Marriage - overview | jesus-and-bible

Marriage - overview

under construction

A PERCENTAGE CALL.

For years I have feared to answer many questions about marriage and divorce, as I feel totally sure getting the answers wrong can mean damnation for a teacher, Evangelist, pastor or elder, as you can lead people into unrepentant adultery. My teachings about the fact that adultery does not end a marriage, and that remarriage would be adultery are clear. The questions that were not clear were about fornication before marriage. I decided therefore after 45 years of study to try to answer the questions, with a best percentage call on what the answer would be, without a total commitment to this.

My findings shocked me. I found that two great themes emerged. Firstly that Acts 15 told us that God had quote "done away" many old testament laws, for an emphasis in the new covenant on avoiding sexual licentiousness and idolatry. There are of course many other new covenant laws, but porneia and idolatry if avoided meant believers did very well. In Acts 15 the word "porneia" was not modified as it is in Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9 and Revelation 17:1-2, so it means "sexual immorality" in general.

Secondly I found that in the Law of Christ in the new covenant God expects every single nation on Earth, despite their culture, traditions or religion to recognise that the one true God, the Lord God Almighty, is merciful and faithful to his bride the Church, and will not divorce her, and therefore anyone who marries marries for life (the exception clause is greatly misunderstood - and I discuss this at length in other articles). Adultery does not break the marriage bond. I think it is highly likely "marriage for life" is also for the protection of the majority of children, as well as a human mirroring of the divine relationship with the church. It is very interesting that only 1% of marriages in India result in divorce, yet divorce is not illegal as it is in the Philippines where only 1.9% end in divorce.

It is obvious that pastors across the world teach that the so called "mercy of God" allows for divorce and remarriage for adultery, "or" people who "marry in haste must repent at leisure". However it is not so that God allows the break up of families and remarriage for adultery. You cannot force God into your agenda. He has mercy where he chooses. If married couples do split up they must not remarry until their spouse dies.

What has utterly shocked me is that it appears God has not made it plain just how much mercy he has on people who fornicate, or live in sin together, because perhaps such pellucid clarity might have the effect of the temptation to be immoral before settling down to marry. This puts me in turn in a fearful position of responsibility by deciding to try to bring about very clear answers. This may be linked to the fact that people are called out of unbelief into the Christian Faith, and have lived all kinds of immoral lifestyles. However fornication has many dangers and consequences, and while unrepentantly living in sin people are in a state of damnation.

LAYING DOWN NEW COVENANT LAW:

Before we proceed, it is perhaps wise to address the shallow question - Where the teachings of Jesus on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage given for "believers only" and not the whole world, that is he said "Whoever divorces and remarries...." meaning anyone. One big problem with saying "believers only" and that Paul for the most part deals with the entire rest of the world, in a rather ambiguous scripture saying "not under bondage" (I Cor 7) and never even getting specific enough to mention either divorce or remarriage, is that vast numbers of people are given short shrift information from God. Worse you can then start to say all the other teachings of Jesus were for believers only, and finish up with a new covenant without new law for the world. No it seems obvious that the percentage possibility that the teachings of Jesus are for believers only must be seen as very low. When Jesus says "Whoever divorces" he means anyone.

THE STRONGEST VIEW.

To state it clearly from the start, based on scripture, the strongest view that I know of is that Jesus laid down his new covenant law in 3 layers:

1) In Mark, Luke and Romans, even Corinthians, it is categorically stated that when two people legitimately marry, totally nothing can break that marriage, even adultery.

2) In Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 Jesus adds an exception clause that has nothing to do with post marital adultery.

The entire correct interpretation hangs on the fact the word porneia in Matthew 5:32 and Matt 19:9 is used in a context where Christ has already excluded adultery from the definition, meaning fornication (pre marital sin) is the subject. That is in the presence of all the legal divorce and remarriage paper work the marriage is not dissolved by adultery, leaviing only fornication as the meaning, as correctly interpreted / translated by the KJV version.

It concerns two people who take the vows, but, for instance, before consummation the man discovers his new wife's claim she is a virgin is false. There was a medieval law called "The Law of the False Virgin" that dealt with this. She might be "showing" or in the first stages of pregnancy for instance, or from her anatomy is shown to have already given birth. All the complicated versions of this are not dealt with here, but such a man (I give examples of a woman) can divorce and remarry because of premarital sex that has been lied about, discovered BEFORE consummation, but after the vows.

3) The 3rd layer in the teachings of Jesus is when he says in Matthew 19

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye 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 twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Jesus knows, and expects you to know, that marriage itself is a covenant, and is still marriage even if not yet consummated (or Jesus would have been born illegitimate), and so the theory goes that here Jesus is stating that once you consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse there is no more exception clause about griping over whether your wife/husband was or was not a virgin. By consummating you lose that right. However if a person has been secretly married before it is different.

And it can be also argued that this is the origin of the words in the church marriage ceremony "if anyone has any reason to object to the union between the couple, they must speak up now, or forever hold their peace." If not, after all, a man could cynically consummate a marriage not caring if she is truly a virgin, then as good as pass off himself as a virgin afterwards, and otherwise the pornea clause, made clear to stop divorces, would become the beginning of a second tidal wave of divorces, to add to the tidal wave over the unbiblical "reason" of adultery.

The alternative to this seems shockingly strict - that only two people who are virgins, or only ever had sex with each other, can EVER marry. This ultra strict idea seems open to attack from the scripture "forbidding to marry" which is called a doctrine of devils. Anyone trying to make this ultra strict stand (that almost no one anywhere is legitimately married) might try to argue that if you say otherwise Jesus was much more lax in his teachings than the old covenant law, that commanded a man simply must marry a woman he has sex with, unless her father forbids it, or even that he is giving a green light to premarital sex.

discuss Deut 22:18-21

"18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19and they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."

This OLD testament scripture might be used by those to justify the controversial belief that YEARS after a marriage a wife con be divorced for not being a virgin, and I suppose conversely they might argue a man. If this unlikely (in my opinion) belief was true, the divorces in churches (Christendom??) might never end

pros - fits very accurately the scriptures, answers a very broad spectrum of situations. As billions converted to the Faith have marriages where a partner before marriage committed fornication, it seem practical and logical that after consummation the marriage still stands.

cons - it covertly makes a decision that people can have common law marriages, even after having children (unless modified) and then legitimately marry. It allows lying your way into a legitimate marriage.

LEAST LIKELY (because of laxity).

That the "porniea" clause allows divorce and remarriage for a plethora of reasons (including viewing pornography), for sins both before and after marriage, and allows the guilty party also to remarry. Such a teaching, I feel it is obvious, makes a complete nonsense of Mark, Luke and Romans 7, and as good as implies Jesus is bad at teaching.

LEAST LIKELY (because of strictness).

That only two virgins, or two people who only ever had sex with each other, are legitimately married.

In such a belief a victim of child abuse would never be able to marry until the perpetrator die, and a man having an encounter with a prostitute cannot marry unless she dies (???). And what of a mass fornicator who converts, that was involved in "the disco scene" and had multiple one night stands?

Then there is defining "one flesh". Are you "one flesh" with a harlot (I Cor 6) only in the temporary physical act, or afterwards is some mysterious unity still supposed to prevail?

The logic of banning marriage on the grounds of "being one flesh" breaks down a lot when we consider that if after marriage adultery with a paramour occurs, or sex with a prostitute, the bible says you are "one flesh" but this does not in this ultra-strict concept give reason to divorce and remarry, but does forbid marriage if you become "one flesh" in a one night stand.

This is linked to the concept of being a prude, I have met such people, who also might say it is a sin (yes a sin!) to have sex with your own wife if she is passed child bearing.

VERY COMMON (yet utterly heretical).

That adultery is a cause to legitimately divorce and remarry. Of this heresy (yes I call it definite heresy) there are two types,

1) One mentioned by Archbishop Gore, where the innocent party only can remarry, and the church itself forbids remarriage by its clergy in church for the guilty party.

2) That both the innocent and guilty parties can remarry, addressing instead of ignoring the issue of "what sin is being committed by the guilty party remarrying" as if you say "it is adultery to remarry" then God sees both parties as still married, in which case both could not remarry.

JESUS VERSUS MOSES:

different teachings

1) Jesus banned polygyny by saying it is adultery to divorce and remarry (it is never adultery to do this if a man can commit polygamy) and thus Jesus overturned the Mosaic Law on allowing polygyny (eg David had about 10 wives.)

2) It was outlawed in the old law of Moses to divorce a wife, then return to her, but in the new covenant marriage is life long, and reconciliation can occur. Indeed having been legitimately married, to have sex in their lives the only way for divorcees to do this without incurring damnation is by reconciliation.

3) In the Law of Moses if a man had sex with a virgin he was forced to marry her (unless her father forbade this). This would seem a very anachronistic law now. If unbelievers are to convert, there will need to be some level of forgiveness to keep marriages intact. The moral idea to "make an honest woman out of her" is nowhere stated as an actual must obey law in the new covenant. The moral implications of this are troubling, but what else could keep marriages of those converted intact? If a man was a lapse Catholic, and converts, do you think must he marry an unbeliever he has been sleeping with? What if she is pregnant?

THE GREEN LIGHT FOR FORNICATION:

The issue of forgiveness over one night stands, and other acts of fornication, being seen as "a green card to commit fornication" has to be put in context that if there are stringent laws, with consequences, what about this being a stumbling block to unbelievers converting? Secondly it is only recently that mankind has successfully invented chemicals or produced antibiotics that "solve" the problems 1,900 years before these times of VD and pregnancy being natural dissuaders. But even now these pills and contraceptives do not get used properly, resulting in millions of abortions (murders). It is very scary territory to say that fornication does not have a consequence on who you can marry, as it makes you feel you are tempting weak willed people to fornicate, but the "solution" to it, that only two virgins can marry, seems very unlikely. However one definite consequences are there are huge numbers of men who will not marry a sleep around woman, and the law of Christ does indicate that she is obliged to confess these things to an intended spiritual husband (and vice versa). So VD, pregnancy, child support laws (common law marriage law suits), and the need to confess to a fiancee are dissuaders. VD was once a slow painful death sentence, that also disfigured the person. Male hypocrisy on the sleep around issue is immense.

YOUTUBE PREACHERS (modernist) .

Here many non conformist teachers, who do not recognise a "church" that forbids the guilty to remarry by some "law" of church authority,

MARRIAGE.

The subject of marriage and divorce affects most people's lives, that is - what is marriage? who is truly married? what are the permissible grounds for divorce and remarriage? If a pastor or a teacher gets this subject wrong he can expect a lost eternity as his punishment, get it wrong and you can ruin large numbers of people's lives, and involve them in adultery, yet many so called teachers in churches have a foolish, shallow attitude toward the subject.

A starting point.

Marriage issues can be very complex because of the vast number of situations people involve themselves in. In order to lead people into the truth I believe it is necessary to establish a sure and certain example of what a true marriage is, discuss the issues of divorce that would surround such a marriage, and then expand out into the more complex issues. My plan presently is -

1) Two virgin Christians marry. < the starting point.

This is the starting point.

Having established God's Law on this I then intend to expand outwardly with the following plan:

2) The differences between the Mosaic Law and the law in the new and better covenant under the "law of Christ" (Gal 6:2, Matt 7:24).

3) The teaching of Jesus to stay a virgin before marriage.

4) 1 Corinthians 7 and the subjects of being saved and.....

a) Are you to stay married to your unbelieving spouse?

b) What happens if your unbelieving spouse leaves you (deserts you) or divorces you?

c) Should you return to your first spouse if, before you were saved

5) Can a person who committed fornication many times then legitimately marry a virgin? Either before or after being saved.

This subject is far more involved than people think. It involves

a) men living in sin without marrying the woman (is that to be thought of as a "common law marriage"?)

Are there really "two different laws" about marriage?

All these subjects also involve the question "Was the person really born again" when in marriages. That is if you adopt a theology were marriages before salvation "do not count" (somehow or other) imagine the fantastically high spiritual discernment a pastor is put under when divorcees start saying "I was just a nominal Christian in that marriage, I was not born again, and never knew the Lord in then, I had no relationship with God".

Such theology puts a pastor in a position where it is exceptionally difficult to keep a church clean of open adulterous remarriages. This is one good argument to deny there are somehow "two laws on marriage" one for believers and one for unbelievers, and perhaps an even bigger refuting argument might be the other question "What happens when a believer disobeys the command of God and marries an unbeliever?" Or to complicate that "What if he marries a person he thought was saved but turns out they were not saved"? Suddenly we have a crossover of two different theologies that seems to refute the entire idea - that is a Christian is supposed to marry for life. The only thing that seems to make any sense of all of this is that when Jesus said "whosoever divorces and marries again commits adultery" he meant it when he said whosoever, and there is one law, not two.

In my view when Peter spoke of Paul's teaching saying:

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." 2 Pet 3:16-17

He was speaking partly about marriage issues and the vastly complex situations people involve themselves in.

Prudery and Laxity- two errors.

In the subjects of marriage and sexuality you are just as much an heretic if you preach over strict theology as you are if you teach lax theology. Lax theology will turn your church into one similar to that of the Jezebel cult in the Book of Revelation, but theology on marriage that is too strict can ruin and devastate people's lives just as easily. So beware. If you take upon yourself the responsibility of being a teacher in church it is a very serious task, one that requires being called to it. You will (for instance) have to be such a strong man of God as to be so strong in theology you can make a stand against the modern sin of changing the bible itself, with the specific topic of the changing of the translation of the word "porneia" in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 from "fornication" (KJV) to "marital unfaithfulness" and all the other misinterpretations of the modern versions of the bible, that give the false impression that post marital adultery could possibly be a cause for divorce and remarriage.