Notes on Marriage

1 Tim 3:2-6 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (6) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Recently, in another discussion, the question of marriage and divorce arose. So, it would seem that it is now time to explain exactly what marriage and divorce are, how they affect the life of the Christian and what the position of someone who divorces and remarries is. In the Bible passage quoted above, we can clearly see that one of the qualifications for the pastor is ‘to be the husband of one wife’. The question has arisen: does that mean one wife at a time? In short: no. The Lord’s intention for marriage is that it should be permanent.

First, we must look at what marriage is. Some claim that marriage is the physical union of a man and a woman, some claim that it is a legal contract and others claim that marriage is a union created and sanctified by God. What does the Bible say? Well, in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus said, “…Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) 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? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” For me, this clearly illustrates that God creates the marriage. “What therefore God hath joined together…” This defeats the notion that there is a physical act which creates marriage. If that were true, then sodomites could, Biblically, be married. In fact, anyone who has any act of fornication would be married. This is ludicrous. Do not misunderstand: fornication is a sin, but it does not make one married. Marriage is a union created by God with no intention of being broken. Further down this passage, Jesus tells the Jews that laws were given to allow for divorce as a result of the hardness of the people’s heart, but Jesus adds in Mat 19:8, “…but from the beginning it was not so.”

As we continue reading Mat 19, we see that the Lord does give one possible excuse for divorce: fornication. What is fornication? Webster’s 1828 defines fornication as “The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.” In other words, it is pre-marital sex. (note: if marriage is the act of sex, then there would be no fornication as the act of fornication would also be the act of consummating the marriage union – again, a marriage union is not created by a physical act, it is a union created by God.) Webster’s 1828 also defines fornication as idolatry.

Outside of that one narrow exception, a marriage is not intended to be broken. It is intended to be a life-long union of two people. The physical relationship between a husband and his wife has several symbolic meanings:

• It is intended to be symbolic of the union of Christ and the
  church (no, not in a sensual sense). In this, it symbolizes a complete devotion between the bride and the bridegroom which endures forever, through both trials and triumphs. It is a union which cannot be broken any more than our salvation can be discarded.
• It is intended to be the means by which humans procreate.
• It is intended to be used for the pleasure of the husband and wife.

So, in that very limited case where a divorce is the result of fornication, what about remarriage? Mat 19:9 “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.” Jesus is making the point that there may be a cause for divorce, but outside of that one narrow possibility, anyone else who divorces and remarries committeth adultery.

HOWEVER, I would add this: I do not believe there is ever a case for divorce. Granted, there may be places where a husband and wife should separate (abuse, for example). However, this separation should never lead to a divorce. If adultery and fornication were a cause for divorce, then every wife would immediately have cause to divorce her husband. Again, quoting Jesus in Mat 5:27-28 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Jesus is quite plainly saying that we are all guilty of adultery. Unless Jesus is a liar, then we should all be divorced. However, the overall standard established in the Word of God is one of grace and forgiveness. Granted - the adultery should not take place, but where it does, there should be forgiveness and rebuilding in the marriage.

The over-riding standard with regard to marriage is in Jesus' statement: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Anyone who rightly divides the Word of God can clearly see there is no place for divorce in God's economy and can equally see that someone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery.

The Word of God

There seems to be some confusion about the position of Teens-4-Christ (and me) regarding the Scriptures. In fact, there are some people who are outright lying about it. So, here is the official position of Teens-4-Christ (and me) regarding the Scriptures:

1. The Bible is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:21, )
2. The Bible is without error (Psa 12:6, Psa 19:7-8)
3. The Bible is complete (Rev 22:18-19, 1 Cor 13:8)
4. The Bible is preserved (Mat 24:35, Psa 119:89, 1 Pet 1:23, 25)
5. The Bible is our final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim 3:16-17, Rev 22:18-19)
6. While the King James translation is not directly inspired (the Apostle Paul, for example, did not speak English), the KJV is the faithfully, divinely preserved, text of God's Word for English speaking man.

You can read this, as well as the rest of our doctrinal statement by clicking here.

Now, what does that mean?

1. The Bible was inspired by God. That is, God literally breathed His words into the men who penned the Scriptures. These men were tools the Holy Ghost chose to use to pen His word for all of mankind.
2. The Bible is without error. This seems clear enough. How could a perfect God pen an imperfect work. But, there is an issue here also. That issue is in the translation - we will get to that in a moment
3. The Bible is complete. When the Revelation was completed, so was the Scripture. We do not need (nor has there been) any additional revealtions.
4. The Bible is preserved. Though there have been many people, groups, governments and sects who have tried to corrupt or destroy The Word of God, it still exists today. God has kept His promise to us to preserve His Word!
5. The Bible is our final authority for faith and practice. Where else should we turn? Looking somewhere else for guidance in our lives is like turning to the McDonalds drive-through clerk to get the Space Shuttle fixed. God created us, then He wrote the owner's manual!
6. While the King James translation is not directly inspired (the Apostle Paul, for example, did not speak English), the KJV is the faithfully, divinely preserved, text of God's Word for English speaking man.

This last point is really where the issue is. If the Scripture was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, do we really have the Word of God in English? This is something I have tried to explain before, and I never really do a good job of it. In the KJV, we as English speaking people, have the perfect Word of God. But, the perfect Word of God is also penned in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. In fact, it was in those languages first, then translated into English by Godly, honorable men. Despite the political curents of the day, these men went to great lengths to ensure that the translation was a pure translation.

There are cases where there is not a direct translation from Greek to English. The translation of the word 'love' is an example of this. In the English language, we can discern which kind of love we are speaking of by the context of the conversation. If you know my family, and I (speaking of my daughter) say I love Laurel, you would understand it to be a sacrifical love - I would do anything to protect my child. However, if I were on a mountain side looking at some flowers, and said, "I love laurel" you might think I was talking about the flower called "Mountain Laurel" and you would know that it's ok, but I wouldn't lay down my life for it. In greek, there are actually three words used in the NT which are translated as 'love'. The first is the word 'agape' which is that all consuming love. 'Agape' is the love Christ demonstrated by sacrificing himself on the cross for our sins. The second word for love is 'phileo'. It is a brotherly love. It would be something like saying, "I love my neighbors." I am not saying that anywhere you see the word 'love' in the NT that there is an error. Nor am I saying that you have to know the original languages to be a bible scholar. I am saying there are times when you can get a bit of extra knowledge by knowing the original languages.

There is one other bit of an issue tied in here - the Ruckmanites. Basically, Peter Ruckman has laid the claim that the 1611 KJV is the corrected Word of God. That is - the 1611 translators corrected the original manuscripts - that Paul, for example, even though he was under the direction of the Holy Spirit of God, wrote something down incorrectly and the King James translators corrected this. I think there are some who actually believe that there is a 1611 in the Ark of the Covenant. They add that only the 1611 KJV is the Word of God when, in fact, they do not even use a 1611 themselves! Of course, these notions (from Peter Ruckman) are just plain silly. The 1611 King James translators did not correct the Scripture, they only translated it.

A Challenge To All The Followers of Ruckman

Yes, I am issuing a challenge to all of you who follow Peter Ruckman.

This is a simple challenge: a challenge suitable for anyone.

Where is the original 1611 KJV Bible? Do the original manuscripts written by the translators still exist? If so, where? Does the Queen of England have it? Where is it?

Before you spout off that you have it in your hand, you don't. I am not asking what the location of a copy is (by the way, you're using a 1769), I am asking where the single, original text that is the 1611 is. The text penned by the translators.

See, all of you claim that the Textus Receptus is not reliable because all we have are copies, we do not have an original manuscript. If that argument is true, then the 1611 KJV cannot be relied upon because we do not have an original 1611 manuscript either.

In fact, aside from including the Apocrypha, the one of the earliest 1611's still in existence (not the original) actually says, "Thou shalt commit adultery". Yes, it was a typographical error. The Word of God certainly does not encourage adultery. The KJV we have today is actually the seventh revision of the 1611, and IS the perfectly translated, preserved Word of God for the English Speaking People

Comments...

Yes, because there are idiots out there who engage their mouth (or keyboard) far before they engage their brain, comments on this blog are moderated.

So, that means that people like you, Vince L., are not likely to see your comments posted.

If you would like your comments to be posted, you should try your very, very best to following the following guidelines:

1. Read the article you are replying to. I know -- for some of you reading and comprehending are a challenge, though you like others to believe you are intelligent.
   
2. Your reply should be relevant to the article you are replying to. Again, to create a sensible reply, you must comprehend what you have read, and I know this will be a challenge for some of you.
3. Your reply should be constructive. I am not going to waste time with childish, petty bickering and endless debates.
4. If the article has a Biblical theme, your reply should be Biblical. If I have taken the time to post an article about some BIBLICAL topic, you should take the time to search the scriptures before you reply. Yes, it is possible that I may make a mistake, but your reply should be BIBLICAL. If you have no BIBLICAL foundation for your reply, it will not be posted.
   
5. Language. Your reply should not contain vulgar or gutter language. If you cannot express your thought without vulgarities, don't waste your time posting here. Such posts will be edited with the delete key.
   
6. Remember who's blog this is. IT IS MINE! You are welcome to come and read. I know some of you cannot seem to leave me alone (V, K, K, etc.), and you are certainly welcome to come and read, but your senseless, doctrinally incorrect, farcical nonsense will not be posted here.
   
7. Final Authority. All posts on this blog, in fact, everything I try to do in our lives should be based on the Word of God. For the English-speaking people, that is the King James Version. This is a KJV only site, and we run a KJV only ministry.
   

So, with all of that in mind, Vince, don't get upset when your spewage is deleted.

Luke 2

On Christmas morning, among other things, Benjamin read Luke 2 for us. Here is the video:

Now, remember, Benjamin is my five year old, home-schooled son.

Oh, by the way, that was the KJV he was reading from.