← Back to sermon library

Chapter 25 in the Second London 
Confession of Faith of Marriage. I'll read the section, or the 
chapter rather, and then we'll look at the teaching contained 
here that does accurately reflect what the Word of God sets forth 
about this wonderful institution of marriage. So chapter 25, beginning 
in paragraph 1, 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 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. So let's look at this particular 
chapter. First, a couple of differences 
that we find between the London Confession of the Baptists and 
the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration. In paragraph 
two, both the Westminster and the Savoy add and add, rather, 
and of the church with an holy seed after the statement concerning 
a legitimate issue. Now, they do that most likely 
to reflect their paedo-baptist convictions. And of the church 
with an holy seed. So this idea that these little 
ones are not only a blessing for the parents, but are a holy 
seed with reference to the church, does most likely reflect that 
paedo-baptist ecclesiology. And then in paragraph 3, both 
the Westminster and the Savoy specifically add papists as those 
to whom true believers should not marry. Now, I doubt that 
means that the London Baptist Confession divines thought it 
was okay to marry papists. They probably thought idolaters 
was a good enough statement to include papists as well. And 
then, additionally, the Westminster Confession of Faith adds two 
helpful paragraphs, paragraphs 5 and 6, which deal with divorce 
and remarriage. So we'll look at our confession, 
and then I'll make a few comments about those particular chapters 
at the end of our study this morning. But if you notice in 
the first place, the monogamous nature of marriage in paragraph 
1. It gives a great definition of 
what marriage is. There have been those in the 
church today that have thought, Reformed Baptists for instance, 
that have thought we need to sort of emphasize or add to or 
supplement this particular chapter because of all the attacks on 
marriage in our present situation. In other words, there are those 
who advocate for homosexual marriage. There's going to be advocates 
for marriage between men and dogs, and all sorts of things. 
I mean, it's just a challenging day in which we live. But this 
particular paragraph, I think, more than suffices. That is definitional. Marriage is to be between one 
man and one woman. There's not a lot of wiggle room 
there, not a lot more you can add to supplement that. That 
is the essence of marriage. It is to be between one man and 
one woman. And then it goes on to highlight, 
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 it prohibits polygamy, which is the marriage of one 
man to several women, and polyandry, which is the marriage of one 
woman to several men. So that is conspicuously prohibited 
in the confession of faith. Now certainly, persons say, well, 
the patriarchs all had additional wives. We don't take our ethics 
from what happened after the fall in terms of man's sin or 
rebellion against God. Our ethics are defined by the 
garden. And then some will say, but God 
then legislated how to treat additional wives. Again, after 
the fall, God institutes particular laws to protect innocent people. 
It's a good and blessed thing from the Lord. But that doesn't 
normalize the practice or the conduct. It does not legitimize 
the practice for us today to multiply wives or husbands if 
we are so inclined. And then there are other things 
that are prohibited that the confession of faith does not 
deal with here. But certainly, understanding 
scripture, we would know that there is a prohibition of homosexual 
marriage. In fact, the scriptures are clear 
concerning homosexuality. you can turn to Leviticus chapter 
18. Leviticus chapter 18, just to get an understanding of something 
that is attacked in our own day and age, and unfortunately within 
the church. There's some compromise going 
on in terms of the church with reference to this issue of homosexuality. But I just want to run through 
some of the passages in Leviticus 18.22. You shall not lie with 
a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Leviticus 
20 verse 13. If a man lies with a male as 
he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. 
They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." 
And the New Testament repeats this prohibition in Romans 1, 
verses 26 and 27. Again, passages that I'm sure 
you're all very familiar with, but passages that are being reinterpreted, 
that are being sort of massaged to teach something they were 
never intended to teach. In other words, the idea that 
Paul is only forbidding this sort of homosexuality that has 
multiple partners in view. He has no problem with a monogamous 
homosexual relationship, or this idea that this is somehow a cultural 
argument or something that was pervasive in their culture, so 
Paul speaks to it with reference to the church. That's simply 
not the way we are to understand these prohibitions. Notice in 
Romans 1, 26 and 27, for this reason God gave them up to vile 
passions. For even their women exchanged 
the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, 
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for 
one another, men with men, committing what is shameful and receiving 
in themselves the penalty of their error, which was due them. 
So in this particular instance, we see that it's a symptom or 
an evidence of them having been given up. We look at 1 Corinthians 
chapter 6, and the apostle there highlights who will not enter 
the kingdom of heaven. And in verse 9 of chapter 6 in 
1 Corinthians, he says, do you not know that the unrighteous 
will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, 
nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor 
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will 
inherit the kingdom of God." I think there's always two extremes 
that we can fall into with reference to this particular issue. On 
the one hand, we can just pretend like it's not an issue and say 
it's cultural, and Paul didn't mean this, and Paul didn't mean 
that, and so we don't condemn the practice. But on the other 
hand, There is that appeal to Scripture and that particular 
sin as being the chief sin above all sins, and the church only 
exists to oppose homosexuality. Notice that it's not just homosexuality 
that Paul condemns here, neither fornicators. That's heterosexual 
fornication. They're not going to enter the 
kingdom of God, nor adulterers, those who compromise the marriage 
covenant, nor thieves, nor covetous. I mean, come on, who of us can 
leave 1 Corinthians 6 and say, well, none of that applies to 
me. Certainly we're all covetous. at least to some degree or other, 
nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit 
the kingdom of God. The blessing of the gospel is 
verse 11, and such were some of you. But you were washed, 
but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name 
of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God. So this idea that 
teaches that homosexuality is genetic is simply wrong. If you 
are hardwired that way, it could not be true that such were some 
of you. You cannot change your spots 
if you're a leopard. You cannot change the color of 
your skin if you're an Ethiopian. This is the teaching. of the 
prophet Jeremiah. If you are hardwired this way, 
then you will never be able to stop. But the power of the Christian 
gospel is such, is that whether you're a thief, or a drunkard, 
or a covetous man, or an adulterer, or a heterosexual fornicator, 
or a homosexual, there is hope in Jesus Christ to be freed from 
that, to be washed in His precious blood, to be filled with the 
Spirit, and to function as God intended you to function. So 
on the one hand, we're not supposed to minimize it. On the other 
hand, that isn't the only sin that the people of God are supposed 
to condemn. And the reference or the additional 
idea that it's not a genetic predisposition. And some would 
suggest that to condemn homosexuality indicates something of a homophobia. 
There's nothing about it that should produce fear in the people 
of God. We ought to be theophobic, fearers 
of God, and with a desire to see sinners come to the saving 
knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. If it is genetic, if it is hardwired, 
if there is this, you know, innate predilection to this particular 
activity, there's no hope for those who are engaged in this 
particular practice. We don't preach that this is 
a disease. We don't preach that it's genetic. 
We preach that it's a sin, and by doing so we present great 
hope. Jesus came to save sinners, and 
in this we rejoice. And then, of course, in 1 Timothy 
1, the apostle there indicates that this is sinful as well. 
Verse 8, we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 
knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, 
but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, 
for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers 
of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for 
kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing 
that is contrary to sound doctrine. according to the glorious gospel 
of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. So there 
is a prohibition least implicit in our confession and certainly 
explicit in the scriptures that forbids or prohibits homosexual 
marriage. Another thing prohibited is bestiality. It's unfortunate that we even 
have to deal with this particular situation, but I have seen an 
increasing number of stories concerning this particular activity. that men or women with animals 
copulating. And the Old Testament is very 
clear that this is not acceptable. It is condemned. It is prohibited. It is an abomination to Yahweh. Exodus 22, 19. Again, these texts 
are probably familiar to you. Well, I don't know how many of 
you memorize bestiality texts, but you should have an idea in 
this increasingly lawless age in which we live, where this 
is becoming more and more prevalent. Exodus 22.19, whoever lies with 
an animal shall surely be put to death. Leviticus chapter 18, 
we're not going to discuss the merits of the death penalty with 
reference to homosexuality or bestiality in this particular 
study, but look at the seriousness of it as the penalty attached 
is death. Leviticus 18.23, same idea. Nor shall you mate with any animal 
to defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman stand before 
an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. And then in 
Leviticus 20, 15 and 16 as well. If a man mates with an animal, 
he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 
If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall 
kill the woman and the animal. they shall surely be put to death, 
their blood is upon them." And then in the pronouncement of 
curses and blessings in the book of Deuteronomy, with reference 
to life in the land, should they obey, they'll be blessed, should 
they disobey, they'll be cursed. In Deuteronomy 27, 21, we read, 
"'Cursed is the one who lies with any kind of animal.'" All 
of that summarizes the emphasis here on the monogamous nature 
of marriage. 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. I think Bruner summarizes 
this whole idea well in his commentary on Matthew. He said, if God had 
supremely intended solitary life, He 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, He would have made two men or 
two women. But that God-intended monogamous 
heterosexual life is 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." It's a good 
overarching statement, chapter 25, paragraph 1, and now it gets 
into the particular, the major purposes for marriage in paragraph 
2. Notice, 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." 
So we might say, first of all, companionship. You can turn to 
Genesis chapter 2. Genesis chapter 2, this idea 
of mutual help of husband and wife indicates the companionship 
element involved in marriage. This is a major purpose, one 
that Scripture sets forth to us clearly. even if one or both 
of the parties are incapacitated and unable to engage in some 
of the other aspects of marriage, say, for instance, the conjugal 
relationship, they are nevertheless married. It's a companionship. 
And that's the emphasis here in the garden. Notice in chapter 
2, verse 18, the Lord God said, it is not good that man should 
be alone. I will make him a helper comparable 
to him. Out of the ground, the Lord God 
formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air and 
brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever 
Adam would call each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave 
names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast 
of the field. But for Adam, there was not found a helper comparable 
to him. And the Lord God caused a deep 
sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept. And he took one of his 
ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which 
the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and 
he brought her to the man. And Adam said, This is now bone 
of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because 
she was taken out of man. Therefore a man shall leave his 
father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become 
one flesh. And they were both naked, the 
man and his wife, and were not ashamed." So this idea of companionship, 
it was not good that Adam was alone. So God, in His grace and 
mercy, formed Eve and brought her to Adam. And I wonder at 
times for us married people, if we're genuinely thankful to 
God for the fact that we don't have to circle this globe on 
our own. It's a blessed and wonderful 
truth that we have companionship. It's a blessed and wonderful 
thing that there is a helpmate comparable to us that does come 
alongside of us in the various difficulties and hardships and 
joys of life and provides that mutual help. Marriage was ordained 
for the mutual help of husband and wife, and in this we ought 
to rejoice and praise God. Secondly, the increase of mankind. Notice, for the increase of mankind 
with a legitimate issue, the idea of procreation. This isn't 
the only purpose for marriage, and you ought to appreciate that, 
but it is nevertheless a purpose of marriage. It is to produce 
offspring. It is to have children. Notice 
in Genesis 1, 26 and 27. And God said, let us make man 
in our image, according to our likeness. Let them have dominion 
over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over 
the cattle, over all the earth, and over every creeping thing 
that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own 
image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, 
he created them. Then God blessed them, and God 
said to them, be fruitful and multiply. fill the earth and 
subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of 
the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing 
that moves on the earth." The idea here is that man was to 
multiply and increase the image of God on the face of the earth. 
If man indeed is the image-bearer of God, then God says, I want 
you to populate the earth with image-bearers of God. It's a 
good thing. They were to fill the earth with 
the image of God and expand ultimately what at that time was a garden 
temple to encompass the entirety of the earth. Temple is a place 
where God and people meet together, expand through their vice regency 
through the earth, men having rule over the creation. So this 
idea of having children is a blessed thing. The prophet Malachi speaks 
to this when he is condemning the people of God for lawless 
divorce. Lawless or unlawful divorce. The prophet Malachi, specifically 
Malachi chapter 2. 2.15, But did he not make them one, 
having a remnant of the Spirit, and why one? Why one? He seeks 
godly offspring. Now certainly that's legitimate 
language in the Commonwealth of Israel in the Old Covenant 
theocracy. It's certainly appropriate language 
in terms of the Presbyterian Paedo-Baptist model in adding 
in holy seed to the church, but the principle is abiding even 
for us Baptists. God seeks godly offspring, and 
we ought to produce children with a view to rearing them in 
the training and admonition of the Lord. I think at times people 
don't give as much weight to how they're going to rear their 
little ones as to the having of the little ones. Just having 
20 children doesn't necessarily mean blessing. If you don't rear 
those 20 unto God, If you don't bring them up in the knowledge 
of the Lord, if you don't point them often to the gospel of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, you don't nurture them, you don't love 
them, you don't care for them, they're not necessarily going 
to prove to be blessings. Now, I'm not going to say that 
they're cursings on the other hand, but we need to not only 
think through the idea of having children, but we also need to 
think about rearing them, spending time with them, caring for them, 
catechizing them, bringing them to church, putting them under 
the means. When you have children, it's 
at least a 20-year commitment directly. Now, I'm being modest 
here. Hopefully, it's 18. Just kidding. It's always a responsibility 
until the day they die. But you know what, sisters, when 
you have babies, guess what you're doing for the next 20 years? 
Same thing for you men. You know, you hear this sometimes 
with younger couples. Oh, we're so busy. You have kids. That's what you signed up for, 
and you need to embrace it, appreciate it, and do the best you can for 
the glory of God Most High. When you have children, you all 
know as well as I do, you've got a 20... I know what I'm doing 
for the next 20 years at least. I'm going to be rearing these 
little ones under God. And that is what scripture envisages 
with reference to faithful parenting. But the third major purpose. 
Again, there's a whole host of purposes. We certainly could 
go down the line and sort of subdivide this idea of mutual 
help. One of the parties is able to 
manage the finances. One of the parties is able to 
do this. All that certainly falls under mutual help. But the major 
purposes, companionship, procreation, and thirdly, sexual relations. Notice what the text or the confession 
says, and for preventing of uncleanness. Now, that's 17th century sort 
of theological language for the exercise of the marriage bed, 
the conjugal relationship. This is not bad. This is a good 
thing. This is not something that God 
frowns upon. The Lord made Adam, and then 
He made Eve, and when they got together, God knew precisely 
what they were going to do, and God was the witness while they 
were doing it. There's nothing dirty, there's 
nothing icky, there's nothing gross about it. It is a major 
purpose of God outlined for us in the pages of Scripture. Notice 
in the book of Proverbs, Proverbs chapter 5. Proverbs 5, Solomon 
exhorting his sons to faithfulness with reference to sexuality, 
especially with reference to monogamy in marriage. It's unfortunate 
that Solomon did not faithfully follow his own word all the days 
of his life. But if you look specifically 
at verse 7 in Proverbs 5, He says, therefore, hear me now, 
my children, and do not depart from the words of my mouth. Remove 
your way far from her. This is talking about the harlot 
or the immoral woman. Verse 3. Remove your way far 
from her and do not go near the door of her house, lest you give 
your honor to others and your ears to the cruel one. In other 
words, how do you avoid the immoral woman? Remove yourself from her 
path. Don't go near the door of her 
house. He doesn't say, don't go into her bed. Don't go near 
her door, because if you go near her door, the next logical step 
for a sinner is going to be her bed. You need to carve out a 
large swath and avoid her altogether. Don't go near her door. Certainly 
don't go into her bed. You need to remove your way far 
from her. Another means by which we can 
avoid the immoral woman, and we could certainly sort of reverse 
this and say the immoral man, and this applies to women, but 
you get the gist. It's comprehensive, and it deals 
with both parties. Notice one of the means by which 
we refuse or remove or resist sort of the seduction or the 
enticement of this immoral woman is found in verse 18. Let your 
fountain be blessed and rejoice with the wife of your youth. 
What does he mean there? Does he mean taking walks in 
the park and throwing the frisbee? He certainly could mean that, 
but that's not the context. He doesn't mean golfing. Notice, 
he goes on to amplify what he means. Verse 19, as a loving, 
dear, and graceful doe, let her breast satisfy you at all times 
and always be enraptured with her love. For why should you, 
my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman, and be embraced in the 
arms of a seductress? We see this emphasis in 1 Corinthians 
7. You can turn there. On the one 
hand, again, we need to be balanced and we need to be careful. I 
don't think the church needs sex guru teachers writing books 
every other day on how to engage in the marriage bed. I'm not 
certain that's the necessity or the need for the church today. 
On the one hand, we don't want to overemphasize, but on the 
other hand, we cannot minimize the place of the marriage bed 
in the relationship that God has ordained. Husbands and wives 
are not brothers and sisters. They shouldn't live that way. 
Certainly they are in terms of spirituality and their common 
union in the Lord Jesus Christ. But when that man or that woman 
met each other for the first time, they were interested in 
something more than that person's mind and heart. There was a sexual 
component in it, and for some reason, I haven't yet figured 
it out, with reference to Christianity, we minimize the role that this 
plays with reference to marriage. Paul didn't do that. Notice in 
1 Corinthians 7.1, now concerning the things of which you wrote 
to me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. All things 
being equal, Paul's argument is going to be very clear. If 
you have the gift that I have, then be single so you can serve 
the Lord. If you don't have the gift that 
I have, then get married to prevent uncleanness by frequenting the 
marriage bed. God has given strict rules concerning 
sexuality. It's a good thing, it's a wonderful 
thing, as long as it's utilized in the covenantal context and 
confines of marriage. Outside of marriage, it is lawless. Inside of marriage, it ought 
to be frequent. is what the Apostle says. Notice 
in verse 2. Nevertheless, because of sexual 
immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman 
have her own husband. Let the husband render to his 
wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her 
husband. I think this goes beyond a kiss 
on the forehead when you leave for work. The affection in view 
includes the marriage bed. Verse 4, the wife does not have 
authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise, 
the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife 
does. Do not deprive one another, except 
with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting 
and prayer, and come together again, so that Satan does not 
tempt you because of your lack of self-control. In other words, 
the marriage bed is the legitimate prevention of uncleanness. So don't deprive one another, 
and I would certainly say in this particular time in which 
we live, When internet pornography is sitting in just about everybody's 
pocket right now, or at least the potential of it on the phone, 
or, you know, the chat rooms, and the comments, and this and 
that, and, you know, the romance novels, and the sorts of things 
that entice women, and the sorts of things that entice men, in 
a sensually sinful, wicked age, when married couples deprive 
one another, they are setting up their partners to fail. It 
is for the prevention of uncleanness. Certainly we would discipline 
a man if he had committed adultery and broken his covenant vows. 
What of the woman who never engaged in this activity with her husband? 
Again, he's not guiltless, but she's told in the scriptures, 
or he is told, to not deprive one another, except for a time 
for prayer and fasting, but when that season's over, come together 
again lest Satan entice you. Brethren, this is as serious 
an issue as are the other purposes in marriage, and it doesn't do 
for any believer to say, well, you know, we've done that back 
in our 20s, and now we're going to be 50, 60, 70, 80, and just 
be brother and sister or friends. That's not what a marriage is. 
It involves mutual help, it involves companionship, it involves friendship, 
but it also includes the sorts of things that Paul is highlighting 
in this particular instance. I have this zany idea, brethren, 
that our purpose in marriage is to help each other to get 
to heaven. And if helping each other get to heaven includes 
the frequent use of the marriage bed, then praise God, from whom 
all marriage beds flow. Why is it that we are ungodly 
when it comes to this particular area? Why is it that we can have 
faulty marriages in these particular areas and write it off? It just 
doesn't make sense to me. Hebrews 13. Hebrews 13, another 
place where scripture speaks very favorably concerning the 
marriage bed. Marriage 13.4, marriage is honorable 
among all and the bed undefiled. But fornicators and adulterers, 
God will judge. Again, we've got this covenant 
context surrounding the marriage bed. It's undefiled. What's God 
saying? He's saying, go ahead and use 
it. It's not icky, it's not dirty, it's not disgusting, it's none 
of that. It is as natural as is the created order. When God 
made man and woman in their pre-fallen condition, this was a vital component 
with reference to them. showing love for one another, 
expressing that one-flesh commitment, and enjoying the goodness and 
the kindness that God affords to His creatures. But fornicators 
and adulterers outside the covenantal context of the marriage bed, 
God will judge them. They will be punished. Now, in the third place, notice 
the lawful parties in marriage in paragraphs 3 and 4. The general 
rule. It is lawful for all sorts of 
people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. 
So the general rule is that marriage is lawful for creatures, for 
all sorts of people to marry. This is why we don't see this 
as a redemptive benefit. In other words, it's not just 
Christians that get to enjoy marriage. It's not just believers 
that get to enjoy marriage. God gave marriage to creatures 
as creatures. So it's creature, a creaturely 
benefit given by the God who created this world and all things 
in it. Now, they qualify this who are 
able with judgment to give their consent. I don't want to pick 
on Micah this morning, but I remember, I think he was eight, and he 
said, what's the youngest I can be when I can get married? And 
I think I said 11, and he looked all happy. And I said, no, I'm 
just joking. It's not 11 there. So, you know, 
an eight-year-old may want to get married and that's a good 
thing. I've often thought, you know, when your children, if 
your children are growing up and they say, I never ever want 
to get married. Now, there might be some religious convictions 
involved. There might just be that gift of celibacy or they've 
seen a marriage that they're not attracted to. When a child 
is eight or nine or 10 or 18 and they want to get married, 
I think that at least in some small sense, they've seen a model 
of a marriage that hasn't repulsed them and they too want to take 
the dive and enjoy that also. But you need to have judgment 
and be able to give your consent. An eight-year-old doesn't have 
that ability. An eight-year-old isn't that 
much on the ball. Unless you're Josiah and you're 
ruling over the kingdom of Judah, then that might be a different 
story. But the general sort of overarching theme, it's lawful 
for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to 
give their consent. Now, there are specific limits 
given here with reference to that general rule. Notice positively, 
yet it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord. That is commanded. God wants 
the people of God to marry in the Lord. Turn over to 1 Corinthians 
7. 1 Corinthians chapter 7. Notice in verse 39, rather, a 
wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives. But if 
her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes 
only in the Lord. Now, I don't think that qualification 
is there only in her particular condition, a widow that's going 
to remarry. I think that particular sort 
of qualifier only in the Lord applies to all marriage at all 
times. In other words, believers must 
marry in the Lord. They must pursue an equal yoke. 
They must not marry a son or a daughter of Belial if they 
are a child of light. There is going to be big, big 
problems with such an arrangement. Now, of course, you can never 
determine fully who's regenerate and who isn't. That's why there 
is some wisdom in getting to know the person. Don't go out 
on a first date and take her out to Vegas and put a ring on 
her finger. That typically doesn't end well. 
I think that's why they rent wedding rings in Las Vegas with 
that very thing in mind that people who end up in Vegas at 
a chapel at two in the morning, skunk drunk, Don't typically 
have the sorts of long-lasting marriages that everybody looks 
to as a model and as an example. So only in the Lord. Get to know the person. We as 
parents need to educate our children with reference to this particular 
stipulation. It is not okay for a professing 
believer in Jesus Christ to marry a non-professing unbeliever. That's not okay. That's got to 
be the first order of business. When we encourage our young people 
with reference to dating or courtship or whatever it is, we're going 
to call it how they get to know another person from the opposite 
sex. They're interested again in more than just their mind 
or their heart. There is a sexual component involved. We need to 
educate them, we need to talk to them, and we need to emphasize 
this only in the Lord-ness. If you are a believer in Christ, 
you're not supposed to marry an unbeliever. So that's the 
positive statement. Negatively, it's fleshed out 
by the confession on who we are not to marry. We're not to marry 
infidels. Infidels. And therefore, middle 
of paragraph three, therefore, such as profess the true religion 
should not marry with infidels. That's an unbeliever. Don't marry 
unbelievers. Secondly, idolaters. Or idolaters. Again. It's not the case that 
you're going to go worship God on Sunday and then come home 
and see your wife or your husband bowing to Baal in the afternoon. You're not supposed to mix the 
sons of light and the sons of Belial. You're not supposed to 
try and marry Yahweh with these pagan gods. Again, Solomon should 
have taken his own counsel, he should have read what he wrote, 
he should have taken his own sort of advice, because he married 
these other women and they led him away to serve their gods. I mean, Solomon stands on the 
pages of Scripture not only in terms of positive instruction 
on how we ought to live, but by a negative example on how 
we ought not to live. Solomon satisfies both requirements 
for us very vividly. And then he goes on to say, such 
as are wicked in their life, those who profess the true religion 
but deny its power in the way they live. In other words, there 
will be fruit in those who profess the saving faith. It may not 
be Paul's fruit. It may not be James's fruit. 
It may not be David's fruit. but there will be fruit." In 
other words, those things that churches, Baptist churches, are 
looking for in terms of who shall we baptize are the sorts of things 
that people ought to be looking for in terms of the sorts of 
people that they will marry. And then it goes on to say, such 
as maintain damnable heresy. You mean I got to ask my potential 
wife or husband if they believe in the hypostatic union? Yeah, 
that's exactly what it means. You mean they've got to be able 
to at least give a rough sketch of the doctrine of the Trinity? 
Yeah. They need to understand justification by faith. They 
need to be able to explain the way of salvation by grace through 
faith in Jesus Christ, because damnable heresy is typically 
not confined to one of the spouses. You see, the Bible knows us better 
than we know ourselves. We have this idea that I'll be 
a missionary, I'll go out and find an unbeliever, I'll marry 
her, I'll take her home, and I'll evangelize her, and she'll 
get converted. You know, I'm not going to say that never happens 
or never has happened. There are instances that I know 
personally of that that's happened, and praise God for His goodness 
in the midst of that. But more often than not, it's 
the negative influence of the one that affects the other. We're 
not so holy that when we walk down the street, we just affect 
everybody positively. We're not that holy. When we 
walk down the street, it's more often the case that those things 
affect us, and God knows that about us. That's why the mandate 
for holy war in Deuteronomy 7 is so strong. God says, go in and 
utterly dispossess the land of the Canaanites, not through mass 
deportation, not through mass exile, but through mass warfare. go in utterly dispossessed, kill 
them, kill their children, root them out of the land, get them 
out. Don't worship with them, don't marry with them, don't 
have any religious meetings with them. Why? Because God hates 
Canaanites? Well, yeah, because they sinned 
against him and they reaped his judgment. But because God knows 
our hearts. The moment we marry the Canaanite, 
the moment we have some sort of social or political compact 
with the Canaanite, or the moment we certainly visit Canaanite 
worship, we're going to be bowing to Baal right alongside of them. 
It is absolutely crucial that the people of God make this known 
to their children, to their offspring. And then note the natural. So 
the positive limit Duty-bound to marry in the Lord, the prohibitions 
there, and then there's a natural limit in paragraph 4. Consanguinity 
or affinity. In other words, a relationship 
by blood. That's what consanguinity is. Or affinity, that is a relationship 
by marriage. So the Word of God forbids incestuous 
marriages. Consanguinity refers to that 
relationship by blood, and affinity refers to relationship by marriage. 
The Leverant Law in Deuteronomy 25 indicates that the relationship 
by marriage is dissolved at death. In other words, if you are married 
to someone, and that someone dies, the law of God doesn't 
prohibit you from marrying at that point. their brother or 
their sister. Affinity is broken at the death 
of the particular spouse. So the Leveret Law sort of presupposes 
that. So affinity is for the time that 
the person is alive. Consanguinity always applies. 
You cannot marry somebody that is related to you by blood. It 
is prohibited. It is forbidden. The Confession 
says the reader is referred to the 18th chapter of Leviticus, 
where that is dealt with in some detail. So that is an overarching 
view of our chapter on marriage. I think we learn in the first 
place the dignity of marriage. It has confessional status in 
the 17th century confessions of faith. There's probably a 
whole host of reasons as to why that is the case, one of which 
being that it was so misunderstood or so wrongly interpreted for 
much of the church. Roman Catholicism sees marriage 
as only for procreation. That unfortunately has survived 
into modern-day Protestantism. Protestantism. Brethren, there's 
more to marriage than procreation. It's certainly involved. It's 
certainly a component. It's certainly a vital element. 
But what do we tell a married couple who one or both parties 
are unable to bear children? We're going to heap guilt on 
them? We're going to make them feel miserable because they haven't 
met some alleged ideal of at least five kids to be a full-quiver 
family? There are persons, because of 
the way things are, that can't have children. Do we judge married 
couples when we see them and they don't have children? Why 
don't they have children? Are they against God? Do they 
not want to fill their quiver? Do they not want to...? Brethren, 
maybe one or both of them has some medical issue that is none 
of your business. So procreation is not the only 
reason for marriage. But again, it is a major vital 
component of marriage. Are we supposed to condemn some 
70-year-old doll and gent that happen to meet in the old folks' 
home and they get married? Praise God for that. Well, you 
can't have kids, so it won't be marriage. That was kind of 
the prevailing attitude with reference to marriage. It's a 
necessary evil in order to have children. And then you got the 
Roman Catholic weirdness with reference to excluding or keeping 
priests from marrying. I mean, certainly there's reasons 
why in the 17th century they needed to deal with this doctrine 
of marriage, and it's certainly something we need reminding of 
in our own context in the church today, not least of all because 
of, you know, the homosexuality, the increasing bestiality, the 
weirdness of the whole who can get married and who can't, but 
heterosexual fornication. How many people just live together 
and copulate and even sometimes in the name of Christ, Christian, 
well, you know, we're married in God's eyes. You know, I believe 
that in some sense. I don't know that the state necessarily 
needs to be involved in the contracting of marriages. In other words, 
if you're on a desert island, you and a woman, I think you 
can legitimately get married under God. Now having said that, 
I think Christians in whatever commonwealth they find themselves 
are going to follow the rules of that particular commonwealth. 
It's not a sin to get a license. I mean, it's weird, but it's 
not a sin to get a license to get married. So think about that. 
I need a license to get married. What does that say about me? 
You don't trust me enough to say I do and live with somebody? 
I have to have a license for that? But it's not sin to go 
through the hoops that the state has mandated that we go through. 
So I'm suggesting that if you're on a desert island and it's you, 
God, and your potential bride or bridegroom, Go ahead and get 
married. But if you're in Canada, in the 
province of British Columbia, go get your license, pay whatever 
the fee is, find a guy that has the number, and do the vows, 
and do it right, and put a ring on her finger, a ring on his 
finger, and that's all legit. It's all good. But we need to 
remember that it's not an option for Christians, professing believers 
in Christ, to fornicate and to think that that's somehow okay. 
It's just not. Secondly, a quote from Ryle on 
Matthew 19 concerning the responsibility involved in marriage. 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. I think I've alluded 
before that, you know, in some ways some of the stuff that Steve 
Lawson's dad has told him is sort of filtered down to me. 
You don't live on love and fresh air. Some of these wonderful 
things that Mr. Lawson Sr. spoke to his son, 
and Steve has mentioned to me, and in the absence of a real 
good father figure in my life, I've sort of appropriated those 
things. One of my dad's pieces of advice 
was, they can kill you, but they can't eat you. I just still think 
about that to this day, and yeah, they can. I know it's a bad thing 
to think that way, but they really can, and it's a sick world. But anyways, another thing is 
something that his brother, a pastor, has said. The only thing worse 
than being single is wishing you were single. And I don't 
think we give due consideration to that reality. Saying I do 
to the wrong person is going to be nightmarish. You need to 
think long and hard, you need to pray, you need wisdom from 
on high when it comes to this matter of whom you are going 
to attach yourself to in a one flesh union. I mean, it's really 
a big deal. And it's an incredible thing, 
you know, and trust 18-year-olds or 19-year-olds. Praise God, 
they seem to work out well for the most part. So in some sense, 
it's harder, my observation, to get married when you're older 
because you're kind of set in your ways. And then you got somebody 
come in and challenging that. It's not impossible, but it can 
be challenging. Anyways, we need to think through 
these particulars. The value of paragraphs 5 and 
6 in the Westminster Confession. Paragraph 5 says, adultery or 
fornication committed after a contract being detected before marriage 
giveth justification 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. I 100% affirm that, 
and I 100% agree with that. Jim Renahan will tell us or could 
tell us why the Baptist left that out. I simply do not know. But I think paragraph 5 in the 
Westminster is gold. Paragraph 6, 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." Essentially what they are suggesting or saying, and 
I think the Bible does teach this, the cases of adultery or 
porneia, it's a broader term generally, and desertion or abandonment 
or whatever we might call it, 1 Corinthians chapter 7. Those 
things are in place. We do not penalize the innocent 
party and say, well, suck it up. That's the way it goes. You 
just got to live in misery for the rest of your life. That is 
represented today by what's called the permanence view. Now let 
me make it clear. I hold to the permanence view 
of marriage. I think it ought to be one man, one woman for 
all time. However, within that construct, 
or that scheme, or that structure, if there is adultery, or if there 
is desertion, those are lawful means for the dissolution of 
that particular covenant bond. This permanent view of marriage, 
taught by John Piper, and Vody Bauckham, and others, men I respect, 
but nevertheless I think are wrong on this issue, they say 
that divorce is never permissible. Now, I would always ask the question, 
have they read the Old Testament? Deuteronomy 24 specifically legitimizes 
divorce. The issue that they think it 
teaches has nothing to do with the teaching of that particular 
text. The instance in Ezra and Nehemiah, 
remember what Israel's problem was? They married pagans in the 
land. What did Ezra and Nehemiah say? Well, that's tough on you. 
You're going to have to be married to a pagan. Divorce them. Put them 
away. Get them out of the Holy Commonwealth. Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 both 
contain the exception clause. Whoever commits adultery, except 
for, or rather, whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, 
That's an exception clause. If porneia has occurred, it is 
lawful for the innocent party to sue out divorce. Paragraphs 
5 and 6 of the Westminster Confession teach or highlight or demonstrate 
what was the prevailing tradition, as far as I can tell, with reference 
to Protestant theology. And it's something that Again, 
this whacked-out view that it must always be there, even though 
it's been broken and violated and severed, is simply not according 
to the exception clauses to 1 Corinthians 7, very specifically, and to 
the whole overarching tendency of Scripture. John Owen said, 
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 
an inner power to deprive her husband of his natural right." 
It's not about remarriage, because there might even be some that, 
okay, we grant divorce, okay, you got me there, but that person 
can't get remarried. Why not? Why are they made to 
suffer or be punished? Because someone victimized them. The law provides redress, and 
when we forbid that, we have become the law giver, and that's 
simply unacceptable. And the point in Deuteronomy 
24, it's not a prohibition against remarriage. The idea being is 
that if a marriage is legally dissolved, as the confession 
the Westminster highlights, then it's as good as if, or it's as 
if the person or the offending party is dead, and the person 
that is innocent is free to remarry. So again. You may not be captivated 
in your conscience. I know there's some difference 
of opinion even among the people of God in our church, but in 
terms of what Scripture teaches, I do not believe that John Piper 
and Votibachum, or those who follow that particular strain 
of teaching, are correct. That doesn't mean they're heretics 
and they should be taken out in stone to death, but I think 
it does some positive damage to the people of God. When you're 
telling a woman that's been abused, that is a subset of desertion. She's got a black eye and you're 
going to tell her to go home, permanent, got to be married, got to function, 
got to live, got to make him dinner, try harder, be better. 
That's the kind of stuff that happens. You're going to send 
somebody into a potential murderous situation because of your weird 
views on permanence? Brethren, if God makes allowance 
in Scripture to protect innocent parties, and I would suggest 
this is the way to understand the laws regulating polygamy. Well, God regulates, you know, 
provision for the second and third wife because God is concerned 
about the innocent party. Why should the second and third 
wife suffer because this guy favors his first wife? The law 
there is a provision of God's kindness to protect wife number 
two and wife number three, laws with reference to slavery. That 
doesn't mean, okay, go have slaves. It means that because man is 
sinful and chooses to enslave his fellows, God is now gonna 
give us a law to regulate how we treat those particular slaves. Divorce laws come subsequent 
to the fall and they're a provision for the innocent party to not 
have to live a life of abject misery because they married the 
wrong person. I've stressed that you need to 
make sure that you're marrying the right person But brethren, 
we're not omniscient. We're not God. Sometimes Baptist 
churches baptize goats. It happens. Sometimes people 
marry who they think is a son of light, and they turn out to 
be a son or a daughter of Belial. Those things happen. So do we 
punish them for their bad choice for the rest of their life, or 
do we realize that there is forgiveness with God, that He may be feared, 
there is mercy, grace, kindness, and love, and we ought to engage 
in those things that He has authorized. Well, let's close in a word of 
prayer. Our Father, we thank you for the biblical teaching 
concerning marriage. We thank you for the institution 
of marriage. I pray that you would help us 
as predominantly married people to conduct ourselves the way 
we're supposed to, to not live in rebellion, open defiance of 
the word of the living God, but help us to treasure our spouses, 
help us to see this as a blessing. And for my dear single brethren 
here, give them grace and strength and help with reference to the 
pursuit of a good woman or a good man. Give them grace and contentment 
in this single state. And Father, may You cause us, 
whatever state we find ourselves in, to be seeking to glorify 
and honor You. And we pray these things through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.