The man whose heart...

The Puritans often wrote of love and marriage in the context of God’s love for his people. Here are a few notable quotes.

Henry Smith (ca.1560–ca.1600) English Puritan minister in London.

“To honour marriage more yet, or rather to teach the married how to honour one another, it is said that the wife was made of the husband’s rib, Gen. ii. 22; not of his head, for Paul calleth the husband the wife’s head, Ephes. v. 23; not of the foot, for he must not set her at his foot. The servant is appointed to serve, and the wife to help. If she must not match with the head, nor stoop at the foot, where shall he set her then? He must set her at his heart, and therefore she which should lie in his bosom was made in his bosom, and should be as close to him as his rib, of which she was fashioned.”

“Therefore one saith, that marriage doth signify merry-age, because a play-fellow is come to make our age merry…”

“A Preparation for Marriage,” in The Works of Henry Smith: including Sermons, Treatises, Prayers, and Poems.

“Marriage doth signify merry-age” is often credited Thomas Gataker. Since Smith said one saith, he may have gotten the quote from Gataker. On the other hand, both Smith and Gataker may have gotten the quote from a previous source.

Thomas Gataker (1574–1654) English minister and member of the Westminster Assembly, who annotated the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations.

“…there is no society more near, more entire, more needful, more kindly, more delightful, more comfortable, more constant, more continual, than the society of man and wife…”

A Good Wife God’s Gift and, A Wife Indeed.

Thomas Hooker (1586–1647) Congregational minister and leading founder of the Connecticut Colony.

“The man whose heart is endeared to the woman he loves, he dreams of her in the night, hath her in his eye and apprehension when he awakes, museth on her as he sits at the table, walks with her when he travels, and parlies with her in each place where he comes.”

The Application of Redemption.

“That the Husband tenders his spouse with an endeared affection above all mortal creatures: This appears by the expressions of his respect, that all he hath, is at her command, all he can do, is wholly improved for her content and comfort, she lies in his bosom, and his heart trusts in her, which forceth all to confess, that the stream of his affection, like a mighty current, runs with full tide and strength…”

A Comment upon Christ’s Last Prayer in the Seventeenth of John.

Love and Respect

A husband does not need to earn his wife’s respect any more than a wife needs to earn her husband’s love. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife. Your husband might “deserve” it when you mock him, berate him, belittle him, and nag him, but you don’t marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you’ve promised.

This doesn’t mean that a man has a license to be lazy, abusive, or uncaring. Precisely the opposite. He is challenged to live up to the respect his wife has for him. But if his wife parcels out her respect on a reward system, the husband will feel demoralized and empty. He will not feel at home in his home. He will not have the sense of masculine purpose and fulfillment that his family life ought to afford him. After a while, he will dread coming home at night, preferring to remain at work where his contributions are appreciated and his talents are admired. Now the marriage has entered a very dangerous place. If a man feels more like a man when he’s away from his wife than when he’s with her, disaster is right around the corner. The marriage is already half-dead. It won’t take much to finish it off.

Matt Walsh, Facebook Post, 19 August 2022

The exception clause

I have had this in the queue for quite some time, seemingly unable to finish it. However, I am going to post it unfinished!

Matthew 5:31-32
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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.

Matthew 19:8-9
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

“The exception clause” is a phrase used to name or describe Jesus’s statements in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 about marriage, divorce (putting away), and adultery – “saving for the cause of fornication” / “except it be for fornication.”

Got Questions Ministries explains it this way:

“The meaning of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is clear. If a person gets a divorce and then remarries, it is considered adultery unless the exception clause is in effect.”

Despite their absolute assurance, it not that “clear” to all interpreters. The passage engenders much discussion and debate. For example, does “the exception clause” provide an exception for allowing remarriage after a divorce, or does it provide an exception for not calling the putting away adultery?[i] David Janzen’s assessment is more accurate than that of Got Questions.

“It is likely that not a truer word has been written in the field of biblical studies than Ben Witherington’s observation that nearly everything about the two Matthean divorce exception clauses is disputed.”[ii]

There are related passages in Mark 10:10-12 and Luke 16:18 to consider, but they do not specifically address the exception clause.[iii]

Random notes and comments on the exception clause

Verses and words

Jesus is not giving a new teaching about divorce; rather he is restating God’s original design and intent. See Matthew 19:4-6.

Words for further research. Matthew 5:32 (fornication, πορνειας; adultery, μοιχευθηναι, μοιχαται); Matthew 19:9 (fornication, πορνεια; adultery, μοιχευθηναι, μοιχαται); Mark 10:11-12 (adultery, μοιχαται); Luke 16:18 (adultery, μοιχευει). Adultery (moichao), to have unlawful intercourse with another’s spouse. Fornication (porneia), illicit sexual intercourse; adultery, bestiality, fornication, homosexuality, etc.

Matthew 5:32; 19:9. A man would not cause his wife to be an adulteress through divorce, if she were already an adulteress through fornication.

Both Matthew and Mark refer to Herodias as “Philip’s wife,” even though she had divorced Philip and married Herod (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18).

Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well “thou hast had five husbands” and “he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” (John 4:16-18). Various inferences have been drawn from this, despite the text not indicating whether she had five husbands lawfully (one after another had died, etc.), whether she had been divorced from every one of them, or some combination of both possibilities.

Baptists in England

Second London Baptist Confession

Baptists of London adapted the Westminster Confession to use in their own Second London Confession of 1689. The changes they made can provide some insights into their thinking. When these brethren built their statement on marriage, they removed the paragraph in the Westminster permitting divorce and remarriage. Westminster’s Article 24, paragraph 5 states:

Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 24 is titled, “Of Marriage and Divorce.” It has four paragraphs on marriage and two on divorce. The Second London Baptist Confession Chapter 25 is titled “Of Marriage.” It omits paragraphs four & five on divorce.

John Gill, on Matthew 5:32

…she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce: and

whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man…

Early years of church history

William Heth and Gordon Wenham extensively researched the marriage theology of early Christian writers. They summarize their research of the views of divorce and remarriage this way:

“In the first five centuries (among Christians) all Greek writers and all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce for any reason is adulterous. The marriage bond was seen to unite both parties until the death of one of them.”[iv]

Before and after salvation

Some who take a strict view on divorce and remarriage (and perhaps some who don’t) believe that the New Testament teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage is null regarding anything that happened during a marriage before one became a Christian. In his book on Divorce and Remarriage, Andrew Cornes addresses this:

Most important of all, it assumes that it is the sin (of divorce) which prevents remarriage. If this sin can be removed, by forgiveness, then no barrier to remarriage remains. This view is so obviously flawed that it is amazing how tenacious it is. If sin is really the barrier, what does the time of conversion to Christ have to do with it? Surely sin committed after conversion can be fully forgiven and removed?...Jesus does not base his prohibition of remarriage on the sin of divorce. He bases it on the fact that remarriage would be legalized adultery. In other words, he bases it on the fact that the marriage bond continues to exist despite the divorce. It is not the (sin of) divorce which makes remarriage impossible for the Christian; it is the (original) marriage. Only death dissolves the marriage bond, and therefore only death sets a person free to remarry”[v]

A marriage pandemic

One claim is that Jesus’s statement allows for remarriage when the reason for the divorce is adultery. Even if this is a correct interpretation, surely we can agree that what was a small moth hole of “exception” has become a gaping gash in the marriage fabric of modern American Christianity! First one exception, then another, then many more. “No-fault divorce” is a plague of pandemic proportions.

---

[i] Perhaps the main views fall into three broad groups. (1) Neither divorce nor remarriage is allowed. πορνεια refers to the annulment of incestuous marriages of pagan converts, or refers to the sexual violation in the Jewish betrothal period. (2) Divorce is allowed in cases of πορνεια, but remarriage is forbidden. (3) Divorce and remarriage are allowed, but only in cases of πορνεια.
[ii] “The Meaning of Porneia in Matthew 5.32 and 19.9: an Approach From the Study of Ancient Near Eastern Culture,” David Janzen, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Volume 23, Issue 80, March 1, 2001, pp. 66-80 (Citing Ben Witherington in “Matthew 5:32 and 19:9—Exception or Exceptional Situation?” New Testament Studies, No. 31, 1985, p. 571). There is disagreement on what constitutes the exception; disagreement on what is the reason for the exception; disagreement on the meaning of the word porneia; and on and on. (Consider John 7:17 may have some impact on this problem.)
[iii] Mark 10:10-12, putting away or divorcing a spouse and marrying another is adultery. Luke 16:18, putting away (or divorcing) a wife, or marrying one who has been put away is committing adultery.
[iv] Jesus and Divorce, William Heth, Gordon Wenham, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984, p. 22.
[v] Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principles and Pastoral Practice, Andrew Cornes, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993 pp. 246-247).

The Husband of One Wife

“the husband of one wife” 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6

I recently read an online essay about divorce, remarriage, and the qualifications for the ministry, focusing on the phrase “the husband of one wife.” I choose not to link to it, since the author displays a certain amount of hubris in his viewpoint that it unnecessary and off-putting. Nevertheless, this turns my thoughts to this post – not a lengthy tome, but something just to point out another option seldom discussed.

This writer and numerous others would point out three main ways to view the phrase “husband of one wife.”[i]

1. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of polygamy
2. “The husband of one wife” is a condemnation and prohibition of divorce and remarriage[ii]
3. “The husband of one wife” means the kind of husband a man is to his wife

The first two are clear enough. I think there is little or no misunderstanding of them. The third is a newer model and may require some explanation. This third view says that phrase (μιας γυναικος ανδρα/ανηρ) literally means “one woman man” or “one wife husband.”[iii] This is usually explained as referring to the kind of husband a man is to his wife – one devoted to his wife.[iv]

As normally presented, most of the writers indicate the three ways are mutually exclusive – either not a polygamist, or not divorced & remarried, or not undevoted to his wife. It seems few consider that Paul struck on a phrase (under inspiration, of course) that can encompass all the positives and exclude all the negatives.

The historical research I have done indicates there was very little polygamy and much divorce practiced in the Roman Empire.[v] However, if a case of polygamy came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When the rampant divorce problem came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop. When a situation of a bad (undevoted) husband who has managed to avoid divorce came in question, Paul’s phrase would eliminate that person as a qualified candidate for bishop.

Therefore, this brief contribution is to assert that Paul uses the phrase “the husband of one wife” to umbrella several issues, rather than present an either/or distinction that must be chosen to the exclusion of the others.

---

[i] A fourth way “the husband of one wife” is viewed, is that it is a requirement that a bishop/elder/minister must be married.
[ii] This might be divided into three camps: The husband of one wife is a man (1) only who has never been divorced and remarried; (2) only who has not been divorced and remarried since salvation; (3) only who, if he is divorced and remarried, is covered under “the exception clause” of Matthew 5:32 & 19:9.
[iii] A helpful comparison, often missed, is 1 Timothy 5:9, where the similar phrase is used of the widow (but with, obviously, the gender roles reversed: ενος ανδρος γυνη “one man woman” or “one husband wife”).
[iv] This view (usually) allows for divorce and remarriage in the ministry, though I am at somewhat of a loss to understand how one who divorces his wife to marry another is a “one-woman man.”
[v] For example, see The Environment of Early Christianity, by Samuel Angus (New York, NY: Scribner & Sons, 1915): “Divorce was frightfully common…Men could put away their wives for the slightest cause, and women could as easily divorce their husbands…Marriage lost its sanctity: it was lightly entered upon because easily annulled.” (pp. 15, 46)

Chick-Fil-A “set free”

Chick-Fil-A. I could eat there seven times a day
Where the people laugh and children play;
Oh, I’m in love with Chick-Fil-A.

Suddenly, I need waffle fries in front of me
With some nuggets and a large sweet tea;
Oh, Chick-Fil-A. You set me free.

The Chick-Fil-A Song by Tim Hawkins

According to a news report earlier this month, a Christian Dean at Rider University Resigned in Protest of Campus Chick-Fil-A Ban. Rider claimed “the company’s record widely perceived to be in opposition to the LGBTQ+ community” and their “corporate values have not sufficiently progressed enough to align with those of Rider.”[i]

Cynthia Newman, dean of the College of Business, announced that she resign, stating, “I am a committed follower of Jesus Christ. As such, I endeavor every day to do exactly what Chick-fil-A puts forward as its overarching corporate value: to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to me and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with me.”

On the heels of that, the San Antonio City Council voted 6-4 last Thursday (March 21) to keep Chick-Fil-A out of the San Antonio International Airport. (See, e.g., San Antonio City Council votes to stop Chick-fil-a from opening at airport.) District 1 Councilman Roberto C. Treviño made the motion to exclude Chick-Fil-A. He said, “San Antonio is a city full of compassion, and we do not have room in our public facilities for a business with a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior.”

The purported “anti-LGBT behavior” apparently is Chick-Fil-A’s positive support for traditional marriage, and donations to entities such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (gasp!) which also support traditional marriage. Though Councilperson Treviño said, “Everyone has a place here, and everyone should feel welcome” he and five others made it clear that Chick-Fil-A and those who support it do not have “a place here” and “should [not] feel welcome.” So much for welcoming and affirming. Just like the rest of us, intolerant people “welcome and affirm” who and what they believe in, and “exclude and deny” who and what they don’t believe in!

The case of Rider University is a private institution making a decision they believe matches their values. I disagree with their decision and values in this case. Nevertheless, it varies somewhat from the San Antonio case, which is a government entity excluding a business based on its religious values and (private donation) practices. Chick-Fil-A’s DOES NOT practice excluding anyone from buying a chicken sandwich! There is no discrimination of that sort with which they are charged. Six members of a governmental entity called the San Antonio City Council excludes Chick-Fil-A on the religious beliefs they hold regarding marriage and the charities they choose to support. Isn’t this exactly what our Bill of Rights intends to bind governments from doing? I think so; however, I believe we will continue to see an increase in governmental entities excluding businesses that support traditional Christian causes.

---

[i] Fascinatingly, despite the views of the high mucks at Rider, when the university polled students to ask which restaurants they would like to have on campus, Chick-Fil-A was the “overwhelming favorite”!

For such a time as this

Marriage is honourable in all (Hebrews 13:4) and honoured by our Lord Jesus Christ (John 2:1-2), but often seen as faulty, failing, and futile in our day. Some marry in order to divorce, and divorce in order to marry. Others abandon the commitment and covenant of marriage altogether, and settle in to the abstract absence of vows often called “shacking up.” Still others defy marriage as a unique relationship between a man and a woman, making it anything, everything, and nothing.

In 2014 Pew Research asked about “Public Views on Marriage.” 50% of the respondents said “society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children.” Two-thirds of those in the 18 to 29 age range held that view. However, marriage problems are nothing new. They hark back to almost the beginning of the world. The early chapters of Genesis teach us at least three things about marriage.

God ordained and instituted marriage. It finds not its origin in the minds of men, but in the mind of God (Genesis 1:27). “Therefore” marriage is what God says it is – man and wife, one flesh (Genesis 2:21-25). What God has put together – both particular marriages and the institution itself – let not man put asunder (Mark 10:6-9).

Sin marred and wrecked marriage. By the man Adam sin entered into the world and therefore all that is in the world, including marriage, is touched and tainted by sin (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12). There are no perfect people; there are no perfect marriages. Once you enter it, you taint it. Immediately! Yet...

A promise encourages and relieves marriage. On the heels of sin and judgment, God declared a promise (Genesis 3:15). The seed of woman – our Lord Jesus Christ – deals sin and Satan a deadly crushing blow. Within that promise is hope for our marriages. When I married, someone gave us a “Marriage Takes Three” poem. Certainly, ’true, a marriage of two, happy then to be, must add God for three. The Christian couple have the Spirit of God indwelling them (Romans 8:9;  Ephesians 1:13-15), the word of God to guide them (Ephesians 5:22-33), and the church of God to support them (Romans 12:5).

May you, Lord, bless our marriages in these difficult times.

Divorce for benefits?

Q. A pastor found out that if he and his wife get divorced, the wife would get full Social Security benefits. This would allow for much-needed extra income into the family. Estate planning specialists have advised them that getting divorced is a smart move. Should this pastor and wife divorce, yet remain married “in the eyes of God”? Is this being deceitful in order to get money from the government? Is this a legitimate way to get what is rightfully theirs?

A. First, a few related comments. Most governments set and acknowledge legal requirements regarding marriage. A marriage in the sight of God does not require government approval (Cf. Genesis 2:21-24, Genesis 24:63-67, for examples). A man and a woman who make a marital covenant to each other are married morally and in God’s eyes (Malachi 2:14, Proverbs 2:16-17).[i] As regards Social Security, I am ambivalent toward whether this is “bilking the government” and/or what might or might not be “rightfully theirs.” The U.S. Social Security system is messed up. Those who are getting money now are probably getting money that someone else is putting in right now (not “their” money that was saved for them with interest, as they may think). Some paid in a little and got back a lot; some paid in a lot and got back a little. It is unfortunate that politicians and bureaucrats have often encouraged bad behavior (e.g., better benefits for not being married) in the ways they design our nation’s aid programs such as Social Security and Welfare.

Second, regarding the action of divorce for better Social Security benefits, my answer is “No, I don’t think they should.” While a couple does not need a government certificate to be married, in this case they have chosen the government’s recognition of their marriage. When it became a negative in their eyes and the eyes of their advisers, they seek to dissolve the marriage in the eyes of the government, yet maintain the marriage in fact. They were married not only in the eyes of God, but also in the eyes of government, and now this solution of “legal” divorce engages in playing not married on the one hand, and playing married on the other hand. It is deceitful. It is telling one group of people you are not married, and telling another group you are. It is “double-minded.”

Jesus said, “let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay...” What the divorce/married Christian says doesn’t fit either the letter or spirit of Jesus’s exhortation.

Government: “Are you married?”
Christian: “Nay, Nay!”

Church: “Are you married?”
Christian: “Yea, yea!”

“Therewith [the tongues] they profess one thing and do another. Out of the same mouth proceedeth marriage and divorce. My brethren, these things ought not so to be!” (Cf. James 3:9-10.)

In a “post-Christian” society, perhaps Christians should rethink the whole concept of “government marriage.”[ii] In the meantime, it is a bad testimony for Christians to accept it when it is beneficial to us, but then reject it when it is not. Such actions are double-minded deception, which violate biblical precepts coming and going.

---

[i] Marriage is a covenant that a man and a woman make between themselves and before God. Men and women have been doing that since the beginning of time, without the benefit of the government’s stamp of approval.

[ii] That is, covenant and commit to marriage before God and one another, without any need to involve the government.

Good News from the Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Tamar and Onan, reprise

Genesis 38:6-10 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

The act of one Onan, son of Judah, son of Jacob, has given us the English word “Onanism” – Onan + “ism,” a suffix used in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, therefore related to act of Onan.[i] It is most often used to refer to masturbation (and Genesis 38:6-10 is therefore used as a proof text against such an act), but sometimes used to refer to coitus interruptus. What actually occurred in this recorded case?

The key is found in the euphemism “he went in unto.” This phrase is used in Genesis and elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse. Note these examples:

• Genesis 16:4 - And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
• Genesis 29:23 - And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
• Genesis 30:4 - And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.
• Genesis 38:2 - And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
• Judges 16:1 - Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her.
• Ruth 4:13 - So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.
• II Samuel 12:24 - And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.
• II Samuel 16:22 - So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.
• Ezekiel 23:44 - Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that playeth the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women.

We see in these examples that “went in unto” clearly refers to the sex act. Onan’s sin was not masturbation in front of his brother’s wife. Onan rejected the established levirate marriage custom,[ii] while abusing the system and using it as an occasion to enjoy sexual pleasure with his deceased brother’s wife – while he disdained his obligation to raise up an heir in his brother’s name.

---

[i] Onan is also mentioned by name in Genesis 46:12, Numbers 26:19 and I Chronicles 2:3.

[ii] Levirate marriage is marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother’s widow, when the deceased brother has no children. Cf. Deuteronomy 25:5-10. The post from which this is reprised is found HERE.

The sad irony of it all

It's best not to let your girlfriend call when you're on date night with your wife. Police say a McKinney (Texas) peace officer stabbed his wife in the stomach during date night. At one point in the evening, the husband received a text message from an unfamiliar number, and his wife called the number. A woman answered "Hey, babe" and then hung up when confronted about it.

Is monogamy natural?

Is monogamy natural? Scarlett Johansson says no

That's right. Actress Scarlett Johansson says monogamous relationships are not natural “I might be skewered for that, but I think it’s work. It’s a lot of work. And the fact that it is such work for so many people — for everyone — the fact of that proves that it is not a natural thing.”

My first reaction was “another Hollywood personality spouting about morals and ethics.” But with a little reflection, I thought, “You know, she is right.”

Here it is, in the Bible:

• 1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
• Ephesians 2:3 “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”
• 1 John 2:16 “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc.

“You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.” -- Barronelle Stutzman

In a unanimous decision Thursday, Washington state’s Supreme Court ruled against a Christian businesswoman, holding “that the conduct for which Stutzman was cited and fined in this case-refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding-constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination].”

Case: Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington, in 2013 “declined to use her creative skills to beautify the same-sex ceremony of a long-time customer, Robert Ingersoll, and another man, Curt Freed.” She believes that creating floral arrangements for a wedding is using her “imagination and artistic skill to intimately participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.” Stutzman cited her First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has doggedly pursue the case -- not just to define the law, but to egregiously fine Stutzman as well.

The justices ruled that Stutzman violated Washington Law Against Discrimination. If so, WLAD is poorly written and should be found unconstitutional by our Supreme Court of the United States. In a statement that seemed driven by illogic -- but to which they may have been driven by their own bad law -- the justices pointed out that “Stutzman acknowledged at deposition, providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism.” Duh. Her conscientious objection is not that heterosexual Muslims and atheists cannot be married, but that homosexual marriage violated her philosophical viewpoint. The conscientious objection was not to their religion or lack thereof, but her based on her religious belief about homosexuality and marriage.

A related story demonstrates how both sides can be inconsistent in their calls for freedom. In an open letter, fashion designer Sophie Theallet refused to serve the first lady, Melania Trump.

“As an independent fashion brand, we consider our voice an expression of our artistic and philosophical ideas...We value our artistic freedom...I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next first lady...I encourage my fellow designers to do the same. Integrity is our only true currency.”

This news has been hailed by the inconsistent political left as “noble,” “patriotic,” “admirable integrity.” -- “taking a stand...[that] others should follow.” This is the same branch of political philosophers who are hounding Barronelle Stutzman for her stand on her own artistic freedom. Consistency thou art a jewel.

As for me, I say let both Sophie Theallet and Barronelle Stutzman not be compelled by the government to express their art in a way that violates their consciences.

Related links

• State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc. -- “We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman was cited and fined in this case-refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding-constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD.”
• Open Letter, Sophie Theallet -- “As an independent fashion brand, we consider our voice an expression of our artistic and philosophical ideas.”
• Washington floral artist to ask US Supreme Court to protect her freedom -- “The state is trying to use this case to force me to create artistic expression that violates my deepest beliefs and take away my life’s work and savings, which will also harm those who I employ.”
• Washington Supreme Court Punishes Barronelle Stutzman. What Now? -- “After much anticipation, the Washington Supreme Court has punished Barronelle Stutzman for peacefully operating her business consistently with her faith.”
• Washington Supreme Court rules against florist in same-sex wedding case -- “Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the couple sued her, saying she broke state anti-discrimination and consumer protection laws, and the lower court agreed. The state’s nine high court justices upheld that verdict.”
• Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Russ Moore talks about the Washington v. Arlene's Flowers ruling

Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children

The text – 1 Corinthians 7:14
The context – biblical marriage instructions, 1 Corinthians 7
The subtext pretext – infant baptism

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Some words used

• unbelieving - Gk apistos ἄπιστος (faithless, without trust) that is, not a believer in Jesus Christ
• husband - Gk. 1st aner ἀνὴρ (male, husband) 2nd adelpho ἀδελφῷ (brother)
• wife - Gk. gune 1st γυναικί 2nd γυνὴ (woman, wife)
• children - Gk. teknon τέκνα (offspring, children)
• unclean - Gk. akatharta ἀκάθαρτά from akathartos (impure, unclean, not cleansed), and opposite of kathartos (clean). It is used of unclean spirits (e.g. Acts 8:7), unclean people (e.g Eph. 5:5), and that which is legally or cermonially unclean (e.g. Acts 10:14, 28).
• sanctified - Gk. hegiastai ἡγίασται from hagiazo and related to hagios (saint, holy); separated, consecrated, regarded as holy, cleansed. It can mean internal (e.g. Heb. 10:10-14), external (e.g. 1 Pet. 3:15; 1 Cor. 7:34) or separated, set apart for a specific use (e.g. 1 Tim. 4:4-5).
• holy - Gk. hagia ἅγιά from hagios (saint, holy) and related to hagiazo (sanctify); dedicated, separated, hallowed. The difference of “holy” and “sanctified” in verse 14 is the difference of noun and verb.
• your - Gk. humon ὑμῶν (your, genitive plural)
• else - epei ἐπεὶ (else, since, because)

Some paedobaptists confidently cite this Scripture as incontrovertible evidence of infant baptism. According to Jonathan Culley this scripture establishes “that God deals covenantally with the children of professing believers.”[1] In fact, baptism is nowhere in view in the text. One who advocates infant baptism can argue the text supports the view, but in the end this text will prove fatal to their view.

The statement of Paul in verse 14 is set in the larger context of instruction on marriage found in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. Narrowed down, in verses 12 through 24 he is addressing questions on the marriages of believers and unbelievers. Should Christian believers stay married to unbelievers? A need for separation because of unbelief on the part of one spouse suggests the marriage is improper and that it would be wrong for the believer and unbeliever to live together as husband and wife. Paul stresses that coming to faith in Christ does not dissolve natural bonds or blood relationship. They should remain married.

The unbelieving here is a man or a woman who is an unbeliever -- not a follower of Christ -- who is married to a believer -- a follower of Christ. Whatever sanctified or holy may mean, the unbeliever who is in a marriage relation to a believer is sanctified by that relation. It is not the marriage that is sanctified, but the person. Marriage is an institution of God (Gen. 2:18-25) and is honourable in all (Heb. 13:4). Further, whatever the marriage relation provides in relation to an unbelieving spouse it also does in relation to a child. The words and meaning are the same. If the first were not true (else), the second would not be. Else (epei) is also translated “otherwise,” “since,” “for then,” etc. Finally, this should settle once for all any ideas the believer might have of departing or dissolving the marriage (Cf. verses 12-13). It should not be done. The unbeliever would be removed from whatever sanctification received, and the same would be true for a child also.

What the statement does not mean

• Sanctified and holy cannot mean children or unbelieving spouses are saved (internally sanctified) by their relationship to the parent/spouse. This would be the works of man for salvation rather than the grace of God.
• Sanctified and holy cannot mean external sanctification. The spouse or child is not more moral or ethical just because the marriage relationship exists -- though the believing spouse/parent can be a good influence on either of them.
• Sanctified and holy cannot mean sinlessness or final sanctification. That contradicts the rest of the Bible and does not fit the context.
• Sanctified and holy cannot mean that the marriage and offspring are legitimate in a legal sense, else all marriages contracted by unbelievers are null and void, and all their children illegitimate.
• Unclean or impure versus sanctified and holy cannot just refer to original sin (inherited sin nature), or else original sin would be negated by the marital relationship.

An unbeliever, by virtue of his or her being married to a believer, is set apart or holy. A child of a believer, by virtue of being the child of a believer, is set apart or holy. Both the unbelieving spouse/parent and unknowing child are sanctified by their relationships to the believer. The unbelieving spouse and unknowing child enjoy temporal life blessings by sharing in the blessings available to the believer, because of their being in a relationship with that believer. The unbelieving spouse and the unknowing child have the same sanctified relation to the believer.[2] This relation is in the marriage covenant, not in the church covenant. In the Old Testament, Abraham’s physical seed were Israel. Under the New Testament, those who are in Christ by faith are Abraham’s spiritual seed. Notice Paul does not say that the child is not holy (hagios) but unclean (akathartos) until he or she is baptized. No, the child is holy in the familial relationship.

If Paul is making a cause and effect argument -- because of this, then this -- one parent must be a believer in order to sanctify the unbelieving parent, which in turn sanctifies the unknowing child. Else were children unclean that is, if the marriage did not sanctify the unbeliever, the children would be unclean rather than holy. So through a series of causes, first the believing parent, and then the sanctified unbeliever, the child is holy. In this type of cause and effect arrangement, the sanctification of the unbeliever comes first and is therefore more directly tied to the believer than is the sanctification of the child (which is removed by one more step). Such is not the belief or practice of any paedobaptists, even though they refer to this Scripture as proof of their belief and practice. For them it is agreeable to baptize infants whether or not the parents were separated. Paul would not use such a flawed argument to discourage separation.[3]

It is clear that this is not a cause and effect argument -- but if not, then what? In this letter, Paul is writing “unto the church of God which is at Corinth.” In his address to the whole church, he directly addresses them in the second person plural like “ye” and “your” (e.g. 1:4; 3:2-3; 5:6; 5:12) -- and sometimes including himself by using the first person plural “we” and “us” (e.g. 3:9; 6:14; 8:4). When he writes to the church about a specific grouping within the church, he uses the third person. For example, in 6:16-17 he writes of “he which is joined to an harlot” and “he that is joined unto the Lord.” When he comes to the groups of chapter 7, he writes of the unmarried and widows as “them” and “they”(8-9); and the married wife as “her” and “she” (10-11). The same manner can be observed in 7:12-13, where Paul speaks of the believing and unbelieving spouses in the third person singular -- “he” and “him”, “she” and “her”. Yet when he addresses the children -- else were your children unclean -- he does not speak of “their” children (that is, the children of the husband and wife addressed) but rather of “your” children -- the children generally of the people of the church of Corinth.[4]

Understanding this statement cues us to the fact that Paul is not making a cause and effect argument, but rather is comparing the like status of different individuals in the family. The holiness of the children is not an effect of the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse; it is a situation like it. Children are unclean with the exception of the same kind of holiness as the unbelieving adult parent has. If the unbelieving spouse were not sanctified by the marriage, it would be true also that an unknowing and unbelieving child, born by nature a sinner, is not sanctified by the relationship to a believing parent (not because of it, but for the same kind of reason). If unbelieving spouses should be cast off from with their believing spouses, then children also ought to be severed from familial connection to believing parents as well. Such is unthinkable! The whole of family and society would thereby be disrupted. As such, this is a strong argument for the maintaining the marriages of believers and unbelievers. It says nothing of infant baptism.[5]

[1] Though he admits that there “is no explicit statement anywhere in the Scriptures that infants were to be baptized or that they were commanded to be baptized.” Neither does he explain why the unbelieving spouse’s sanctification does not entitle him or her to covenant baptism. (A Biblical and Historical Case for Infant Baptism, Jonathan Culley, Palm Bay, FL: Covenant Presbyterian Church, 2008, pp. 11,16)
[2] If the sanctification of the child qualifies the child for baptism, the like sanctification would also qualify the adult for baptism.
[3] Under this interpretation the children are holy only as long as the believing parent remains in the marriage to the unbelieving parent. Ra McLaughlin, a Reformed believer and an advocate of infant baptism, recognizes this problem, writing “But the odd thing about both these arguments is that they make the children’s holiness dependent upon the marital status of their parents rather than on the children’s participation in the covenant community.” (Holy Children of Unbelievers)
[4] “Your children” refers to the children of all Corinthian believers, not just children of a mixed marriage between a believer and an unbeliever.
[5] According to John Leadley Dagg in A Decisive Argument Against Infant Baptism: Furnished by One of Its Own Proof-texts, Paul’s insight here provides proof that infant baptism was not practiced by the church at Corinth. For example, he writes, “The church at Corinth was a Pedobaptist church, or it was not. If it was a Pedobaptist church, the argument of Paul was invalid; because it was based on the false assumption, that the children sealed with the seal of God’s covenant, dedicated to Him in the holy rite of baptism, and admitted within the pale of the church, were in like circumstances with unbelieving and unbaptized adults, who were out of the covenant, and out of the church. But Paul did not use an invalid argument: therefore this church was not Pedobaptist; and the same must be true of all the churches planted by the Apostles, since they were, doubtless, all similarly organized.” (A Decisive Argument Against Infant Baptism [1850] in Tracts on Important Subjects, Charleston SC: Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1854, p. 50) Similarly Anders Wiberg writes, “...if infant baptism had been introduced by the Apostle into the Corinthian church, he could not, under any circumstances, have questioned whether the children might not have been “unclean,” because baptism would have made them "holy.” (Christian Baptism: Set Forth in the Words of the Bible, (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, n.d., p. 166)

“Taboo” marriage practice

My Georgia ancestors were 26 years old and 16 years old when they married. They lived together in holy matrimony, apparently peacefully and happily, until his death in 1864. Their marriage resulted in 8 children who helped populate the Oak Flat community of East Texas. Many of our genealogies look something like that, and sometimes that beloved grandmother and great-grandmother was even younger than that when she married.

Lisa Suhay of The Christian Science Monitor reports on several states trying to outlaw a ‘taboo’ marriage practice, writing “In the state of Virginia, a 13-year-old child can legally marry an adult twice her age, and all that’s needed is a clerk’s consent, provided she is pregnant and has parental consent.” She points out that many states allow exemptions (usually with parental or judicial consent) below their standard marriage age limits. Some lobbyists, including the National Organization for Women, have set their sights on outlawing these kinds of exceptions in all 50 states, claiming they support “physical, psychological, sexual, and economic abuse.” The emotional appeal to our current societal state of mind is on the side of these lobbyists, and they seemingly have the facts as well.

Marriage at 12 or 13 doesn’t seem advisable to me, and I recognize that there are specific arranged marriages that children are forced into which include lifelong abuse. On the other hand, there are plenty of marriages into which both parties enter willingly – and at a legal adult age – in which one party (or both) suffers lifelong abuse. Arranged marriages have a long and respectable history, and can result in lifelong stability and happiness. Abraham arranged a marriage for his son Isaac, in which Abraham and (mainly) his servant were the parties who arranged it (interestingly, in this case, the woman had a choice of whether to accept the proposal). Our current American system based on love-struck feelings can also culminate in lifelong stability and happiness – but there are as many wrecked lives in its wake as in the system of arranged marriages.

Suhay quotes Jeanne Smoot saying “The data shows it’s girls under the age 18, including some who are well under age 15, being married to adults and one-third of the time that adult is over 21.” Unfortunately, the article (and movement) seems long on data of how many and how old, but short on data of how these marriages turn out. Those who are against it can point to how some have turned out badly, where are the references to those that are successful? There are marriages under the legal exceptions that turn out badly, but what percentage of the whole are they? Are lawmakers throwing out the baby with the bathwater? And have they asked what are the unintended consequences of no exceptions?

It strikes me as a strange approach from groups like the National Organization for Women, who promote for a woman’s right over her own body for abortions – even promoting sexual promiscuity in teenagers – and yet want the state to take over the right in these exceptional cases. In broader context, some of these protest groups give the aura that marriage as an institution is a form of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. If N.O.W. had their way, I’m sure they would not have let Mary marry Joseph!

Marlena Hartz with the Tahirih Justice Center says, “Child pregnancy should trigger alarm bells, not wedding bells.” I can agree with that. It is a good thing to discourage and prevent as much as is possible both child sexual activity and child pregnancy. In cases of rape, the rapist should be imprisoned rather than being allowed to marry the victim. But I also find it a little unusual and unbelievable that hordes of child rapists are trying to marry their victims. I’d like to see proof beyond what was submitted. (Yes, if the person is underage and pregnant, they have been raped, whether statutorily or otherwise). It is furthermore not true that all cases of exceptional marriage include underage girls who are pregnant.

We should discourage teenage sexual activity and child marriages. We should discourage all sexual activity outside of marriage. We should prosecute and punish rapists. In our haste to succeed in these areas, let’s not produce unforeseeable and unintended consequences by disallowing all exceptions. The parents and the legal system looking at specific cases should usually provide the needed protection for exceptional marriages. If not, let’s see why it doesn’t and address those problems in a less invasive way to outlawing it altogether.

Four complementarian connectives

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• Complementarianism as a Worldview -- "People today have increasingly little understanding of the goodness and purpose of the body. They have been trained to view manhood and womanhood as under suspicion."
• Complementarianism in the Gray Areas -- "Some people with complementarian convictions may have questions in what might be called “gray areas”."
• Four Truths About Complementarian Marriage -- "We need to declare the equality and delineate the difference and celebrate both, because together they display God’s glory more fully."
• I’m A Submissive, Christian Wife And My Marriage Is Blazin’ Hot -- "My husband and I have a fairly traditional marriage."