Opening Prayer
Father in heaven, we thank you for this beautiful day. We thank you for the sunshine and the warm air. We thank you for the house of God and for the privilege to gather together in your place, God, and to worship you in spirit and truth. We pray that all that we do today would be for the glory of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
We pray that through the preaching of your word here and throughout this nation and to the uttermost parts of the earth, that the Spirit would bless it, that you would effectually call sinners out of darkness into marvelous light, to confess saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And may you build up your church. May you bless and sanctify the people of God. May you cause us to think your thoughts after you and to be faithful in this present evil age.
Forgive us now for all of our sins. Guide us by the spirit of truth as we consider our confession of faith. And we ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Well, you can turn to Chapter 25 of Marriage in the Confession. Chapter 25. I'll read beginning in paragraph one,
Confession Study
marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and for preventing of uncleanness. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able, with judgment, to give their consent.
Yet
Christians Must Marry in the Lord
it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord, and therefore such as profess the true religion should not marry with infidels or idolaters. Neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked by marrying with such as are wicked in their life or maintain damnable heresy. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the word, nor can such incestuous marriage ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. Amen.
Introduction
A brief summary statement concerning marriage and one that's certainly important in this present age, when the doctrine or the teaching or the understanding of marriage has been challenged by a lot of different parties on a lot of different fronts. In terms of our confession with reference to the Savoy and the Westminster, in paragraph 2, both Westminster and Savoy, after, with a legitimate issue, it goes on to say, and of the church with an holy seed. It's there calculated to promote or support their doctrine of paedo-baptism. And then as well, in paragraph three, both of those confessions specifically add papists as those to whom true believers should not marry.
And then the Westminster Confession has two additional paragraphs that I think are very helpful, and if we have time, we will deal with those as well. Those two particular paragraphs deal with divorce, and remarriage. It's difficult to consider marriage without looking at divorce and remarriage because the Bible does speak to those particular issues. Now in terms of an outline, I think paragraph 1 highlights the monogamous nature of marriage.
Paragraph 2, the major purposes for marriage. Paragraph 3, the lawful parties in marriage. Paragraphs 3 and 4. And then as I said, the legitimacy of divorce and remarriage in Westminster Confession, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 5 and 6.
So
Monogamous Nature of Marriage
first, notice the monogamous nature of marriage in Paragraph 1. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. It's a very clear definition. It doesn't support, again, the various fronts that have been waged against or the various assaults that have been waged against the doctrine of marriage.
Very simple, very specific, very certain. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. So
Polygamy and Homosexual Marriage Prohibited
prohibited there is polygamy or polyandry, taking on multiple husbands or taking on multiple wives, and certainly the practice of polygamy was present in the Old Testament, it was done, but it was not consistent with God's original intention. And when you find specific laws regulating polygamous marriage, it is to protect the innocent parties in such marriage. For instance, in Deuteronomy 21, verses 15 to 17, it speaks concerning a man who has two wives. He really loves the one.
He doesn't really love the other. But in terms of the firstborn, if the firstborn belongs to the one he really doesn't love, he cannot give firstborn status to the son of the one that he really loves. And so it acknowledges the existence of polygamy, but as I said, it regulates it such that innocent parties are protected from the sinfulness of men. Now, as well, notice, marriage is to be between one man and one woman, neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.
So polygamy and polyandry forbidden, but as well, the fact that we see it's between one man and one woman, forbids or precludes the idea of a homosexual marriage. Again, the Bible is not silent in its condemnation on the sin of sodomy. It's not silent on its condemnation of homosexuality. You have it in Leviticus 18, you have it in Leviticus 20, you have it in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1.
So it's not just something that is confined to the Old Testament, but we see the New Testament apostles also endorsing the reality that homosexuality is a sin against God. And if it's a sin against God, then it cannot be the case that you can have a legally contracted marriage of something that is, in and of itself, are essentially evil or inherently bad. So the prohibition of homosexual marriage, as well the prohibition of bestiality in marriage. And I realize that's not a happy subject, but again the Bible speaks to that and its condemnation of any type of relations with animals.
And as society declines, as we see the decline of Western civilization, I think we're going to see more of these sorts of things. There have been several instances over the last few years where persons have wanted to marry their dog or marry their horse. marry some sort of other animal. But the Bible forbids bestiality, and therefore, by necessary consequence, it forbids the marrying of a person with an animal. And again, the doctrine of the idea of bestiality condemned Exodus 22, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and Deuteronomy 27.
And I think that
Creation Establishes Monogamy
one commentator, in his commentary on Matthew, gives a good sort of overview with reference to marriage. He says, if God had supremely intended solitary life, God would have created humans one by one. If God had intended polygamous life, God would have created one man and several women. If God had intended homosexual life, God would have made two men or two women. but that God intended monogamous heterosexual life as shown by God's creation of one man and one woman.
Then by immediately commanding the two to reproduce, God showed that he honored their sexual union and that this union is good and his will. So again, I think a lot of churches, a lot of Reformed Baptist churches are supplementing the confession with reference to the various challenges concerning marriage in our present day. But I think that paragraph one stands still firm and certain and true and does define the parameters for us in a way that is consistently biblical. Of course, when we read a statement like this and we see the prohibition of the various other things by way of necessary consequence, we can enter into the fray and demand, or rather assert, what Confession Chapter 25, Paragraph 1 does assert relative to the doctrine of marriage.
Now
Purposes of Marriage
in Paragraph 2, you have the major purposes for marriage. Notice in Paragraph 2, Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and for preventing of uncleanness. In the past I've joked that this is probably not the way that a man proposes to a woman. I want to be married to you because it's for our mutual help, it's for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and it is helpful for the preventing of uncleanness.
Most men don't propose in that manner or in that form. You know what? It wouldn't be the worst thing. This is principle.
This is clearly defined. This is absolutely consistent with what Scripture teaches concerning the major purposes for marriage. And the first is companionship, the mutual help of husband and wife. We see that in Genesis chapter 2, verses 18 to 24.
After Adam names all of the animals, he realizes there was not one comparable to him. There was one that was not answering to his specific needs. And so the Lord God fashions Eve out of the rib of Adam and brings her to the man. J.
Adams calls marriage a covenant of companionship, and we must understand that if one or both parties are injured or damaged so that they cannot reproduce or so that they cannot prevent uncleanness, that does not invalidate the marriage. With reference to the marriage situation,
Companionship, Procreation, and Sexual Relations
companionship is one of the primary emphases. Secondly, the increase of mankind. Genesis chapter one, 27 to 28. Be fruitful and multiply. fill the earth with image bearers reflecting the honor and glory of God.
That's what Adam was told in the garden, to be fruitful and to multiply. Again, in our age, it seems like abortion is more popular than actually having children, and such ought not to be the case. Children are a blessing. They're a gift given by God.
It's one of the purposes for marriage, and it's one that we should welcome and embrace and wholeheartedly receive. And then in terms of the prevention of uncleanness, this speaks specifically concerning sexual relations. The Bible does not frown on sexual relations. It frowns on promiscuity.
You're only supposed to engage in that particular act in the context of a covenantal marriage. But it also frowns on a prudishness wherein people who are married are somehow hesitant with reference to the marriage bed. Scripture is very clear in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, that we're not to defraud, we're not to rob, we're not to deprive our married partner from those things that are due to them. And if you look at these three purposes within the context of a marriage, this companionship, this procreation, and sexual relations, it underscores the responsibility of both parties.
In order for a marriage to work, I mean anybody, any morons can go out and get married. But for a marriage to work, both parties have to accept their responsibilities and both parties have to give themselves to fulfill those particular responsibilities. It simply is ungodly when one or both of the parties neglect the companionship, when one or both of the parties neglect procreation, when one or both of the parties neglect lawful sexual relations within the context of a covenant marriage. It is ungodly behavior when one or both parties do not fulfill what God has called them to with reference to the marriage itself, including the bed.
When it comes to marriage, Christians ought to embrace these things, and Christians ought to bless God for the good things that He has given for His creatures in this lower world. It is blessed. It is good. It was not good for Adam to be alone, so God fashioned Eve, and God brought Eve to Adam.
And when they then institute that blessed union of marriage, it's a good thing. Adam doesn't have to wander through the earth all alone. Adam has a companion. Adam has one that he can reproduce with.
Adam has one that they can fulfill each other's needs relative to those things that God, again, has blessed. We need to avoid promiscuity, but we also must avoid prudishness. Scripture is clear. As I've mentioned, these things imply that both parties have responsibilities in the marriage.
Spousal Duties in Ephesians 5
Paul picks this up in the book of Ephesians. In Ephesians chapter 5, he tells the husbands that they lovingly and sacrificially lead their wives. He tells wives to be submissive to their own husbands, as to the Lord, and to honor their husbands. Again, those are the basic requirements with reference to any marriage.
And as I've seen it, and as I've experienced it, unfortunately, problems in Christian marriages ultimately come down to a failure on the part of one or both parties to do exactly what Paul said. Husbands aren't loving their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. Wives aren't submitting to their own husbands, and they're not honoring them. And if you consider the blessed parameters established by the Apostle, when men lovingly lead their wives as Christ loved the church, women then want to submit and honor their husbands.
When wives submit and honor their husbands, it makes it easier for the man to lovingly lead and sacrifice for his wife. Again, most problems in marriage, I'm saying most, I know there's always exceptions to every rule, is because we don't obey at the most fundamental place in all of scripture. God defines marriage, God outlines the purposes for marriage, and then God describes what a godly marriage should look like. And if we are not ready to embrace that, well then, let us not get married until such time as we are ready to embrace that.
Marriage takes self-sacrifice. Marriage takes a desire to please the other person. Marriage takes a lot of effort, and a lot of work, and a lot of labor. It is a constant effort on the part of both parties.
When one or both of the parties stop, everything is going to be a mess, and that is typically what happens relative to Christians when they get married and they don't like what the specific purposes are, or they are negligent in rendering those things to their spouse, and it just causes breakdown within the marriage. So brethren, let us embrace what those purposes are, companionship, procreation, sexual relations, and let us do them for the glory of God and the good of the one that he has given to us. He didn't owe us a husband or a wife. He didn't owe us any companionship.
He didn't owe us the ability to procreate. He didn't owe us the ability to enjoy blessed creaturely pleasure that he made, but he gave us that. And so let us work by the grace of God to do those things pleasing in his sight.
Lawful Parties in Marriage
Thirdly, notice in paragraphs 3 and 4, you've got the lawful parties in marriage. There's a general rule at the very beginning of paragraph 3. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry. It's not just confined to Christians.
It's not just Christians that can get married. God gave creaturely blessings to mankind. And so non-Christians are free to get married. That's not a problem in terms of scripture, in terms of our confession.
It's a good thing. It's better to get married than to engage in promiscuity. It's better to get married and to have that companionship. It's better to get married and to procreate than to engage in sin and rebellion.
So it is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, but then note, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Again, here we might think of pedophilia. We might think of something that would violate or transgress this particular clause in the confession. It is simply ungodly for an adult man to want to marry a nine-year-old girl.
It is simply ungodly for an adult woman to want to marry a little boy. It must be the case that the people who are getting married are able, with judgment, to give their consent. And with reference to that consent, it needs to be described, what is the purposes, or what are the purposes? Companionship, the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and the prevention of uncleanness.
In other words, you need to know what you're getting into, and that's what the confession is highlighting. I think a lot of times, People jump into marriage and they don't do due diligence on the front end and then it ends up disastrous on the back end. I would suggest that persons need to take more time and examine scripture and to examine themselves and to examine their potential partner and then get married with that judgment giving consent. So that's the general rule, but then there are specific limits imposed by God in Scripture.
Notice it says, yet it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord. It is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord. Now that can be a challenge, that can be a difficulty. We don't know the hard.
We don't know who's born again. We don't know who's actually regenerate. The judgment of charity dictates that we take somebody's profession of faith at face value, and so we do the best we can in terms of the wisdom God gives us, and we evaluate those things. But in terms of the specific contours or the restriction with reference to marriage, in terms of Christianity, it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord.
And then it gives various categories of those we ought to avoid. Notice infidels and therefore such as profess the true religion should not marry with infidels unbelievers or those who do not profess faith in Christ. Pretty simple. If the prohibition is, or the positive aspect is, yet it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord, we would expect not to marry with infidels.
But notice it goes on to say, or idolaters. Those who say, I'm religious, or I'm spiritual. But if they bow to Baal, or they bow to Asherah, or they bow to Mammon, that is not a legitimate partner for you to pursue in marriage. You need to make sure that they're not an idolater.
And then it says, neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked by marrying with such as are wicked in their life or maintain damnable heresy. Again, somebody might profess to be a Christian, but there's no fruit. There's no consequences, there's no evidences or demonstrable proof that they are in fact married. And if they are those who maintain damnable heresy, they might profess the true religion, but they might deny it at the very vital aspects of that religion.
If they're not Trinitarian, if they do not accept the person of Christ, the two natures, the divinity and the humanity, if they do not accept justification by faith alone. Now, brethren, that doesn't mean that you have to see eye to eye on every single thing ever taught in the Christian church, but there is a sort of a hierarchy in terms of things to be believed with reference to our Christian faith. In John 8, Jesus says, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. Jesus never said, unless you are an amillennialist, you will die in your sins.
Unless you are, you know, a Reformed Baptist, you will die in your sins. There is a hierarchy. You must believe the triunity of God. You must believe the doctrine of Christ as it's presented in scripture.
You must believe justification by faith alone. And I would suggest that the more that we agree, the better it is. Just like in a church, a very vague, nebulous, undefined statement of faith produces that kind of a context or atmosphere within the church. But a church that has a good confession, a church that maintains fidelity with that confession, it builds the camaraderie, it builds the solidarity, it helps.
And so in a married couple's relationship, again, you might have a legitimate difference in terms of a tertiary or an out-here sort of a thing, but when it comes to the main things, we need to embrace those together. And then as I said, Westminster Confession adds papists or other idolaters. papists or other idolaters, so those who claim the religion of Roman Catholicism, and understand it. It might be the case that you meet a young woman, or you meet a young man, and they just don't know, and they've not been taught, and then you teach them, and they forsake that. That's always a possibility, too.
If somebody doesn't see eye to eye in terms of specific doctrinal convictions, there is that time where you can actually talk about those things and actually compare scripture with scripture and actually do the work of coming to grips with various doctrinal truths. So those are the specific limits in paragraph three, but
Consanguinity and Affinity Limits
notice the natural limit in paragraph four. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity. That is a relationship by blood. Consanguinity has to do with a relationship by blood, and affinity has to do with a relationship forged by marriage.
And the Law of the Leveret, specifically in Deuteronomy 25, five to 10, indicates that the relationship by marriage is dissolved at death. Remember when Jesus is questioned by the Sadducees, a woman had these husbands, whose wife will she be in the resurrection? Well, when that party dies, the brother then steps in to marry the woman so that there is the legitimate issue, so that there is seed produced such that can inherit the land of promise along with the tribal allotments. And so consanguinity is a great big no-no.
That is a blood relationship you're not supposed to intrude upon those boundaries. But in terms of affinity, if you are related to somebody by marriage, you're not supposed to marry that. But again, if your husband dies, if you were living in the old covenant, you were commanded to marry his brother. So affinity ceases at the point of death with reference to the party engaged in marriage.
Consanguinity does not. And so when we look at the confession here, as I said, it's very clear, very concise, an excellent summary statement concerning the doctrine of marriage in general, and then Christian marriage specifically. We do have time.
Divorce and Remarriage
Let's look at the legitimacy of divorce and remarriage in Westminster Confession, Chapter 24, paragraphs 5 and 6. I'll just read those to get them before us. In Chapter 24, We have adultery or fornication committed after a contract being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage, yet nothing but adultery or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage. wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed, and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case." So I think that the Westminster Confession is right to add those paragraphs. I'm not sure why the Baptists deleted them. I think I've seen it in Dr. Renahan's book.
If anybody knows more, do you know? It was under the purview of the Civil Guard. ecclesiastical church state. So yeah, I think that's what Dr. Renahan maintains.
Again, I don't think that all of our particular Baptist brothers would say, oh, you can never get divorced. Oh, you can never get remarried after a biblical divorce. I don't think that at all. I don't think the exclusion was because they had a doctrinal difference.
But for that reason, they saw it as the particular role of the civil state relative to marriage and divorce and those particular things. So the statement in Westminster 24-5, specifically relative to adultery or fornication committed after a contract being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another as if the offending party were dead. That's important, brethren, because if the Bible authorizes divorce, and I believe that it does, and somebody divorces consistent with what the Bible teaches, then they should be permitted to get remarried.
And it seems here that many dropped the ball. Roman Catholicism, by and large, does not recognize divorce. Roman Catholicism, by and large, maintains what has been called in Protestantism the permanence view of marriage. Again, in God's original intention, one man, one woman, forever.
But that didn't last long, and there was a fall into sin, and in the post-fall world that we now live, move, and have our being in, God gave specific legislation to protect innocent parties in a sinful condition. There'd be no laws prohibiting slavery in a pre-fall world. There'd be no laws prohibiting bestiality in a pre-fall world. There'd be no laws allowing divorce in a pre-fall world.
But the fall introduced a particular situation wherein God in His grace and mercy and kindness and wisdom gave law to redress those particular issues, to make protections built in for innocent parties that find themselves at the short end of the stick. Now in terms of the language utilized by Westminster Confession here, adultery or fornication committed after a contract, it seems to be the case that Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 are in the backdrop. You can turn there. Matthew chapter 5 and Matthew chapter 19.
Matthew has what we call the exception clause. Mark and Luke do not contain an exception clause. And that is Kawsab, who maintain the permanence view of marriage, to go into some weird exegetical gymnastics to try and explain what was going on with reference to Joseph and Mary. I've listened to their messages, I've looked at their arguments, and I think they're weak.
And I'm sure they'd say the same thing about mine, so that's OK. But
The Exception Clause in Matthew 5 and 19
notice in Matthew 5 at verse 31, furthermore, it has been said, whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Now, there's a lot going on here and in Matthew 19, so I'm just going to make a few observations.
But notice with reference to sexual immorality in verse 32. It is not the word adultery. There's two words in Greek for sexual sin. One is moikeia which is adultery and the second is broader and more general and it's porneia. where we get the word pornography.
And so what Jesus is saying or authorizing here in terms of the exception clause is not just for the breach of trust that obtains when a man goes into his neighbor's wife. It is broader. It is more general. It is porneia.
It is an unclean thing. It is an indecent thing. And so Jesus authorizes in this particular instance, the divorce. Same thing in Matthew chapter 19.
Matthew chapter 19, specifically at verse one. It came to pass when Jesus had finished these sayings that he departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed him and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came to him, testing him and saying to him, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?
That's important, for just any reason. In other words, that's how they were operative. There were two famous rabbis that lived at the, you know, not too long before Jesus. And one was more consistent with what Jesus actually teaches here.
And the other was quite liberal. The other was, you know, your wife burns your hot dogs, you can divorce her. All beef, to be sure. on any pork in those dogs. But they had these two operative positions, and so the Pharisees say, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?
And he answered and said to them, notice that Jesus goes back to creation. He goes back to Genesis 1-3. He goes back to that as programmatic and typical for ethics in the world. Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female and said for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
So then they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together let not man separate. They said to him. So Jesus argues originally from the pre-fall condition.
He goes to the pre-fall situation. God made one man, he made one woman, brought them together, and it should have been the case that they were together forever till death do them part. So verse 7, they said to him, why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away? He said to them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to divorce your wives.
You see, post-fall conditions require legislation designed to protect innocent parties. Again, there'd be no laws prohibiting slavery and divorce in a pre-false situation. But in a post-false situation, those things are a blessing because they protect the innocent. They protect people from being treated as shadow, or they protect people from being wounded by others.
So notice, but from the beginning it was not so at the end of verse 8, and I say to you whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. His disciples said to him if such is the case of the man with his wife it is better not to marry. Again, they were probably operating under the assumption that divorce was permissible for all kinds of reasons. Jesus says, no, the only reason is porneia.
The only reason is sexual immorality. And
Deuteronomy 24 and the Bill of Divorce
I think it's crucial to go back to Deuteronomy chapter 24 and to see what Moses did permit in terms of this bill of divorce. And when they say Moses, who's responsible for Deuteronomy 24? Moses didn't go up into the woods and say, you know, I just want to deal with all these people and their problems and their issues, so I'm going to work it. No, no, this is God.
This is God's law in Deuteronomy 24, verses 1 to 4. Notice, when a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her. It's probably something akin to porneia. It is something akin to that which is not right, that which is not good, that which is dirty, that which is unclean.
And he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house. When she has departed from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then Her former husband, who divorced her, must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled. For that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Now, I think it's important to get what's going on in Deuteronomy 24.
You have an if-then clause. It's dealing with a very specific issue in Deuteronomy 24. It's not dealing with, you know, divorce necessarily. It's not dealing with some of the things that we assume it's dealing with.
It's very clear what's going on. So verses 1 to 3 is the if clause, protosis, the beginning part. And then verse 4 is the then clause, the apodosis. Then her former husband, who divorced her, must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled.
It's a very narrow and specific issue that is going on. So back to verse 1. Notice, when a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes, again, not because she burned his meal, She finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her. And he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house when she has departed from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife.
Notice that remarriage is assumed. Notice it's just assumed. Of course she's going to go get remarried. Of course she's going to find another fellow. in, you know, not just romantically, but practically.
If she didn't find another fellow, she was liable to die, because fellows were the fellows that brought food, and shelter, and clothing, and all those sorts of things. So it's very imperative that a woman have a husband, if she's been in that sort of motif. She's going to go out and remarry. She goes and becomes another man's wife. if the latter husband, so she's on husband number two, detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her as his wife.
So you see what's going on? Husband number one, she does not find favor in his eyes because of some uncleanness. So he writes her a certificate of divorce, she goes out and gets remarried. Once she's remarried, if husband number two detests her, or husband number two dies, the only prohibition in verse four is from this woman going back to husband number one.
That's pretty much it in terms of what Deuteronomy 24, 1 to 4 teaches, which is what I think our Lord is essentially teaching as well in terms of uncleanness or porneia or this breach in the marriage covenant that isn't something simple like burning a meal, but rather there's something there. It's not full-on adultery because that would have meant execution. That would have meant capital punishment. But it's something of the nature wherein this man no longer trusts her and no longer wants to be with her, writes her a certificate, she goes out and remarries, and that fellow either A, doesn't like her, or B, dies, she can't come back to husband number one.
That's the particular prohibition. If she is divorced by husband one and remarries husband two, and if husband two dies or divorces her, she cannot return to husband one. And brethren, I think this is another built-in remedy to argue against a hasty divorce. The man, number one, reckons this particular law and realizes, you know, I'm not a catch myself.
I'm not the brightest, I'm not the most accomplished, this may be the best I'm gonna do. I better be careful about writing her a certificate of divorce, because if I do, she's gonna go out and get remarried, and if she does, I can never be with her again. So it's built-in protection to argue against this hasty divorce mentality that was probably prevalent in Old Covenant Israel, and is very prevalent today. So the fact that divorce had been going on and the bill of divorce was being used is clearly seen.
This is one of the problems with the Protestant permanence view. There's no cases of divorce in the Bible. Of course there are. There's specific legislation in Deuteronomy 24 that upholds that.
There's a prohibition in the book of Leviticus that a priest cannot marry a divorced woman. What's the implication? A non-priest can marry a divorced woman. What happens at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah when the children of Israel go out and marry the pagans?
Do Ezra and Nehemiah say, well that's great, we're going to increase the church? No, they put away those wives. What does God do with reference to the northern tribes of Israel according to Jeremiah chapter 3 verse 8? He writes them a certificate of divorce because of their adultery.
And southern tribes didn't learn from that and would ultimately be cut off in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The divorce of the woman did not preclude her from remarriage. So one man is right to say that Moses is not commenting on divorce, but remarriage in Deuteronomy 24. He is wrong, however, to imply that Moses is condemning remarriage.
He does not condemn her remarriage to husband number two, but a remarriage to husband number one should number two die or divorce her. You see that? It's assumed in scripture that when persons divorce, they get remarried. This is Protestant theology, and that there's Protestants that now claim, that sound more like papists, is very disconcerting.
It ought to give us cause for reflection on what scripture actually says. John Murray in a very helpful book on divorce and remarriage says the remarriage on the part of the divorced woman is not expressly stated to be defilement irrespective of return of the first husband. For these considerations we are required to exercise great caution before stigmatizing the remarriage as adulterous. One thing is certain, that the second marriage was not placed in the category of adultery, nor the woman regarded as an adulteress in terms of the Pentateuchal legislation.
The woman and her second husband were not put to death as the Pentateuch required in the case of adultery. You get that? If we just take a cursory reading in Deuteronomy 24, 1 to 4, we have to understand that it's a particular specific situation that's being addressed, and that many of our assumptions about the whole idea of divorce and remarriage could likely be wrong or influenced by potpourri, or by a form of Protestant potpourri, when it comes to marriage. There are innocent parties in marriages.
I mean, innocent specifically, everybody's guilty, we all have sin, we all got our issues, we all got our challenges, but the man who regularly punches his wife, the man who regularly cheats on his wife, why is that wife penalized by the church when scripture doesn't penalize her? Why is it that we think we are somehow wiser and more righteous than God to prohibit something that God Himself has authorized for the protection of innocent parties? Just get back in there, honey, and take another few shots in the head for the team. That is wretched.
It is unrighteous, it is ungodly, and it's a burden placed upon innocent parties that, thankfully, God Himself does not impose upon persons. So
Desertion as Grounds for Divorce
porneia is a lawful reason to pursue divorce. Another lawful reason, and this comes from 1 Corinthians 7, is the case of desertion, the case of desertion. Remember, earlier we defined the major purposes for marriage. Could it be possible that two parties inhabit the same house and desertion takes place?
I'd argue yes. I would argue yes, 100%, if there's no companionship between those parties, if there's no legitimate issue from those parties, and if there is no sexual relations, ongoing, regularly enjoyed sexual relations, that is a form of desertion. That is the breach of covenant. That is breaking God's law.
That is unrighteous. Again, prudishness in the lives of God's people is not good. Well, it's icky, it's defiled. When God made Eve and He brought her to Adam, what do you think they probably did?
Do you think God said, well, I can't watch this because it's a necessary evil? No. God made us for that. It's a blessed thing.
Again, in the context of a covenantal marriage, if the parameters are established, the marriage bed is undefiled, according to Hebrews chapter 13. So can there be desertion, even though two parties still inhabit the same docile? Yes. If these things are not being exercised, companionship, a Christ-like love and sacrifice for his bride, a bride who submits and honors her husband, you know, this idea that, you know, that we don't bring anything to the table.
Oh, yes, we do. Everybody's got responsibilities. You know, husbands, wives, we all have to do something in terms of making a marriage work. You can't say, well, I'm a delicate little girl and I can't do...
Look, sister, if you don't embrace what your calling is under God relative to that man whom you're about to say I do to, then you should think twice about that. That's just... that's a given. So can desertion take place? The Apostle Paul seems to indicate, or does indicate rather, that it does.
Now he's dealing in a context of a mixed marriage. Notice in 1 Corinthians 7 at verse 10. This is a Christian marriage. Now, to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord.
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. You see that?
Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. So back to Deuteronomy 24. If he puts a bill of divorce in her hand and she goes out and doesn't remarry, Then she can come back to husband number one. They can be reconciled.
They can live happily ever after. So what you see operative in Jesus' teaching and what you see operative in the Apostle Paul's teaching is the background of God's law in Deuteronomy 24. and other places in the Old Testament as well. Now he deals with mixed marriages. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say, if any brother has a wife who does not believe and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.
And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. I don't believe he's validating infant baptism here.
He's dealing with a situation that obtains, in God's providence and purpose, in the case of two unbelievers, one of them gets converted. What do you think the natural question would be on the part of the converted? Do I stay married to this pagan? Do I stay married to this idolater?
Do I stay married to this person who rejects and resists the Lord Jesus Christ? No. If they're willing to stick around with you, if they're not going to leave you, then dig in. The sanctification and the holiness of the child has to deal with legitimacy of the marriage.
It's an external thing. It's not illegitimate. It's not the case that God's grace comes to one and not the other and that invalidates or illegitimizes a marriage. No, the marriage is still sound.
It's still intact. It's still right. Verse 15, but if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? Now, when it comes to this particular situation, again, it's difficult. I mean, it's a pretty, it's not as packed a statement as perhaps I would like, but if the unbeliever departs, let him depart.
A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. So that means if an unbeliever departs, It's a valid reason for divorce, so the person that was sinned against or the person that was left can never remarry. I think based on our comparison with the porneia thing in Matthew 5 and 19, we should conclude that with reference to desertion, if it's a lawful instance or lawful case in which one can divorce, then it must be equally lawful for them to remarry. Are they going to be consigned forever to singleness because they married a dud?
Hodge, on the last section of paragraph 6 in the Confession, he comments on the Westminster. Such cases, sexual immorality and desertion, however, do not ipso facto, by the fact itself, dissolve the marriage bond, but only give the right to the innocent party, if they so elect, to demand that it shall be dissolved by competent authority. So neither Jesus or Paul, neither porneia or desertion demands divorce. In other words, if your husband or your wife is unfaithful, you can forgive them.
That's an option. Right? That's what he says here. But it does give the right to the innocent party if they so elect to demand that it shall be dissolved by competent authority.
And if they do demand the dissolution, they're not left to their own discretion in the case, but they must seek for the vindication of their rights at the hands of the public authorities and according to the law of the land. So with reference to this particular situation, if the Bible permits divorce for porneia and desertion, then I would argue the Bible permits remarriage for those lawfully divorced. There's unlawful divorce and there's lawful divorce. I know that sounds odd, but getting divorced because your wife constantly burns your food, that's not a lawful reason to divorce.
Divorcing because your husband doesn't make, you know, seven figures and he's not, you know, 6'5", is not a lawful reason. but a lawful reason is porneia and a lawful reason is desertion. Hodge goes on to stipulate that the civil magistrate had no authority to grant divorces upon any other grounds than sexual immorality and desertion. In other words, he argues that the government, those involved in the contract of marriage, they ought not to allow reasons outside of those two particular biblical ones. So that, you know, we have divorce just as frequent and as commonplace as, you know, drinking water.
It's a pretty rampant thing. The Bible is narrow when it comes to this particular situation. So in terms of
Application
just some concluding thoughts, I hope that we all appreciate the dignity of marriage. It is established by God in the garden for the good of his creatures. It survives the garden. Marriage post-fall, but God in His grace gives redress in the law to protect innocent parties.
Secondly, we ought to appreciate the responsibility involved in marriage. Listen to Ryle on Matthew 19. He says, It is clear from the whole tenor of the passage that the relation of marriage ought to be highly reverenced and honored among Christians. It is a relation which was instituted in paradise in the time of man's innocency and is a chosen figure of the mystical union between Christ and His Church.
It is a relation which is sure to have the greatest influence on those whom it brings together, for happiness or for misery, for good or for evil. Such a relation ought never to be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, but soberly, discreetly, and with due consideration. It is only too true that inconsiderate marriages are one of the most fertile causes of unhappiness, and too often it may be feared of sin." And then in terms of that Protestant permanent view of marriage, God's intention in the garden is one man together with one woman until they are separated by death. In other words, marriage is supposed to be permanent.
But post-fall and the introduction of sin and Jesus' invocation of Deuteronomy and its permission or legislation there, why did Moses authorize certificates of divorce? Because of the hardness of men's hearts. Because men are horrible. Women are horrible.
And oftentimes those horrible people get into marriages and infect their partners either through pornea or through desertion. And so the partners that are innocent have protection. So the intent of the law after the garden. We see the Protestant permanence view fails to differentiate pre-fall and post-fall situations.
Jesus does. He sees the distinction. He sees from the beginning it was not so. God made man, God made woman, and that's it.
Should always have been married. No issues, no problems. But because of the hardness of your heart, Moses stepped in under God's direction and command to permit divorce in certain instances or in certain cases. The position, the Protestant permanent view, fails to exegete specific passages accurately.
Again, to say that the Bible never treats divorce in an authorized way is to miss Deuteronomy 24, 1 to 4. It's to miss, the text is Leviticus 21, 7. Again, priests prohibited from marrying a divorced woman, but not non-priests. Non-priests can marry a divorced woman, right?
That's the conclusion there. Ezra 10, Nehemiah 13, Jeremiah 3, verse 8. The position is both legalistic and antinomian all at the same time. The position is legalistic, lays burdens upon innocent persons that God does not.
Owen says, if the innocent party upon a divorce be not set at liberty then, he is deprived of his right by the sin of another, which is against the law of nature. And so every wicked woman hath it in her power to deprive her husband of his natural right. And the position is antinomian as it rejects the law God gave to redress sinful situations. So it's an interesting juxtaposition that's both legalistic, heaping burdens upon innocent parties, but it's also antinomian.
The Lord Jesus, consistent with Deuteronomy, upholds divorce for porneia. The Apostle Paul, consistent with what we have in Deuteronomy 24, upholds divorce for desertion. So to say that you are stuck in this position for the rest of your life is an antinomian rejection of laws given by God to redress particular situations that have arisen in a post-fall world. We recognize laws prohibiting slavery or kidnapping.
Why don't we recognize laws that protect innocent parties in a marriage? We recognize other post-fall laws and we see the validity and the wisdom and the ingenuity and their calculated intent to protect innocent parties. But when it comes to divorce, the church at times treats it like it's the sin against the Holy Spirit. You know, you hear that sometimes.
Well, we can't get married in the church because one or both of us had been divorced previously. Well, was it a lawful divorce? No. Okay, well then don't get married in the church.
But if it's a lawful divorce? What's wrong with that? If it's a lawful divorce, if some woman had a husband that engaged in porneia, and she sued out divorce, and it was lawfully carried out, and she was innocent party, and she's now divorced, that is important information to garner, to glean, and to determine whether she can get married in the church or not. You see what I'm saying?
We just assume it's like the sin against the Holy Ghost and we treat them as if they're pariahs. This is a messed up world that God spoke good law to in order to help regulate the conduct of those engaged in vile actions and those who happen to be subject to those vile actions. It's a messy world and we have to do what we do in terms of what God's Word says concerning these things and don't become the arbiters and not become those who treat divorce as if, you know, or divorcees as if they're pariahs on society. There are innocent parties out there, brethren.
There are those who have been sinned against grievously when it comes to a marriage and to punish them and to penalize them and to hold them somehow accountable. Gordon Clark in his helpful commentary on the Westminster fashion says the person who breaks a marriage is not the judge who grants the divorce. The innocent party who sought it. The person who has torn the marriage asunder is the party who has committed adultery.
That's right. You're going to penalize an innocent party for doing what God's Word authorizes them to do? It just makes no sense. So may God indeed protect us.
May we think clearly concerning this doctrine or teaching concerning marriage. And may we be aware of the Protestant potpourri out there that bandies about the permanence view of marriage and condemns the people of God and heaps up unnecessary burdens upon the people of God in ways that are not helpful. If you want that, go join Rome. I mean, that's always been Rome's tactic, that's always been Rome's position.
But Protestantism has understood the realistic situation that we find through good exegesis. Well, I will pray and thankfully there's no time for questions. Just kidding.
Closing Prayer
Our Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you for marriage. It's a blessing, it's a gift, it's a provision given by you so that we are able to enjoy things that you've ordained. We pray for the young married families, the married couples in our church.
We pray that you would give them grace, give them wisdom, give them submission to the scriptures, that husbands would lovingly lead their wives, that wives would be submissive to and honor their husbands, and that you would be glorified in this. And for our children and our grandchildren, we pray that they would be brought up in the training and the admonition of the Lord that they would be taught to think clearly concerning such momentous decisions that they will make in their lives and that you would protect them and watch over them and bless them. We ask this in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen. Actually,
Questions and Answers
does anybody have a quick question? I think my watch is a bit fast. Cousin marriage? I think that first cousin is off limits and then beyond that.
Don't quote me, don't go marry your second cousin tomorrow and say, but Butler said I could. I think, I think first cousin is the cutoff point. I don't know. I doubt it.
I doubt it's because they're okay with marriage. Maybe they thought idolaters covered it too. Yeah. I don't know.
One that you married into, like a sister-in-law or something? Yeah, so one marries a family, a woman. The other brother can't marry his sister-in-law? Even though they're not blood-related?
Because it happens, you know, two twins marry two other twins. No, I don't think that. Hang on, I'm trying to work that out. So me and you are brothers and we want to marry two sisters?
Yeah, I think that's legit. Yeah, I can't see a breed. Yeah. Yeah, I don't.
Hang on. So if you and I are brothers, could we marry two sisters? Yeah. Yeah, I hope it's okay.
I have so many Well, there you go, it's obviously okay Because your affinity would be with Your affinity would be with your brother's wife, not with your brother's wife's sister. It stops there. My affinity with, you know, Rebecca's sister is not with if Rebecca's sister had another sister. You know what I'm saying?
It doesn't. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Does that make sense? Yeah.
The affinity is located in the person only. It's not everybody that they have affinity with. Okay, it took me a minute to kind of work through that. Man, that's a good question.