Marital Logistics 31/07 July 31, 2009

This article was initially not meant to be under Marital Logistics, because this does not concern marriage in itself. Rather this is a presentation of my ideas concerning the beginnings of Christian coupling. However, I’ve decided to place it here for two reasons: first, because it is related to the fundamental nature of marriage; and second, because it would serve as a kind of commercial break in the series of articles (:

Some readers may find the points covered here to be somewhat familiar. If you do so, I apologise. This is because I have used a (somewhat ranted) post in my personal blog on the 11th of June as a skeleton for this article.

We may have noticed that in the past year or so, the youths within our reformed churches have been (directly or indirectly) advised to date for the purpose of marriage (if I may add, much like how our Government is telling Singaporeans to do so too). I consider this queer as in the recent past, they were always advised to take dating seriously, but nothing about starting to date. Yet now it seems some youths did take that advice to heart, and thus play too carefully.

My suggestion is to emphasize that trust in God’s favour is critical to establishing Christian BGR. God does want the best for His people, and this certainly applies to marriage too (take Genesis 24 for an example). Yes, God wants (most of) us to find love in marriage, and we must trust that. 

Now we often talk about that future spouse being God-sent, and about our waiting upon the Lord, yet can we identify this person? Upon a human level, we are to take initiative and not idle. We could start by considering the people around us, lest God did place him in our midst.

In looking for a potential spouse, it is in my perception that the following two criteria must be met:

A] S/he must be walking with God.

The reason behind this shouldn’t have to be elaborated, for we have been taught this many times over. Nevertheless, I will say it can be hard to tell (especially if all we think upon is the face of crushes). Yet a man’s faith will eventually show through the testimony they bear. Obvious signs are:

1. Good Bible knowledge
   Who can say Amen to Psalm 119? One who truly appreciates God’s word, and applies it in their life. Yea, thirsting after scripture is a sign of Christian maturity. A person who reads God’s word often (and in it’s entirety) probably prays just as much.
2. A mouth bridled
   There are many who call themselves Christian, and yet obscenities often fall from their lips – sometimes they even take the name of the Lord in vain. I am not saying that they are false Christians, but this is certainly poor testimony. James 3:2 gives us an idea of how important our speech is. A person who speaks words seasoned with salt is most likely submitted to the Lord.
3. Church involvement
   Fellowship amongst the saints is needful for any good Christian, for mutual edification and admonishment. Look for a spouse who is involved in the family of God, so that your family may be godly. Are his (and our) best friends in the church? They ought to be. Read 2Corinthians 6:14.
4. Character
   A person’s inner character is made manifest by their way of life. Galatians 5:19-25 constrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the spirit. Examine a person whether the spirit molds him, or if the natural man still reigns. Now it takes time to discover another’s character, therefore it is prudent to refrain from rushing into a relationship.

 

B] S/he must get along with you.

Consider that you’re going to have to live with your spouse for God-knows-how-long, so it would make sense that God wills you to marry someone you can usually agree with. It is therefore imperative that your future partner must be able to be your closest friend. There are many aspects in which this criteria may be applied:

1. Personality
   Everybody is unique, but some kinds of people just seem to ‘click’ better with you. Though some say true love can conquer all differences, it is better to be realistic and recognise that a close psychological distance with a personality mismatch will almost always remain uncomfortable. You must be able to get along with your partner with ease. (So where else to look but your existing friends?) Look at Christians you know, consider those whom you have a natural affinity for and see which friendships can be better developed.
2. Principles
   Each of us grows up in a different environment, and so are inculcated with different values. Every relationship is bound to have arguments, but as arguments often stem from conflicting principles, it is wisdom to seek a person who believes the same things we do and prioritises the same way we do. We must examine both our and the other party’s values, and see if they are compatible. If not, is one of us wrong? Resolve such instances through God’s Word, for in there is the best set of principles we can find.
3. Preference
   Just as each of us has our own set of principles, we also have out own personal preferences. These are not all wrong, but may well be selfish, if our ‘terms and conditions’ are not biblical. Such petty preferences can blind us to the person God sends, so that we only find out much later to our surprise.
   It is nigh impossible that we find someone who meets our personal criteria to the last whim. Indeed it should not be so, for we would then be quite selfish as to our partner’s own desires. Instead, believe that whom God sends, or whom God sends us to, is the best. Set aside the concept that we have a choice, and submit to the good Lord’s will.

 

If there is still nobody around whom you find acceptable, then perhaps you need to widen your social circle. There are many good churches in Singapore: it is not wrong to find a spouse elsewhere. Never give up, nor assume God wants you to be single, unless God makes it really clear to you that you can serve him better as a single (1Corinthians 7:32). To be married should always be the default; for if even Adam needed a wife, what more us?

I recall a talk whereby we were taught that while we want God to give us a good wife, we must also be considerate that God also wants to send such a wife a good husband. Therefore we must also check ourselves, that we ourselves do not neglect our call to live a godly life. What is our purpose in seeking a partner? Is it to the Lord’s glory? Beware, a selfish motive is one that God will not bless; neither will such love be sincere.

Now suppose you notice a youth who indeed loves God and lives righteously. How do you know if God sent him to you, your best friend next to you, or someone else? We know neither the future nor the mind of God. The best answer is that God will reveal it in His time, and we can but trust all shall be well. Yet, it is not wrong to attempt developing the relationship. In the end, I believe God prospering a relationship above all other friendships is the best confirmation that we have found our helpmeet.

Psalm 37:37 Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.

Marital Logistics 12/06 June 12, 2009

The remarriage issue has been one of great contention, and it is sad to see Christians condemning each other over it. However there can only be one truth, consistent throughout. It is unfortunate, then, to see people advising not to divorce, yet at the same time claiming remarriage is acceptable. Do you see the problem? This is akin to sex education nowadays, where abstinance from pre-marital sex is advised, but safe sex is also taught *just in case*.

 

In this article we will finally examine the ‘exception’ clause closely, and then look at some issues over the word used for ‘putting away’ in the following text. This text most often debated over is from Matthew 19:3-9.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The first bold statement Jesus makes is that divorce is not natural, and thereby we can follow that His people should not divorce because God himself joins people together. The Pharisees asked about Deuteronomy 24:1-4, claiming that Moses’s command gave them leave to dispose of their wife as soon as they were displeased. Now Jesus’ reply was not to furnish them with the right reason to divorce, no, he told them how wrong their practice was. The act of divorcing for any petty reason amounted to adultery! What about fornication? Divorcing with that reason doesn’t amount to adultery (why we are not told, but perhaps because the purity of the marriage has already been compromised). Therefore the summary of the principle Jesus taught here was ‘all divorce is adultery, except in the case of fornication’. 

Now we must realise that Jesus isn’t saying ‘Therefore do not divorce, except it be for fornication’. That was never His intent. After all, he had just given a most powerful reason why marriages should stay intact, why should he now provide an excuse to allow divorce? He then concludes with an even bolder statement – that marrying a divorcee is an act of adultery. Consider that He did not specify if the divorcee is the guilty or victim; this is because it does not matter: remarriage is here denounced. When God instituted marriage, He meant it to last, and He still does today as He brings couples together. Though trials should threaten a marriage, God can sustain it by His grace, and He will do that if Christians want it, because we are His children. As covered before, even adultery can be forgiven. Divorce need not be a solution.

 

It has come to my concern that there are people who claim that the ‘putting away’ mentioned in the Bible is not the same as divorce. This idea may sound silly, but it does have great consequences for those who believe it. Now this claim defines the phrase ‘putting away’ as ‘abandonment’ instead of ‘divorce’; putting away is only divorce when a bill of divorce is added. The consequence is that Jesus would be telling the Pharisees that wife abandonment is wrong except in the case of adultery, and that he who married a divorced is not committing adultery. The problem with this concept is firstly that it is obviously wrong to abandon a wife – Jesus would be discussing a non-issue which even the Pharisees would know they could not win. Second, it is inconsistent: why would Jesus speak about God’s power even behind marriage, just to refute abandonment? He would have gone further to speak on why divorce is wrong. Perhaps it was the language of the times to use ‘putting away’ as an euphemism for divorce (as it does for death). 

Now the word for ‘putting away’ in the New Testament is apoluo, which generally means ‘seperation’. It is not wrong in the context of marriage to deem it ‘divorce’, for divorce is indeed a seperation. It is a mistake to argue that the seperation is only physical based on the usage in other texts (ie. the setting free of Barabbas, or sending away of the crowds which followed Jesus). However, this is hardly fair, is it possible to seperate from a crowd in any other way than physically? Furthermore, the setting free of Barabbas also involved pardoning all his crimes, not just turning him out of prison. Therefore there is no reason to see why apoluo is anything less than divorce.

In a different argument, some have claimed that apoluo only refers to a complete departure, based on the other references. The idea proposed is that therefore divorce is complete severance, and therefore remarriage is not wrong. Looking at the references, the proof is questionable. Take for example the ‘complete departure’ of the crowds following Jesus so that they could buy victuals for themselves: there is little doubt that these crowds would return the next day to hear Jesus preach again. Using the same logic, could that not tell us that divorce is for the purpose of reconcillation? Going on, we can also see that this interpretation does not appreciate that God has a part in marriage. As covered before, it is hardly possible that a legal procedure can undo God’s work of uniting 2 people.

It is indeed unusual that those two very different misunderstandings of apoluo are used to justify remarriage. What is common is that apoluo is taken to have a very narrow sense. This is wrong, however, for even Greek is somewhat flexible (although it is still much less context-based than Hebrew). Those readers who would like to study another confusing case can examine the word aphiemi, only used as ‘put away’ in 1Corinthians 7:11-13.

Marital Logistics 02/03 March 2, 2009

It was not my intent to return back to the first article until I had resolved the exception clause. Nonetheless circumstances require that I explain further why a remarried person should not divorce and return to their first spouse as part of their repentance.

 

The main thrust for this argument is Deuteronomy 24:3,4.

‘And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. ‘

The idea is simple, really. Unlike the previous 2 verses (which Jesus has clearly revealed to be only a permit), the above represents a law. It forbids a divorcee, once remarried, to return to her first husband. Therefore, even a second divorce is wrong, because God does indeed recognise the second marriage (adulterous though it may be).

What of the law of Moses? Has it been totally rendered obsolete with the coming of Christ? No! The ceremonial aspects are gone, having been fulfilling by Jesus Christ himself, but some areas remain. Take for example the law forbidding marriage between close relatives. We still abide by it. Likewise we should also follow God’s instruction to disallow attempts to reverse remarriage – it remains an abomination.

 

A particular verse, Jeremiah 3:1, seems to nullify the law above.

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

However, this cannot fully apply to the human relationship in a marriage. Idol gods have no being, the relationship Israel could have with idols is therefore bondless. Israel was married to Jehovah, she left to play the harlot, but did not ‘remarry’ because it is not possible for an idol to make a covenant with Israel. What wrong they did was to turn away from God and bow to lifeless statues. While that is a gross sin, it simply cannot be compared to remarriage, where a new bond is sinfully formed between two souls. The Lord will require of that bond, and not suffer it to be reversed.

It is worth noting that Jeremiah 3:1 does not say men may now ignore the law. Instead, it shows that the covenantal relationship between God and his Church is so much greater than marriage. Furthermore, putting away idols is different from putting away one’s wife, for a man’s bond with an idol is one-sided. God can restore Israel from her vain imaginations, but he will not break a remarriage: that is truly ‘putting away’.

 

It is the view of some that only the first marriage bond is visible in God’s eyes, and any subsequent remarriage is nothing but an adulterous (flesh) union. This, however, seems to make God to be in denial of reality. The fact is, God recognises this second union as a marriage. Though it was wrong in the making, it cannot be undone, for that would be ‘putting away’ once again. The same view claims that every act of sexual intercourse in a remarriage is adultery. This is incorrect: adultery is violating the first marriage bond. A remarriage renders the first marriage bond ineffective,  and therein lies the sin. After remarriage, the ineffective bond is no more a concern, for it cannot be restored.

True, God made each person to have only one spouse, but this is a irregularity similar to polygamy: It was always wrong to take a second wife, but once that had occurred, God required the man to bear the consequences and govern both. Likewise, a remarried person should not be divorced, least of all by the church, but instead be taught that [1] he is no more allowed to divorce and [2] he must live together with his wife as a godly couple.

Marital Logistics 10/02 February 10, 2009

Can the Marriage Bond be truly broken by Man?

 

The above question was one that arose from attempting to interpret Mark 10:9. The verse reads ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ We have concluded earlier that any divorce is sin because it is against God’s work. However, the verse only tells us that it is ill advised for Man to sunder the marriage bond, but does it mean that Man CAN break the bond?

I admit that I stopped short of answering this in the last essay, avoiding the question. Yet we have to, because the implications are great.

1. If the bond cannot be broken, but only tattered and frayed, then it is easy to say that the couple always remain a couple despite divorce, despite adultery.

2. If it can be broken by Man, then divorce is thorough severance, and there is thus no wrong in remarriage because ‘it is better to marry than to burn’ (the sin lies in divorce).

 

We shall start not with divorce, but with marriage. Marriage is more than the physical union between two people of the opposite gender. It involves one’s whole being – body, mind, and soul.

When we look at a couple growing closer to one another, we cannot see that there is something else behind it. God’s hand guides both people together, even until the point where they finally take their vows. There is a special kind of bond which we understand to be unique within God’s creation. No animal shares this marriage bond which humans experience. It is miraculous in itself, that two persons should become one, yet continue to possess two distinct bodies.

If marriage is indeed so deep, can mere Man break this bond that transcends to the spiritual? Well, adultery is a gross sin – one which is sure to damage the bond. Yea, to the point where physical and mental union becomes fragile. Adultery is simply devastating to a relationship. Of all the possible reasons for legal divorce, Jesus only permitted this one. Yet, can the worst sin undo what God has done? Would God allow such a bond to be fully broken?

From the Bible, we have these examples:

1. David’s wife Michal was taken away and became the wife of another man. She was restored in the course of time.

2. In Hosea chapters 1-3 we can see that the marriage bond is above the sort formed by adultery (that sort is mentioned in 1Corinthians 6:16), and that God will not cast off forever.

3. Both Malachi 2:15 and Jesus’ discourses in the New Testament emphasize that the from the beginning it there was one man and one wife – it’s not like Adam or Eve could leave their bond for another.

As we can see, God upholds this marriage bond. The circumstances vary, but it is not an excuse. The iniquity of adultery is great, but it cannot persuade God. For Jehovah God himself has described in Malachi 3 that though He divorced Israel and Judah because of their idolatry, He was still their husband. Therefore divorce does not amount to a full breaking of the marriage bond.

We understand all true Christians shall have their faith preserved till their death. Likewise, we ought to treat the marriage bond as such – that God preserves it. Indeed, God has forgiven us all our sin for the sake of Jesus Christ, why should we not teach the same? For if we do not forgive others their sins, the Father will not forgive ours. Yes, a man can and should forgive their wife the sin of adultery. Not because she is his very wife, not to restore the troubled marriage, but simply because that is right in God’s eyes. Now consider, if God so wishes for the couple to come together again, would he allow the bond to be broken? He shan’t, and that’s the way we ought to treat it.

In Old Testament times the Lord did allow such a bond to be broken in the eyes of Man. This, however, is not true complete severance – scripture upholds the importance of ‘the wife of thy youth’ (ie the first wife). When the Lord denied a remarried spouse to return to their first partner given a second divorce (Deuteronomy 24:4), this does not prove complete dissolution of the first marriage either. Instead, it only shows that remarriage is a irreversable sin. Should a person repent of it, they still cannot reunite with their first spouse.

 

As a result of the above discussion, it is imperative that some definitions be updated.

1. True Complete Severance – the utter dissolution of a marriage bond, such that a man is free to marry another person once again. The Lord only causes this to pass with the death of his spouse.

2. Percieved Complete Severance – the full breaking of the appearance of the marriage bond, such that a spouse desires to revoke all aspects of the previous marriage as far as it is possible, without hope of reunion. It is also the world’s concept of terminating marriage. This is displeasing to God.

Marital Logistics 19/01 January 19, 2009

If the previous post was an introduction, then this should be the start of topical elaboration. However, let us get straight to the point: that the complete severance of the marriage bond due to human action is displeasing to God, and that divorce is a last resort.

This is not to say, however, that the bond cannot be broken. God often breaks it by allowing the death of a spouse. However, when couples seek divorce, then that is wrong in God’s eyes. For it is written that it is unwise to take apart what God has put together (Mark 10:9).

Now it is well understood, from Matthew 19:9a, that divorce for any reason other than fornication is adultery in itself. Therefore we shall strike off all those cases from this discussion. What then, in the case of fornication by a spouse? In this case, the act of divorce is not wrong – it is permitted. Yet it is still sin to seek a complete severance of the marriage bond, for Mark 10:9 teaches that man (whether by an act of fornication or otherwise) should not undo what God has done. One cannot claim the sin of fornication to be sufficient cause to completely cast off a spouse (and thereby sinning himself). Indeed, the Lord has said that he ‘hates putting away’ (Malachi 2:16). This ought to be enough reason for Christians to see that even though putting away a spouse because of fornication is not adultery, it is yet a sin against God.

Complete dissolution would be to divorce and from thence live as though one were never married, to annul in all the sense of that word. If complete severance were wrong, because it is sundering what God has put together, then the divorce permitted by the Lord Jesus is partial. This refers to the physical separation of both husband and wife until they can reunite once more. As only some aspects of the marriage bond are broken, they are still a couple. If the adulterer refuse to repent and turn away from his mistake, his spouse must yet plead and pray, not initiating divorce.

What of legal divorce? Ought the victim seek to end the relationship because his spouse has been unfaithful? No, for we, as Christians, are taught to have a spirit of forgiveness and longsuffering. In practice, a hasty divorce could actually open up the way for the adulterer to marry his newfound lover. That only bodes ill, for how then can the original couple reunite? However, legal divorce might be necessary at times, for we cannot demand that the victim abide with an unrepentant and ungodly spouse. Though Paul advises us in 1Corinthians 7:10-14 to try to keep the marriage, sometimes it is wisdom to seek divorce for the safety of the victim, or for the sake of the children.

Nonetheless, it behoves the sinner to be repentant, and confess that he has sinned against God, himself, his spouse, and whom he committed fornication with. As such we deny that an fornicator may remarry either. Instead, if he repent, then we do expect his spouse to forgive him. Even as Christ has paid for all our worst sins, we must also be willing to forgive, not bearing grudges.

 

We shall pause here for now. Below are some definitions, in case the reader got a bit lost up there.

1. Complete Severance – the full breaking of the marriage bond, such that a spouse desires to revoke all aspects of the previous marriage as far as it is possible, without hope of reunion. It is also the world’s concept of terminating a marriage bond. This is displeasing to God. [This definition has been edited in a later post.]

2. Partial Severance – the physical seperation of husband and wife, sometimes through legal divorce, yet with the victim hoping to forgive his spouse in the near future. As only some peripheral strands of the marriage bond is broken, the couple remains married in God’s eyes. This is permitted by God.

3. Victim – the ‘innocent’ party whose spouse committed fornication (life’s conditions are often too complex to determine if there is truly an innocent party, hence the favoured use of the term Victim).

4. Legal Divorce – a recognition by the State that the husband and wife are no more a married couple, voiding all marital commitments under the prevailing State law. Christians ought to use this only as a last resort, when the welfare of either victim or children is at stake.

5. Remarriage – a new marriage prerequisited by complete severance and legal divorce.

Marital Logistics 11/01 January 11, 2009

This will be the first of an unknown number of posts regarding marriage (and by extension, divorce and remarriage).

 

Now, this post is in response to a question asked, how should we receive a new believer who was a guilty party who remarried? This scenario is purely hypothetical, but it provides an opportunity for us to share our principles. It is in my hope that all of us do attest to the redeeming power of Jesus’ blood over sin, that even such a sinner (if truly repentant) may be warmly brought into our fold. Indeed, I have confidence that this is the opinion of most of the congregation to whom the question was posed.

I likewise hope that none of us require this new believer to leave his second marriage to recover the first. This will only create more difficulties – for why should he now commit effective divorce against his second spouse? Nobody brought up 1 Corinthians 7 during the dialogue earlier. This first few verses have much been used to describe marriage, but we must not be ignorant that the middle portion teaches us how to treat new converts.

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk.

Though this quote were used to apply to new believers who had a spouse of a different faith, the principle is the same. Why should we force a person to divorce his existing spouse simply because we do not agree with their past life? If they are repentant of their sins, then they are become a new creature. We cannot lay their past to them. Besides, the Apostle tells us to abide in the state in which we were called. Why should we ignore this command, and multiply sorrows unto a new Christian to whom joy belongs?

Is this ignoring of the past defaulting upon the idea of repentance? Nay, there are many sins which cannot be undone (such as murder), and I think remarriage is one. For even the law of Moses forbade the a remarried wife to return (Deuteronomy 24:4). Although we are no longer bound by the law of Moses, the instance shows us that God is displeased should a divorced wife be returned to the first husband, and we may follow from there. 

However, it is also necessary to teach a new believer that he did sin by remarrying. Though this new Christian may count it joy to be in Christ, as part of repentance worked by the Spirit he may feel occasional sorrow for the ‘wife of his youth’. Considering further this hypothetical case, I admit it may take a lot of persuasion for him to confess his past remarriage as sin. Yet the foundation is Christ – we cannot reject him as reprobate even if he does not yet recognise his error. Seeing him as a new believer, I think it is more important to teach the doctrines of salvation (which are core to our faith) rather than decry his flaws, for thus may we display charity.