talking mainly about whether to get married or stay single. But he is quite careful to point out that if
you do get married, you are married for life.
After
establishing this basic principle, Paul talks to those who are married to
unbelievers.
“But to
the rest speak I, not the Lord,” verse
12.
When this
letter was included in the compilation of New Testament writings, this was no
longer just Paul’s opinion. It is God’s
opinion. But at the time of Paul’s
writing, he thought he was just giving his opinion on the subject of being
married or single. The law of God does
not cover whether you should be married or single. That’s a matter of choice.
Paul quoted
Christ Himself on the marriage law.
After stating the law, Paul gave his advice on matters of personal
preference.
“If any
brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let
him not put her away. And the woman
which has an husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her,
let her not leave him... But if the
unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage
in such cases: but God has called us to
peace,” verse 12, 13, 15.
A New Exception?
Common
Christian Protestant theology says that Paul was now coming up with a new way
to break a marriage, when he said “a brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases.” They
maintain that instead of Paul simply saying that the mate was not obligated to
follow the departing spouse, he was declaring that once the mate left, the
marriage was no longer bound.
That would
be an astounding thing for Paul to do.
First of
all, he would be directly contradicting the teaching of Christ which he is so
careful to include: “a wife is not
to depart from her husband. But even if
she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife,”
verse 10, 11. And: “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband
lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she
wishes, only in the lord,” verse 39, NKJV.
If an unbeliever departing breaks a marriage, as Protestant theology teaches, then a woman is not bound to her husband until death — only until he or she leaves. Christ’s statement, and Paul’s quoting, that marriage is until the death of the mate would be completely false. They both cannot be true. If you are married until death, then that marriage cannot be broken by either mate walking off. If a marriage can be ended by a mate leaving, then that marriage is not until death.
Secondly,
Paul certainly didn’t think he was giving a new marriage shattering
teaching. He was simply giving his
opinion on the subject of whether or not a person should have a mate, as
opposed to the law of God on marriage, which he had just cited.
What Christ
said was law: marriage is until
death. What Paul was saying was
opinion: a person is better off single
than married. That’s not law, just
personal choice.
Although
almost all of non-Catholic Christianity today believes in the easy escape from
marriage, this is not what the early church believed at all. At some point they disagreed on the Sabbath,
on the holy days, on the nature of God, and just about everything else — but it
was several hundred years before any who professed to be Christian even brought
up the possibility of marrying more than one mate. Still later, the eastern church allowed divorce and remarriage. Then, after about another millennium, the
practice was adopted by the Protestants.
All early
Christians, of all possible varieties, agreed that a Christian never, never
divorced his wife and married another.
There is no doubt that this is what the New Testament church practiced,
because everyone agreed on that.
The Roman
Catholic Church, the largest group of those who call themselves Christian,
still officially accepts this teaching, although they have always been adroit
at avoiding inconvenient theological positions by belated annulments and such
maneuvers.
The rest of
Christianity has developed mirage marriages.
By common Christian theology a marriage can be ended by one of the
parties committing adultery; or the marriage can be ended if one of the parties
just leaves and walks off.
This is the
absolute opposite of being married until death. People can tear asunder their marriages whenever they want to.
Which is
exactly what they do under this Christian teaching. They commit adultery or become an unbeliever, bust up their
marriage and get remarried, then repent and resit in their Christian
congregations.
That’s why
Christians under this teaching are the leaders in divorce. And what they do perfectly fits their
Christian doctrine, part of which they claim to get from Paul.
Till Departing
Do Us Part
To believe that an unbeliever departing breaks a marriage completely contradicts the statement that Paul made three times that marriage is for life. This is an enormous exception. Want to end your marriage in God’s sight? Just walk off. This factor, if it were so, is so huge that it would have to be mentioned every time that guidelines for marriage are given, because it is the opposite of marriage for life. That is not till death do us part. It is marriage until departing do us part.
A marriage
cannot be considered married until death if it can be broken by an unbeliever
departing. All marriages would be
subject to this possibility, not just those who are presently married to an
unbeliever, because at any time anyone can become an unbeliever. Under this Christian theology, no marriage
is ever bound until death.
This makes
it even easier to break a marriage than by committing porneia. All you have to do is walk off. If you’re disobeying the teaching to stay
with your mate, you’re probably an unbeliever to the other mate. Just get up, get out, and goodbye, Gertrude.
Actually,
instead of giving a new way to tear marriage asunder, Paul repeatedly gives the
strongest guidelines for being married to only one person.
“A
bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,” I Timothy 3:2.
“Let the
deacons be the husbands of one wife,” I Timothy 3:12.
“Let not a widow be taken into the number under
sixty years old, having been the wife of one man,”
I Timothy 4:9.
“...ordain
elders in every city... if any be blameless, the husband of one wife,” Titus 1:5, 6.
Obviously, for Paul to give all these warnings, that society had a problem with people being married to more than one mate. Paul, instead of giving new ways to break a marriage, was extremely careful to adhere to Christ’s teaching, not even letting a widow in their number unless she had been in the past the wife of only one man.
With
absolutely no examples in the New Testament of multiple mates, with the strong
guidelines about having only one mate, with the repeated statements of Paul
that marriage is until death, the phrase in I Corinthians 7 — “a
brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” — has to mean not
obligated to follow the hostile departing mate. The unbelieving mate would obviously be leaving because of some
form of bitterness, probably having to do with the Christian belief. To pursue them in that condition would not
lead to peace.
Doubtless
there were many first century Christians who were married to unbelievers. No doubt there were many Christians who
later became unbelievers because of persecution or deception. There were many who continued to use the
name Christian, but mostly forsook Christ’s teachings: Christian unbelievers. But there is never the slightest hint that
any New Testament believer was ever married to more than one living
person.
Two Laws
Some say
that Paul was referring to two laws for marriage: one for believers, and another for unbelievers. Believers’ marriages are bound unto death,
they teach, while one married to an unbeliever has a marriage that is only
bound until the unbeliever departs.
This means
that no marriages are really bound at all, because at any time a believer can
become an unbeliever, and then become a believer again.
And who’s
to say who is a believer and who isn’t?
People
often think that if a person holds a certain doctrine, that makes him a
believer. For example, Seventh Day
Adventists might say that keeping the Sabbath marks a believer. But in World War II, almost all of the
German SDA’s supported Adolf Hitler, killing in his cause. Hitler said if they didn’t support him, he
would get them. God said He would
protect them. So they believed Adolf
more than God, and served Adolf. They
weren’t believers in God at all. They
were just Sabbath-keepers.
Old WCG
people often used the phrase “before I came to a knowledge of the truth.” When asked what truth, they would usually
answer, “the Sabbath, the holy days, and not eating pork,” some doctrines of
the church at that time. When they were
asked what they believed about something specific, they would almost invariably
give the official position of their church.
Maybe even offer a helpful booklet.
But when the church changed its official doctrines, their truth changed. Therefore most of these people, who once
mused arrogantly about unbelievers departing, were shown to be unbelievers
themselves. They did not believe in
Yhwh God, the same yesterday, today, and forever, with eternal truths which
last through the ages. They believed in
that particular church, — never the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, always
changing from decade to decade.
To
determine exactly who is an unbeliever is sometimes impossible for humans to
judge. That is why Christ is the
judge. There are doubtless cases where
mates divorce and each person considers the other the unbeliever. Maybe they’re both right. Maybe neither is right. What a tenuous basis
for tearing asunder a marriage, that which God Himself has joined together.
The concept
of two laws for two different groups of people is ludicrous when applied
broadly. When the heathen Canaanites
burned their children, was that not sin?
When the Gentile Herod stole his brother’s wife, was that not sin? When Adolf Hitler gassed the Jews, was that
not sin?
Yes, yes, yes. That’s what makes law law.
It’s an overriding principle that applies everywhere.
The idea of
two laws for two different sets of people, that one group has marriage for life
while another doesn’t, kicks at the sacrifice of the Messiah. Referring to the analogy Paul used in Romans
7, if the marriage law is not binding on everyone, then by extension of
Paul’s analogy, not everyone needs the death of Christ. If all have sinned and come short of the
glory of God, then the same law applies to everyone, all need the death of
Christ, and all are under the marriage law that Christ taught.
Law Is Law
A law that
says that marriage is until death, unless you decide to commit adultery or go
somewhere else, is not God’s law. God
is not like that. Humans are. Laws with loopholes. God doesn’t think like that. People do.
The carnal mind is enmity against God, is not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can be — so it comes up with a law with loopholes. Which is really no law at all. Protestant Christianity really has no
marriage law.
Law is
law. If a marriage is joined by God,
there is nothing a human can do to undo what God has done. Just because a person becomes an unbeliever
does not change the law. His activities
do not affect the law. They only affect
his status under the law. There are not
two types of marriages, one for believers and another for unbelievers, or one
for Worldwiders and another for Outsiders.
Paul was
certainly not coming up with a brand new way to break a marriage before
death. He was not contradicting Christ,
whom He had just quoted. He was not
contradicting himself, when he pointed out three times that marriage is until
death.
He was
simply saying that if an unbeliever departed with hostility, the Christian mate
was not bound to try to follow them.
Since the person was hostile to these radical new Christian beliefs,
that would not be the way of peace.
“but God
has called us to peace.”
When the
unbeliever departed, the believer could choose to live singly, which after all,
was the better way. The individual would still be under the law of marriage,
though: “But and if she depart, let
her remain unmarried: or be reconciled to her husband.”
The Unmarried
Paul
continues in verse 25: “Now concerning
virgins...
Or in the
Revised Standard Version, “Now concerning the unmarried...”
Everything
that Paul says from verse 25 through verse 40 is to the unmarried
— whether they should get married or stay single. This is the context. He
is not talking to anybody who is married or divorced. He is talking to virgins, male and female, about whether or not
they should get married.
“Now
concerning virgins: I have no
commandment of the Lord: yet I give my
judgment, as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”
Note how
Paul distinguishes between matters of the law of marriage, which he received
from the Lord, and matters of personal preference, whether or not to be married
at all. Paul is giving his judgment as
to whether a person should be single or married.
“I
suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is
good for a man so to be.” Or “it
is good for a man to remain as he is,” NKJV.
Paul is
speaking to “virgins,” which is shown to apply to both women and men,
when Paul says that “it is good for a man to remain as he is.” Therefore when Paul says in verse 27,
“Are you bound to a wife?
Seek not to be loosed. Are you
loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.”
— He is not talking about someone who is divorced, having somehow had a
marriage joined by God put asunder before death. He is talking about a virgin man. Someone who is wifeless — never married.
Then in verse
28 he includes the unmarried woman.
“But and if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marry,
she has not sinned. Nevertheless
such shall have trouble in the flesh:
but I spare you.” He points
out that if these unmarried people marry, they will have trouble in the flesh.
Again the
whole context here is that he is talking to virgins, male and female, and
warning them that they are better off not getting married.
The
pro-divorce teaching maintains that Paul was talking to divorced people who had
come from broken marriages, and that he was telling them that if they
remarried, they did not sin. However,
it is totally out of context to insist that Paul is here instructing an
unmarried maid and a married man. This
whole section is talking to the unmarried, not the married.
This is
further shown by the succeeding statements.
through verse
40, NKJV — “Nevertheless such
will have trouble in the flesh,, but I would spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short,
so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had
none, those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though
they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, and those
who use this world as not misusing it.
For the form of this world is passing away.
But I
want you to be without care. He who is
unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord — how he may please the
Lord. But he who is married cares about
the things of the world — how he may please his wife.”
Notice how
Paul here switches back and forth, including an unmarried man in the previous
sentence, and an unmarried woman in the next.
“There
is a difference between a wife and a virgin.
The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be
holy both in body and in spirit. But
she who is married cares about the things of the world — how she may please her
husband. And this I say for your own
profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you
may serve the Lord without distraction.
But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if
she is past the flower of her youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he
wishes; he does not sin; let them marry. Nevertheless he who stands steadfast
in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so
determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. So then he who gives her in marriage does
well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.
This is all
comparing being single to being married.
Notice especially that his advice on being single or married does not
end until verse 40.
(verse
39) A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her
husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the
Lord. (40) But she is happier if she remains as she is,
according to my judgment — and I think I also have the spirit of God.”
Therefore,
his admonition in verse 39, “A wife is bound by law as long as her
husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the lord,” has to apply to these people to whom he is
talking is verses 27-28. He
could not be referring to a divorced person remarrying in verses 27 and 28,
because that would contradict what he says to them in verse 39.
Again —
Paul is still talking to these same single people through verse 40, so
the marriage for life law he cites in verse 39 has to apply to all these
people. When he told them in verse
28 that if they married, they would not sin, these were people who had
never been married — virgins. But he
reminds these single people that if they chose to get married, then they would
be under the law of marriage, bound until death.
The
standard Protestant teaching quite ignores the whole sensible context of this
section, focuses on a selected meaning of one Greek word, and concludes that
Paul was saying exactly the opposite of what he clearly stated. Paul did not go above his Master the Messiah
and give Pauline ways to break a marriage.
How would he dare do that? On
the contrary, he was always careful to establish what the Lord had said as law
— that marriage was for life.
In Sum
Three times
Paul states that marriage is until the death of the mate. His analogy in Romans 7 of our being
dead to the law is only valid if marriage is until death. In I Corinthians 7, he is discussing
whether or not unmarried people should get married, and he is not giving any
methods for breaking a marriage. On the
contrary, he is careful to remind them all, at the beginning and end of the
discourse, that marriage is until death.
Chapter 4
Here is one
of the extremely great lessons that God wants to teach us —
When we
repent and return, He is always there, waiting to welcome us.
Look at
this lesson, just in the minor prophets of Israel, from the New King James
Version.
From the
book of Hosea:
“Go, take
yourself a wife of harlotry, and children of harlotry, for the land has
committed great harlotry by departing from Yhwh. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she
conceived and bore him a son. Then Yhwh
said to him: Call his name Jezreel, for
in a little while I will avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu
and bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel...
“And she
conceived again and bore a daughter.
Then God said to him: Call her
name Lo-Ruhamah (no mercy), for I will no longer have mercy on the house of
Israel. But I will utterly take them
away...
“Now when
she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, she conceived and bore a son. Then God said: Call his name Lo-Ammi (not my people), for you are not my people,
and I will not be your God,” Hosea 1:2-9.
This was a bitter treatment for Israel. The name Lo-Rehumah means “no mercy,” and the name Lo-Ammi means “not my people,” for at this time Yhwh was not showing mercy to Israel because of their unrepentant sins, and He cast them off.
But, at the
same time, He was waiting for them to come back to Him.
“I will
betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and
justice, in lovingkindness and mercy...
And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My
people, You are My people! And they
shall say, You are my God!” Hosea 2:19, 23.
This is the lesson of the book: Israel sinned, God brought their sin before them, Israel repents, and Yhwh is there waiting to embrace them on their return.
In chapter
3 of Hosea, his wife Gomer the harlot had gone back to harlotry, just as
Israel had done.
“Then Yhwh
said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing
adultery, just like the love of Yhwh for the children of Israel, who look to
other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans,” verse 1.
Despite the fact that his wife was committing harlotry — big time porneia — Hosea did not forsake her. This pictures Yhwh not forsaking His people when they sin.
“So I
bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver, and one and one-half
homers of barley.”
Hosea paid
a homer for Gomer, to redeem his harlot wife from the slave market, apparently.
Just as God will redeem his whorish people.
“For the
children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without
sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall
return, seek Yhwh their God and David their king, and fear Yhwh and His
goodness in the latter days,” verses 4, 5.
In the book of Amos, we see that although there is a period of sin and separation, God never permanently rejects Israel.
“Though
they dig into hell, from there My hand shall take them... From there I will
command the sword, and it shall slay them.
I will set My eyes on them for harm and not for good,” Amos 9:2, 4.
But God’s mercy never forsakes them. He is always looking forward to the time that He takes them back.
“Behold,
the eyes of Yhwh God are on the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the
face of the earth; yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, says
Yhwh... For surely I will command, and
will sift the house of Israel among all nations, as grain is sifted in a sieve;
yet not the smallest grain shall fall to the ground... I will bring back the
captives of My people Israel.. I will plant them in their land, and no longer
shall they be pulled up from the land I have given them, says Yhwh your God,” Amos
9:9, 14, 15.
And in the writings of Micah:
“For
behold, Yhwh is coming out of His place; He will come down and tread on the
high places of the earth. The mountains
will melt under Him, and the valleys will split like wax before the fire, like
waters poured down a steep place. All
this is for the transgressions of Jacob, and for the sins of the house of
Israel,” Micah 1:3-5.
But eventually, repentance and mercy prevails.
“Who is a
God like You, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the
remnant of our heritage? He does not
retain His anger forever, because He delights in mercy. He will again have compassion on us, and
will subdue our iniquities. You will
cast all our sins into the depths of the sea,” Micah 7:18,19.
The same lesson is in Zechariah.
“Yhwh has
been very angry with your fathers.
Therefore say to them, Thus says Yhwh of hosts: Return to Me, says Yhwh of hosts, and I will
return to you, says Yhwh of hosts,” Zechariah 1:2, 3.
And repeated in Malachi. Here we have the contrast between the human approach to faithfulness and mercy and God’s approach.
“Judah has
dealt treacherously; and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in
Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned Yhwh’s holy institution which He loves; He
has married the daughter of a foreign god,” Malachi 2:11.
This is Judah committing adultery and breaking the covenant she made with God.
Just as
Judah broke the spiritual covenant, so Judah also personally broke their
marriage covenants.
“You cover
the altar of Yhwh with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard
the offering anymore, nor receive it with good will from your hands. Yet you say, For what reason? Because Yhwh has been witness between you
and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is
your companion, and your wife by covenant.
But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the spirit? And why one: He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with
the wife of his youth. For Yhwh God of
Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,
says Yhwh of hosts. Therefore take heed
to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously,” Malachi 2:13-16.
Unlike the human husbands of Judah who forsook their wives forever, Yhwh never totally forsakes those who are His.
“They shall
be Mine, says Yhwh of hosts. On the day
that I make them My jewels. And I will
spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him,” Malachi 3:17.
This lesson is emphasized strongly in the major prophet Jeremiah.
“They say,
If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him, and becomes another man’s,
may he return to her again? Would not
that land be greatly polluted? But you
have played the harlot with many lovers; yet return to Me, says Yhwh.
Lift up
your eyes to the desolate heights and see:
where have you not lain with men?
By the road you have sat for them like an Arabian in the wilderness; and
you have polluted the land with your harlotries and your wickedness...
Have you
seen what backsliding Israel has done?
She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and
there played the harlot. And I said,
after she had done all these things, Return to Me. But she did not return.
And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel
committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce,”
Jeremiah 3:1-8.
Surely this hussy fit all the qualifications for getting rid of a wife. She committed adultery, not just incidentally, but as a hungry harlot. Pick a spot where you have not lain with men, God asked her. Further, if ever there was an unbeliever departing, she was it.
All
theology would agree that this was a wife worthy of being divorced. And God did give her a certificate of
divorce.
But He did
not forever forsake her.
“Return,
backsliding Israel, says Yhwh, and I will not cause My anger to fall on you;
for I am merciful, says Yhwh, and I will not remain angry forever....Return, O
backsliding children, says Yhwh, for I am married to you,” Jeremiah 3:12, 14.
This is the mind of God on divorce. This is what Christ expressed when He said, “Whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” You see — the problem here with Israel was that she was with someone other than her husband. Divorcing and remarrying did not cure that problem. That only continues the adultery. Being remarried to Baal or Ashtoreth only continues the problem. The way to cure the problem is for Israel to go back to her true husband, Yhwh.
Therefore,
any man who “marries” a divorced woman is continuing the problem, which can be
set right by going back to the true mate.
Over and
over we see the principle that God never forsakes His people, even if they
forsake Him, as an unbeliever departing or as an adulterer. He is always there waiting, looking for them
to repent and come back to Him.
One of His
names is Yhwh Shammah, which means Yhwh is there. And He always is.
The human
doctrine of divorce is without unending mercy, just as Judah’s was. It covers the altar of Yhwh with tears, with
weeping and crying, because it deals treacherously, not mercifully, with the
wife of your youth.
This human
doctrine says that a person is justified in forever leaving a life mate if
certain things occur: unfaithfulness,
or departing. In actual practice, even
these things do not have to be met.
The human
doctrine of divorce looks for a reason to forsake instead of a reason to
forgive.
This is the
human natural mind, but it is not the spiritual mind of Yhwh or Yahshua.
The
marriage relationship is a parallel of our relationship with God.
In marriage
we are covenanted with our mate.
Likewise we are covenanted with God.
If we take
the human doctrine of divorce as applied to the marriage covenant and apply
that same approach to our covenant with God, its total ungodliness is quickly
unmasked.
How many
Christians have committed adultery?
Either spiritual adultery, by forsaking God and Christ for the cares of
the world; or physical adultery, where some have whored themselves by joining
to another besides their mate?
With
physical adultery, it is awfully surprising how many people who know better and
have been taught the dangers of sexual sin have still yielded to the doggish
cravings of their body. Younger people,
older people, middle-aged people have sought strange flesh. Young wives with toddling children who
became mistresses; respected elders who became dirty old men; middle-aged
people who create a crisis, looking for something in life they had missed. All these types of Christians committed
physical adultery, and so broke their covenant with God. Many of you are among these temporary
harlots and dirty old men.
Once these
Christian believers broke the covenant and committed porneia, did God
forsake them forever and ever more?
How many
Christians have committed spiritual adultery, where there were periods in our
lives where we let other interests take the main thrust of our lives, the bulk
of our time, the love of our heart? God
was second or third or fourth, definitely not first. We courted the first love
of our lives but little, and hardly talked to Him. We spurned His letters to us, His name hardly crossed our busy
minds, and so for some extended time — days, or months, or maybe years — we
brazenly broke the first commandment and forsook God.
In effect,
we were as an unbeliever departing.
When we did
this, was there never a chance to go back to the other party of our covenant?
Had God
forever forsaken us? Could we never
return to Him?
Thankfully,
mercifully, wonderfully — these questions are sheer folly.
We know
absolutely that when we committed adultery, and then repented, Christ was there
with open arms, and embraced us and held us close to Him.
“Neither do
I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
And we were
to Him, not as a dirty whore, but clean and white as snow — because He had
totally and completely forgiven us. He
did not put us forever away. He was
forever waiting for us to come back to Him.
When we
departed as unbelievers because we had quit putting God first, He did not
suddenly put us away, searching the fine print of our covenant for a legal
escape. While we wandered through the
fetish of corporate climbing, giddy with the lure of worldly wealth — and
largely ignored the true love of our lives — He stayed there waiting. Spurned and burned, but still patient and
loving, He waited for us to come back.
Some came
back to His arms within a year of departing, only to leave again for a while
the next year. Some came back only after
a period of years, when the folly of youth learned by experience more of the
real meaning of life. Some who have
departed have not yet come back. But He
is still there, and at any point that you decide to return and again live in
the covenant, He will do His part.
When the
unbeliever departed, God did not depart.
You repent,
and He is still there, not only to take you back, but to take you back with no
grudges, no dirt, no bad memories.
God is not
at all like the human doctrine of divorce.
Therefore
the human doctrine of divorce is not God’s doctrine. It is the doctrine of men, Jews and Christians and atheists and
pagans.
That’s
right.
The
theological doctrine of divorce, with its pages of Bible exegesis and Greek
etymology, is basically the same as the pagans and atheists hold. All these accept the doctrine of divorce,
with brilliant analytical minds, well reasoned, detailed arguments about
minutiae, but without the love and faithfulness of God.
When you
make your covenant with God, and you break it, when you repent and come back to
Him, you will be forgiven and taken back.
This is the
new covenant.
“For I will
be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I
will remember no more.”
Isn’t this
more awesome than the farthest stretches of the universe?
The lesson
of the prodigal son is that he left, but he could return. So, too, with the prodigal mate.
This is the
difference between the natural mind of God and the natural mind of man.
This is the
difference between the old covenant and the new. We can be forgiven.
The new
covenant believer is to have the mind of Christ. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” We are not just to be on the receiving end
of all this mercy and unending faithfulness.
Because we receive it, we are to be filled with it ourselves.
When the
mate of our marriage covenant commits adultery, there is to be no thought
within us of forever forsaking that person to whom we have committed lifelong
faithfulness. We do not look for reasons
for removal. We look for
repentance. Our arms never close and
clasp selfishly around our own hearts.
They are always open, ready to welcome back the prodigal mate.
If an
unbeliever departs, don’t look to dump him.
Look to deliver Him. We don’t calculate
a legal time limit for loosing. We
don’t seek the permission of corporate clergy to recovenant. We pray for the unbeliever who has departed. We remain faithful to the mate of our
youth. If they return within the year,
we remain faithful to them, as God does for us. If they wait for some years, and learn more of the meaning of
life through experience before they return, then we wait for them, as God waits
for us. If they wait a lifetime, then
we remain faithful for that lifetime, always seeking for that lost one, as God
always waits in the ready for us.
As God is
to us, we must be to others. To the
merciful He will show mercy.
The point
that Christ made in the sermon on the mount, the greatest sermon never
heard: when someone hits us, we do not
hit them back, not just because Christ told us not to, but because we have so
much feeling for that other person that we don’t want to hit them back. We cannot go to war and kill others, not
because of a legal stipulation, but because we feel as much for those other
soldiers as we do for ourselves, and we can no more think of killing them than
we can think of killing ourselves. And
— we cannot forsake the mate of our marriage, not just because of binding legal
stipulations or theological arguments, but because we love that person with
unending love.
For
example: I once counseled with a young
lady whose husband was beating her consistently. She was talking to me, a minister in a church which had adopted
the human, lawyer like approach to marriage.
So I, acting in a lawyerly way, told her that according to the fine
points of the church’s teaching, she might not necessarily be bound to a
marriage with a man who was beating her.
She looked
me in the eye with a bit of astonishment.
“But I love
him!”
She sought
no legal loopholes. She wasn’t looking
for a way out of her marriage. She was
just looking for a way out of her beatings.
Because she loved him that much.
Are we like
this?
No, not
naturally. God is like this. We are not.
When Christ
was stuck on the stake, bleeding and beaten, mocked and humiliated and given
sour wine for comfort —
All He
could think of was ... “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they
do.”
This was
not just a pretty platitude. This was
not just a Messianic saying, to be uttered because He was the Messiah. He was not just going through the motions to
fulfill prophecy.
This is
what He felt.
For those
people who did Him every wrong, He felt just as much love for them as He did
for Himself. He was bleeding, his
sagging chest heaving to suck in air, and with that little air He had He
sputtered , “Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.”
That is why
what we are has to be replaced with what He is. This attitude, and only this, is what will become a spirit
being. “Let this mind be in you, which
was in the Messiah Yahshua.”
The
unending love and mercy that cried out on the stake in behalf of those who had
staked Him: “Father, forgive them, they
don’t know what they’re doing.” The
Stakee crying for the stakers. This is the way we have to come to think.
Everything
we are has to be replaced with that which God is.
We are to
give the same mercy to our mate that God gives to us. When they do wrong — not if they do wrong, but when they do wrong
— you try to help them back to the right.
You don’t look for a reason to get rid of them.
Can you do
this for your estranged mate? In some
cases, one whom you haven’t even seen for years? With whom you no longer share common interests, who is completely
un-Christian, doesn’t give a hoot about you, and would rather rot in prison
than get back together with you? She
who has wronged you so badly, hurt you so deeply —
But doesn’t
God show you more mercy than that?
“Therefore
the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with
his servants.
And when he
had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand
talents. But as he was not able to pay,
his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that
he had, and that payment be made. The
servant therefore fell down before him, saying Master, have patience with me,
and I will pay you all. Then the master
of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the
debt.
But that
servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii;
and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat saying, Pay me what you
owe!” Matthew 18:23-30.
Notice the enormous difference in the debts.
The evil
servant was owed a hundred denarii, which is said to be a hundred days’
wages.
The evil
servant himself owed ten thousand talents.
One talent is said to have been 6,000 denarii, and the debt was
10,000 x 6,000 denarii, or 60,000,000 denarii.
The evil servant owed 60,000,000 days wages. He was quite a debtor! If a person has 5 work days a week, 50 weeks in a year, and 40 working years, that comes out to 10,000 working days in a lifetime.
This evil
servant owed 6,000 lifetimes worth of debt!
Plus, the
evil servant owed 600,000 times more than was owed to him!
This is
you, spurned mate. You are truly owed a
debt — 100 denarii. But your own
shortcomings have indebted you — 600,000 times more than that, and more than
you can ever repay.
Will you
remain faithful to your true mate, until reconciled or until death? Will you always offer forgiveness to your
only true spouse?
You better.
“So his
fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, Have patience with
me, and I will pay you all. And he
would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt.
So when his
fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and
told their master all that had been done.
Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you
begged me. Should you not also have had
compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?
And his
master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all
that was due to him. So My heavenly
Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his
brother his trespasses,” verses 29-35.
Can you have love and loyalty to your estranged mate? In some cases, one whom you haven’t even seen for years? With whom you share no common interests, who is completely un-Christian, and doesn’t give a hoot about you, and would rather rot in prison than get back together with you? She who has wronged you so badly, hurt you so deeply?
You must.
Perhaps
your mate will be of such a mind that you will never reunite with her. But you must be faithful, always waiting as
God waits for you, and always willing to forgive, as He is always willing to
forgive you.
God, the
other party in your spiritual covenant, will treat you as you treat the other
party of your marriage covenant.
Chapter 5
The natural
mind says that we cannot today follow the teaching of Christ that marriage is
for life, even if He did teach it. It’s
just too hard, it insists. It is too
difficult for those who have gotten divorced and remarried to live singly, and
especially hard on women. There are too
many families that have been shuffled and reshuffled. Furthermore, remember all the children. This is always the rallying cry of the
anti-law liberals. Who can be against
children? Janet Reno burned Waco
because of the children.
This is the
type of thinking that supports and feeds the divorce epidemic under which
Christians suffer today. Emotion
overrules the law of God. These people
are more righteous and merciful than Christ Himself. They so feel for the children, except in all those cases where
the Mom and Dad break up the original family and ruin the rest of their
children’s lives.
People come
up with pithy sounding sayings like, “You can’t unscramble scrambled eggs.”
But how
about this pithy saying: “What God has
joined together, let not man put asunder.”
The best
thing is always to obey God. He is
alive. He is real. He is working His plan out in the world
today. He does bless those who obey
Him, and curse those who don’t. Our
feeble human minds often can’t determine where or when or how the blessing will
come, but we can be confident that God is, and that He rewards those who obey
Him.
There is a
couple that live about 8 miles from us.
They are widely known in the community, have a successful farm, and have
been together for years and years. To
all appearances, theirs is a very successful “marriage.”
Should Mike
and Edward stay together?
No. Their doing so breaks the law of God, which
says that one man shall marry one woman for life. No matter how successful their relationship appears to some
humans, when compared to the law of God, it transgresses.
What about
those families that have children, as in the days of Ezra? Numerous lesbians around the country are
getting impregnated by someone other than their “partner,” since that is
impossible, and these “families” have children they are raising. Should they stay “married” — because of the
children?
No. Their doing so breaks the law of God, which
says that one man shall marry one woman for life. No matter how successful their relationship appears to some
humans, when compared to the law of God, it transgresses.
What about
those divorced people who have remarried, had more children, and now have his,
hers, and theirs? Should they stay
married because of the children?
No, not if
they have another mate, not as man and wife.
Their doing so breaks the law of God, which says that one man shall
marry one woman for life. No matter how
successful their relationship appears to some humans, when compared to the law
of God, it transgresses. A high
percentage of these divorcees divorce again, anyway.
What about
the terrible possibility that a divorced person would have to live the rest of
his life alone; just him and God?
When we
were college freshmen, some young fellows went through the college brochure of
the freshman class, marking the pictures of the girls who were ultimate
marriage possibilities, without ever telling these girls of their peculiar
status. At the same time, these
18-year-old Christian boys seriously discussed the possibility that Christ
might return before they were ever able to get married. Some even gingerly voiced the hope that
Christ might delay His wedding with the church until after they had enjoyed
their own weddings with one of the girls in the pictures.
Of course,
this is short-sighted, inexperienced, unspiritual youth. How could a marriage to one of those
immature young girls compare to meeting the Savior of the world in person, in
the spirit, with ten thousands of thousands of angels close by, ready to
transform you into an immortal spirit being?
Yet that is what we grown up boys kind of preferred at the time. Christy over Christ.
Most people
think that way, too, thinking primarily of the now, of the wants of the body,
the short term desires of the self.
People who
speak of the great suffering of those who choose to remain single do not have
much appreciation for God. As Anna did.
Did Anna
waste her life?
“And
there was one Anna, a prophetess... She
was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her
virginity; and she was a widow of about 84 years which departed not from the
temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day,” Luke 2:36-37.
Decade after decade she stayed in this one building, and her mind was only concentrating on serving God. She had been widowed after seven years of marriage. All the decades after that she had lived with Yhwh God.
“What a
waste?” many might think. She could
have done something with her life.
Gotten remarried, raised a family, been a loving grandmother.
This woman
had the most fulfilling life possible.
Man is a
spirit being, in the sense that he has been given a spirit mind to reason,
unlike all the other creatures in the physical creation. At our death, this spirit goes back to Him
who gave it. But of itself, our spirits
are always incomplete, restless, unfulfilled unless combined with God’s spirit,
which completes us.
The more we
combine with God’s spirit, the more fulfilled we are. Nothing else gives that fulfillment.
Man creates
religions, with icons and robes and dark, musty cathedrals, vainly trying to
try to fill this need. People climb
mountains, sail oceans, sit with their legs crossed for hours until their minds
and behinds are numb, all futilely trying to find fulfillment. People become great athletes, build huge
houses, drive cool cars, and climb the corporate ladder, all trying to add
meaning to their lives.
But none of
these human efforts fill the great hole in our soul. People are still incomplete and unsatisfied.
Even the
wonderful blessings of spouse and family by themselves still leave our spirits
unfulfilled, searching and seeking.
But Anna’s
life was complete. Her spirit was
joined closely with her Creator’s.
The very
greatest joy we can have in human life is to be combined with that Father
spirit, the completion of our own dissatisfied spirits. This joy is greater than anything physical,
because it is on a totally different level.
Physically, people may take joy in self-exaltation, such as victory in
sports or war; or in self-gratification, such as eating and drinking, sex, and
physical accumulation. But these are
all short-term experiences, always requiring something new to happen, and with
each experience the joy itself becomes less, like the rush of an addicting drug
which inevitably declines with use.
The
experience of life is like this. The
older we get, the more we have seen, and the less that is new. We have done this and that, gone here and
there, worn skinny ties and wide ties, crew cut hair and collar length hair and
no hair on top, peg legs and flare legs
— So what difference does all that make a thousand years from now?
The joining
of our spirits with the great Father spirit is a growing experience, that
doesn’t lessen with time and exposure, but grows stronger and more fulfilling
the more we seek it. This experience is
on a totally different level than eating a steak, owning a car, or even sharing
sexual love with a beloved mate. It is
closer, more important, and completely more fulfilling. There is nothing in life like it. There is nothing else that can take its
place. There is nothing else in life
that can give that fulfillment.
And that
was Anna. She had four stone walls, a
little food, and Yhwh God, the Great Spirit which made her spirit
complete. She needed nothing else. She was full of the love of God, and for
God.
This woman,
along with Simeon, was given the special privilege by Yhwh God Almighty of
visiting His precious newborn little boy.
You know how when a family has a new baby, all the people that are close
to them get the privilege of visiting the family, and seeing the cuddly new child,
the little life that is so precious to the parents.
That’s what
God did with old Anna. He made a
special point to show her His new little kid.
What a great life she had!
She deliberately chose not to remarry, and
gave her time to praising God in the temple.
She didn’t need a husband. She
had God.
What
husband can compare with that?
All the space in her life was filled with the spirit of God. This is what Paul meant when he said it is better to be single than to be married. Almost no Christians can accept and understand that statement of Paul’s, because they cannot remotely comprehend what it means to be so close to God that you don’t need anything else, as Paul was. So close to God that you don’t need wealth, you don’t need fame, you don’t need a bureaucratic church organization, you don’t need a husband or a wife — You have God, and if He is with you, you don’t need anything else.
With God,
you can be content — happy and fulfilled — in whatever state you find yourself.
Inconvenient
Obedience
God wants
us to obey Him, and when He gives us occasions to show our love for Him, these
are the greatest opportunities in our lives.
People
often think that when we have a time of difficulty, God should remove the
difficulty and make it easy for us to obey.
Convenient obedience.
The biggest
change in the church of God is that the attitude of unqualified obedience is
gone. The church looks to the blood of
Christ for the removing of sin more than it looks to obedience through the Holy
Spirit to remove sin. This is the same
general attitude that Paul referred to in Romans, where he was accused of
advocating sin, so that people could receive more of Christ’s grace. Thus we have the teaching where someone
decides that if they can do good by telling a lie, they will do it; if someone
decides he can save his own life by killing someone else, he will do it; and
one decides to go ahead and work on the Sabbath when a conflict arises, and
wait until God works it out that he doesn’t have to. Immediate unquestioned obedience is out of the question. We seldom obey and wait on God to deliver
us. We are self-willed. God has to wait on us to get around to
obeying.
The beliefs
of the church have been paganized.
Idolatry is practiced. The idol
is the self. The self determines when
it is good to lie, or kill, or observe the Sabbath. You pick when you will obey.
The people
in the WCG and ex-WCG churches today differ enormously from their progenitors
in the Radio Church of God. The main
difference is their attitude toward obedience.
Today’s Church of God people would consider those people unwise radical
extremists, even if they had been some of those people at that time. But God worked through those people in a way
He is not working through Church of God people today. Some who see this look back and try to find the point at which
the church had perfect doctrine, and copy that. But the church never had perfect doctrine, nor will it. What the church did have was an obedient
attitude.
When people
who had been married more than once learned that Christ said they committed
adultery by marrying a divorced woman, many said, “Whatever it takes to obey, I
will obey.” Today most Christians would
scoff at such an idea. But know this: if you are not willing to do that, if
necessary, then you are not one of Christ’s disciples. If you do not love God more than anyone on
earth, more than yourself, if your hand would not sacrifice Isaac — you are not
Christ’s disciple.
“He that
loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than
me is not worthy of me. And he that
takes not his cross, and follows after me, is not worthy of me,” Matthew
10:37, 38.
Convenient
obedience does not give the full opportunity to show love for God. The highest point in Abraham’s life, a
moment that leaps through all the history of mankind, was when his arm clenched
to bring the knife down on his only son Isaac.
Very
inconvenient obedience.
Yhwh
purposely brought Abraham to that point.
Called him out of Ur, promised him the land and a child to inherit that
land, had him wait until he was a hundred years old before the kid came — then
told Abraham to kill him. God worked
with Abraham all those years, until he finally brought him along to one of the
highest moments in human history, when Abraham had the opportunity to clench
his arm muscle and show his complete love for his Creator.
Abraham
obeyed, and Yhwh Yireh — Ywhw our Provider — provided for him, and took care of
him, as he obeyed. After Abraham
stepped out, Yhwh stepped in. And this
whole experience was for Abraham’s benefit.
When Christ
died His excruciating death, was that bad for Him or good? It was for our benefit, but the scriptures
say that He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.
When the
apostles were martyred for God, was that bad for them or good? That was the ultimate purpose and the high
point of their lives. Their suffering
in a sinful world gave them honor for eternity.
When we
have the chance to show our love for God by refusing to work on the Sabbath
day, and lose money because of that, is that bad for us or good for us,
ultimately? If our situation requires
us to be single, is our obeying God bad for us or good?
Yhwh took
OT Israel and penned them in against the Red Sea. Purposely trapped them between the waves of water and the waves
of Egyptian soldiers. After being
delivered from Pharoah, three days later they ran out of water. Then they ran out of food. Then out of water again. Finally He led them to the country they were
to take over. And it’s men were twelve
feet tall. Big Dudes.
God did not
have to pen them in against the sea. He
could have given them water before their throats parched. He could have given them manna before their
stomachs growled. He could have wiped
out the Canaanites before Israel got to the Promised Land, so that when Israel
peeked in they only saw the giant grapes and not the giant men.
Do you see
a pattern there?
This life
is a time of testing, and enduring, and growing. That is the purpose of this life — to learn to always rely on and
obey God. It is during the tests and
trials that we really learn this.
The church
has spent the last decades looking for comfort instead of looking for Christ,
dwelling in convenience instead of conviction, living in laxity instead of love
for God. We have now been blessed with
the knowledge that our salvation does not come from a church; it comes from
Christ, and He wants us to show our love for Him and our Father, as He showed
love for His Father. This means
obedience and sacrifice and opportunity.
“If any
man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
me. For whosoever will save his life
shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain
the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16:24-26.
We are now
entering the Shadrach times, when the music of the sackbut and cornet will
play, and all the earth will bow down to the image of the beast. Only those who are with Yhwh God, with His
name written on their foreheads as it was written on the forehead of Aaron the
priest, with His mind in their minds, will shut their ears to the sweet siren
music and be willing to walk hand in hand with Christ into the fiery furnace.
These are
cursed times, and these are blessed times, the best, and the worst. The worst in the history of the world for
mankind in general, and the best opportunity for God’s people, to show that we
love Him with all our hearts.
God’s
people will suffer great “abuse.”
“And it
was given to him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds,
and tongues, and nations,” Revelation
13:7.
There will be great talk from theologians about showing love and mercy for the brethren, how no one should be forced to suffer such abuse, that no one should die for a doctrine, and how we should all just get along with the society. This theology of disbelief and disobedience will deceive most. But for a few, there is opportunity in these times. A chance to show our great love for the Great God, by giving our total devotion to Him, by dedicating ourselves fully to Him, and by even laying down our lives for Him.
If you have
an opportunity in your life to show your love for Yhwh God, when obedience to
Him requires sacrifice from you, and in Satan’s world it always will —
Then be
thankful to Him, and take it.
This life
is not the goal. This life is not the
end. This life is the training and
testing ground for those who will be given the gift of eternal life. Those who are not obedient will not receive
the gift. Those who are obedient will
receive more than a hundredfold for their trouble. And it is trouble to be obedient in Satan’s world. God Himself allows this. The great opportunity to be obedient only
comes in the face of adversity, when there is some circumstance present that
strongly makes you want to disobey, such as when Abraham sacrificed Isaac. Or when Yhwh sacrificed Yahshua, and the Son
of God sweated drops of blood because of His distress, yet He obeyed. All the faithful of Hebrews 11
suffered great distress and persecution.
If you seek
to obey God fully, you will have trouble, and distress, and burdens to
bear. “All that will live Godly in
Christ Yahshua shall suffer persecution,” II Timothy 3:12. We must be thankful for that.
“My
brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the
testing of your faith produces patience,” James 1:2, 3, NKJV.
“...and
when they had called the apostles and beaten them, they commanded that they
should not speak in the name of Yahshua, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the
council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name,”
Acts 5:40-42.
Can’t Be That
Hard?
Actually,
most of the argument in favor of multiple mates and against marriage for life
does not come from scriptural study. It
comes from the feeling inside Christians that for a divorced person to live
alone is just too hard. Human reason
can’t believe that God would require something so hard of His people.
Brother,
you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Paul spoke
of his time as being a time of present distress. We today live in an age destined for the greatest distress
ever. Already we see Sodomites gaining
control of the western world, persecuting any and all who would dare refuse to
approve their perversions. They attack
the Boy Scouts, preachers, politicians — have even physically surrounded and
attacked churches with Christians inside.
This is as
prophesied. These are perilous times,
when perverts rule the earth and control the commerce. Don’t be shocked. Soon there will come the time when they will control everything
that can be bought and sold, and all wealth that can be earned. They will control every nation and tongue
and tribe, and even be given power to overcome the saints, putting some of them
to death. But this is all as it should
be. Just as Yhwh allowed Israel of old
to be backed up against the Red Sea, so Yhwh allows Israel of today, which is
those people who follow Christ and actually try to live as He lived, to be
backed up against a sea of humanity, all following Satan, and all surrounding
those few commandment keepers who won’t be swept along with the tide. Just as Israel’s only way out was to trust in
Yhwh God, so the only way out for spiritual Israel today is to trust in Yhwh
God.
The
easygoing Christians, the get-along go-alongs, those who just can’t believe
that God would require His people to actually stand up for Him, and if
necessary die for Him, will be washed under the collapsing walls of the sea of
Satan. Their human reason will tell
them it’s just too hard to stand up for Yhwh God, just as it now tells them
that it’s too hard for a person to be true to God and to one mate for
life. Many will be trapped by the great
deception occurring at the end time, and they will suffer the wrath of Almighty
God, if they don’t repent.
In these
terrible times, many have already been trapped by Satan’s deceptions. Many have thrown away their marriages, or
had their mates taken away by the lusts of the world. Every divorce has many victims, and many of you are among them.
The only
way out of this deception is to turn to God, obey Him with all your might, and
let Him lead you through your life.
Don’t reason around obedience.
The things that Christ taught are unnatural for the natural mind. Your human mind can always find a good
reason to disobey. Don’t be satisfied
with sin. You must sweat your own drops
of blood, pray all night in the garden, deny yourself and take up your cross
and follow Christ. From this, you will
learn obedience, just as Yahshua learned obedience from the things which He
suffered.
“Come to
me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn of me, for I
am meek and lowly in heart: and you
shall find rest to your souls. For my
yoke is easy and my burden is light,” Matthew 11:28-30.
“And
every one that has forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an
hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life,” Matthew 19:29.
For you who have not been snared in the Satanic trap of divorce, and still have the lifelong mate that God gave you, the knowledge that your marriage is for life is a most tremendous blessing. You can learn to love your better half with the whole of your being. To forgive her when she is bad, to rejoice with her when she is good, to help her when she is ill and labor with her when she is well, and go through your life growing with this one person whom God has given you. And she does the same with you. You, your mate, your children and all the world know that you are married for life. You have become one flesh, one entity, one family. You live alike and you think alike. There are no doubts or questions hanging over your marriage. Conflict turns into peace, pride into humility, and you customarily put the other person before your selfish self. There is no moving out if things don’t work out. Instead you are always moving on, growing together in the grace and knowledge of God, living, loving, learning to have the perfect love story.
And all
this is the great lesson of the way we are to be with God. He spends our lifetime forgiving us when we
are evil, rejoicing with us when we are good.
There is never any doubt that He will ever forsake us. He gives us love without limit. We live and learn and grow in love, joy,
peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, faith — until
someday we are given the gift of eternal life, changed into a perfect spirit
being, who can live at peace forever with countless other loving spirit beings.
Dan L.
White, of Hartsville, Missouri, is one of the best Church of God writers
today. His writing style is
unique. Dan’s razor-sharp logic is
nevertheless kind and gentle. His
extraordinary 38-page article, “Marriage is for Life — Not From Wife to Wife,”
is a real gem. For forty years, from
1934 until 1974, the Radio/Worldwide Church of God taught marriage for
life. Then, in 1974, this profound
doctrinal truth was destroyed, as the Church of God adopted the standard
Protestant teaching of open divorce, divorce for any reason, or no reason. The new teaching is hard-hearted,
unmerciful, and has caused numerous original marriage families to break up.
White’s
brilliant analysis provides more than food for thought; some of his paragraphs
are whole sermons!
“People
often think that if a person holds a certain doctrine, that makes him a
believer. For example, Seventh Day
Adventists might say that keeping the Sabbath marks a believer. But in World War II, almost all of the
German SDA’s supported Adolf Hitler, killing in his cause. Hitler said if they didn’t support him, he
would get them. God said He would
protect them. So they believed Adolf
more than God, and served Adolf. They
weren’t believers in God at all. They
were just Sabbath-keepers.
“Old WCG
people often used the phrase ‘before I came to a knowledge of the truth.’ When asked what truth, they would usually
answer, ‘the Sabbath, the holy days, and not eating pork,’ some doctrines of
the church at that time. When they were
asked what they believed about something specific, they would almost invariably
give the official position of their church.
Maybe even offer a helpful booklet.
But when the church changed its official doctrines, their truth
changed. Therefore most of these
people, who once mused arrogantly about unbelievers departing, were shown to be
unbelievers themselves. They did not
believe in Yhwh God, the same yesterday, today, and forever, with eternal
truths which last through the ages.
They believed in that particular church, — never the same yesterday,
today, and tomorrow, always changing from decade to decade.” Truth never changes; people sure do!
“In the first 40 years,” White says, “many were blessed by the Church’s teachings. In the past 30 years, many have been cursed by the Church’s teachings. . . . If you have been trapped by Christianity’s anti-marriage teaching, and you have to bear the burden of that, there is someone standing beside you [Yahshua] ready to help carry your pole. Your ultimate healing will not come from any earthly marriage, but from your spiritual wedding to Yahshua, Yhwh’s salvation, which He provided for you.” The untold damage and suffering caused by today’s prevalent harsh and mean wide open divorce doctrine has ruined thousands of lives. There is healing available in a return to the Messiah.
The current
doctrine takes the “exception clause” of Matthew 19, and makes it the
rule. Many Churches use the “exception”
to nullify God’s law of marriage.
Christ introduced a new way of thinking. His concept of love without limits astonished the disciples’
carnal minds. If you understand that
marriage is for life, then you have come a long way towards understanding the
mind of God.
Dan White’s
exegesis of I Corinthians 7 is one of the most powerful and elegant
explanations I have ever seen.
“God wants
us to obey Him,” Dan reminds us, “and
when He gives us occasions to show our love for Him, these are the greatest
opportunities in our lives. . . . The people in the WCG and ex-WCG churches
today differ enormously from their progenitors in the Radio Church of God. The main difference is their attitude toward
obedience. . . . God worked through
those people in a way He is not working through Church of God people
today. Some who see this look back and
try to find the point at which the church had perfect doctrine, and copy
that. But the church never had perfect
doctrine, nor will it. What the church
did have was an obedient attitude.
“When
people who had been married more than once learned that Christ said they
committed adultery by marrying a divorced woman, many said, ‘Whatever it takes
to obey, I will obey.’ Today most
Christians would scoff at such an idea.
But know this: if you are not
willing to do that, if necessary, then you are not one of Christ’s
disciples. If you do not love God more
than anyone on earth, more than yourself, if your hand would not sacrifice
Isaac — you are not Christ’s disciple. . . .
“The church
has spent the last decades looking for comfort instead of looking for Christ, dwelling
in convenience instead of conviction, living in laxity instead of love for
God. We have now been blessed with the
knowledge that our salvation does not come from a Church; it comes from Christ,
and He wants us to show our love for Him and our Father, as He showed love for
His Father. This means obedience and
sacrifice and opportunity.”
God gives
us love without limit. Will we extend
this same unconditional love to our mates?
Dan White says, “Pro-divorce people make adultery, mating with someone
besides the original mate, the only sin you don’t have to repent of — to
actually stop.” Will we learn the
lesson that marriage is for life, and not from wife to wife?
Dan White’s article, “Marriage is for Life — Not From Wife to Wife,” is available on the Internet at www.giveshare.org/family/marriageforlife.html.
—
review by Richard C. Nickels