Can a Christian Remarry If an Unbelieving Spouse Deserts the Marriage?

One of the hotter topics under discussion in the church is this:  is a Christian allowed to remarry if an unbelieving spouse deserts the marriage?  The discussion centers around 1 Corinthians 7:15:  “ But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”  Not enslaved?  What does this mean?

Let Matthew Henry speak to this:

But, though a believing wife or husband should not separate from an unbelieving mate, yet if the unbelieving relative desert the believer, and no means can reconcile to a cohabitation, in such a case a brother or sister is not in bondage (v. 15), not tied up to the unreasonable humour, and bound servilely to follow or cleave to the malicious deserter, or not bound to live unmarried after all proper means for reconciliation have been tried, at least of the deserter contract another marriage or be guilty of adultery, which was a very easy supposition, because a very common instance among the heathen inhabitants of Corinth. In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage-covenant as death itself. For how is it possible that the two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to part from or put away the other? Indeed, the deserter seems still bound by the matrimonial contract; and therefore the apostle says (v. 11), If the woman depart from her husband upon the account of his infidelity, let her remain unmarried. But the deserted party seems to be left more at liberty (I mean supposing all the proper means have been used to reclaim the deserter, and other circumstances make it necessary) to marry another person. It does not seem reasonable that they should be still bound, when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts, through the mere fault of their mate: in such a case marriage would be a state of servitude indeed. But, whatever liberty be indulged Christians in such a case as this, they are not allowed, for the mere infidelity of a husband or wife, to separate; but, if the unbeliever be willing, they should continue in the relation, and cohabit as those who are thus related. This is the apostle’s general direction.

What’s An “Alternative Lifestyle” Today? You’d Be Surprised

David Wise won USA Olympic gold.  But his personal life deemed by NBC as an “alternative lifestyle” caught much attention.  What was that lifestyle?

He’s in his early 20’s, married, with a child, goes to church, and has aspirations of being a pastor one day.

David Wise is at the top of his sport. He’s always smiling among his friends and competitors, however, he’s not like the rest of the field. He is mature.

Not to say the rest of the freestyle skiers of halfpipe are not mature, but Wise is mature far beyond his years. At only twenty-three years old, he has a wife, Alexander, who was waiting patiently in the crowd, and together they have a two-year-old daughter waiting for them to return to their home in Reno, Nevada.

As you read, you see another quote, “At age 23, he has the lifestyle of an adult.”  Last I check, 23 is classified as an adult, but since so many are staying “younger” nowadays and marrying later, no wonder this writer finds Wise so fascinating.  He has something most young 20-somethings don’t have…

Maturity.

I think my lifestyle — the fact that I have a little girl to take care of and a wife — really takes the pressure off of my skiing, because first and foremost I have to be a good husband and father. . . . When you’re out there skiing for something bigger than just yourself, it just takes a lot of the pressure off for me. I’m happy and content, fulfilled. I have an amazing life outside of skiing. I don’t have to perform at any time, I just get to go out and do what I enjoy doing.

Maturity… and perspective.  At 23.

No wonder that’s considered so ‘alternative.’

(HT: The Federalist)

From Moral Majority to Missional Minority—A Good Thing

Today, the Supreme Court issued its ruling regarding various issues regarding same-sex marriage.  The 5-4 rulings were as follows:

• They ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, signed by President Clinton in 1996) unconstitutional.  The ruling states that DOMA wrongly, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.”
• They dismissed an appeal of Court of Appeals overturn of Proposition 8, which under California would exclusively define marriage as between a man and a woman.  Chief Justice John Roberts:  ““We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend a state statute when state officials have chosen not to.”
• As a result of striking down DOMA, the so-called “same-sex” marriages may now receive federal benefits—but only in states where this type of ‘marriage’ is legal. 

Justice Antonin Scalia, in dissenting remarks, wrote: 

“Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.”

Yes, the ruling was limited, but the ruling spoke volumes.  Congress passed DOMA, the voters of California passed Proposition 8—but now the tone of law has shifted.

Trevin Wax recently published an article entitled “Why Gay Marriage is Good (and Bad) for the Church.”  I borrowed a phrase from this article to use as the title of this blogpost because I couldn’t do better and I like the attitude.  In addressing the threats this ruling brings to religious liberty, he gives the good news and the bad news:

The bad news: As the norm of marriage shifts, individual Christians will find themselves in situations where they face penalties for refusing to violate their conscience. We’ve already seen this take place when Christian caterers, for example, feel conflicted about taking part in a same-sex wedding. Threats to religious liberty are not good news for the church, because they cause us to spend time and energy in preserving “space” for us to live according to our religious convictions without fear of reprisal.

The good news: These threats may bring about in the church a much-needed change of mindset. It’s time we recognized we are no longer the “moral majority” and embrace our identity as the “missional minority.”

My friends in Great Britain and Romania tell me it’s a noble task to serve Christ when you are clearly in the minority. Though the challenges often seem insurmountable, God’s people have the opportunity to learn how to love those who oppose us, to serve and suffer under governmental or cultural bigotry, and face hatred with respect and kindness. So let’s recognize our minority status and learn to serve those who we’re called to show God’s love.

We do not have a seat at the political table as we once did.  We may have been a majority, and leveraged that to believe we were right because more believed in biblical principles and morality.  For that reason, many identified as believers because it was culturally expedient.  It was considered a ‘winning team.’

No longer.

And for that, I’m glad.

We do not follow Christ because of any man-made perception of popularity.  We must follow Christ in spite of being a minority.  Our faith in the eternal, virgin-born, perfect, crucified, risen, and ascended Lord Jesus will become more powerful and potent because for a change it may actually come at a cost.  We have an opportunity to step outside the church walls and show the world what it’s like, following Jesus and trusting in His Word.

Missional minority!  Yes, Trevin—I’m bringing that saying on-board.  For that, I thank you!

Beware Before You Share: Starbucks, Worldviews, and Jumping to Conclusions

Across the Facebook landscape, I came across a ‘share’ in my newsfeed that said, “Starbucks CEO: If You Support Traditional Marriage, We Don’t Want Your Business.”  In fact, many others who are friends of mine brought this to my attention, with the understanding that if this is what Starbucks believes and thinks, we shall take our business elsewhere. (I confess, I even forwarded this article before I read the whole thing.)

But let’s notice something about this article.

1. The title in the headline by Victor Medina (at the website “Restoring Liberty: Published by Joe Miller) does not contain quotes, meaning that Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks, did not say this.  This serves as an example of journalists who use this tactic to get traffic.  It worked.  But the problem is, Schultz did not say this exactly.  Beware of jumping to conclusions.
   
2. As you read the article, which links to the original Forbes.com article, you see that, yes, Schultz does hold to the same-sex ‘marriage’ agenda, we see the true thrust of the article.  Schultz was confronted by a shareholder who had a problem with Schultz gay ‘marriage’ stance, and this led to a decline in profits.  The article points to a Huffington Post article noting that the shareholder, Tom Strobhar, the founder of the anti-gay marriage Corporate Morality Action Center.  The article does not say whether Strobhar’s issue was with the moral stance or the financial profits (or lack thereof).
3. In response, Schultz gives the figures, acknowledging the boycott by Starbucks customers and the affect it had on profits.  But he went on:  ““Not every decision is an economic decision. Despite the fact that you recite statistics that are narrow in time, we did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year. I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months. Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds.”
4. At the end of the day, Schultz response was to this particular shareholder and all shareholders, concluding:  “If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.”  I hope you can see that this is different than saying, “Traditional marriage advocates are not welcomed at Starbucks.”  He’s saying, “This is where we stand.  If you are investing in this company and do not agree with this stance, you are welcomed to invest elsewhere.”  This is in essence what traditional marriage advocate companies such as Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A, and Domino’s say as well–this is where they stand.

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on, we must beware before you share. Take time to read through an article before you jump to conclusions.  If Howard Schultz’s stand is something you as a consumer do not agree with, sure, let them know with your patronage (or lack thereof) where you stand.  And he is doubling down on his stance in this matter.

Let’s just make sure we are conveying accurately what’s being said so we have the whole picture.

Republican Rob Portman Now Supports So-Called “Same-Sex” Marriage

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)

²⁵ Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, ²⁶ “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. ²⁷ Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple (Jesus Christ, recorded in Luke 14:25-27).

Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman, who previously supported traditional, male-female marriage, now supports so-called same-sex ‘marriage.’  Portman’s article is a heartfelt article outlining his journey and this change of stance is what many families will deal with in the future, but in their homes and in reconciling what Scripture says on the matter over and against at times their feelings in interpreting Scripture.

The first item he mentions is the closeness of the issue that arose in regard to his family:

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

His love for his son served as the catalyst for the switch of stance.  God instills in every mother and father wants to see their children happy–and I believe Portman truly loves his son to come around to this conviction.  Yet, the God of the Bible that Portman has testified to believe in and serve says some very different things in His Word.  Now how this reconciled with the Christian faith Portman says he holds?

I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

Again, we see the importance of hermeneutics even in the Christian community–that is, properly interpreting the Scriptures.  God is a God of love, but that God has boundaries that He himself has set up for our provision and our protection, even on the issues of sexual relationships.  The overarching themes in Scripture are that of holiness, in which God’s love and justice come together.   For too many, God’s purpose is to make one happy–but that can be the very worst thing that can happen–not simply in this area, but in any area.  In this case, it seems that his son’s well-being means more than even what God says.  By him reacting to his son’s revelation this way, it showed that the Scriptures Portman claimed to follow were selectively followed up until this point–as what happens to so many others in churches:  we claim to know and believe the Bible, but is it really a Bible of our own making, or the unvarnished Word of Truth that must remake us?

Not everyone in the gay-advocate community sees this as entirely positive.  Kenneth Walsh of the Huffington Post gives some insight into how Portman’s switch of stance is received:

While I would like to say that it makes me happy to have the first Republican senator come out in support of marriage equality, I am having a difficult time getting past the whole “I need this EXACT situation to affect me PERSONALLY before I can do anything” mentality that seems to persist in the halls of Congress.

Do I need to have a close relative have Parkinson’s disease to think there should be government funding for a cure? Does a member of my family need to be African American for me to think the Voting Rights Act needs to be renewed? Does my house have to be destroyed by a hurricane to vote for emergency relief funding? The utter lack of empathy displayed by so many elected officials sickens me to the point that if and when some of them finally see the light, I almost hate them more… for showing a complete lack of conviction.

So it sounds like the religious and gay-rights advocates see this as the same thing:  his convictions all come down to something personal, not absolute.  Regardless of your convictions, those convictions are shown not simply politically or even familialy expedient–but stand true to their convictions, regardless of how even those closest to us will react.  And in this area, we would all do well to read the cultural fine-print before switching stances.

So to my fellow Christians, stay true to your faith in a historical Christ who lived, died, and rose again in atonement for our sins and who shows that there is a God who cares, comforts, challenges, commands, and corrects.  When Jesus said that no one can be my disciple if he treasures anything (even family) over Him.  Yes, the passage at the beginning uses the word ‘hate,’ but that’s used as a comparative.  Our love for Christ and His Word so trumps any earthly relationship that it will be seen as ‘hate’ by all onlookers.

“If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

Colorado House of Representatives Passes Civil Union Bill

Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-Denver)

Just yesterday, the Colorado House of Representatives passed by a vote of 39-26 passed Senate Bill 11, which will give (pending Governor Hickenlooper’s signature) homosexual couples the same legal protections as straight couples.  By all accounts, it was a historic day (regardless of where you stand on the matter).  Don’t believe me?  Here are some quotes from those who worked feverishly to pass the bill:

Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-Denver), the main proponent of the bill, noted:

“We should make laws that are just for everyone. This wasn’t a choice. This is who I am. This is who we are. We need to make laws in our society that respect everyone equally. I ask for an aye vote to honor love, commitment and equality.”

Rep. Dominick Moreno (D-Commerce City) also added:

When you decide who you are, you embark on a journey of self-acceptance. By passing this bill today, we give young people, we give LGBT people, that ultimate acceptance, that you are equal in the eyes of your government.

Rep. Pete Lee (D-Colorado Springs)

This is a historic moment. With this vote, we begin to redeem our friends, our families, from the scourge of discrimination and inequality.

Rep. Beth McCann (D-Denver)

We have really moved toward recognizing that people should be allowed to live how they want to live.

I appreciate how their God-infused desire as an imagebearer of God wish that all people everywhere should not be discriminated against. But these quotes reveal something that we as pro-biblical marriage should understand:

1. This is deemed by homosexual advocates as the civil rights issue of our time.
   
2. Anyone who speaks out against this issue (no matter how loving) will be considered by the more militant advocates as hateful. You must recognize this. Some will not come across that way, but others will (see John 15:18).
3. Rep Moreno notes that full acceptance means “equality in the eyes of the government.”
4. Rep. Lee uses the biblical (though not exclusively biblical) word ‘redeem,’ which means to buy back. The issue seems to be that they were not discriminated against until they were discriminated against because of their orientation and now are not–they were bought back.

How Should Pro-Biblical/Procreative Christians in Colorado React?

1. Continue to love and to pray for and communicate with your representatives. Given the high energy issues that have come to the fore here in Colorado (gun bills, civil unions, legalizing marijuana, etc.), we must continue to pray for and communicate with your representatives in a civil manner worthy of civic discourse.  It was reprehensible when a Colorado man threatened a state representative when some issue did not go his way. God has placed these leaders in their positions for His reasons and purpose (Romans 13:1-7) and as such, we are to pray for them (1 Timothy 2:4ff).  The government is not our god–but we honor those in office until they mandate we disobey what God has clearly spoken.  At our church, we pray for President Obama and our elected officials. I pray you are doing so as well out of an actual, sincere, Christian love as an overflow of your love for Christ.
2. Listen to the homosexual advocacy’s argument . . . There are some very cruel, uncivilized, and profane people on both sides of the argument who exhibit a hatred. By hatred, I do not mean that they disagree–throwing a temper tantrum because you’re not seeing something ‘my way.’ But there are those who are thoughtful and civilized (as you would see with a gay marriage debate between pro-biblical marriage advocate Douglas Wilson and pro-homosexual marriage Andrew Sullivan). While some name-call and are belligerent (and because of this lack of control, in my opinion, do not warrant serious consideration), there are those like Sullivan who convey a heart-felt, historical, and (again) thoughtful and civilized view that do warrant serious consideration from those of us who disagree. Any desire to “make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15) also entails that we listen to those who make a defense for the hope they have as well, even though that hope may be different from ours. Whereas those who say we (pro-traditional/biblical/procreative marriage) do not listen may be right–but there are those of us who do, who want to know, just as I would for anyone else who expresses a hope in another religion, cult, worldview, or lack therein.

3. … without compromising yours.  Listening does not equal adherence or agreement. This works both ways. Same-sex marriage advocates think they knew where we come from, but occasionally miss the mark. Male-female marriage advocates think they know where same-sex marriage advocates come from, but occasionally miss the mark. It works both ways.

   All we can control is our reaction–and part of that must be to listen as we wish to be heard, even as we hold to the reality that God’s Word is not up for discussion, but for declaration.  Yes, that’s correct!  If we adhere to the notion that God has spoken (which He has), we would be like Job:  “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you?  I lay my hand on my mouth.  I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further” (John 40:4-5).  A fine balance to walk, but just as those who disagree would hold to their convictions, we could do no less since we know that God has spoken.

4. Recognize that the culture war advocating for a biblical worldview of marriage (and even as theologians have called it, a natural law advocacy for male-female, procreative marriage) is lost–outside of revival.  For those who remember than in 2004, the mandate for the presidential election was that of ‘moral values,’ know that this was a slippery slope to begin with. How? Well, whose moral values are being put forth? One person sees morality from the Scriptures, others see the Scriptures themselves as immoral by setting those male-female boundaries. As the influence of the Scriptures begins to wane, there was little to stop the momentum of the anti-Scripture wing of our culture.   Some celebrate this, others didn’t see this coming. Regardless–it’s here. And we deal with what is!
5. Thanks to a friend of mine, I convey this: We should be devoting our time to deciding how we should wisely live in a culture that does not uphold biblical sexuality. Those who oppose biblical, male-female, procreative sexuality and marriage are convinced we hate those who disagree–that we don’t listen. This is too general an argument, for these folks who say this do not know who we’ve talked to or what our motivations are–nor do they care to. If we disagree, then we hate. This should not catch us by surprise.But as Douglas Wilson notes in a debate he had with Andrew Sullivan, he began to bring about the natural and logical consequences of tearing down natural law marriage–it would open up the door for polygamy. This Sullivan rejected outright, as most would. But here is Wilson’s follow-up from his blog:

The reason that Andrew was so adamant about rejecting the logical consequence of polygamy is that it would wreck the very thing he has wanted to possess for so long. Hetero marriage has been the great house on the hill, bright lights shining whenever there was a great party, to which Andrew had never been invited and where he desperately wanted to be. But he doesn’t want to finally pull into the driveway of that house for the big event only to see a bunch of trailers for the new polygamous compound scattered over the great lawn. He wants the house to be the house it always has been, only with him there now. So if I point out that the riff raff might want to use all of his arguments verbatim in order to crash the party also, he has a deep emotional need to deny it. But nobody wants them to come, he might protest. This is quite true, but nobody wanted him to come either. It is hard to wax indignant about the third wave of party crashers if you were in the first wave.

So no matter where the culture may go, we love our Lord Jesus, we love our leaders, we love those who agree with us, we love those with whom we disagree, and we love the truth of Scripture.  But we do see this as a slippery slope.  Even Andrew Sullivan in his debate drew a line saying that polyamorous marriages should not happen–but who is to say?

Who knows?  In 20 years, same-sex marriage and hetero-sex marriage in our culture may link arms to push back against those who are for polyamorous, pedophilic, or zoophilic marriages.  The way things are changing, who knows?  Let us hold to the anchor of our souls, Jesus Christ, and the anchor of what God has revealed in His Word.

God’s Intention for Marriage (Part I of the Biblical Portrait of Marriage)

(This was preached at Arapahoe Road Baptist Church in Centennial, CO on Sunday, February 3, 2013 as the first installment of a sermon series on “The Biblical Portrait of Marriage.”  You may listen to the sermon here.  Below are the notes I brought into the pulpit.)

I have a friend of mine who planted a church in Eastern Kentucky last year who is starting his own sermon series on marriage. He entitled it, “Weird Marriage.” Then I saw the promo video. The whole premise of the series is this: normal marriages in our country aren’t working. What are needed are weird marriages.

• By the age of 20, 75% of all people will have engaged in sex before marriage. By 30, that number increases to 90%–meaning activities that God designed for marriage are happening before and outside marriage.
• As we saw last week, 40% of all women will have had abortions—making it the 2^nd largest surgical procedure.
• 1/3 of all men and ¼ of all women have had an adulterous relationship (that is, sexual relations with someone who is not their spouse).
• Add into it that 80% of all websites are pornographic and nature and the snare of that cyber world is almost frightening.
• Men are especially prone. There are approximately 150-200 ‘skin’ magazines like Playboy, Penthouse, Maxim, etc.—whereas only 3-5 skin magazines exist for women.
• And while we may have heard for most of our lives that 50% of our marriages are breaking up, we do know that those who put Christ at the center of their marriages and not themselves fair way better than the other.

The relationship/marriage system that the culture brings is broken. Yet, the culture seems adamant in holding on to their way, while looking at God’s design as outlined in the Bible as oppressive, repressive, and obsolete. The idea of a lifelong, monogamous relationship based upon Scripture makes many roll their eyes.

But we must also recognize that many have seen people who call themselves Christians not emulate a very Christian marriage. In fact, they may wonder if God’s design is the best design. It’s easy to get off track. As I was going through the various airports (Denver, Miami, and Port of Spain), you see the magazines. Plus, 80% of the websites on the internet are pornographic. Sports Illustrated has a swimsuit issue that sells more magazines than all of the other weeks put together. And now, the 50 Shades Trilogy which is now basically a pornographic novel for women—and many who are Christians are reading this: “It’s just a story after all.”

But these areas are destructive because it’s taking an image bearer of God (someone’s son or daughter—usually daughter) and instead of being seen as God’s creation, they are seen as an airbrushed object.

The purpose of this series is to recapture in our minds and hearts God’s grand design for marriage and his designed use for the vessel he gave us. For us as Christians, we must remember that our bodies are not our own, but as Paul told us in 1 Corinthians, “We are the Temple of the Holy Spirit. You are not your own, you were bought with a price. Honor God with your bodies.”

1. God created all things by His Word—and His Word must re-create us.

In Genesis 1:1 (the very first verse of the Bible, mind you), speaks volumes in ten economical words: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” God created everything contained in time and space. John 1:3 says, “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” At first, it was a dark and empty waste, but God through His Word brought it into form. Notice the pattern found throughout Genesis 1:

• And God said . . . (a phrase used ten times)
• And ‘it’ was so.
• And God saw that it was good (six times—one for each day).
• “And there was evening and there was morning…”
• Number/day (“the first day,” “the second day,” etc.)

How powerful is the Word of God! In Revelation 4:11, we see:

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they existed and were created.”

The Word of God reflects the will of God. It creates and it exists based on His Word. And, again, how much did God create? “For you created all things” (Rev. 4:11). So, if God made everything, then everything created must be good! We must absorb this foundational proposition found in Scripture. God made all things and he made them good. “He saw that it was good.” Approximately 4,000 years later, the Apostle Paul wrote a letter to young Pastor Timothy, reminding him of the goodness of creation—and helping him recognize how well-meaning but misguided people began to redefine what “good” was outside of God’s design:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer (The Apostle Paul, 1 Timothy 4:1-5).

Notice how he describes these people twist the good things God made because of their devotion to “deceitful spirits and teaching of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared” (v. 1). Twisting God’s Word is demonic! In commenting on the word ‘seared,’ Warren Wiersbe defines it as ‘cauterized.’

Just as a person’s flesh can be ‘branded so that it becomes hard and without feeling, so a person’s conscience can be deadened. Whenever we affirm with our lips something that we deny with our lives (whether people know it or not), we deaden our consciences just a little more.”

How does this apply to our topic tonight? Simply put, the consciences of those inside and outside the church have been seared. Inside the church, we avoid the topic of “naked and not ashamed” because the world has hijacked this design in such an ugly way that we believe it’s ugly. We need to rescue this beautiful design from the world’s clutches because everything that God made, even the ‘naked and not ashamed’ aspect of creation, is good and glorious to Him.

A question remains: Why did God make everything? Simply put, to point to Him and bring glory to His Son. Those who say that they would believe if God would show Himself are speaking out of ignorance. God has shown Himself.

2. God created us male and female in His image.

When it comes to humanity, let’s look at Genesis 1:26-31:

²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make man^[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

²⁷ So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

²⁸ And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” ²⁹ And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. ³⁰ And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. ³¹ And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

The relationship that man and woman have comes from an overflow of the relationship of the Godhead (“Let us make man in our image”). This is a shadow of the reference to the doctrine of the Trinity—one God in the Three Persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Robert Smith spoke recently at Southern Seminary conveyed a beautiful thought regarding the Trinity from the lips of Jonathan Edwards, whom Smith calls the greatest theologian born on American soil: “God has forever known himself in a sweet and holy society as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[1] The Trinity is one in essence, though three in persons. By the Trinity making man Imago Dei, we see that male and female, though two, are in the covenant of marriage joined together as one, as the sweetest and holiest society found on planet earth by two created beings.

Charles Spurgeon said it right:

Matrimony came from Paradise, and leads to it. I never was half so happy, before I was a married man, as I am now. When you are married, your bliss begins. Let the husband love his wife as he loves himself, and a little better, for she is his better half. He should feel, “If there’s only one good wife in the whole world, I’ve got her.”[2]

We shall develop this as we delve into Genesis 2 and how woman was made from man, exemplifying the closeness and intimacy of the man and woman. But for our purposes, we recognize that the Genesis 2:23-25 passage is built on the foundation laid in Genesis 1:26-27.

So what does this entail? What does it mean that we are image bearers of God? First, we are called to engage in procreation. “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” God commanded the male and female to use their bodies in the marriage covenant to procreate so they may populate the world with image bearers. How? Through a sexual uniting of the bodies God made in His image. This uniting serves a number of purposes.

First, this sexual union between a man and woman in a covenant relationship is an act of worship—a way for us to know God in Christ more fully. In his book Desiring God, John Piper insightfully shares:

His goal in creating human beings with personhood and passion was to make sure that there would be sexual language and sexual images that would point to the promises and the pleasures of God’s relationship to his people and our relationship to him. In other words, the ultimate reason (not the only one) why we are sexual is to make God more deeply knowable. The language and imagery of sexuality are the most graphic and most powerful that the Bible uses to describe the relationship between God and his people—both positively (when we are faithful) and negatively (when we are not).[3]

By God providing our spouses as an avenue for procreation, protection, and pleasure, He gives us also an avenue of understanding the intimacy found in a way among the Trinity who created us in His image, but also a depth of understanding of the intimacy that may be found in Christ. It was not by artistic license that the apostle Paul noted in Ephesians 5:28-33:

²⁸ In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, ³⁰ because we are members of his body.³¹ “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” ³² This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. ³³ However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

So, an earthly marriage is a portrait of the heavenly marriage of Christ and His bride, the church. As image bearers of God by virtue of creation, and as followers of Christ by virtue of the New Creation, our relationship in our marriages (for good or for ill) put on display the type of relationship Christ has with His bride.

If we use our bodies for sex without the triumvirate of procreation, protection, and pleasure as happens outside the covenant of marriage, it matters not how much one “plays house,” the sexual union in these types of relationships (from one-night stands to living together, or ‘shacking up,’ as my father used to say) runs counter to whatever objective you may have. One-night stands are designed for pleasure without responsibility. Living together may lead to procreation, but not in the fruitful kind of way. Multiplying, yes—fruitful, no! Protection? Living together usually happens because of one of two things: (1) There is a low view of marriage that deems the civil construct of this unnecessary; or (2) they are taking their relationship out for a test drive to see if it will work—and if not, no covenant has been made, so the next thing to do is dissolve the arrangement.

We could go on in regards to abortion, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other forms of sexual activity outside of the covenant of marriage—which we will soon. Right now, planet Earth houses seven billion people—that’s billion with a ‘b.’ Each person came on earth as the result of a male image bearer of God and a female image bearer of God coming together in sexual union—from a myriad of different circumstances. But regardless of how you came into the world and by what circumstances, nothing changes that you

We are to engage in domination and cultivation. Genesis 1:28 also“… and subdue it, and have dominion . . . .” God has called His image bearers to take care of the earth He gave them. “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food” (Genesis 1:29).

¹⁵ The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.¹⁶ And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, ¹⁷ but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

This is where the church has, by the authority of Scripture, the wherewithal to address environmental issues. This does not give humanity license to abuse God’s good creation. He has called us to be good stewards for the benefit (but, again, not the abuse) of the image bearers he created. Some believe that since the Scriptures say God will ultimately usher in a new heaven and new earth, where the old one will pass away (Revelation 21:1), why bother worrying about the condition of this earth? Why waste time in such a futile area, when we know from God’s Word that He will burn it up (2 Peter 3:7)?

Others go completely to the other extreme, almost in reaction to the ways previous generations abused and raped the land. Global warming, the polar ice caps, preservation of vast areas of land (with the related refusal to allow other actions such as oil drilling or landscaping for the sale of real estate, etc.), animal protection, etc., are some areas of emphasis. Whereas the former group thought it was a waste of time to preserve the earth, the latter group felt there was no time to waste—for in time, the earth would be destroyed due to continued negligence.

Michael Horton provides a helpful balance:

Believers with the same commitments to Scripture and its teachings will differ on their interpretation of the data and the best agenda. Nevertheless, I still hear some conservative Christians say that God’s sovereignty means that the world can’t be destroyed; humans can’t ruin it. Therefore, never mind global warming. That’s not just bad politics, in my view, but bad theology. God always works through means. He is sovereign, but I still think I should take a bath. He’s not going to take one for me. God has called us to be prophets, priests, and kings in his Son, the Prophet, Priest, and King. If you think it’s all going to burn anyway, who cares? But if you’re looking forward to “the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting” in a renewed creation, we should anticipate that new age now by our daily actions.[4]

Communication. (Genesis 2:23-24). As God communicated in time and space to create everything, and even man (Genesis 1:26-27), so as image bearers of God we may communicate. The type of communication in which His image bearers engage provides a sophisticated type of communication that’s not simply utilitarian, but emotional, purposeful, and even philosophical. As God used words, so we, too, use words.

God used words to communicate to His creation, but more specifically to His prophets. Conveying God’s words through our words was such a high premium that a false prophet who misled God’s people with false prophecies (by either denying, adding to, or taking away from God’s Word) would be executed (Deuteronomy 13:5, Revelation 22:7-19). In Paul’s last words to young pastor Timothy, he charged him in the sight of God to “preach the Word, in season and out of season” (2 Timothy 4:2). Jesus even tells believers we will be held accountable for every idle word we say, for “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (see Matthew 12:33-37). Why is this so important? By virtue of God’s intention for creation, we are to use the mouth (fueled by the heart) to speak that which is appropriate for one made by God.

3. God created us to leave and cleave—becoming one flesh.

While I intend to spend more time on this next week than this week, it’s important for us to understand a vital cog in God’s design for marriage. But keep in mind this practical truth along with a gospel truth. God has called us to worship him as our primary relationship. No relationship in the universe is more important than our relationship with Jesus Christ. Nothing trumps that. But in the economy of God, and by His perfect design, the most important earthly relationship on the planet is that between you and your spouse. Up until that point, the most important relationship is of that with your parents. But once you leave and cleave to your spouse, you are now one flesh.

You say, “How is that? I still have my name. I have my own clothes. I have my own SSN. Do I lose myself?” No, you complete yourself. Or should we say, God completes you. But we must realize that everything in this world is working to break up your marriage. The apostle John talks about the unholy trinity of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:15-16). All of these items converge as tools in the spiritual warfare in which we are engaged. This is why I tell married couples and couples in premarital counseling, “It’s you against the world.”

But Ephesians 5 tells us that marriage is a portrait of Christ and the church. Just as marriage is the most important relationship on the planet, no relationship trumps Christ. At times, we put our spouses in place of Christ. We expect them to follow our standards, meet our needs, fulfill us fully—and when they don’t, we believe something is wrong with them and with our marriages. Not so! Our spouses are not meant to serve as our Savior—only Christ can do that. But they are to serve as those who help “Christ be formed in” us.

Have you surrendered to Christ this morning? Or is there an idol or a standard which you are worshiping to give you your identity and that which you think will be your Savior?

---

[1]Robert Smith, Preached at the E.Y. Mullins Lectures at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 24 April 2012

[2]Charles H. Spurgeon quoted in Larry J. Michael, Spurgeon on Leadership: Key Insights for Christian Leaders from the Prince of Preachers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010), 131. Quoted (again) in Justin Buzzard, Date Your Wife: A Husband’s Guide (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 13.

[3]John Piper, “Sex and the Supremacy of Christ: Part One” in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, eds., John Piper and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 26.

[4]Michael Horton, Environmental Stewardship vs. Environmentalism. Accessed 14 January 2013; available at http://theresurgence.com/2010/04/07/environmental-stewardship-vs-environmentalism [on-line]; Internet.

February Book for Gospel Gripped Fellowship: When Sinners Say I Do by Dave Harvey

I am thrilled to recommend one of my favorite marriage books around—a book we will be reading in our Gospel Gripped Fellowship: “When Sinners Say I Do: Discovering the Power of the Gospel in Your Marriage” by Dave Harvey (Kindle for $1.99 |  Paperback | Study Guide ). 

Here’s the description from Amazon:

Marriage is the union of two people who arrive at the altar toting some surprisingly large luggage. Often it gets opened right there on the honeymoon, sometimes it waits for the week after. The Bible calls it sin and understanding its influence can make all the difference for a man and woman who are building a life together. When Sinners Say “I Do” is about encountering the life-transforming power of the gospel in the unpredictable journey of marriage.

Dave’s writing style embraces the reader as he speaks honestly, and sometimes humorously, about sin and the power of the gospel to overcome it. He opens the delightful truth of God s word and encourages the reader to see more clearly the glorious picture of what God does when sinners say “I do.”

My wife and I went through the book and study guide on our 10th anniversary getaway to St. Augustine and we benefited from it greatly.  Two sinners now occupying their lives together—it will, as Harvey rightly notes, “take our theology out for a test drive.”  I can’t wait to tackle this for the month of February. 

I hope you can get your copy.  And join the Gospel Gripped Fellowship while you’re at it. 

(Kindle for $1.99 | Paperback | Study Guide )

Naked and Not Ashamed Conference Begins Tonight in Trinidad & Tobago

Tonight begins the Naked and Not Ashamed Conference here in Point Fortin, Trinidad and Tobago.  Needless to say, this conference (especially the title of it–assigned to me by host pastor Roddie Taylor–has caught some attention).

The paragraphs below are how I plan to start off the conference, addressing why such a topic needs to be discussed.  This conference is for marrieds and soon-to-be married couples, so please keep these dear folks in mind as they struggle in this area as do people in the USA.

Wish you all could be here!  And now, to the beginning

______________________________________________________

“… and they were naked and not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25).

“Biblical Christianity may be the most body-positive religion in the world”–Tim Keller

 In church circles, the use of the term ‘naked’ in terms of sexuality and anything of the flesh is often avoided.  Sex is so tied in to the overindulgences of our culture that, in the aim of avoiding worldliness, we tend to avoid the subject among God’s people because we tie all sex to wicked behavior.  This is unfortunate—especially since the world has hijacked this area for their own selfish purposes.

As you see, the phrase ‘naked and not ashamed’ appears in Scripture—which means this is God’s Word!  And notice when this word is used—at the very end of Genesis 2!  This is pre-Fall of Man, before Adam’s sin brought the curse of sin into the world.  Being ‘naked and not ashamed’ is God’s design from the beginning.

In looking at our culture today in 2013, we see that the right notion of ‘naked and not ashamed’ has taken a perverted turn—and it’s a turn that slowly began centuries ago.  The word ‘pervert’ means to twist or distort.  I may have mentioned the word ‘naked’ to you tonight in this church building, and some of you blushed or were embarrassed that such a word was ever uttered from the pulpit of a Christian church.  You are not alone.  When I mentioned at the church where I pastor in Colorado that I would be teaching on this topic, some let me know in a very nice way that that … word was in this.  Then they wondered if I would preach on this when I returned.  If so, they may head back to Alabama for about a month or so!   But again, the church cannot allow the culture to have a corner on this topic.  Given that this is God’s creation and design (within certain parameters), this reaction displays how our culture has so twisted God’s design that we feel shame in bringing it up in the house of the one who created this in the first place!

What about the word ‘ashamed’?  In the church, shame may arise at the mention of the word ‘naked,’ while in the world’s system, no shame arises at the notion of being naked outside of God’s design—what an upside down world in which we live!  Let’s define shame, shall we?

1a : a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety

         b : the susceptibility to such emotion <have you no shame?>

        

         2: a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute

3 : something that brings censure or reproach; also :something to be regretted.[1]

The key words here are guilt, censure, reproach, humiliation, disgrace, or disrepute.  Do we see from books, movies, television shows, runway models, magazines, or other media in our culture that the concept of ‘shame’ exists?  One movie actress allowed herself in a sex scene to be completely nude for the first time.  Her story is like so many:  at first she felt inhibited, but when she finally stripped down and acted out that scene, she said she felt so liberated and free.  The shame left—and this is what our world says.  Even clothing is inhibiting.  They are naked and not ashamed—but in a problematic way.

God’s design is for us to be naked and not ashamed within boundaries He established that will bring the fullest blessing, the greatest satisfaction, and ultimately glorify God in a way that none other can—through the blessed bonds of marriage.  You see, God’s intention was among his greatest inventions: marriage and all that goes with it!  God’s creation of marriage means our elation in marriage.  Anything outside of God’s design is destructive!

This , my goal is to show you that God’s design in regards to sex and the body are to protect us from ourselves rather than to prevent us from having fun and being free.  God’s design is to bring greater freedom within his prescribed boundaries—guilt-free, shame-free, and free to enjoy your spouse the way God intended!

---

 

[1]Shame, Merriam-Webster Dictionary.  Accessed 5 September 2012; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shame?show=0&t=1346857996 [on-line]; Internet.

Why Marriage Matters Even in 2012

(On this day, my parents will be married 56 years, so I am pulling out one from the archives. This sermon was originally preached in 2004.)

Our society, especially in the media and in secular academia, has identified a danger to the civilized community. General William Boykin, who is part of the group trying to help Iraq stand on its own two feet of democracy, was speaking at a church recently. He stated in a testimony that our country was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and that we were fighting to maintain those principles. He also said that Muslims worship “an idol called Allah” and also that from the atrocities that he has seen in Rwanda, Iraq and in other part of the world that a demonic force is backing those evils.

NBC Nightly News and the Washington Post reported on General Boykin’s words and questioned whether a man who held these views should be overseeing intelligence in the war of terrorism. Another said that he was on a “crusade” against the Muslims. The NBC reporter said that this kind of talk was “very scary.” A host on National Public Radio stated that she “hoped that he was not long for this world,” quickly adding that she was speaking of his job.

A column by James Carroll of the Boston Globe this past week sums up what many in the media and academia think not just about General Boykin, but all those who hold a Christian worldview

…claims made for Jesus Christ by most Christians, from Vatican corridors to evangelical revival tents, implicitly insult the religion of others. When Catholics speak of ‘salvation’ only through Jesus, or when Protestants limit ‘justification’ to faith in Jesus, aspersions are cast on the entire non-Christian world. …The general’s offense was to speak aloud the implication of a still broadly held theology. But that theology is dangerous now. A respectful religious pluralism is no longer just a liberal hope but an urgent precondition of justice and peace.

Notice that our views are considered “dangerous.” We now live in a world where tolerance means not just respecting another’s views, but also going a step further and saying that those views are just as right as other views. This is what pluralism is — religions living side-by-side with one another in peace for the sake of unity. To go against this pluralistic philosophy and say that there is only one way to heaven and one standard of living is offensive — so much so, that there are those whose sole purpose in life is to rid all vestiges of God, Christianity, and especially the Bible from public places. The motto in our country now is not freedom of religion, but freedom from religion.

Those who advocate that there is no supernatural realm and no God, especially the God of the Bible, it is time to throw off the shackles of traditional (read: biblical) boundaries in favor of a more evolved and enlightened mindset. And right now, among the attacks being levied, one that is now on the forefront is the institution of marriage.

In an article entitled “Is formalized marriage becoming obsolete?”, Christian apologists Henry Morris says, “While mankind has a perpetual history of violating marriage covenants, the contemporary challenge denies either the existence or the validity of moral standards regarding the sanctity of marriage. Led by numerous liberationist movements and fed by the new morality’s amorality, a small but vocal vanguard preaches that marriage is outmoded and must be jettisoned for a more appropriate alternative.”

Our television shows and even the courts of our government are trying and redefine marriage. Armstrong Williams says,

What is morality? …Using new definitions for accepted meanings of established words, politicians have changed adultery into freedom of expression; sex is now fooling around, promiscuity is recreational, homosexuality is a lifestyle and abortion is a choice. Morality is doing what pleases you. …Like redefining government, morality has been more than redefined, it has been downgraded to personal opinion. What is the meaning of [true] morality? Classic scholarship accepts morality to be a firm standard for thought, words and deeds monitored by an educated conscience. The education is based upon a differentiation between right and wrong; good and evil. Thus, the educated conscious, in conjunction with the intellect and free will, arrives at a decision to think, speak and act in a selected manner that is deemed moral. Like the arrow on a compass, which always points north, proper morality is similarly directional, as it points to goodness. Hence it is, that morality can never be used by any modified definition to serve as a basis for false ideas, unethical commercialism, political correctness or deviant lifestyle. Morality is the same for all races in the human family. Cultural backgrounds and inherited traditions may differ, but obedience to the moral law is a universal obligation.”

Contrary to what some in our society may say, marriage matters because it has been ordained by God

1. It is to be between a man and a woman.

In Genesis 2:18, God states something about His creation that is “not good”: it was not good for the man to be alone. So out of God’s marvelous provision and wisdom, He created a helper suitable to Him. The word ‘helper’ comes from the Hebrew which means to provide support for what is lacking in the one who needs help. In this case, it can mean a helper that matches his distinctiveness.The idea here is one of a help-mate that “corresponds to” the man — one who completes the man.

God brought all the animals before Adam to name and to see if one would be suitable for him. There were none, for they are of a different order and not made in the image of God, as we saw last week in Genesis 1:26-27. SoGod took a rib from Adam while Adam was in a deep sleep and from that rib formed and fashioned woman.

Matthew Henry, the 17th century Puritan, made this wonderful observation: “Not made out of his head to top him, not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

So God ordained man and woman to be together for at least two reasons. The first, to procreate. Last week we looked at Genesis 1:27-28 where God made male and female and that God blessed to be fruitful. God has fashioned our bodies to bring forth life from a male/female relationship. This cannot be said of other “alternative relationships.” It cannot be done.

It is also to protect us. Not only to protect spiritually in keeping away from God’s wrath against sin, but it is also scientific fact that male/female relationships bring physically healthier bodies.

International Journal of Epidemiology, vol 26 states, “If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.”

The Medical Institute of Sexual Health, 1999, states:

“Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections. Women who have relations with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women.”

That lifestyle is destructive and dangerous to bodies, so God has provided the male/female relationship to keep us safe and to bless us beyond belief.

Now I have known homosexuals who claim to be Christians who use the following argument to justify their lifestyle and their attempt to reconcile it with Scripture. They say, “Jesus never taught that homosexuality was wrong. Only Paul taught that. Jesus was all about loving others. In fact, the Scriptures are really all about a spirit of love for all people, regardless!”

My response is that is right … Jesus died on the cross while we were still sinners because of God’s love for us. BUT, we must remember Matthew 5:17 where Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Then He goes on, “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teachers others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Also in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 that He reaffirmed what God said in the beginning of making them “male and female.” Romans 1:26-27: shows that this behavior is the result of turning our backs on God’s commands and pursuing our own passions: whether adultery, fornication, or homosexuality — for it is all sexual immorality that we should flee from (1 Corinthians 6:17).

2. God has ordained marriage to be exclusive.

In Genesis 2:24, we read that “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

God has ordained that the marriage relationship be the relationship of the highest priority.

In their book that advocates open marriage, Nena and George O’Neill contend that “the traditional closed marriage is a form of bondage, for both husband and wife.” They list six “psychological commitments” involved in a traditional marriage: “Possession or ownership of the mate . . . denial of the self … maintenance of the couple-front . . . Rigid role behavior . . . absolute fidelity . . . total exclusivity. And they warn: “Subtly, insidiously, often without your even knowing it, the clauses of the closed marriage contract begin to foreclose upon your freedom and your individuality, making you a slave of your marriage.”

What they are saying is that the morality this country needs is really an absence of morality — no restrictions on what is right or wrong, for we have advanced past the stage of that. Now, we need to follow what we feel is good for us to do.

Yet, the Bible states that a “man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” They say, “My, what an oppressive God you serve. He is trying to inhibit your freedom.” God responds by saying, “No, I am trying to enhance it … and enhance it greatly.”

Solomon, in giving advice to his son, says in Proverbs:

Drink water from your own cistern
And fresh water from your own well.
Should your springs be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
Let them be yours alone
And not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
… Be exhilarated (lit. intoxicated, NASB) with her love. (Proverbs 5:15-20)

In other words, when Solomon says to “drink water from your own cistern,” he is saying that we should find our refreshment with the spouse that God has given to us. We are not to look elsewhere. We’re not even to dip our toes in these things.

We must protect our marriages not just with our actions, but with our thoughts and our words. And this is where the Christian community has failed greatly! The church has the same divorce rate as those outside the community of faith. And even those who stay together, many of those marriages seem to be deteriorating because the relationship between the two went south years ago, but little damage control takes place in order to restore the harmony.

3. It is a picture of Christ and the church.

Look at Ephesians 5:28-33:

In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29] For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, [30] because we are members of his body. [31] “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” [32] This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. [33] However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephes. 5:28-33, ESV)

John Piper says that:

The mystery is this: God did not create the union of Christ and the church after the pattern of human marriage; just the reverse! He created human marriage on the pattern of Christ’s relation to the church.

You see, husbands are to love their wives in a sacrificial and servantlike way, for that is how Christ loved the church. Wives are to submit to their husbands as the church is to submit to the leadership of Christ. (And if husbands love their wives sacrificially and take Christ on as their role model, wives will love to love them. But more on this next week.)

Are we modeling this to the world? Are our marriages giving the world a picture of the relationship that Christ and His bride have? I pray that they are.

(Originally preached in 2004.)