Considering Marriage

What Does God Say About Divorce and Remarriage?

Well, marriage is for: Companionship (Gen. 2:18), For multiplying (Gen. 1:27-28), To prevent immorality (Heb. 13:4), and Marriage is a relationship of this earth only (Matt. 22:30).  Now, what God put together is mentioned twice indicating that there is not suppose to be divorce. When it comes to marriage, according to Gen. 2:24, man and woman is to cleave to each other.

But, for what reasons can one divorce?  Well, many believe it can be for just about any reason. In Alaska, one can be divorced for mental illness, drunkenness or conviction of a felony.  In New York, one can be divorced if one is separated for more than a year.  In China, one can be divorced if you gamble.  In Germany, one can divorced because of irresponsible attitudes.  Others  divorce because the husband or wife is abusive, or their mate is not as sexy as they use to be, or they were not married long enough and want an annulment, or they are just not compatible anymore.  But, according to the Bible, there is only one reason for divorce.  Matt. 5:32, “. . . whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”  Matt. 19:9, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

But, what is fornication?  Some claim that it is kissing another woman or man who you are not married to; while others, say it is hugging or dating another.  And, while these can be understandable reasons, they are not scriptural and Godly reasons for divorce.  Fornication is the Greek word, “Pornea,” from where we get the word pornography, and it can be nothing else, except sexual intercourse.  Intercourse, as you know, involves the ripping apart the flesh of the marriage.  It rips apart the cleaving of husband and wife, it rips apart that which was joined together by God and that person joins with another person.  Now, as a result, the innocent party may remarry.  But, the fornicator has lost all rights to remarry.

Now, some say, what about baptism, since baptism removes sin, does this mean that one can continue in a second marriage that was unscriptural before baptism?  Well, baptism does remove sin (Acts 22:16), but the moment they are baptized and are still in that relationship, they are still fornicating in that 2nd marriage.  And, this also questions the validity of their baptism as if they were trying to wash away sins, but to continue to live in sin.  This does not show a penitent heart.  You know, in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, it states, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” and among the unrighteous, he mentions fornicators and adulterers.

Some say that this is not fair, but the point that people forget, is God intends for marriage to be to one man, one woman, for life.  Eph. 5:25 tells us, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”  Well, you don’t see Christ going out a-whoring after other churches do you or leaving the church, to find something younger.  God forbid.  This is the reason marriage should never be taken lightly.  Sadly, people do not understand the one flesh which is why they break the bond of marriage.

Now, as to the remarriage part, in 1 Cor. 7:39, Paul says, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”  Now, I want to point out that the emphasis in 1 Cor. 7 is not about the persons to whom the Corinthians were to be married, but about marrying itself. Paul told both the unmarried and the widows to remain like him, unmarried, if they could (1 Cor. 7:7-9), because: He wanted to spare them trouble in the flesh (1 Cor. 7:28), He wanted them without “anxious care” (1 Cor. 7:32), and He wanted them to serve the Lord without distraction (1 Cor. 7:35).

So, while this passage gives the person described the right to remarry, it does not give that person the unconditional right of remarriage, except, “only in the Lord.”  Now, notice a couple of views of this statement, “Only in the Lord” because we have to use caution so as to not make a law where God did not make one.  The first view is that the Christian widow may remarry, but only in accordance with the teachings of the Lord.  Now, we know that this phrase “in the Lord,” appears frequently in the scriptures to mean those who labored, spoke and died in the faith of the Lord (Rom. 16:12; Rev. 14:13), or to mean the acknowledgment of Christ’s supremacy (1 Cor. 1:31) or, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord” (Col. 3:18), or, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord …” (Eph. 6:1).  Thus Paul’s language would indicate that “widows are free to marry anyone they choose (whether Christian or not) so long as they do not violate some teaching of Christ about marriage.  She or he would not have the right to marry a man who had obtained an unscriptural divorce (Matt. 19:9).   However, this seems to deny the plain condition: Only “in the Lord.”

The second view is that the only person the Christian widow [or widower] may consider for a husband [or wife] is another Christian.  This seems to be the natural understanding.  But, then that raises the question, why marry only a Christian?  Well for starters, a faithful Christian companion has a supportive faith and encourages his service to the Lord whereas, an unbeliever would not support him.  You see, the worldly spouse will tempt the Christian to live worldly again and can pull him away from his first love, which is Christ.  Second, if marrying outside the Lord, it shows shallow faith and we risk our souls for the sake of a marriage.

But now, this poses a question that is difficult to answer: What should be done to a Christian widow who marries a non-Christian?  I mean, you can repent that you did wrong or that you did not know, but the only reason to end a marriage is still fornication or death.  One man said, “while this union may be holy or unholy, “It is unwise to disobey the Lord in the matter.  How serious is this disobedience?  I don’t know.  Will one be lost who is guilty of this sin? Again I do not know!”

Now, one other question that goes along with this thought is: “Why should this restriction apply only to a widow or widower and not to a Christian who marries the first time?”  Well, I think it would be wisest to marry a sound Christian the first time.  It saves a lot of heartache and pain.  But, when we look at 1 Cor. 7:39, as Paul pointed out earlier in the chapter, it would be best to remain unmarried which spares us of troubles, anxiety and distraction in our faith.

Posted in Robert Notgrass | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Considering Marriage

Evolution and Bill Nye

Evolution is A Worldview Not a Science

Scientists will tell you that evolution is as much a part of science as the laws of physics. My son’s high school biology teacher announced at the beginning of the school year that the class would study evolution because, “you can’t study biology without studying evolution.” Such is the academic training that educators receive in a world dominated by evolutionary thought. More recently, Bill Nye (aka “the science guy”), suggested that teaching creation harmed kids, and he said, “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.” As one who studied biology without studying evolution at all (and millions have), I find these statements completely false. One does not need to learn evolution to learn about anatomy, reproduction, photosynthesis, growth, cell structure, agriculture, and many other biological topics. What is really going on here is that manipulative educators are seeking to divorce children from their parents’ religious beliefs about the world and reality. Why would they want to do this? Answer: To substitute a religion of their own.

The word “evolution” simply means change, and evolutionists will intentionally obscure its meaning to promote their worldview. Who would argue that change occurs in biology, after all? Certainly no one is foolish enough to debate that. Simple change, however, is not what is up for debate. What is up for debate is whether such change could explain the origins of life, humanity, and just about everything else in the universe. It is a question of origins, not a question of simple change; it is a question of worldviews/philosophy, not a question of science.

Evolutionists want to explain the origin of all things in a naturalistic way, and this is where we have a fundamental disagreement. Either all things can be explained naturalistically or not. If all things can be explained naturalistically, then that necessarily removes the idea of God, Satan, angels, demons, and spirits. Atheists are keen to toss out all of these items. In addition, however, they toss out purposes, consciousness, freedom, morality, and ultimately humanity, because if all things can be explained naturalistically, then these phenomena are all mere illusions. However, if all things cannot be explained materialistically, then the presumption of materialism is not only out and out false, but also deceiving, dangerous, and harmful.

Consider that under such a view, purposes, consciousness, freedom, morality, and humanity become nothing more than products of nature, and if these notions are just products of nature, then they live and die with nature. If they are created by nature, then they are subject to evolutionary forces, and if they are subject to evolutionary forces, they are subject to change; they cannot be constant; they cannot be absolute. This means that from generation to generation morality changes, consciousness changes, humanity changes, freedom changes, and life’s purpose changes. Nothing is fixed; all is in flux–there is no truth, morality, or freedom.

We should be clear that this is not science, but a worldview. It is an effort to shape the thinking of man in a particular way—in a way that excludes God and other absolutes that would govern man’s thinking, decisions, and actions. Evolutionary Biologist Richard Lewontin in an article entitled “Billions and Billions of Demons,” (New York Times Book Reviews. 9 Jan 1997. Online.) acknowledged such when he said:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated justso stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

The problem is that their commitment to materialism destroys relationships: families, churches, societies, and governments. It denies that absolute and objective morality exists. It causes individuals to place trust in ethical and political systems that historically have resulted in the senseless extermination of millions of people. It results in an abandonment of the notion that there is a real, objective, and absolute purpose to life, which psychologists tell us is necessary to wellbeing. Their worldview is harmful to our lives!

Materialism teaches that human persons are nothing more than animals that may be manipulated to satisfy the ends of those in political power. It destroys the fundamental basis of equality and respect for other humans—that they are persons made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). It denies that God authored a book, the Bible, by which we may be successfully guided through life to eternal fellowship with Him and with one another. It denies the reality of sin and the need for a Savior, the existence of heaven and hell, and the notion that human persons are beings created to be eternal.

Materialistic evolution is without a doubt a competing worldview to Christianity; it tells us where we’ve been, where we’re going, and how to get there. That is not science; it is an irrational commitment to a view of the world that is fundamentally flawed because it does not represent the realities of morality, freedom, the dignity of humanity, and purpose of life. David prayed to God, “Give us help from trouble: for vain is the help of man” (Psalm 108:12).

Contrary to Bill Nye’s claim, it is our contention that belief in materialistic evolution hurts children, adults, families, churches, and societies. This issue of the Christian Worker is designed to show just that. I hope that you will read it reflectively, and with a passion to undo in the lives of your children and grandchildren what the educational system is seeking to do to them today.

Posted in Kevin Cauley | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Evolution and Bill Nye

Unknown Tongues

Speaking in ” Unknown Tongues ” is Still in the Church!

First Corinthians chapter fourteen shows that the church at Corinth had a problem which impacted their assembly. This made it impossible for worship to take place. The miraculous gifts were designed to enhance worship, but the abuse of them created chaos. The misuse of the gift of tongues made worship impossible.

The gift of tongues had their place. It was designed to convict those who heard men who had never spoken in a foreign language speak God’s message to foreigners. Pentecost illustrates this perfectly. Galileans spoke with perfect accents the message to men from all over the world. The gift of prophecy was preaching in a known tongue. The gift of tongues was preaching in a foreign tongue.

Here was the problem in Corinth. Some insisted that they be allowed to exercise the gift, even if no foreigners were present. No one understood what was said and the result was confusion. God is not the author of confusion!

Tongues ceased at the same time prophecy ceased. When the Bible, His complete revelation, was written for all these gifts were no longer needed. His message then could always be present even if there were no prophets around—those who preached known or unknown tongues.

However, there is a principle regarding speaking in our assemblies which must still be respected. Those who speak publicly today have the responsibility to make sure they do all they can to speak in such a way that everyone understands. Remember that God rebuked those who prayed in such a way that it was impossible for one to understand what was said and made it impossible to say “Amen” at the end of the prayer.

Every man who speaks in our assemblies must ensure that whatever he says is understandable. He must speak loudly enough to be heard. Those who pray must speak loudly and distinctly enough so that older members can hear them. Those who speak before communion must speak so that all can hear. Those who make comments between songs must speak in such a way that all can hear the comments. Those who teach or preach and those who make comments in classes must speak so that all can hear.

There is a problem in the church. Men who lead in worship are not being heard. There is a modern “speaking in unknown tongues” and that is when those who lead in worship are not being heard. Men, remember your audience!  There are many whose hearing is failing. Remember, also, that God places on you the responsibility of using your “gift of tongues” in such a way that you can be heard and understood!

Posted in Dan Jenkins | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Unknown Tongues

At Ease In Zion

God spoke through the prophet Amos saying, “Woe to them that are at ease in Zion” (Amos 6:1). The prophet is warning the Israel that their ease and laziness, their comfort and complacency, would bring them much sorrow. Christ taught us the same thing when he warned, “Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep” (Luke 6:25).

God has blessed us in so many ways and with so much in our society. Most men have become accustomed to these “beds of ease” and have forsaken their Creator. Would it be a surprise if we were to learn that the Lord was moved to sorrow that he had made man on the earth, and that it grieved him at his heart, as was the case in the days of Noah (Genesis 6:6)?

We may look at society around us, and the sinful heathen of our day, and not find this too far-fetched an idea. But it is far too common to see the same ease in the church today. You and I are all too often guilty and hypocritical when it comes to being ungrateful for all that God has done for us. We cry out to the lost to do something about their souls salvation and forget to be busy ourselves in the kingdom doing the Lord’s will.

It is time to wake up brethren, “for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” (Romans 13:11). It is time to wake up “and arise from the dead” so that we might be able to see and receive the light of Christ (Ephesians 5:14).

If we are at ease in Zion it is not because there is nothing to do! I remember my father telling me when I was growing up that there was always something that could be done. When one job was completed there was always something else to do. This admonition came as a result of finishing one job and sitting around waiting to be told what to do next. What was the acceptable alternative? LOOK! Too many Christians are sitting around today waiting to be told by the preacher or elders what to do next. Jesus said, “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields” (John 4:35). Why? Because the harvest is plenteous (great) but there are too few who are willing to work (Matthew 9:37; Luke 10:2).

If we are at ease in Zion it is not because there is plenty of time! The young don’t seem to understand and the adult soon forgets that we should not “boast of tomorrow” for we “do not know what a day may bring forth” (Proverbs 27:1). Paul warned the brethren that time is short (1 Corinthians 7:29), and James warns, “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit’; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away” (James 4:13-14). Our time here on earth is meant to be spent in service to the King of kings (Ecclesiastes 12:13: Revelation 17:14) and David said “the king’s business required haste” (1 Samuel 21:8).

If we are at ease in Zion it is not because the pay is small! Heaven will surely be worth it all! A mansion, a crown, the glory of the Lord, eternal life, what more could we ask for? God loved you so much that he gave His only begotten Son to die for your sins and asked only that you believe and obey him (Hebrews 5:8-9). Yet so many are at ease in Zion. How very sad indeed!

Will you not look up and see the work that is going undone? Will you not wake up and become wise; realize how short time is? Do you not realize how great is your reward in heaven, or how horrible the punishment is in hell? Will you not obey him and serve him today? Be faithful!

Posted in Tim Dooley | Tagged , , | Comments Off on At Ease In Zion

Marriage Covenant

Relationship Problems with David and Michal

All marriages suffer difficulties and problems of some sorts. Husbands and wives will have differences of opinions from time to time, and must communicate and compromise to work through tough times. Thus, it should not surprise us to see the king of Israel come home from a victorious day to a turbulent home (2 Sam. 6:12-23). Let us see if we can understand this dubious passage.

First, we introduce the story with a death—the background to this incident in Second Samuel 6 is the familiar account of Uzzah touching the Ark of the Covenant and God punishing him with instant death. Of course, the Law of Moses was quite clear that only Levites (specifically, the descendants of Kohath) may bear the Ark of the Covenant upon their shoulders. Yet, they tried to transport the Ark of the Covenant on an oxcart, and death resulted.

Then, we note the displeasure of David (6:8). David questions God, but after a respite of three months at the house of Obed-edom, the Gittite, to which David learns that God blessed the bearer of the Ark of the Covenant during this time, evidently David enquires from the Law of God how to transport properly the Ark of the Covenant and correctly brings it into Jerusalem as he should have done it the first time (cf. 1 Chron. 15:26).

Then, we note the occasion of dancing (6:14-16). As the Ark of the Covenant enters Jerusalem, there are sacrifices commemorating the occasion (6:13). All of the pomp and ceremony is not for the purpose of glorifying David, but for the purpose of glorifying God—the focus is on God! There were the sacrifices, singing (1 Chron. 15:27) and musical instruments likely being played, trumpets blaring and people shouting (6:15), celebration with food (6:19) and David dancing. Of course, the fact that we see David dancing is strange to those of us who live under the new covenant, but we should understand that God allowed (to be more specific, authorized by inspiration) this physical, carnal form of worship under the old covenant. Not only do we find this type of glorifying God from Miriam and the women in celebration of their victory over the Egyptians in Exodus 15:20-22, but we also see David, by inspiration, writing many psalms that indicate such: “Praise him with the timbrel and dance” (150:4). No, David was not dancing with other women. No, David was not dancing in the same fashion as we typically think of dancing that we would consider to be a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). Yes, he was dancing and rejoicing to God (along with all the house of Israel) in an acceptable fashion under the old covenant, because the occasion called for it!

Then, we note his dress—David wore a linen ephod (6:14). This was a garment usually reserved for the priests (cf. 1 Sam. 2:18; 22:18). It is strange for him to wear such, and it very well could have been considered an undergarment (cf. Ex. 28:42; Mark 14:51-52).  Nevertheless, it may have typified his humility on this occasion, being grateful after all that has transpired up to this point in time, and after the Ark of the Covenant being gone from the tabernacle for such a long period of time—decades if we go all the way back to the events of First Samuel 4-7—to finally see the Ark of the Covenant rest in the city of Jerusalem that he would establish as the city of God.

Finally, all of this prepares us for her despising (6:16-23). There she is, looking out the window—Michal sees her husband, David, “leaping and dancing before the Lord, and she despised him in her heart.” Here is the key to the rest of this passage. While the entire nation, with David as their leader, celebrates this victory to God, his wife watches it all and despises him (in the midst of what is ongoing). Does this not remind us of her father, Saul? We have heard the axiom, “Like father, like son,” but maybe here, we ought to think, “Like father, like daughter,” for we see this same type of reaction from Saul after David’s victory over Goliath. While David and the people are rejoicing over their victory from the Philistines, Saul is seething over how the people are cheering over David, and this seems to be what is happening here in the reaction from Michal. Thus, when she sees him next, we not only hear sarcasm dripping from her words, but it is possible that she chooses words to exaggerate: “How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!” (6:20). It is because of her despising that she exaggerates what she thinks to be a fault within—he may have worn a garment that one may construe to be inappropriate, possibly even an undergarment, but this does not mean that he was lewd, neither does it mean that he sinned. Anytime one tries to find fault in others because they are filled with despising, we usually always see little specks exaggerated! He responds that he did nothing wrong, the things that he did were focused towards God, that he was the rightful king, not her father, and that because of her attitude, she would likely never view him again without some sort of disdain, although he clearly did nothing wrong (6:21-22).

Thus, we see the account end sadly in the fact that she bore no child unto her death (6:23). This is what harsh attitudes may do, even in relationships of husbands and wives. Whenever one person begins to despise another (for whatever reason), we see a breakdown within the relationship, exaggerated mistakes, motives judged and harsh accusations. May the breakdown between the relationship of this husband and wife teach us some valuable lessons within our own relationships.

Posted in Sam Willcut | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Marriage Covenant