Category Archives: Covenant

August 27, 2025

How the body of Christ Misunderstood God’s Teaching on Divorce

The church has traditionally held a prohibitive position on marital divorce for those in the body of Christ who found themselves to be chronically bound in marriage to an unbeliever, yet I believe that position to be the very opposite of the instructions given in God’s holy word. Obviously the burden of proof falls upon the lone dissenter and not upon the larger body. So then, if the church has traditionally and continually taken the opposite view from that found in the scriptures then the reasons for missing the mark should be retraceable.

Here is a list of those very reasons that have biased the people of God away from His clearly revealed will on the subject of marital divorce for believers bound together with unbelievers:

The church has consistently failed at being in the world but not of the world. It rarely fulfills God’s desire for believers to separate themselves from unbelievers. Being separate and separatism are not the same. I am not nor ever would call for separatism, be we are called to be separate from unbelievers.
The church focused in at least two wrong directions. It focused upon marriage without regard to the greater doctrine of separation from the world. Second, when unequally yoked marriages began to fail the church focused on the symptoms (Adultery, desertion, and physical abuse, deception, corruption, etc.) rather than upon the condition (unequally yoked marriage).
Family is near the top of any list of idols, and many so-called Christians worship at the family alter sadly prioritizing/worshipping family instead of God. When family is worshipped marital divorce damages the image of one’s idol.
Man, and not God, hates divorce. Malachi 2 actually says, “God hates the putting away of wives”, which was what was being done without a certificate of divorce…it is still being done to this day in Israel. God hates it. Man, on the other hand hates divorce, because it manifests his sinful, broken nature. Divorce exposes brokenness to the outside world; it is an admission to failure in our relational life, and pride hides sin. Divorce, like criminal prosecution, bankruptcy and church discipline exposes our sin to the outside world. Man hates being held accountable for his sinful choices. Divorce holds treacherous spouses accountable, which is why man hates divorce.
Departing biblical and logical reasoning, churchman transubstantiated divorce from its appropriate place as an amoral action to an immoral, almost unforgivable sin. If divorce in and of itself was a sin, then Ezra would not have entered into a covenant with God to oversee the divorces of over a hundred unequally yoked marriages, and God would not have divorced Israel. Like divorce, marriage is an amoral action. Transforming marital divorce into a sin is equivalent to calling marriage a virtue. But getting into an unequally yoked marriage, a homosexual marriage, a polygamous marriage or an open marriage are all regarded as sinful behaviors against God. Marriage to a “suitable” (Gen. 2:20) partner is a virtue, just as divorcing unsuitable partners is a virtue.
The church was behind, at least complicit with, the shotgun wedding concept. The desire to force men to atone for their wicked behavior supplanted God’s command for equally yoked marriages. Two wrongs do not make a right. Forcing a scoundrel to get married does not inhibit his evil desires and actions; it does however avail him a ready victim for further wickedness.
The church built a man-made doctrine on divorce based upon a few passages of scripture, often out of context, to the exclusion of many passages dealing with divorce and related doctrines.
The church failed to make a distinction for divorce between those who are equally yoked and those who are unequally yoked (see article on a comparison to killing).
Most of the church failed to understand the actual condition of those unequally yoked, so they made them feel guilty for their sin and deserving of the life-long, “consequences”. Consequences that were actually forbidden by God but wrongfully insisted upon by churchmen.
Many have made divorce a fairness issue out of pettiness. “The rest of us don’t get a do-over, so neither should you”.
Churchmen have fallen into group think and have come under the pressure of each generations’ thinking the same way. In the light of Catholicism making marriage one of seven sacraments (1108 AD) and calling it ‘Holy Matrimony’, following historical precedent over Biblical instruction is a real concern.

All of the causes listed above have been explained in detail previously in blog articles except for the second cause, which is why it will be the focus of this article.

The argument of this second reason why the church missed the mark is that the church focused in at least two wrong directions:

FIRST, MARRIAGE BALKANIZED FROM DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION

First, the church balkanized marriage from the greater doctrine of separation from the world, and second, the church set out to treat the symptoms that inevitably arise in unequally yoked marriages rather than upon the condition of a believer who is bound together with an unbeliever in marriage.

Marriage and subsequently divorce have traditionally been balkanized from the biblically ubiquitous doctrine on separation from the world, which has lead to a high percentage of Christians binding themselves to children of Satan in marriage. It has also lead to an unbiblical, prohibitive doctrine on divorce for those who have done so. We must face the truth; the church has not agreed throughout the centuries as to what actually constitutes a marriage or put another way, who exactly is married and who is not. Today it has almost become an antiquarian idea for a young couple to get married without having slept together in the marriage bed for months or even years first. Too many churchmen are looking the other way as they call them neither married nor fornicators. On the other hand, young couples with traditional values could meet, fall in love and marry all within the span of a month until one of them decides they made a big mistake. They could separate from their new spouse and get a divorce, and the church would mark them as a divorced person for the rest of their life. While the cohabitating couples can live together for twenty years all the while engaging in sexual relations and even having children together, but when their relationship falls apart and they separate the church fails to treat them as divorced even though God and the state do not fail to do so.

So we must ask ourselves, are people married because their parents arranged a marriage against their wishes, because they simply claim to be married, because they have a marriage license, because they had a church ceremony, because they have voluntary sexual relations, because they live together regularly having sexual relations, because they have entered into a covenant, or because God has joined them as husband and wife? When does God view them as a married couple?

To understand marriage apart from God’s doctrine of separation from the world is very much like trying to understand marriage apart from God’s doctrine on homosexuality. Today homosexuals claim to be married, they can get a marriage license in all 50 states, they can have “church” ceremonies, they can live together, they can make a covenant with one another, but God certainly does not join them in marriage for He says “to the wicked”, “What right have you…to take My covenant in your mouth” (Psalm 50:16)? Psalm 50 is not referencing marriage, but God has authority over his covenants and institutions. Marriage was instituted by God. So then, since God prohibits both homosexual and unequally yoked marriages, then why does the church acknowledge one as a legitimate marriage and not the other? Because marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Therefore, the Church argues that homosexual marriages are not part of God’s institution of marriage. If two women are not suitable partners for one another in marriage, then how is an unbeliever a suitable spouse for a believer? “Do not be bound together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14). Unequally yoked marriage is prohibited just as is homosexual marriage. If a new believer came to a pastor and said, “I’ve recently come to faith in Christ due to attending your church, but I’ve been in a homosexual marriage for nearly ten years”, what advice would that pastor have for this new believer? It would vary, but certainly it would include exiting the homosexual lifestyle and getting a divorce. Acknowledgement that this new believer has been living in a gay marriage would have to take place. In the same way, wickedness causes many people to live in marriages with evil motives and actions. Regardless of the form that wickedness takes, God cares about the people more than the institution. Just as the Sabbath serves man and not the other way around, marriage is another institution that God gave for our good. Any marriage that destroys a person is not a union that God had in mind when he said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” Marriage is the institution that God provided so that individuals could be loved and cherished by someone that they could love and cherish. Remove God’s intended purpose for a marriage and the covenant is broken. The offender has lost the right to remain married to the person they ceased loving.

Certainly if a person in a homosexual marriage wanted to repent of their homosexual behavior the church would be quick to celebrate their legal divorce, and that repentant soul would not be marked with a “D” for divorce. They would rather be lauded as a prodigal child returning to submissive obedience. But if an unequally yoked believer wanted to repent of their godless marriage they are forbidden to do so by the church and can expect no support whatsoever before, during or after they choose to obey God who clearly commanded, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 6:14). And this even after the biblical example of Ezra and Nehemiah’s last chapters depicting over a hundred examples of divorces for the unequally yoked.

From the perspective of God’s Word, if two males are not “suitable” or do not “correspond to” [Genesis 2:20] one another for the purposes of marriage, then neither do a saint and a reprobate “correspond to” one another. In fact, their ability to “correspond to” one another is less than that of the two unrepentant, unbelieving males. Nevertheless, neither pairing can expect God’s blessing upon a marriage union; neither pairing has a right to take God’s covenant in their mouth. Therefore both pairings must not fear a divine prohibition or hindrance when they later repent by divorcing their unsuitable partners. This act of repentance is welcomed by God.

So then, the doctrine of marriage must cease being balkanized from the greater doctrine of separation. Christian marriages must be as scripture insists: “Only in the Lord”. Being in an unequally yoked marriage is prohibited to all of God’s children both in the Old and New Testaments. Paul provides the only exception in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 and you can found the article on this passage in this blog.

SECONDLY, TREATING SYMPTOMS SUPPLANTED CURING THE CONDITION

Now we should like to consider how the church set out to treat the symptoms that inevitably arise in unequally yoked marriages rather than upon the condition of a believer who is bound together with an unbeliever in marriage.

Imprudent physicians, on the other hand, treat the symptoms one by one in order to make the patient feel more comfortable in their poor condition, which often leads to a declining condition and ultimately a fatal condition. By way of an example, physicians give patients one medication to lower cholesterol and a second to lower blood pressure, when neither problem is causing their arterial damage. The arterial damage is due to type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance that damages the arteries at a cellular level. The patient needs to change their diet and lower their weight. Once they have done this the type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance will get much better, which will lower their blood pressure. New evidence has shown that high cholesterol is not a problem for the heart at all, and is actually good for our overall health.

This is the case of the prudent physician; they will seek to accurately diagnose the condition as early as possible in an attempt to separate the patient from their diseased and declining condition. Once an accurate diagnosis is determined the physician can work to replace the patient’s diseased condition with a healthy condition. Having a successful diagnosis and cure the symptoms spontaneously disappear and need no treatment.

The church should have been and continue to diagnosed this condition and prescribed a complete separation from the unbelieving spouse as was done in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. This restorative action would remove the believing spouse from their diseased and declining condition and restore to them a healthy condition. The symptoms of adultery, abandonment, physical/psychological abuse, lying, cheating, corrupting, slandering, impairing spiritual growth and so many more would miraculously disappear as the diseased and declining condition (a broken marriage covenant) has been dealt with once and for all (divorce). I simply call it a necessary ending. The key is the word necessary.

To be clear, how exactly has the church focused upon the symptoms at the expense of the unequally yoked believer whose condition is diseased and declining? To begin with the church has tried to determine which, if any, of the symptoms rise to the level of making an allowance for divorce. In their desire to be consistent most churchmen historically have decided that no allowance for divorce is biblical; as stated earlier they balkanized the doctrine of separation from the doctrine of marriage in order to draw this conclusion. Secondly, the church has engaged extensively in counseling unequally yoked couples and trying to get them to “get along” better. This has so horribly missed the mark, and it should have been obvious to all who read the scriptures that such a path could never work.

Paul told the Corinthians as much when he wrote the following:

2 Corinthians 6:14-16, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belieal, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”

As it currently stands, the church has effectively deemed as outcasts all of its unequally yoked members who have gone through a marital divorce when what it should have been doing was eradicating the wicked condition of being unequally yoked. They failed to mark as wicked the condition of being unequally yoked, and they succeeded at demonizing brothers and sisters who have not only been cleansed by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but who have also taken the difficult step of repenting of their unequally yoked marriage. This next point is critical: Had the church focused upon the condition of being bound together with unbelievers rather than focusing upon the symptoms of these marriages it would have far more effectively prevented a significant percentage of these marriages from taking place at all. Had the church effectively shamed the practice of marrying outside the kingdom of God rather than celebrating such marriages after the stubborn members of the church entered into them, the unequally yoked pandemic within the body of Christ would have never taken place. The church would have been so much the better for having followed God’s path, and untold numbers of God’s children could have avoided entire lifetimes of the evil influence of godless spouses.

The church is finding out how this biblical approach would have worked as it applies it to the homosexual marriage issue. When a church follows God’s precepts, whole families will leave the church in order to support their homosexual family member. While these families think they are demonstrating love for a family member bent on sin they merely succeed at cementing their loved one into their reprobate condition. In so doing, these family members should feel the pain of separation from the body of Christ. They should sense a tug toward the world and away from God for choosing an unrepentant family member over obedience to the Word of God and fellowship with the family of God. Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword that would divide families. Why? Because some would prove to be children of God while others would remain children of Satan. This inevitably drives a wedge between even the closest of family members. Every regenerate soul has felt the rejection of this separation. Every regenerate soul has felt the familial attachment die with unrepentant family members. The exception is those who believe blood is thicker than spirit; those who have made family an idol to be worshipped.

The family makes a terrible idol. Additionally, Satan has counterfeited God’s church and dotted the landscape with false churches who will gladly open their doors and even their pulpits to unrepentant men and women, which decimates the sanctification of true believers who are drawn to these churches. Not only are their unequally yoked marriages, but unequally yoked denominations where some churches are populated by many believers while others are populated entirely by those whom Christ will deny and say, “Depart from Me for I never knew you.”

The church can still get this right. The church must get this right. God says, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers.” And “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:14, 17-18). Paul loosely quoted passages from Second Samuel and Jeremiah, but only here in this passage on unequally yoked marriage does Paul add the ladies (…and you shall be My sons and daughters). Why does Paul add the daughters? Because the great Apostle has in mind unequally yoked Christians both male and female, and Paul put the woman on equal footing with the men in regards to divorce for the unequally yoked. The Jews did not allow the wives to divorce their husbands. The distinction that Paul was interested in was not Jew or Gentile nor male or female but regenerate or unregenerate. All regenerate people Jew or Gentile and male or female were to follow Paul’s command, and all were empowered in this text and 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 to do so.

7 Comments | tags: bible, christianity, covenant, divorce, God's word, Jesus, marriage, the marriage covenant, unequally yoked, unequally yoked marriage | posted in Biblical view on divorce, Covenant, divorce, marriage covenant, Obeying God, Unequally Yoked, Unequally Yoked Marriage

June 26, 2016

How the body of Christ Misunderstood God’s Teaching on Divorce

By Josiah Portermaine

The church traditionally holds a prohibitive position on marital divorce for those in the body of Christ who find themselves bound in marriage to an unbeliever. We think that position to be antithetical to the instructions given in God’s word, and we understand that the burden of proof falls upon the outlier and not upon the larger body of believers. In order to overturn the majority view, the evidence must be found in the pages of Scripture. So then, if the church has traditionally and continually taken the opposite view of the one found in Scripture, then the reasons for the majority of Christians missing the mark should be retraceable.

Here is a list of those very reasons that have biased the body of Christ away from God’s heart, as revealed in Scripture, on the subject of marital divorce for believers bound together with unbelievers:

The church has consistently failed at being in the world but not of the world. It rarely fulfills God’s desire for believers to separate themselves from unbelievers. Those such as the Puritans who were more faithful at separating themselves from the world were closer to our view of divorce for the unequally yoked. John Milton (The Doctrine & Discipline of Divorce) being a prime example. Note: Being separate as commanded in Scripture must not be confused with separatism.
The church focused in at least two wrong directions. First, it focused on marriage without regard to the greater doctrine of separation from the world. Second, when unequally yoked marriages began to fail the church focused on medicating the symptoms (Adultery, desertion, and physical abuse, deception, corruption, etc.) rather than upon curing the diseased condition (unequally yoked marriage).
Family is near the top of any list of idols, and many Christians worship at the family alter; prioritizing/worshipping family above or alongside God. When family becomes an idol, then marital divorce damages the image of one’s idol and comes into conflict with God’s commands against being bound together with unbelievers. Justifying a stricter prohibition on divorce solved the conflict.
In a departure from biblical truth and logical reasoning, churchman transubstantiated divorce from that of a safeguard or protection to an immoral, almost unforgivable sin. If divorce was, in and of itself a sin, then Ezra would not have entered into a covenant with God to oversee the divorces of over a hundred unequally yoked marriages, and God would not have divorced Israel and Judah. Both marriage and the dissolution of same are amoral actions. Transforming marital divorce into a sin is equivalent to calling marriage a virtue. But getting into an unequally yoked marriage, a homosexual marriage, a polygamous marriage or an open marriage are abominations in God’s word. Marriage to a “suitable” (Gen. 2:20) partner and a divorce from an unsuitable partner (1 Corinthians 7:12-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1) are virtues.
The church was complicit with, if not behind, the shotgun wedding concept even when one of the fornicators was a believer and the other was not. The desire to force men to atone for their fornication supplanted God’s command against unequally yoked marriages. Two wrongs do not make a right. Forcing a scoundrel to get married does not inhibit his/her evil desires and actions; it does however avail him/her a ready victim upon whom they can inflict further wickedness.
The church built a man-made divorce doctrine upon a few passages of scripture, often out of context, to the exclusion of much greater passages and related doctrines.
The church failed to make a distinction for divorce between those who are equally yoked and those who are unequally yoked (see article on a comparison to killing).
Most of the church failed to understand the actual condition of those unequally yoked, so they shamed them for their sin deeming them deserving of the life-long “consequences” (unequally yoked marriage). Consequences that were actually forbidden by God but wrongfully insisted upon by churchmen.
Fairness or the pettiness of man: “The rest of us don’t get a do-over, so neither should you”.
Churchmen have fallen into group think and have come under the pressure of each generations’ thinking the same way.

All of the causes listed above have been explained in detail previously in blog articles except for the second cause, which is why it will be the focus of this article.

You will recall, the second reason why the church missed the mark on divorce for the unequally yoked believer is that the church focused in at least two wrong directions:

First, the church balkanized marriage from the greater doctrine of separation from the world.

Second, the church focused upon medicating the symptoms that inevitably arise in unequally yoked marriages rather than upon diagnosing and curing the disease of the divinely forbidden, unequally yoked marriage.

Before we get to these two points let us examine a brief parenthetical on the doctrine of separation. Separation is among the most ubiquitous doctrines in God’s word. We believe it to be the very first command found in Scripture. Genesis 1:4 says, “God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.” Of course, this is an implicit command, but we see it as a command nonetheless. Could it be said that darkness represented bad or evil at the moment God separated light from darkness? We argue yes, for the following reasons: First, the Apostle John opens his first epistle saying, “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). God cannot sin for He is Holy, Holy, Holy, and in Him there is no darkness at all. We surmise that God is communicating to us, at the opening of His revelation of Himself, that darkness represents that which is opposed to God who is Light. And God separates the light from the darkness. In every facet of life we should spend our lifetimes doing the same thing. Darkness is not of God.

Second, Genesis 1:2 says, “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” One commentator understands this dark, formless void to be chaos before the Spirit of God begins to bring order and light. Only after God created light did He begin to call His creation good. We can safely assume that our creator God wanted us to know He would never have left our world in darkness, formlessness and emptiness. He was only getting started in His creative work. Separating light from darkness was His first step in creating that which was good. Speaking the created order into existence was not declared good until God, who Himself is Light, created light for his creation as well. Thus darkness was intended to represent what man would soon learn to recognize as evil. Finally, all of Scripture depicts darkness as the evil domain of Satan and fallen humanity. There is no reason to understand darkness in Genesis 1:2-4 as anything other than that same wickedness and evil. Also, man did not exist while chaos was upon the face of the earth, so no confusion as to where darkness originated was necessary. Remember, God was aware of the darkness of evil prior to His creation because Satan had already fallen from grace. Also, God wanted Adam and Eve to be free of the knowledge of good and evil, which is why He forbid the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden. Obviously, God had knowledge of darkness and evil, and darkness was portrayed in these opening words of Scripture as the opposite of God’s Light.

In addition to separation being the first command in God’s word, that which Paul refers to as the “deeds of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11), are literally the closing words of the Scriptures, followed by nothing but a short epilogue, closing out Revelation, consisting of verses 16-21. Revelation 22 verse 14, “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.” Verse 15 (Note: The final verse of Scripture before a six verse epilogue), “Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.” Except for a brief epilogue, the deeds of darkness are literally the last words in the Scriptures and it is clearly stated that those who practice such will not gain access to the tree of life and will be left outside the gates of Heaven…those practicing lawlessness in the dark will be separated from the light (God).

How important must separation be if the Scriptures open and close with this all important doctrine? Not only is God Light, but Jesus is also referred to as Light in John 3:19-21 where Jesus says, “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” Darkness is clearly alluded to by the Lord as the absence of Light, “For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” Nevertheless, clearly the doctrine of separation is what our Lord is talking about. We are separated from one another when some turn to the Light while others turn to darkness. We are separated from God when we turn toward evil deeds of darkness and away from the Light.

Finally, in Matthew 10:34 Jesus says, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” There simply is not sufficient time to cover the biblical doctrine of separation thoroughly, but Christ’s sword separates the righteous from the wicked. It was the reason for which Jesus was born, lived a perfect life, died a penal, propitiatory, atoning sacrificial death on the cross, arose from the dead, appeared over a 40 day period of time before hundreds of witnesses and ascended into a cloud to the right hand of the Father. He came to justify those whom the Father gave Him. In their justification Jesus separated the children of Light away from the children of this dark world. The Scriptures are replete with passages that instruct us to do the same. To separate ourselves from this evil world and from the corrupting influence of “bad company”. “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness” (2 Corinthians 6:14)? Paul’s is a rhetorical question and the answer is a resounding “None”, there is NO fellowship between darkness and light…these are and must forever be separate from one another.

FIRST, MARRIAGE BALKANIZED FROM DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION

The biblical doctrine of separation is foundational in order to get Christian marriage right. Marriage and subsequently divorce have traditionally been balkanized from the biblically ubiquitous doctrine on separation from the world, which has led to a high percentage of Christians binding themselves in marriage to unbelievers. This balkanization has especially lead to an extra-biblical prohibitive doctrine on divorce for those who have entered into unequally yoked marriages.

We think an additional factor complicates the current situation as well. The church has not always been in alignment with the Scriptures throughout the centuries as to what actually constitutes a marriage or put another way, who exactly is married and who is not. Consider that today it has almost become an antiquarian idea for a young couple to get married without first having slept together in the marriage bed for months or even years. Too many churchmen are looking the other way as they call these couples neither married nor fornicators. On the other hand, young couples whom embrace traditional values could meet, fall in love and marry all within the span of a month until one of them decides they made a big mistake. They could separate from their new spouse and get a divorce, and the church would mark them as a divorced person for the rest of their life. So then, the cohabitating couples can live together for several years all the while engaging in sexual relations and perhaps even having children together, but when their relationship falls apart and they separate the church fails to treat them as divorced even though God and the state do not fail to do so.

To understand marriage apart from God’s doctrine of separation from the world is very much like trying to understand marriage apart from the biblical doctrine on homosexuality. Today homosexuals claim to be married, they can get a marriage license in all 50 states, they can have “church” ceremonies, they can live together, they can make a covenant with one another, but God certainly does not join them in marriage for He says “to the wicked”, “What right have you…to take My covenant in your mouth” (Psalm 50:16)? So if God prohibits both homosexual marriages (implicitly) and unequally yoked marriages (explicitly), and He most certainly does, then why does the church acknowledge one as a legitimate marriage and not the other?

From the perspective of God’s Word, if two males are not “suitable” or do not “correspond to” [Genesis 2:20] one another for the purposes of marriage, then neither does a saint and a reprobate “correspond to” one another. In fact, their ability to “correspond to” one another or be “suitable” partners for one another is less than that of the two unrepentant, unbelieving males. Nevertheless, neither pairing can expect God’s blessing upon a marriage union; neither pairing has a right to take God’s covenant in their mouth. Therefore both pairings must not fear a divine prohibition or hindrance when they later repent by divorcing their unsuitable partners.

SECONDLY, TREATING SYMPTOMS SUPPLANTED CURING THE CONDITION

Consider the analogy of a sick person seeking a physician’s care. When a person seeks medical attention the physician immediately begins probing the patient for the symptoms that have caused them to seek medical attention. The reason all prudent physicians collect symptoms is that they want to properly diagnose the actual condition of the patient. Imprudent physicians, on the other hand, treat the symptoms one by one in order to make the patient feel more comfortable in their poor condition, which often leads to a declining condition and ultimately a fatal condition.

The prudent physician, on the other hand, seeks to accurately diagnose the condition as early as possible in an attempt to separate the patient from their diseased and declining condition. Once an accurate diagnosis is determined the physician can work to replace the patient’s diseased condition with a healthy condition. Miraculously, after a successful diagnosis and subsequent cure, the symptoms disappear on their own as the diseased condition generating them no longer exists.

The doctrine of divorce for the unequally yoked believer becomes plain when these logical concepts are applied. Has the church traditionally acted like the prudent physician or the imprudent physician? Clearly the church has acted imprudently in treating the symptoms one by one as they arise in these marriages while forbidding a removal of the diseased and declining condition in which the regenerate marriage partner finds himself/herself. The regenerate partner, being bound together with an unbeliever, is in a diseased and declining condition. The church should have diagnosed this condition and prescribed a complete separation from the unbelieving spouse as was done in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. This restorative action would remove the believing spouse from their diseased and declining condition and restore to them a healthy condition. The symptoms of adultery, abandonment, physical abuse, lying, cheating, corrupting, slandering, impairing spiritual growth and so many more would miraculously disappear as the diseased and declining condition of being unequally yoked has been dealt with once and for all.

Paul told the Corinthians as much when he wrote the following:

2 Corinthians 6:14-16, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial (Satan), or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”

The church has been trying to reconcile couples who God says have no chance at partnership, fellowship, harmony, commonality, and agreement. Not to mention that God has forbidden believers to enter into these marriages, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers.” And anecdotes of keeping these marriages peacefully together do not pass the muster as it cannot be shown how much more sanctified the believer would have been had they never married or quickly divorced the unbelieving spouse and gotten remarried to a fellow believer as scripture prescribes. Or neither spouse is actually a believer, but one is very religious and people think they are witnessing an unequally yoked marriage where the two spouses get along wonderfully. But that is simply because neither are in Christ, so they are equally yoked and not a house divided after all.

As it currently stands, the church has effectively deemed as outcasts all of its unequally yoked members who have gone through a marital divorce when what it should have been doing was assisting these believers in eradicating the wicked condition of being unequally yoked. They failed to mark as wicked the condition of being unequally yoked, and they succeeded at demonizing brothers and sisters who have not only been cleansed by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but who have also taken the difficult step of repenting of their unequally yoked marriage. Calling this the “easy way out of a difficult marriage” misses the mark completely. Separation from ones spouse whom they have loved is traumatic. The pain can last for years. Had the church focused upon the condition of being bound together with unbelievers rather than focusing upon the symptoms of these marriages it would have far more effectively prevented a significant percentage of these marriages from taking place at all. Had the church effectively shamed the practice of marrying outside the kingdom of God rather than celebrating such marriages after the stubborn members of the church entered into them, the unequally yoked pandemic within the body of Christ would have never taken place. The church would have been so much the better for having followed God’s path, and untold numbers of God’s children could have avoided entire lifetimes of the evil influence of godless spouses.

The church can still get this right. The church must get this right. God says, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers.” Love them, share the gospel with them, but do not be bound together with unbelievers.

2 Comments | tags: covenant, divorce, God's word, marriage, the marriage covenant, unequally yoked, unequally yoked marriage | posted in Biblical view on divorce, Covenant, divorce, marriage covenant, Obeying God, Unequally Yoked, Unequally Yoked Marriage

July 19, 2015

Does God Actually Hate Divorce?

By Josiah Portermaine

A straightforward commandment against divorce does not exist in the holy word of God. Even a clear condemnation of divorce would be useful for the fight to prohibit any divorce actions, but that too is not found in God’s word. In the entire Old Testament not a word against divorce is spoken until the final book. In the short book of Malachi many point to the words so poorly translated in modern versions of the Greek text, “’For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel’” as all the proof they need that every divorce is an act of sin. Even those who clearly know better use this passage and give hearty approval to others to use this passage to say something it clearly does not say. Why would men of God act so wickedly about a passage of God’s word? It is done because those who passionately obstruct every path to divorce have very weak biblical grounds for their position, so they must distort biblical passages to justify it. Though it is true that God’s word clearly condemns those who use divorce to deal treacherously with their spouse it is a man-made doctrine that restricts divorce entirely.

What does the short book of Malachi actually say regarding marriage and divorce? As always the beginning point is to understand the book’s purpose or “big point”. Malachi is directed, almost entirely, at the priests who have clearly fallen into a state of unbelief—they no longer fear God. Malachi 1:6 quotes God as saying, “O priests who despise My name.” Think about that statement for a moment. The very men who were granted the task of speaking to God on Judah’s behalf hated the very name of God. This is unthinkable…it is horrible.

Then Malachi lists several sinful behaviors that the priests routinely engaged in that demonstrated their hatred of God or even their disbelief altogether. Parenthetically, God compares the priests of Malachi’s day with Levi of whom God says, “…he revered Me and stood in awe of My name…but as for you, you have turned aside from the way…you have corrupted the covenant of Levi” (2:5-8). God, through Malachi, continues pointing out some of the many ways in which the priests have become entirely godless.

Then using the synecdoche “Judah”, to continue referring to the priests, Malachi adds a transgression of great importance for our discussion to the list of transgressions against God’s law. These wicked priests were “entering into forbidden marriages with godless woman”. “Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord which He loves and has married the daughter of a foreign god” (2:11). In this passage, and ubiquitously throughout Scripture, unequally yoked marriages are viewed as acts of treachery against our covenant to be God’s people.

The next transgression listed against the priests of Malachi’s day is that they “have dealt treacherously” with their godly wives whom they married when they were young—and presumably at least trying to live faithfully in their covenant with God. How were they dealing treacherously with their Judean wives? From the previous verses we saw that they were taking for themselves additional, godless wives who no doubt appealed more to their lust. Secondly, as if that were not bad enough, they began “putting out” their Judean wives. The text does not actually use the word for divorce, so we do not know if these Judean wives were being given a certificate of divorce or not (most believe they were not). Either way as the acts of dissolution of the marriage covenant were a result of treacherous behavior on the part of the priests these acts angered the Lord God because they were wicked treatment of the women—failure to love your fellow man. Thus we have the infamous quote of God saying, “I hate divorce” (2:16).

The better English translation comes from the American Standard Version because the New American Standard Bible broke its own rules and interpreted the text instead of merely translating it. The infamous verse actually says, “For I hate putting away, says Jehovah, the God of Israel, and him that covers his garment with violence, says Jehovah of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously” (2:16 ASV).

It is the acts of treachery that God hates so very much as should men of God in every age. With respect to marriage, there were two treacherous acts these godless priests were committing against God. The first was entering into unequally yoked marriages with women who were not part of the family of God or said differently “the daughter of a foreign god”. The second was to deal treacherously with their Judean wives of whom the passage says, “…you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (2:14). The priest’s wives were faithful in their companionship, which is to say that they had not put out their husbands, they remained faithful in their marriage covenant, which is to say that they remained pure by not sexually joining themselves to anyone other than their husbands nor were they making themselves unavailable to their husbands in the marriage bed.

In the 21st century the faithful wives of these treacherous priests would be treated with the same disdain as their godless husbands because they would have the same “D” for divorce hanging over them for the remainder of their lives. Although they were living up to their end of their marital covenant they still experienced a divorce because their spouse ended up being a traitor to God and a covenant breaker to them. But those who prohibit divorce in every instance label the innocent victims of treacherous spouses as equally treacherous themselves because they have a d-i-v-o-r-c-e on their record.

I have no delusions, I realize that the permanence view people would decry my argument as slanderous to their actual position, but they are wrong to defend themselves. The outcome of their position paints every divorced person equally guilty and shameful, regardless of their guilt or innocence. They believe that every man who has suffered a divorce cannot serve as a pastor regardless of his guilt or innocence in the matter. This current state of affairs should and must be set right.

1 Comment | tags: Biblical view on divorce, divorce, God's word, Malachi 2:16, marriage, the marriage covenant, unequally yoked marriage | posted in Biblical view on divorce, Covenant, divorce, Obeying God, Unequally Yoked Marriage

April 7, 2015

In a Nutshell: The Biblical View of Divorce for the Unequally Yoked

By Josiah Portermaine

What does the Bible say on the topic of marital divorce for the unequally yoked believer? Separation of light from darkness is among the most ubiquitous commandments found in God’s revealed word. In the Old Testament God forbid marriages to “the nations”. Israelites were not to marry foreign women and they were not to give their daughters in marriage to foreign men. This command was specifically provided in a greater context of remaining separate from the nations in general. Often such forbidden romances were the cause of bringing Israelites together with the nations, but other factors caused Israel to fall into this sin as well such as security, financial gain and misguided obedience to God’s command to love one’s neighbor.

Idolatry always immediately accompanied the sin of intermingling with the nations through marriage, which is clearly why God forbid these unions. God frequently used the themes of marriages to “strange women” (foreign) and adultery with the same in order to depict Israel’s worship of foreign gods that drove Him to jealousy. God intended Israel to remain pure and undefiled from the nations, but Israel could not help herself but to become entangled with the nations through marriage which always led to idolatry. Ultimately God divorced both Israel and Judah for their adultery/idolatry.

If it is God’s will for the righteous to divorce the unrighteous, then why did God say, “For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel” (Malachi 2:16)? Any quote taken out of context can be shown to say anything anyone wants it to say. In context the priests of Israel were “putting away”, not divorcing their wives and they were acting in this treacherous way so that they could marry daughters of foreign gods. They were already equally yoked to Jewish women and they were putting them out without so much as a divorce decree and marrying gentile women. This passage should be used to defend divorce for the unequally yoked and to defend marriage within the family of faith, but instead blind guides have shrewdly allowed this passage to be seen as a sledge hammer against divorce for their blind followers who prefer platitudes over reason and biblical truth.

Again, God’s command was to be pure and undefiled by remaining separate from the nations with great emphasis on marriage. What happens to the people who transgress the command of the Lord? The best cure seen in the Old Testament is Ezra and Nehemiah’s covenants to divorce the unbelieving wives and children. Repentance is the only recourse once a sinner has embarked upon a path of sin. God’s ways do not include unequally yoking light to darkness. That which has been done, must be undone. A promise or covenant to remain on a path of sin must be broken. The people of God must importune their godless spouses for release (Prov. 6:1-5). In so doing God’s people are not breaking the marriage covenant because their godless partner has already broken the conditions of the covenant. How you ask? By refusing to obey God’s command to repent and believe in the Christ.

God instituted marriage so He has the right to set its conditions, and He has clearly prohibited His children from being in unequally yoked marriages (2 Cor. 6:14-7:2). The duration of a marriage covenant ends upon the death of either participant or the death of the covenant itself through the broken conditions. Those who restrict the access to divorce more narrowly than does the word of God deny the second manner of duration. In so doing they deny both scripture and reason as all covenants have conditions that, when broken, release the innocent party from the covenant and often call for damages to be paid by the violator. Unintentionally these legalists render the conditions of the marriage covenant void since they cannot activate the second manner of duration.

When people enter into the covenant of marriage they have no expectation of a biblical interpretation that removes the very conditions of the covenant that were included for their protection. Having this done is like being found guilty of a crime not committed and being sentenced to life in prison. Or it is like forcing the victim of rape to marry her attacker because he was the first man to have relations with her.

Getting back on track, unequally yoked marriages exist under an unlawful, broken covenant and the believing spouse is no longer bound. He/she is free to remarry in the Lord; however, they must also pay a price for their release. The price is paid not to God, but to the godless spouse. It is not godly to simply abandon those who have been made dependents. Provisions must be made until other means have been established because part of true repentance is making restitution for harm done to others. Although the unbelieving spouse has broken the covenant by refusing repentance it is the believing spouse who has entered into an unequally yoked marriage thus breaking God’s prohibition.

Even when the believer entered the marriage unsaved and subsequently became saved they must fulfill the duty of making restitution for their divorce because they are the one bound by God’s law to obey His prohibition against unequally yoked relationships. This does not prohibit the believer from receiving child support from the unbelieving spouse, but the believer should do everything in their power to make restitution. Taking their spouse to court to get everything they can out of him/her is prohibited by scripture and unconscionable behavior for God’s children. It would be foolish to think that repentance from this sin is easy.

Most seem oblivious to the reality that family is worshipped (made an idol) and has been for a very long time. God instituted marriage and family, but blood does not run thicker than faith. The marriage covenant has been treated in a mystical fashion as though it were worthy of worship itself. Motherhood has also been idolized by the church from the beginning in part because of an unbiblical view of Jesus’ own mother, yet Jesus Himself when he was told his mother and brothers were looking for Him said, “’Who is my mother and who are my brothers?’ And stretching out His hand toward his disciples, He said, ‘Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother'” (Matt. 12:48b-50).

At the beginning of the 21st Century, America’s young adult population intensely craved praise and adoration because they have been made to feel entitled by a culture of high self-esteem that places too great a value on the family’s children. It was Jesus and not the popular culture today who had a proper understanding of the place and value of family members. On the subject of divorce for the unequally yoked man of God, Jesus included wives in the list of family members that the believer should leave behind if they are not obedient to the word and will of God (Luke 18:29, Matt. 19:29, Ps. 69:8-9). And Jesus said these believers would receive “many times as much, and will inherit eternal life” for their willingness to leave godless wives and family members in order to faithfully follow Christ.

So how should we interpret Jesus’ words in the gospels that are used to argue that He does not allow divorce for those married to unbelievers? In the light of the previous paragraph we must understand that such a position would infer that Christ contradicted Himself. Secondly, context is everything. The overarching context of our Lord’s teachings was the Old Testament itself. Jesus taught Jewish people who understood that mixed marriages were forbidden. Whenever Jesus taught about divorce it was assumed by our Lord and by His listeners that the marriages in question were between two of God’s people. This was the context of everything Jesus said about marriage and divorce. The Jews called the gentiles dogs at the time of Jesus’ life and ministry…they never would have considered marrying them. The Jewish people hated the Samaritans for marrying gentiles. The Samaritans grew out of the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim and they first became carnal and later intermingled with gentiles. During the life and ministry of Jesus Jews were not entering into mixed marriages, so the issue had no need of dialoge or clarification by Jesus.

What of Paul’s words to the Corinthians instructing them to remain with an unbelieving spouse who wants to stay in the marriage? His words were intended as a temporary injunction for the new believer in Christ Jesus. Christianity had just begun. Some practical issues were popping up such as what was to be done when a person experienced regeneration by God’s Spirit while their spouse had not yet experienced this new life.

This concern exists in every generation of the church as married couples who are not in the Lord encounter the gospel and only one of the two receive regeneration. Paul is instructing the believer to remain in the condition in which you came to God. His tone and phraseology make it clear that his instructions were for the immediate timeframe. With the passing of time God will either regenerate the unbelieving spouse or the unbeliever will harden to the gospel at which time it will be clear to the believer that light and darkness must be separated once again (Genesis 1:3 and ubiquitous throughout God’s word).

Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians makes his view on unequally yoked relationships abundantly clear when he says, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Bilial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? Therefore, ‘COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE’, says the Lord. ‘AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN’; and I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

It should be Paul’s second Corinthian letter that clarifies the first in part because it is subsequent thus having the former letter in mind, and secondly because the second letter’s statement is so much more universal, forceful and straightforward. Unfortunately, stubborn men have used the former letter, that provided a temporary injunction so that time could be given for God to soften or harden the spouse’s heart, to interpret the second letter.

Reprehensibly, many preachers apply 2 Cor. 6:14-18 to single people considering marriage but not to the married. This cannot be said more emphatically; men who utter the words “We know that this passage does not apply to the marriage relationship” when speaking on the last five verses of 2 Corinthians 6 are greatly sinning, and they are doing so in order to support their own misguided bias against divorce. These men dare not call God a sinner for divorcing Israel and Judah, yet they prohibit His children from following, to the letter, the very example God Himself has set. Their sins of stubbornness and a judgmental spirit raises an holy anger within me for two reasons: It lessons the glory of God’s holy name by missing the mark God has set, and secondly, it has, for centuries, caused so much needless pain to brothers and sisters in Christ who were in need of God’s merciful provision of divorce when unequally yoked.

The bottom line is that God wants His children to be in relationships with one another. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity (Psalm 133:1)! Any believer who yokes themselves to unbelievers whether in marriage or any other relationship can expect God’s wrath instead of God’s blessings. “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the LORD and so bring wrath on yourself from the LORD (2 Chron. 19:2)? God wants all of His children to walk in His ways. Being unequally yoked is not a way of the Lord. So dearly beloved of the Lord, walk in the ways of the Lord God Almighty.

Biblical view on divorce

4 Comments | tags: divorce, God's word, repentance, the marriage covenant, unequally yoked, unequally yoked marriages | posted in biblical, Biblical view on divorce, Covenant, divorce, Obeying God, Repentance, Unequally Yoked

April 5, 2015

What Is God’s Intent With: “Till Death Do Us Part”

By Josiah Portermaine

The greater part of the church has viewed the duration of a marriage covenant in a fundamentally flawed way, which has steered believers into thinking that God always forbids divorce. This critical flaw needs to be recognized and corrected before the church properly understands God’s will as revealed in scripture on marital divorce and in particular as it relates to God’s children who are unequally yoked in marriage.

Before we get started observe and remember Merriam Webster’s definition of “covenant”: 1. a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : compact
2. A written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action.

Brief observation: A commonly held but difficult to define belief is seen in the writings of many who hold a prohibitive view on divorce. This belief or understanding could be called, “The Mystical Covenant of Marriage” because it mystifies the marriage relationship almost morphing it into something entirely different than the agreement between two people, which is its actual meaning or function.

The common belief regarding the marriage covenant has many forms, but in the final analysis it is the belief that a marriage covenant is so much more than an agreement between two or more parties. The belief has an ethereal aura about it as its possessors never reveal what exactly is meant by “so much more” than an agreement, but one thing is clear: Marriage covenants, as these people envision them, do not follow the laws of a covenant. Marriage covenants have taken on magical qualities instead of righteous, moral and legal qualities that normally govern covenants. It would seem that those who hold to this idea want to raise covenants to a higher plane were it is not required to stay within the bounds of scripture and reason. Of course, no such plane exists—covenants do not have mystical qualities. Reason and scripture are sufficient for all to comprehend truth.

Placing a concept into the unknown, untouchable realm is a ploy of those who want to go beyond what God has revealed in His word. If someone thinks a covenant is more than an agreement, then they should spell out the details plainly for one and all to see. But of course, this cannot be done because a covenant is merely an agreement between two or more parties. Like any other agreement, marriage covenants must logically function as covenants are intended to function. The expected fallout for ignoring the moral, righteous and legal aspects of marriage covenants is tremendous injury to God’s people, which is precisely what has taken place for centuries–expressly it is God’s people who have been so terribly injured by this man-made injunction against divorce for those saints unequally yoked in marriage.

One brave soul who holds the mystical understanding of covenants attempted to demonstrate how marital covenants operate by rules that no other covenants are bond under. Gary Chapman’s five points below will illustrate how covenants are viewed as mystical. To be fair Chapman is comparing the idea of a marriage contract with what the bible calls a marriage covenant. Obviously many people enter marriage with the idea that they can always get out if they so choose anytime they desire. Christians must not overreact in their response to the sins of the culture. Making divorce unattainable to those for whom God has provided it is every bit as sinful as breaking marriage covenants whenever one pleases for any reason whatsoever.

The reader will see that Chapman’s points defy scripture and reason, which demonstrates a desire to establish the marriage covenant as a mystical union that cannot be broken for any reason. We will first show Chapman’s points and then briefly rebut each one.

Chapman‘s Five Covenant Characteristics

“A covenant, like a contract, is an agreement between two or more persons, but the nature of the agreement is different. The biblical pattern reveals five characteristics of covenants.”
1. Covenants are initiated for the benefit of the other person.

“Many of us can honestly say that we entered marriage motivated by the deep desire to benefit the person we were about to marry. Our intention was to make them happy. However, when needs aren’t met, spouses can revert to a contract mentality.”

Blog Author:

Chapman first states that a covenant is an agreement, but the nature of the agreement is different. This statement is illogical. If a covenant is an agreement, which is precisely what it is, then its nature must be that of an agreement as well. Chapman’s logical failure here and elsewhere is that he begins with the premise that God hates divorce and His children can never get divorced and then builds backwards to defend his premise. Therefore his premise is both the foundation and the conclusion to his argument, which in this case is also contrary to reason.

Chapman states that “people enter marriage covenants to benefit the other person.”

Certainly some measure of this had better be true, but the reality is that covenants are enacted for the benefit or protection of both parties, and each enters into a covenant primarily to protect themselves. This is not selfish, but wise.

Covenants are not required to act in ways that will benefit others. Neither does it require a covenant to continue being a victim to an abusive person. People regularly engage in both of these behaviors without a covenant in place.

Although each partner in a covenant should be considering seriously the promises they are making they must not lose site of the promises being made to them because those are the promises that their own good performance cannot guarantee. The covenant is a binding agreement between two or more parties. Two equal parties should expect to benefit equally if the covenant is operating correctly. This balance is what makes the relationship flourish and keeps the covenant going strong. The purpose of a covenant is to protect both signatories from deceptive or wicked behavior from the other. However, no protection can be obtained once divorce has been removed from the equation. If the innocent partner cannot divorce themselves from the wicked partner, then the wicked partner has no motivation to repent of their wickedness.

Chapman:

2. “In covenant relationships people make unconditional promises.
Covenant marriages are characterized by unconditional promises, such as those spoken in traditional wedding vows.”

Blog Author:

Chapman is simply wrong. First of all, he refers to “marriage” here as “covenant marriages”, with which he apparently means to divide marriage into two classes: Covenant marriages and contract marriages. God instituted marriage and it is what it is. People either enter marriage or they do not, but two different types of marriage do not exist. If Chapman can get his readers to buy into the notion that two types of marriage exist, then he could argue that the one that cannot be dissolved is far better than the one that can be, but two types of marriage do not exist. In addition, his statement is illogical. If two types of marriage did exist, then the one that could be dissolved would be far better than the one that could not be dissolved–not merely for the sake of dissolution, but for the protection of any innocent partner should the other partner be deceitful and wicked.

Now as for Chapman’s primary proposition that “in covenant relationships people make unconditional promises” he is also quite wrong. In covenant relationships people make conditional promises.

Unconditional promises are simply untenable in a world populated by sinners. Unconditional promises sounds like a fruit of unconditional love. Unconditional love is very much misunderstood by most Christians. God chose a people for Himself and His choice was unconditional, which means that he did not choose them because of anything good that he saw in them. His choice was entirely due to his own good pleasure. Thus it can be said that God has unconditionally loved his own children. However, when God unconditionally loves an undeserving sinner he transforms that sinner by forgiving him of his sins, by granting him the righteousness of Christ, and by giving him the gift of the Holy Spirit who continues the work that the Father has begun in that person—a work of sanctification.

Note: Martin Luther’s first of his ninety-five theses was that everyday of the Christian’s life is to be one of daily repentance. God does not have any perpetually rebellious children whom He continues loving in spite of their refusal to repent. This is a picture that is uniquely humanistic. Because men do not have God’s power to transform wicked people into saints, their claims of unconditional love from one human to another will often be detrimental to the person being “unconditionally loved”. A sense of entitlement grows into a destructive self-centeredness that sees others as a means to serve their ends. Becoming narcissists, they learn to view others with contempt and expect to be served and worshiped. As can be easily seen this relationship is even worse for the person who thinks they can unconditionally love an unrepentant sinner–something even God does not do as mentioned just a moment ago.

Chapman:

3. Covenant relationships are based on steadfast love.

“In a marriage, steadfast love refuses to focus on the negative aspects of one’s spouse. Steadfast love is a choice.”

Blog Author:

Covenant relationships are based on keeping the conditions of the covenant including love.

Steadfast love sounds similar to scriptures oft repeated “everIasting lovingkindness of God”, but that’s God. If human love were steadfast, then the fall would not have taken place and sin would not exist. Covenants exist because human love is anything but steadfast. The reader must guard against being too romantic on this point. Though the heart wants to agree with Chapman the mind knows better.

Nevertheless, fallen man cannot love apart from God who is love. Do men have some great relationships? Yes, but why? Are they entirely altruistic? In a fallen world the answer is never. Not even in a fallen world where a chosen few have been set apart by/for God. Good relationships between men exist because both sides are getting something out of the relationship, which is why marriage needs a covenant that has conditions that must be met in order to secure the marriage benefits.

Chapman:

4. Covenant relationships view commitments as permanent.

“Unquestionably the biblical ideal is one man and one woman married to each other for life. As Christians, we must not lower the ideal. This standard can only be attained if we practice the fifth characteristic of covenants.”

Blog Author:

Chapman’s statement is so unbelievably illogical. When a person makes a commitment he obligates himself. Only when he keeps his obligation is his commitment permanent. But the second he loses site of his obligation or just simply ignores it, then his commitment is worthless and void–it proves to be temporary–not at all permanent.

Therefore, covenant relationships view commitments as obligations. If and when those obligations are kept, then those commitments prove to have been permanent. This can never be known up front. There is always the possibility that a marriage partner will break their commitments to which they obligated themselves. This is why God provided marital divorce to protect the innocent spouse. As Jesus said, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way” (Matthew 19:8). So then, Jesus is saying that prior to the fall commitments could be relied upon, but since men’s hearts became hard divorce is God’s remedy to protect the innocent spouses from covenant breakers–those who refuse to be obligated to keep their commitments.

Since we all live in a fallen world human commitments are as reliable as human love. God’s word instructs His children not to take vows because their word should be enough. “Let your yes be yes and your no be no.” It is all fine and good to say a commitment should be permanent, but what should the proper response be to those who will not be obligated to keep their commitments? It is unwise to reward such behavior. Wisdom dictates strong negative consequences for such. Destruction, brokenness and ultimately death and eternal damnation await these scoundrels. How foolish it is to insist God’s children remain united to them in this lifetime. “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate God and thus bring the wrath of God upon yourself?” (2 Chron. 19:2)

Chapman:

5. Covenant relationships require confrontation and forgiveness.

“These two responses are essential in a covenant marriage. Confrontation means holding the other person responsible for his or her actions. Forgiving means a willingness to lift the penalty and continue a loving, growing relationship. Ignoring the failures of your spouse isn’t the road to marital growth.”

Blog Author:

Of the five points this is the only solid one, but Chapman applies it so very poorly.

The outcome of confrontation and forgiveness is entirely dependent upon the participants. With two penitents a good outcome should be expected. With one penitent and one unrepentant soul a separation should be the outcome. And with two unrepentant souls a godless free-for-all can be the expected outcome. Come what may, confrontation will end in one of two ways. The offender can either repent or rebel. Repentance brings about reconciliation. Rebellion destroys and tears apart relationships.

Thus it is not up to the faithful partner to determine the outcome. Forgiveness can be offered regardless of the direction that the treacherous spouse takes, but wisdom still insists that the innocent partner be removed from the evil, unrepentant partner. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Chapman says, “Forgiving means a willingness to lift the penalty and continue a loving, growing relationship.” First of all, God did not lift the penalty—He paid it. Men, unlike God cannot forgive another man of his sins so as to transform him. Man’s forgiveness lies in his determination to not seek vengeance, but wisdom demands a separation between good and evil people. “Do not be bound together with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14). No matter how good and godly a man is he cannot have “a loving, growing relationship” with the godless. If you doubt this, just refresh your memory of the story of Jehoshaphat and his son in 2 Chronicles. God’s children can be loving and kind to the children of Satan, but they cannot have growing relationships with them.

At least Gary Chapman had the bold integrity to make an attempt at explaining why so many see covenants as something mystical and more than agreements. However, in so doing he removes the mystical nature and gives arguments that can be refuted, which is why most will not define their meaning in calling marriage a mystical union. Nevertheless, both scripture and reason dictate that a covenant is an agreement…nothing less and nothing more. An agreement by any other name is still an agreement, and it must follow the laws of agreements.

Defining Covenants

A covenant is an agreement. It is legally binding both by God’s laws and by the laws of world governments. Covenants are, generally speaking, legal documents that bind two or more people together for a specific purpose for a predetermined amount of time. Covenants are made up of several components.

The three primary components are as follows:

1st THE BENEFIT (or promise), without which there would be no motivation to become party to a covenant. Most people are appropriately leery of signing legal agreements or covenants because they realize that the signatories will be obligated to perform whatever they agreed to well into the future. Therefore only two types of people willingly enter into covenants: first, those who perceive the BENEFIT of the covenant to far outweigh the obligations to which they place themselves under, and secondly, those treacherous scoundrels who have little or no intention of keeping the obligations of the covenant.

The 2nd primary component is THE CONDITION(S), without which the BENEFIT would not likely be obtained or realized. When a wicked party to a covenant ceases to meet their obligation of fulfilling the CONDITIONS, then the BENEFIT should stop being awarded to that party. If the BENEFIT continues to be made available to the offending party, then the innocent party becomes the foolish party as 2 Thes. 3:10 suggests:“If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat either.” This is not a divorce thing, it is a wisdom thing. It is unwise to remain in an agreement that is injurious to you (Prov. 6:1-5), it is unwise to trade with someone using a false balance and scales, it is unwise to continue being a victim, it is unwise to allow another to intentionally or unintentionally take advantage of you, etc.

The 3rd primary component is THE DURATION, without which one’s obligations would never end. The DURATION is why there are one year leases on apartments, a three year lease on a car, a 15 year house mortgage and so on. Some people mistakenly think that a marriage covenant has a perpetual DURATION, but they are wrong. Some of the shortest covenants ever made have been marriage covenants, because as soon as one of the two parties dies the covenant is kaput. Even the best marriages will not continue in heaven.

We will briefly take a closer look at these three important components of a marriage covenant.

Much of the church has fundamentally misunderstood the DURATION in a marriage covenant. Why?

The DURATION has some aspects of a BENEFIT and some aspects of the CONDITIONS but remains its own aspect of a covenant.

**** BELOW LIES THE HEART OF THIS ARTICLE ****

The church’s fundamental flaw has been to understand or categorize the DURATION, in essence, as though it were one of the CONDITIONS. The reality is that DURATION is a distinct aspect of a covenant as are CONDITIONS and BENEFITS. All three are distinct from one another, but the church has tried to subject DURATION under the CONDITIONS.

In so doing they entirely discounted and even slighted the DURATION’S ability to add to the BENEFITS. Understanding DURATION in this light caused the church to think that a divorce is itself the breaking of a CONDITION when in fact a divorce is merely recognition and acceptance that both the covenant and its DURATION have been terminated due to the CONDITIONS being violated.

The very existence of the CONDITIONS logically establishes the possibility of a second DURATION. The obvious intended duration (“From the beginning”, prior to the fall) was forever. Once sin entered the garden of Eden, then the intended duration was changed until death. However, sin entering into the marriage covenant added a second possible duration, which is the breaking of the CONDITIONS of the covenant. Taking the hard-heartedness of man (due to the fall) into the equation the DURATION of marriage covenants are 1. Until the death of one or both parties (Death did not enter the world until the fall into sin), or 2. Until one or both parties violate the CONDITIONS due to sinfulness.

Therefore, the flawed understanding of DURATION (viewing it as a CONDITION) allows churchmen to think that an innocent partner’s divorce action, in response to their spouse’s refusal to keep the CONDITIONS, is tantamount to returning evil for evil because the innocent party in so doing would be breaking the CONDTION of a life-long DURATION. Obviously the problem with this reasoning is that the DURATION is not a CONDITION; therefore, when the DURATION comes to an abrupt end, due to the violation of the conditions, the faithful party is no longer bound by the covenant, so the faithful party does not transgress the CONDITIONS or any other of God’s laws in divorcing and marrying another in the Lord. In this scenario the innocent partner has merely recognized a spiritual reality that the DURATION of their marriage covenant has concluded due to the violation or transgression of the CONDITIONS by their partner; a divorce is the legal acknowledgement of the spiritual reality already existing.

There is one exception in which DURATION does have the appearance of sharing the aspect of CONDITION:

So then, when does DURATION have the appearance of a CONDITION? The DURATION of a marriage covenant itself looks like a CONDITION when either party seeks a divorce without any apparent broken CONDITIONS. This seems to be the scenario in Matthew 19 when the Pharisees are questioning Jesus about divorce for any reason at all. Jesus rightly understood that these religious leaders were committing adultery, under the cover of darkness, and wanted to use divorce to make their sin appear to be a legal divorce action. So Jesus called their use of divorce adultery because adultery was the sin they were committing and divorce was the rouse they had hoped to use to justify their sin of adultery.

It is very common for the breaking of marital conditions to be done under the cover of darkness, which means that nobody knows that one or more conditions of the marriage covenant have been broken. Very often even the innocent marriage partner does not know that the covenant has been broken. It is not until this information comes into the light that the innocent marriage partner can begin to think about what has happened and what their response must be. In the absence of broken CONDITIONS, and hence a broken covenant, the married couple still belong to one another and a relationship with a third party (including a new marriage) would be adulterous. In this case and only in this case the DURATION has the appearance of a CONDITION.

The DURATION can also share the aspect of BENEFIT:

And how does DURATION share the aspect of BENEFIT? The relationship between BENEFIT and DURATION is much closer than the relationship between CONDITIONS and DURATION. If the marriage covenant is beneficial, then the longer it’s DURATION the greater it’s BENEFIT. This is easily seen in all godly marriages. When a believing man and his believing wife are deeply in love with one another they never want this love relationship to end, so the longest possible DURATION enhances the BENEFIT to the married couple. If marriages were like child raising and this deeply loving Christian marriage had to end in twenty years it is apparent how this married couple would greatly prefer a life-long covenant and view such as a BENEFIT.

As another example, heaven’s DURATION is eternal. Nobody understands the eternal DURATION of heaven to be a CONDITION that man must keep. Rather all joyfully recognize heaven’s DURATION as a divinely granted BENEFIT. The CONDITION for receiving this BENEFIT for the eternal DURATION of heaven was to be chosen of God and found in Christ Jesus.

Similarly to the false doctrine of marriage being a mystical union the false doctrine on purgatory claims that the BENEFIT of heaven is not really eternal in its DURATION. Without being motivated by a false doctrine nobody in this scenario would ever confuse the BENEFIT of eternal life in heaven with DURATION (hundreds of year in purgatory first). This shows the damage done by false doctrines when it comes to understanding biblical instructions.

Had the church properly understood that the only way in which the DURATION shares the aspect of CONDITION is when one or both parties seek to exit the covenant without any broken CONDITIONS, then they could have understood the necessity of God’s allowance for divorce when the CONDITIONS were violated.

On the other hand, because the church has failed to understand how the DURATION is much more like a BENEFIT than a CONDITION they have failed to see the wisdom of withdrawing the BENEFIT (a life-long marriage) to an unrepentant scoundrel who routinely violates the CONDITIONS of the marriage covenant.

Note: It is important to bear in mind that the second way in which the DURATION shares the aspect of a BENEFIT is that it also acts as a protection for the innocent party by breaking the covenant in the event of violated CONDITIONS. If the DURATION does not end once the CONDITIONS are violated, then the marriage BENEFIT becomes an evil affliction, a curse and an impediment to righteousness and sanctification for the faithful spouse, which is why the DURATION is a benefit for the godly partner whether or not the CONDTIONS have been broken. When the church has forced its members to remain in broken marriages with unrepentant scoundrels the DURATION ceases being a BENEFIT to the faithful spouse as it has been prevented, by a dogma, from functioning as a protection for faithful participants. In this horrible state of affairs it is the wicked CONDITION violator who now receives a BENEFIT by the DURATION not being concluded or terminated.

Why Did This Happen and To Where Has It Lead?

All the research in the world will not likely uncover the precise moment and the identity of the first theologian to introduce this flawed understanding of the marriage covenant. No doubt a great researcher could likely nail down the century it began, but no single man is likely the originator though perhaps such a man exists. Common sense dictates that the prevailing understanding on the marriage covenant’s DURATION was necessarily, albeit subconsciously, manipulated so that it would act more like a CONDITION in order to avoid contradictions in the prevailing view on marriage and divorce. The prevailing view existed in part because of some strong words found in a few biblical passages that caused people to jump to the conclusion that divorce is never allowed. The following strong words in scripture have become platitudes that push the unthinking hordes into the direction of restricting divorce in every instance: “God hates divorce”, and “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery”, and “If the unbelieving spouse is willing to stay, then let him stay”.

If divorce is forbidden, then marriages cannot be covenants (Malachi 2:14) because covenants have CONDITIONS that will terminate the DURATION and thereby the covenant. In order to mesh the forbidden view of divorce with God’s word the marriage covenant had to undertake a metamorphosis. This transformation of the marriage covenant, no doubt, seemed quite natural as men juxtaposed the marriage covenant with God’s unilateral covenants, which gave the strong impression that man could in no way interfere with either type of covenant.

However, a great distinction exists that was conveniently ignored. God’s unilateral covenants were different in that God promised to keep the conditions for both parties to the covenant. This clearly does not apply with bilateral marriage covenants between a man and a woman who are both fallen. Of course the problem is that this metamorphosis only took place in a “man-made concept” about marriage–it is not real. Because this man-made concept gained wide acceptance, sadly, it has had a huge impact on God’s people. Most think that the impact has been positive, but it has been, in fact, very negative. It is always negative when men miss the mark established by the word of God. It matters little whether they miss the mark on the side of excessive liberty or on the side of restrictive legalism the mark has been missed…man’s will and not God’s has been observed. And a path of destruction many centuries wide lays in the wake. May God forgive us and help us hit the mark that He has set before us.

Biblical view on divorce

1 Comment | tags: biblical truth, conditions, covenant, Duration, the marriage covenant, Till Death Do Us Part, unequally yoked marriages | posted in biblical, Covenant, divorce, marriage covenant

April 14, 2014

It Is Lawful to Leave a Broken Covenant.

By Josiah Portermaine

People want simple answers to their questions. Yes or no, does God’s law allow for marital divorce? Yes or no, is it lawful to exit a broken covenant? The problem with simplicity is that it can be limiting or overly restrictive. Simple answers are insufficient for complicated problems. And very often biblical doctrines and the application of those doctrines are just too complex to reduce them to simple answers. Sadly, the people who want nothing more than simple answers can rely upon sloppy theologians who make a living providing simple answers. Frequently, the outcome of simple answers for the body of Christ is division. For example, those whose simple answer is that marital divorce is always a sin create a division with those who think divorce is permissible and with those who truly understand the purpose for the components of a covenant. Have you ever examined the purpose for the components of a covenant? How many components are there? What are the functions of these components? Does a covenant exist without these components? We will just touch the surface of these questions now.

When one spouse breaks one or more conditions (a component of a covenant) of the marriage covenant their marriage partner is no longer bound by the covenant because it has been broken. For example, when a married man is addicted to pornography and he refuses to get professional help so that he can escape the addiction, he is breaking the covenant’s condition of fidelity to his wife. He is guilty of infidelity by preferring lurid images of strange women to his wife. In so doing he has broken his marital covenant with his wife–forsaking all others.

Now those who define “until death do us part” as a divine prohibition on divorce would say this situation is unfortunate for this woman, but she still must remain bound by the broken marriage covenant and to a husband who is perpetually committing infidelity. They claim that she would be committing a crime against her husband and a sin against God if she were to exercise her right to exit the broken marriage covenant. They claim that her vows are broken by her divorcing her husband—vows made in the presence of witnesses and before God.

Where to begin? Those who hold to this unbiblical and illogical position should bring forward as evidence the maxim that invalidates the conditions of a bilateral covenant. Wedding vows are made by both partners. The primary conditions being spoken in the vows are to love and cherish, and to forsake all others. Only one person needs to break these vows for the covenant to be broken. This must not be defined as a mild or moderate breaking of a major vow during a rare fit of rage or on the worst moment of ones life. Intentionality and repetitious behavior is necessary for the breaking of a covenant. Grace is the general rule for out of place indiscretions. The spouse who intentionally and repeatedly breaks the condition(s) to which they vowed is the covenant breaker. The innocent spouse is free from the covenant or free to enter a new covenant with the guilty spouse. The purpose of the conditions are to assure that both parties are protected from this kind of deception. Covenant conditions exist so that both parties will be assured of receiving the benefits for which they enter the covenant in the first place.

The purpose of a covenant is to convey one or more benefits (another component of a covenant) to both parties in the covenant. A bilateral covenant, such as the marriage covenant, conveys benefits to each party; without which, the parties would have no reason or incentive to bind themselves in a covenant. The covenant’s conditions, a second component of a covenant, assure the parties will receive the promised benefit(s) or be released from a broken covenant. The condition(s) is how a covenant obligates it’s participants. People do not unnecessarily obligate themselves. However, people will obligate themselves if there is a desired benefit for doing so. Keeping the covenant’s condition(s) allows both parties continued access to the benefit(s) they desire. So when it becomes manifest that either partner is breaking one or more conditions of the covenant, then they have effectively broken the covenant itself and are guilty of withholding the promised benefit(s); therefore, the injured covenant partner is no longer bound by the covenant, as it has been broken, freeing them to enter into a new covenant with someone who is willing and able to keep the covenant conditions by providing the promised benefit.

The Believer and Their Unfaithful Spouse Vs The Church and Their Unfaithful Member

Inexplicably, the church has decided to ignore the rules by which a bilateral covenant is governed. The traditional stance on marriage covenants is to ignore the breaking of conditions. In essence, the church requires those who break the conditions of their marriage covenant to go stand in the corner for five minutes and think about what they’ve done. If the offender says, “No” and continues breaking the conditions, then the church does nothing or excommunicates them from the church, but they refuse to let the spouse excommunicate them from the marriage. When the church can divorce these offenders from the covenant that they have entered into with them but the innocent spouse cannot, this is duplicitous. This unrepentant professor of the faith cannot be allowed to pollute the church, but according to much of church tradition, the unrepentant spouse has unfettered access to their believing spouse. They not only pollute their believing spouse, but they “revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed…these are grumblers, finding fault, following after their lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining and advantage” (Jude 10 & 16). No distinction should exist here. Believing spouses are part of the body of Christ and if the church can excommunicate them, then the believing spouse can divorce them. Do these godly spouses not deserve the same protection as the rest of the church?

The Idea That Forgiveness Means No Divorce Is Horrific

Some will argue that as believers in Christ Jesus we should follow God’s example by forgiving our spouses even when they break the conditions of the marriage covenant? This of course restricts divorce more severely than Christ Himself who gave us the exception clause: “except in the case of pornia” (a term with broad meaning but surely encompassing adultery). In addition, God forgiving covenant breakers is a false argument because it is not what God does. God sends unrepentant sinners (covenant breakers) to eternal damnation—“away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thes. 1:9). God only enters into a covenant relationship with covenant keepers as divine forgiveness comes with regeneration and transformation that secures the saints in Christ’s holiness. These cannot break the covenant conditions because Christ has kept them on their behalf. For by grace you have been saved.

A believing spouse is, in fact, commanded by God to forgive their godless spouse, but forgiveness does not mean no consequences. The argument that forgiveness takes divorce off the table for the believing spouse is no where to be found in Scripture. In the same way, an argument that loving your unbelieving spouse removes the option of divorce is also unbiblical. Divorce is God’s provision for the protection of the innocent, believing spouse. Divorce is also a punitive, restoration action for the unbelieving spouse. Protecting the believing spouse and punishing the unbelieving, rebellious spouse cannot guarantee restoration, but it is the last human effort that can be made toward their restoration. Once divorce has been applied, the believing spouse can remain single until it become clear whether or not the unbelieving spouse repents and believes. But their is no biblical mandate to do so. The believing spouse is free to remarry in the Lord. The marriage covenant was broken by the unbelieving spouse, and the marriage can be legally dissolved by a divorce action regardless of who files. The innocent spouse is neither implicated nor exonerated by filing or having the ungodly spouse file the divorce action. This is why God never called divorce a sin. Divorce DOES NOT destroy marriages. Divorce was mercifully provided by God in the Old Testament to acknowledge that the marriage has been destroyed by the spouse who broke the conditions of the marriage covenant. And God provided divorce to protect the innocent spouse from their hard-hearted, covenant breaking spouse.

One of the more inaccurate statements we have heard from the lips of many Christians is, “There are no innocent spouses.” These confuse innocence with perfection. There are indeed no perfect spouses, but innocent spouses abound. The innocent spouse is the intended beneficiary of God’s designs for marital divorce. Innocent spouses are among the weak, orphans and widows who need the protection of God and the love and acceptance of the body of Christ.

God’s Covenant With His Children Vs The Marriage Covenant

The covenant that God enters into with His children is a unilateral covenant, which is to say that God keeps the covenant on behalf of His beloved children…thank God, for we could not. The covenant between God and His children is perfect as God is perfect, and its conditions and blessings are all intact. Not only does God give his children the righteousness of Christ, which maintains their good standing in their covenant with God, but God also places His Holy Spirit within them to cause them to walk according to His statutes and he empowers each of them to observe his ordinances (Ezekiel 36:27). So the reality is that each of God’s chosen children are keepers of all of the conditions of the covenant of salvation. As a result both parties of the brides covenant with Christ will receive the blessings for which they entered the covenant.

God is and will be fully glorified and shown to be worthy of all praise, and His chosen vessels of mercy will receive salvation and an eternity as the children of God. God guarantees both parties blessings by keeping all of the conditions of the covenant. Neither party must languish in and serve a broken covenant; all the while, providing blessings to their spurious partner while being defiled and derided by that same person, which is precisely what the anti-divorce crowd insists upon for the innocent spouse. Many Old Testament passages depict God decrying Israel’s (God’s bride) unfaithfulness. Through captivities and exiles God disciplines His bride trying to get her to be faithful but His efforts were to no avail. Ultimately God divorces Israel for her unfaithfulness (Jeremiah 3:8, Isaiah 50:1)). Then God takes a bride who remains faithful because she wears the white garments washed by the blood of Jesus Christ. The righteousness of Christ keeps her faithful.

God would not remain in a broken covenant with wicked Israel or with the more wicked Judah because God knows that light and darkness cannot come together just as there can be no partnership between righteousness and lawlessness. As Christ has no harmony with ungodliness or destruction and the temple of God cannot be in agreement with idols, neither can a believer share a life in common with an unbeliever in any relationship, especially marriage. Most in the church have made the tremendous error of causing man to serve the institution of marriage rather than allowing marriage to serve man.

The Idea that Long-suffering Means No Divorce

Those who claim that divorce is always a sin would argue that Christians must follow the law of love and endure their unfaithful partner with long-suffering because their reward in heaven will be great. Their reward in heaven will be great because Jesus has won it for them. Having long-suffering for the brethren, as taught in 1 Corinthians 13, is not at issue in a marriage to an unbelieving spouse. Believers suffer the imperfections of one another because it is the loving thing to do and because each one remains imperfect as long as they are in the flesh, but believers are commanded to separate themselves from the unrepentant because bad company corrupts good morals, because a believer and an unbeliever have nothing in common, because Ezra’s godly example demands as much, and because God did so to Israel and Judah.

The damage inflicted upon the innocent, believing spouse, oppressed by “Christian” legalism and the tyranny of the weaker brother, to remain in an unequally yoked marriage with the threat of God’s eternal wrath is awful indeed. Remaining in a broken marriage covenant forces the innocent spouse into an unrighteous arrangement. Their wicked spouse has broken the conditions of the covenant effectively negating the benefits promised to the innocent spouse while the innocent spouse is expected to keep providing the benefits to the wicked spouse without reciprocity or peace in the home.

These wicked spouses are even more evil than the person who claims to have purchased a new house, who has taken possession of the house, who has placed their name on the deed, who has promised to pay for the house, but who has failed to pay so much as a penny and has no intention of ever paying for the house that they are effectively trying to steal from the original home owner. In fact, if this person then gutted the house of all it’s woodwork, marble and granite, heater, air conditioner, the chandeliers and lamps, the windows, the appliances, and even striped the electrical wiring, the pluming and the landscaping plants before they were finally evicted, then this illustration of the wicked spouse would be more precise.

Matthew Henry highlighted an additional evil when he said that the children in an unequally yoked marriage will receive an undue influence from the unbelieving spouse because the children come into the world slaves to unrighteousness, which causes them to feel a greater kinship with their unbelieving parent. In addition, the believing spouse will be discouraged in their own sanctification efforts, and the children will be encouraged to sin without consequence, seeing that their unbelieving parent is more often than not rewarded for taking tremendous advantage of the believing spouse.

Another sad reality of the position that says the dissolution of an unequally yoked marriage is always a crime against man and a sin against God is that it gives the appearance of turning the unbelieving marriage partner into the innocent victim while at the same time slandering the name and reputation of the believing spouse who has kept the conditions of the marriage covenant often for years or decades without receiving God’s intended benefits, which were promised by the unbelieving spouse, but wickedly withheld. The obedient child of God is turned upon and torn to pieces by the very people (other Christians) who should be most supportive as in the days of Ezra. Sadly another occasion for the axiom that “Only Christians shot their wounded”.

By seeking a divorce the obedient child of God is following God’s command not to be in any unequally yoked relationship (1 Cor. 7:12-16; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Ezra 10: 3, 11; Judges 3:6-8; Deut. 21:10-14; Psalm 89:38-45), yet he/she will be portrayed, through the tyranny of the weaker brother, as the offender against God and man all because the church has failed to recognize that breaking the conditions of the covenant effectively ends the marriage covenant.

The traditional doctrinal view has been that the breaking of the covenant’s conditions by an unrepentant spouse is unfortunate, but it is the person who pursues relief through God’s provision of divorce that is the actual covenant breaker. This doctrinal view is unbiblical, illogical and totally deplorable. Marriage is a bilateral covenant between one man and one woman. Bilateral covenants include benefits and conditions to guarantee those benefits. Once one spouse breaks the conditions, the benefits to the innocent spouse are denied or destroyed and the bilateral marriage covenant is broken and no longer intact. The divorce action simply recognizes the offense and its subsequent damage to the innocent spouse and releases the innocent spouse so that they will be free to marry someone who will keep the conditions and provide the benefits of marriage faithfully.

So then, is it lawful to leave a broken covenant? The answer found in God’s word and by eminent reason is an emphatic YES. It is a fools errand to remain in a broken covenant. Having said that, the answer found in many Christian circles is “no”. Their advise is that you made your bed and now you must lie in it. Let the reader decide whether or not they prefer the approbation of God or the praise of men. But as for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord…all of us.

51 Comments | tags: bilateral, Can a Christian divorce an unbeliever?, conditions, divorce, the marriage covenant, unequally yoked, What breaks the marriage covenant | posted in Can a Christian divorce an unbeliever?, Covenant, marriage covenant, unequally yoked divorce, Unequally Yoked Marriage

God's Heart on Unequally Yoked Divorce

Category Archives: Covenant

How the body of Christ Misunderstood God’s Teaching on Divorce

How the body of Christ Misunderstood God’s Teaching on Divorce

Does God Actually Hate Divorce?

In a Nutshell: The Biblical View of Divorce for the Unequally Yoked

What Is God’s Intent With: “Till Death Do Us Part”

It Is Lawful to Leave a Broken Covenant.

Blog Stats

Top Posts by Search

Recent Posts

Archives

Follow Blog via Email

Blog Stats