Bro. Ostis Wilson Jr.'s Commentary

Marriage & Divorce
 

Questions Concerning . . .

(Click on a heading to read the respective article.)

 
 
 
Role of Husband and Wife in the Home

Question: Are men supposed to be lords over women as we think of it today? Would you please explain the Bible version of a man and wife role in the home?

Answer: No, I do not think that men should be lords over women or that any person whatever his position is, should be lord over any other person. I do not feel that God has given to any person the right to dominate the life of any other person. He does not even allow a God-called, God-ordained pastor over a congregation to be lord over that congregation. (I Peter 5:3.) God did not permit Christian masters to be lords over their servants. (Colossians 4:1 and Ephesians 6:9.) Neither is a man authorized by God to lord over or dominate the life of his wife.

Let us make no mistake at this point. When two people enter into marriage, both are cast into a new role different from any role they have ever been in before and their respective roles are clearly defined and outlined in the Scriptures. Up to this time they have been just a man and woman like all other men and women. But now that man is no longer just a man but he is a husband with certain fixed and clearly defined duties and responsibilities toward that certain woman he has taken to be his wife. That women is no longer just a woman but she is now a wife with clearly defined duties and responsibilities toward the man she has chosen to be her husband.

The Bible does not require you to marry. It just requires certain things of you if you do. If you do not want to come under these regulations you are perfectly free to stay out of marriage and that is what you should do. But the question has to do with those who have already entered into marriage and what the role of each partner is in that relationship. Once you enter into marriage you are no longer free to determine what you will or will not do. The terms are not optional but are clearly defined and outlined in the Scriptures.

In I Timothy 5:14 we read, "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."

The first thing mentioned here as a duty of a married woman (wife) is to bear children. If a women does not want children and the responsibility of taking care of them, teaching, and training them, etc. she had better stay out of marriage because that is the natural fruit of marriage. The next thing mentioned is that she is to guide the house. Upon her is placed the responsibility by God to teach, train, and guide the lives of the children which God gives her and to manage her house and family well so that there will be no occasion for the adversary to speak reproachfully.

Titus 2:4-5 says, "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." Here the wife is commanded to love her husband. She must do this and in so doing support, comfort, console, encourage and stand back of him in his life's work, his burdens and all of his doings. She is also commanded to love her children and in so doing she will properly care for them, guide, teach, and train them. She is also commanded to be a keeper at home and to be obedient to her own husband. The wife is to be the homemaker and to keep and maintain her house in a proper and attractive manner. If a woman does not maintain her home and herself in a proper manner and keep her house in order, her marriage is going to suffer and not be what God ordained it to be.

This text enjoins upon a wife to be obedient to her husband. If a woman does not want to be subject to her husband and have a man telling her what to do, she should leave marriage alone. The Bible is quite explicit on this point in numbers of texts. If a woman does not want to spend her time in her own home taking care of her house, she should not marry because the Bible is explicit on this point also. This is the course God set for women in the marriage relation and she cannot expect God's blessings upon her life, home, and marriage if she comes short of her obligations on these lines.

I said in the beginning of this discussion that I did not believe that a man (husband) should lord over a woman (his wife). I say the same again. Let us not be mistaken or overlook the fact that God's Word requires a wife to be in subjection and obedient to her husband. Ephesians 5:22-24 says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Colossians 3:18 says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." I Peter 3:1 says, "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;..." It is unmistakably clear that a wife is to be in subjection to her own husband and obey him. There is a big difference between a wife being in subjection to her husband and being lorded over by him. This is God's Word. He wrote the Bible and set up this arrangement and we will just have to fall in line with it, if we want God's blessings on our marriage and in our lives.

A woman said to me awhile back that she did not think the women should be slaves, and that is exactly right. I agree with that statement one hundred percent and so do the holy Scriptures. The teachings in the Scriptures on this subject do not mean that, and do not give a man the right to reduce his wife to the position of a virtual slave by taking away her inherent rights as an individual and ruling over her with rigor. That word rigor is defined as "Severity or strictness in conduct, temperament or judgment: stiffness and rigidity." Rigid is defined as "Not bending, stiff, inflexible, rigorous, harsh, severe." It is hard to think of any man being this way with the wife of his bosom. Yet some are and even plead the Scriptures in support of their conduct.

I have news for you. The Scriptures do not support you in this kind of behavior toward your wife but rather condemn you. Any man who stretches the Scripture to cover that ground will surely miss the mark and cannot expect God's blessings on his marriage or in his life. Neither does he have a right to expect his wife to love, reverence, and respect him.

Have you ever heard the saying "Every man is a king and his home is his palace"? This may be true, but let us look at it a little. History, both sacred and profane shows us the records of many kings who have ruled over their kingdoms, some large and some small. Among them have been some who have ruled in righteousness, with justice and equity, and with consideration for the welfare of their subjects. These have been much loved and revered by their subjects and greatly mourned at their death. This is the way Christ rules over His wife, the Church, and this is the way the Scriptures teach a man to rule over his wife. In I Peter 5:7 we read, "Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you." This is a great and glorious truth picturing Christ as caring tenderly for His wife, the Church, in all of her cares and burdens. This is the way and attitude in which Christ rules over the Church and is the way and attitude in which men are to rule over their wives.

In Ephesians 5:23 we read, "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." Saviour is defined as "A person who rescues someone from dire circumstances." This is applied principally to Christ; but in this text it is also applied to the husband with his wife. The way the husband is the saviour of his wife's body is by nourishing, strengthening, comforting her, supporting and upholding her, bearing her burdens, shouldering the long end of the burdens and responsibilities of the home and family, and by always standing by her as a present help in any time of trouble. This is the way Christ is with His wife, the Church, and this is the attitude in which He rules over her. In Ephesians 5:22-23, an analogy is drawn between Christ and the Church and the husband and his wife and the teaching here is that the husband is to be with his wife in the same way Christ is with the Church, and is to rule over her in the same way and attitude in which Christ rules over the Church.

In Matthew 11:28-29, Christ is seen making the Church's burden light because she is yoked up with Him and He bears the big end of the load. This is the way the husband is to be with his wife and the attitude in which he is to rule over her.

In Songs of Solomon 8:5 we read, "Who is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved?..." Here in this love affair between the shepherd and the Shulamite woman, we have represented in a figure, Christ and the Church, His wife. She is leaning on Him as her strength and support. A husband is the symbol of strength and security for his wife.

In I Peter 3:1-7 we see that the first six verses are teaching how the wife would be submissive and obedient to her husband and be in subjection to him and manifest a meek and quiet spirit toward him, etc. God's ways are equal (Ezekiel 18:25) and His instructions are well balanced. In verse seven He turns to the husband and instructs him to dwell with his wife according to knowledge and to give honor to her as unto the weaker vessel, stating that they are heirs together of the grace of life. He closes this verse by saying, "That your prayers be not hindered." I know and you know also that many homes are not godly nor what they should be. Many spiritual lives are blighted and the prayers of many are weak and ineffectual. People are unable to maintain victorious lives all because there is an improper relationship between the husband and wife.

All of the instructions in these verses give the husband the advantage over his wife, but in verse seven the husband is admonished to not take advantage of the natural advantage that he has over his wife. I may not interpret the thought in this verse regarding the wife being the weaker vessel according to your thinking. Even though the woman is more delicately constructed than a man and may be weaker physically in some respects than men; I do not consider this text as referring to that. I consider this text as applying to just exactly what is being discussed in these verses and since God placed her in subjection to her husband and commanded her to be obedient to him, that weakens her vantage point in dealing with him and gives her husband a natural advantage over her. Thus she is referred to as "the weaker vessel" because of her natural disadvantage in this respect; the husband is commanded to not take advantage of this, but to give honor to her. And if the husband will be with his wife as Christ is with the Church and rule over her in the same spirit and way that Christ rules over the Church, she will naturally honor and reverence him and delight in submitting to him.

Also let us not overlook the clause in I Peter 3:7, "And as being heirs together of the grace of life." This makes it clear that in God's sight the husband and his wife are equal heirs together of God's blessings and of the grace of life. But for the convenience of home management and family life, God placed the wife in subjection to her husband. Therefore as he exercises his authority, let him realize he is exercising authority over an equal according to God's will, and not over a person inferior to him. Take this woman out of the family relationship and she would be equal with the man who is now her husband and with anyone else and everyone else in the whole world in God's sight. Galatians 3:28 says, "...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

To sum up let us conclude in regard to the husband and wife role in the home that "Home Making" is the grandest of all occupations for women and a "Fine Art" that should be mastered by all Christian women. I saw a sign in a restaurant once which read "Keep your wife for a pet and eat here." Sounds romantic indeed but the Bible does not teach that. To eat meals out is fine on occasion and should be. A dutiful wife and mother surely deserves a break occasionally. But in the overall picture, the Bible teaches that a husband is to provide a home and all the necessary things of life for his wife and children through his gainful efforts along whatever line he may be engaged. Then it teaches that the wife is to make that house a home.

Edgar A. Guest said, "It takes a heap of living in a house to make it home." Someone else said, "What is home without a mother?" This is very true and it is the duty and privilege of a wife and mother to make the house a home, and the more attractive she can make it for her husband and children, the better it will be. The wife should seek to make the home and herself as attractive as possible for her husband make him always feel that he has a nice place to come and a nice person to come home to when the day's work is done.

I do not know why or where some women get the idea that they owe their husbands nothing, but they are his responsibility and he is to take care of them. A wife owes her husband just as much as he owes her, but just in a different category and in a different way, and he is her responsibility the same as she is his. Marriage is a partnership and the wife is just as obligated to fulfill her responsibilities as her husband is to "bring home the bacon." Neither a husband or a wife has any right to exact or expect more of the other than either he or she is willing to give in return in their respective roles. A wife has no right to require her husband to provide her with a living and support and maintain her, if she is not willing to properly maintain a nice home for him and take proper care of his children. Neither does a husband have a right to expect his wife to maintain his home and take care of his children if he is not willing to at least do his best to properly support her. The Bible does not teach any of us to expect something for nothing but rather the contrary.

II Thessalonians 3:10, I Timothy 5:8 & 14 combine to teach clearly that if either partner in a marriage does not creditably perform his or her part, it will bring discredit on the Christian profession and the gospel and give occasion to the enemy.
 

(Top of Page)
 
Whosoever Shall Put Away His Wife

Question: Please explain Matthew 19:9, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Answer: The basic law for interpreting Scriptures any Scripture and all Scriptures is known as "Unanimity of Faith." This means there must be a complete accord and agreement of all Scriptures on any particular subject. To isolate one Scripture on any subject and put a private interpretation on it which is contradictory to the general plain teaching of the Scriptures on that subject is to do violence to the Scripture which will destroy the validity of that doctrine or teaching. Charles E. Brown said, "Now we ought not to found a doctrine upon a text of Scripture of doubtful meaning. We ought to found all doctrine upon Scriptural texts of plain meaning and then interpret the difficult texts by the plain texts." I certainly agree with this statement, and failure to follow this rule in interpreting the above text has led to a general breakdown of standard on this very important doctrine.

Then what is the plain teaching of the Scriptures on the subject of marriage and putting away and remarrying etc.? Without question, it is that marriage is for life and there is only one cause for "putting away" (unfaithfulness to the marriage vow), and that if one marries another while the former spouse is still living, he is guilty of the sin of adultery before God. This is the teaching of all the plain texts in the Bible on this subject, as follows: Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39, Malachi 2:14-16. All of these texts are plain and unmistakable in their teaching and definitely establish God's doctrine on this subject. Matthew 19:9 must be interpreted by them.

My understanding of this text is that it contains two parts. The Pharisees had asked Jesus if it were lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause verse 3. This was the full extent of their question. They never asked anything about marrying another spouse after this one was put away. That was no question with them since that was common practice among them and divorce and remarriage was allowable under the law. They even had more than one wife and lived with them at the same time (polygamy).

In the first part of this verse, Jesus answered their question after discussing at some length God's original purpose and arrangement for marriage by saying that the only cause for which a man could put away his wife was for fornication. This relates to Matthew 5:32 where the same thing is stated and confirms the fact that a person has the right to put away a spouse for this cause because it is backed up by two witnesses and, according to God's Word, every word is established by two witnesses. Matthew 18:16 and John 8:17. Wife"Putting away" is all that is under consideration up to this point. Then after He had answered their question He went ahead and introduced His own New Testament doctrine that if one marries another after that one is put away, he commits adultery. This, no doubt, shocked the Pharisees and it is certain it shocked Jesus' disciples by their response to that statement: "If the case of a man be so with his wife; it is not good to marry." Matthew 19:10. It is evident these chosen men understood from what He said that marriage was a binding thing, and if it were that binding and that difficult to get out of, it would just be better to not enter into it.

Therefore, I conclude that according to Matthew 19:9, a man is permitted to put away his wife for the cause of fornication and for no other cause, and that to marry another while that woman is still living is forbidden and to do so is adultery. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus comes out very strongly on this point and says if a man puts away his wife for any cause except fornication, he causes her to commit adultery. In other words, he is a contributor to her delinquency for putting her away from himself when she is a loyal and chaste wife. God would hold him responsible right along with her for having done this thing and exposed her to this condition.
 

(Top of Page)
 
The Meaning of Fornication as it Pertains to Divorce

Question: I do wish that you could clarify the meaning of "fornication" as it pertains to divorce in Matthew 5:32. Also, other scriptural references to "fornication," such as I Corinthians 5:9-11 and 6:13, and Matthew 19:9. I feel that some sound teaching in this area is needful at this present time.

Answer: I wish I could clarify the meaning, too, but all I can do is to try, and that I will do as much as God will help me. Matthew 5:32 reads, "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Fornication and adultery refer to the same act only under different conditions. Fornication is defined as "Sexual immorality between two people not married to each other." It applies to single people principally. Adultery is sexual immorality between two people of whom one or both are married but not to each other. Adam Clarke says at this place, "As fornication signifies no more than the unlawful connection of unmarried persons, it cannot be used here with propriety, when speaking of those who are married." He says, therefore that instead of "fornication" in this place, it would be translated, "on account of whoredom." Other translations of the New Testament agree with this. Rotheram translates it, "unfaithfulness." Moffatt renders it, "For any reason except unchastity." The New Testament in Basic English says, "For any other cause but the loss of her virtue." The Olaf N. Norlie Translation says, "For any reason other than adultery." All of these translations sum up to the same thing sexual immorality. Matthew 19:9, where the same statement is made again, follows this same list of translations.

In I Corinthians 5:9 Paul says, "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators." Beck translates this, "Not to mix with those who live in sexual sin," and another translation says," stop associating with sexually immoral people." Paul says further in verse 11,"...if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator,...with such an one no not to eat." I Corinthians 6:9-10 makes it very clear that people in this classification fornicators and adulterers; sexually immoral people shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Ephesians 5:3 spells it out that fornication should not even be mentioned among us as becometh saints. Hebrews 13:4 pronounces the judgments of God against all sexually immoral people. I Corinthians 6:18 says, "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." I Corinthians 6:19 says, "...your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost...", and I Corinthians 3:17 says, "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." God is very severe against all types of sexual impurity.

I Corinthians 6:13 says, "...Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord;..." True, God put within the human body the urge and desire for sexual fulfillment, but, according to this text, that is not to be used promiscuously. It is provided for the satisfaction, pleasure, and fulfillment of married partners and when properly exercised between married partners and confined there, it is a beautiful and beneficial thing in nurturing and maintaining the love, harmony and tenderness between the two people. There is nothing unclean, nor taboo, nor dishonorable about sexual contact between married partners, and we should never think of it as such. God's Word declares it to be honorable and undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). I Corinthians 7:2 says, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." God gave humankind this urge and appetite and then provided the proper place for its use in marriage.

In this day in which we now live, there is such a broad scale of permissiveness in this area that just anything and everything goes, and every type of moral perversion is so general and widespread that people pay less attention to it and are less shocked by it than in former times. As a result, this moral impurity gains more ascendancy, and as a result of this the moral standards of our society are disintegrating and the moral fabric of our society is "coming apart at the seams." Let us be certain that God's Word still stands and the Scriptures cannot be broken, and even now God's judgments are being poured out upon our nation to a considerable degree because of its moral degeneracy, and more judgment is to come. In the last great day of final judgment His wrath will be poured out without mixture upon a sin-ruined world. The promises in God's Word which have not been fulfilled yet are just as sure to come to pass as if they had already happened, and we can count on them with certainty. This is true whether they be of judgment and wrath, or blessings. So, I earnestly admonish every reader of this article to "flee fornication" (Flee from it just like you would from a venomous serpent) as well as all other types of moral impurity.

Homosexuals are staging demonstrations in divers places and clamoring for recognition and equal rights, and I will have to say they are getting too much recognition. They say that is just their preference and way of life, to which they have as much right as other people do to their preference and way of life. The sad fact is that many people who are not of that persuasion themselves are coming to look at it that way, too. What they fail to recognize is that if it were not for the mercy and long-suffering and forbearance of God in Christ, they would all be dead as soon as they were discovered. That was a capital crime punishable by death in God's law (Leviticus 20:13). Also the penalty for adultery and other forms of moral impurity was death (Leviticus 20:10-16).

God has not changed His attitude toward these things in any measure. Malachi 3:6 says, "For I am the Lord, I change not;..." James says that there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning in Him. (James 1:17.) Numbers 23:19 says, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" This all sums up to the fact that God's attitude is just the same now as then. But He has mercy, long-suffering, and forbearance in Christ today, so that the penalty is being delayed a stay of execution. When this mercy period expires and Christ comes to judge the world, God's sentence of death (yea, even eternal death) shall be executed upon all who are partakers of these moral impurities.
 

(Top of Page)
 
Validity of Common Law Marriages

Question: There appears to be a need for the Church to take a firm stand on a couple of related questions. When couples live together as man and wife without having taken marriage vows, does God consider them married? Should we tell young people that after they have lived together after this fashion for a time, they are now free to walk out and enter into marriage vows with another because there had been no vows taken in the first instance? If a couple lives together without marriage for any time, long or short, and introduce each other as "my wife" or "my husband," are they then married in God's sight? What if one of the people living in this condition and introducing someone as "my husband" or "my wife," has been married and divorced, is the other party then free to marry after having lived for a time with a partner as husband and wife without marriage.

Answer: In the first place, I would advise this inquirer that the Church already has a strong stand against this abominable practice, and that stand is solid. I am certain that not one minister could be found among us that would approve it.

Also, let us recognize that the drift is always downward and the trend away from God and right. All righteous and clear thinking people will surely recognize that moral standards in the world are at this time very low and terrible. But they did not get this way all at once. There has been a gradual decline from one step to another over a period of many years until in these later years the decline has been sharper and more rapid. I would say that evil and moral corruption reached a kind of "sub saturation" point and the bottom fell out and the world took a plunge into low depths of evil and moral corruption. I do not say it would be proper to say it reached a saturation point. It did not. Because when it reaches that point and the cup of iniquity is filled up, then judgment will come. Things will get worse yet, much worse. So we can only say that the point reached which precipitated the sharp, steep decline into low depths of moral corruption was a "sub saturation" point.

This will give us some insight into this abominable practice we are now discussing. I can remember when I was a boy there were comparatively few separations in married couples. If a couple did separate, it was the common talk of the community. It was looked upon as something that ought not to be. If a couple got a divorce, they were just about black-listed. At that time moral standards in general were high, and the general populace demanded high standards and upright behavior out of everybody if they expected to be respected by the people. In those days people got married to stay married and had no thought of divorce. That arrangement produced a solid and wholesome society with marriage as a basis and the home as the corner stone. The female partner in the marriage accepted her proper place in the home as wife, mother and homemaker. The male partner accepted his responsibility as husband, father and provider for his family. Since divorce was a rather rare thing, the couple felt secure in each other's love, and their children felt secure in their parents' love and supervision. The parents dedicated themselves to the rearing, training and guidance of their children to make them grow up to be honorable and upright people as the major priority of their lives.

At the time of the First World War, women left their homes in large numbers to take work in the war plants and other places which had been vacated by men going off to war. This was an evil within itself and produced other evils along with it. It was a severe blow to the home and family life which was the corner stone of the society. Women worked among groups of strange men which led to improper familiarities and behavior. Also, it created an atmosphere of independence, and the woman no longer felt dependent upon her husband for support because she was earning her own income. This led to unrest, dissatisfaction and conflict in the home, and divorces became more common. Moral standards fell a considerable degree under this onslaught. The whole thing was entirely out of God's order, and His blessing was not upon it. The devil and forces of evil won a great victory.

At the time of the Second World War moral standards plummeted again to a new low and for the same reasons. Since that time the decline has continued sharply and rapidly, and the home and family life has lost its place at the head of the list of priorities, and divorce is almost as common as marriage. Oh, how different this is to what it was in the time of my boyhood and youth. It is all grossly immoral and contrary to God's law. This prevalence of divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage, which is THE basis of a good home and family life, which is the corner stone of any solid, upright, and honorable society.

Because the sanctity of marriage has been largely destroyed by this condition, the way has been opened for this that we are discussing here "shacking up" or living together without marriage which is the most abominable of all up to now, and if carried to its ultimate would be a fatal blow to the basis of our institutions. Even the upright and honorable people of the world frown darkly on this practice. I say without fear of successful contradiction that this thing is Communistic in principle and spirit, and it is aimed at undermining and destroying the home life and family ties. It is another BIG step of man's departure from God and charting his own course according to his corrupt and depraved nature. It is another step toward an atheistic and godless society. It is tantamount to man shaking his fist in God's face and telling Him, "I don't like your way, it is too restrictive; I am taking my own way from here on."

God ordained marriage for the good, happiness, and welfare of mankind. He Himself performed the first marriage and pronounced His blessings upon that first pair Adam and Eve. Right and proper marriage has always had God's sanction and blessings upon it, and Jesus gave considerable dignity to it by using it to represent the relationship between Himself and His church. Read Ephesians 5:21-32, Romans 7:4, Revelation 19:7-8, Revelation 21:9-10, II Corinthians 11:1-2 and more.

But the God who gave us the grand institution of Christian marriage and established the society of mankind upon it as a foundation, has also placed certain restrictions and bounds on it. In the first place, it is for the duration of life for the contracting parties. The death of one of the parties is the only thing that can dissolve it. Romans 7:2-3 says: "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." Again in I Corinthians 7:39, we read: "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." These two texts make it perfectly clear that a couple is bound by their marriage vows as long as both of them live. Jesus said in His teaching in Luke 16:18, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." So we see that God is very specific and positive in His instructions and rules governing marriage.

Also, He has set forth in His Word very specific rules and instructions regarding the lives and duties and responsibilities of a married couple. To the wives He said, "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." (Titus 2:4-5.) In Ephesians 5:22-33 we read again, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.... Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;... So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church;... For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.... Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband." Also, read I Peter 3:1-7, which is a very pertinent Scripture in this connection, but which I will not take the space to insert here. There are others along this same line. Oh, the dignity, honor and virtue God has attached to Christian marriage!

In order to avoid the scriptural restrictions of a proper marriage and to escape from the binding obligations and duties associated with marriage vows, many today are following this practice of living together without marriage. This is an arrangement whereby a couple may enjoy all the benefits and conveniences of marriage without being married. It is a kind of walk-in and back-out deal. The parties are free to dissolve their relationship and enter into a similar arrangement with someone else at will. And that is just what many are doing. It is a rebellious spirit, rebelling against restrictions and directions. It is producing a wicked and adulterous generation, an unstable and irresponsible society, and a society with little regard for law and order in any area of life and behavior.

As to the question of whether a couple would be considered married in God's eyes if they have lived together for two or three years and introduced each other as "my wife" or "my husband" of course, not. And if they lived together for 50 years without marriage they would still not be married in God's sight. It would be an adulterous relationship all the way through, and sooner or later the judgments of God will fall upon this thing and all who participate in it.

As to the question of whether we should teach our young people that if they have lived this way they can walk away from it any time they choose and be free to marry some good person, no, I do not feel that we should teach such a doctrine. We should try earnestly to get our young people to see the evil of this, and avoid it by all means, and if perchance some are already in it, try to persuade them to forsake that way of life and break off that relationship and to come clear of it. I suppose I could not say that such a person could not possibly be eligible for marriage. The condition in which they have lived could not be classed as a marriage because the basic elements of a Christian and Scriptural marriage are lacking. There have been no pledges given and no vows taken. Therefore, there is no breaking of a pledge nor violating of binding vows when the relationship is broken off. There is no betrayal of confidence because such arrangements are not entered into with confidence and assurance. However, I would say that such a person has already manifested a spirit of rebellion against the "establishment" and against God and His plan and arrangement for men and women, and has declared by his actions that no one is going to prescribe any pattern of life for him, but he is going to do his own thing and live by his own rules regardless of established customs and the feelings of other people. Furthermore, he has manifested a principle and has identified himself with a segment of society which is unstable, undependable and irresponsible. Therefore, I would consider such a person poor marriage material and a poor risk unless he had obtained a good, solid experience of salvation saved and sanctified and has been manifesting the fruits of the Spirit over a suitable span of time.
 

(Top of Page)
 
1958 Bakersfield Minister's Meeting (Two Living Companions)

Question: Should anyone qualify to preach or even teach Sunday school, if he has two living companions even though he is not living with either of them?

Answer: On January 17 and 18, 1958, a ministers' meeting was held in Bakersfield, CA, which dealt principally with this same question and there were perhaps ten or eleven hours of discussion on it by a sizable group of ministers. Be it known that there was not a single minister in the group assembled who felt it would be all right for a person to preach at all if he had been married to two women and was still living with his second wife while his first wife was living, and that was not even considered part of the question.

There was a wide range of views in the beginning. Some felt that if a person had cleared up from his adulterous marriage and was living a life above reproach either with his own first wife or alone as a single person not attached to any woman at all, he would be as clean and clear as anyone else and eligible to fill any and all positions in the ministry. Others held that such a person would not be considered eligible to preach at all so long as both of those companions lived. But as the discussion went on and there was a mutual exchange of thoughts and points, the range of views narrowed, and finally at the close the group assembled concurred in the following resolution:

"BE IT RESOLVED that when a person has been involved in a plural marriage; even though he may now be cleared up from it, it is the advice of this group of ministers that because of the question such involvement would leave in the minds of the people, such an one could best serve the interests of the gospel and the church in other capacities than that of a minister to preach the gospel.

"BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that in the event the pastor of a congregation is confronted with such a case and the individual has cleared up from the adulterous marriage and is living above reproach either with his own wife or virtuously alone as a single person not connected with any women at all and it be well established in the mind of such pastor that the Spirit of God is working with the individual and that God would be glorified in his ministry; that it would be left to his divine leadings and judgment as to whether the individual in the case be permitted to preach at all in his congregation.

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in general such person should be left free to work freely for God in other capacities outside of the ministry and should be encouraged to live for God and be as useful as he possibly can for the glory of God and the good of the church." (End of resolution.)

In as much as the Word of God says, "...In the multitude of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6), and in as much as there was a good number of ministers concurring in this conclusion and resolution; I feel it safe to accept this as a conclusion to this question.
 

(Top of Page)
 
 

Copyright © 2005 - Church of God. All Rights Reserved.