Midwinter Musings

Valentines Day. Half-way through February and about 4 weeks until Spring arrives. Too early to start the tomato, pepper, and cucurbit seedlings, but not too early to dream.

Some follow-up on the lettuce. The AC lettuce (leaf lettuce) was exhibiting some strange growth; the leaf edges and centers were turning black.

Whatever it was did not seem to affect the Buttercrunch or Romaine. A little bit of research turned up the possibility that the nutrient solution was too concentrated - too high a concentration of sodium in the water (we are using salt-softened water) can inhibit calcium uptake in lettuce, and if the leaves are deprived of enough calcium at a critical stage, they become deformed and never recover. I will be reducing the nutrient concentration in future batches, and am giving up on raising the AC lettuce hydroponically since it seems so sensitive.

At any rate, we are now in full production, with a new tank of 9 heads going roughly each week. (That's sweet basil growing in the coffee cans.)

Following the instructions of Mike McGroarty (Mike’s Backyard Nursery on YouTube), I built a propagation chamber out of some of the scrap cedar that came off the roof 23 years ago.

Roughly 2 feet by 4 feet, sand and peat moss in the bottom, and I have several hundred cuttings in there to be rooted. Some apple, grapes, weigela, blueberries, upright yews, and emerald spire arbor vitae.

Then, because I am greedy, I built 2 more, about 3 feet by 4 feet, for starting more cuttings - planning more yews, arbor vitae, azaleas, whatever.

I have to finish the lids for those by stapling on the plastic.

Back in March of 2009 I began building my greenhouse (“Mo' Ham, Maude”, 3-20-09; “It's a CLOUDYhouse, Mr. Dirt”, 4-1-09; & “Clearly an Improvement”, 10-19-09).

Over the years I have learned several important lessons.

1. 8 feet x 8 feet is too small.

2. Ventilation is critical.

I have long dreamed of building a new and improved model, but having been impressed in the wrong direction by the performance of the polyethylene cover and seeing the way the polycarbonate (Sun-Tuf™) has held up, my dreaming always ran into the cost of the glazing. The corrugated polycarbonate runs about $1.25 per square foot, plus there would be the cost of the treated wood framing. A 16 x 25 greenhouse with 8’ walls and a moderately pitched roof would need about $1500 in polycarbonate alone.

However, after seeing what Bobby Smith (mhpgardener on YouTube), SSLFamilyDad (on YouTube), and Grow Appalachia (on YouTube) have done with high tunnel poly houses, I think I’m ready to try that. Having gone through 2 winters with my Harbor Freight woodshed, I’n not quite so fearful regarding polyethylene, especial UV resistant varieties. Also, my Better Half has repeatedly told me that I over-engineer things, and keeping that in mind, the lighter framing used in the high tunnels seems to be adequate.

My thoughts are these: Based on the videos from SSLFamilyDad, I think I can cobble together a frame made from 3/4” EMT. Utilizing the support and ventilation ideas shown by Bobby Smith and the Grow Appalachia folks at Berea College in Berea KY, and scouring the net for material prices, I think I can put together a 16 x 24 high tunnel for right around $800 plus some of my other odds and ends on hand (like the vinyl triple-track windows we tore out of Mike’s house on Tampa when he replaced all his windows 15 years ago). Maybe I will finally even get my shed cleaned out!

Here is what I envision. Each hoop will be a 25’ arc (2 - 10’ and 1 - 5’ length of EMT, the sections joined with 6” lengths of 1” EMT as sleeves) which should provide 15.92’ of width and 7.96’ of height. The hoops will be mounted in 1” EMT driven into the ground along the sides at 4’ intervals with about 2’ exposed, to give a total interior height of just under 10’. The 2’ high side sections will be closed with 2x8 treated center-match lumber (which is needed because of the slope of the site). The plastic and wiggle-wire channels for mounting it will run about $350.

The biggest challenge will be forming the arcs. A tubing roller from Harbor freight runs about $180, but looking at the tool reviews and considering the lengths and multiple passes involved to provide an 18” deep arc in a 10' tube, there would be a great risk of twisting the arc out of the plane. I will need to build a bending form, using 3 - 10’ 2x8s, some additional scrap lumber to hold everything together, and a bottle jack. Once the bending form is made, it can be used to duplicate the 16’ wide tunnel numerous times (hint, hint, chilluns). If I can build that bending form, then the only other obstacle is money. Stay tuned for more adventures of Grandpa Jim.

Lettuce Give Thanks

Some time ago, while researching greenhouses, I came across a website run by a fellow in southern Virginia. Bobby Smith is the “mhpgardener” whose U-Tube videos are a treasure trove for do-it-yourselfers. While his adventures in building greenhouses were enlightening, it was his experimentation with hydroponic culture that got me interested in trying it myself.

Specifically, Bobby introduced his viewers to the work done by Dr. Bernard A. Kratky (ret.) of the University of Hawaii. Prof. Kratky published a short paper in 2002 outlining how to build a small hydroponic system from a bottle; his hydroponic method was patented and is free to use, but if used commercially outside the State of Hawaii, must be licensed. Thus, hobbyists and home gardeners can use it freely. Further papers outlined larger scale development of the system.

The essence of the system is that plants develop two types of roots; water-absorbing roots and air-absorbing roots. If a plant is allowed to grow air roots, then its water roots can be permanently suspended in solution without drowning the plant.

In the Spring of 2019 I determined to try out the Kratky system. Following Bobby Smith’s instructions, I built the first 24” x 24” tank from recycled basement stair treads (2x10s ripped to 5-1/4”), scrap 3/4” plywood subfloor, and some clear 6 mil poly.

The cover was a 24” x 24” x 1” extruded polystyrene project board from Lowe’s ($6).

From Indoor Gardens on Romig Road in Akron I started out with some perlite ($13 for a 4 cu ft bag and nine 2” net pots (18 cents each). A 2” hole saw was used to cut the holes for the net pots. From Copley Feed I bought a 1/8 oz packet of Buttercrunch lettuce seed for $2.09 - likely enough seed to last me into the 22nd Century. I had lots of Miracle-Gro, so to save money (and against Bobby’s recommendation) I mixed up a fertilizer solution and set to work. The lettuce was seeded into some potting soil;

when it was about an inch high, I transplanted it into the net pots in perlite.

The plants grew for about a week, then died. I tried it again, with a higher concentration of Miracle-Gro, convinced that the solution must have been too weak. Same result.

After the garden was planted, in late June, with the greenhouse cleared out, I tried it again. This time I used the Miracle-Gro Tomato formula, and I also built a second tank with a 7” depth.

The second tank was filled with a solution made with MaxiGro hydroponic fertilizer (1 kg bag at Indoor Gardens for $13). Indoor gardens did not carry the Master Blend fertilizer recommended by Bobby Smith or the Chem-Gro recommended by Dr,. Kratky.

Seeds were started in glass-wool blocks (package of 200 for just under $10).

The nitrogen in Miracle-Gro is almost entirely urea based; without soil bacteria in the tank to convert the urea, that fertilizer is better suited to in-ground culture. The MaxiGro uses ammonium nitrate and calcium nitrate as the nitrogen source; the nitrates are directly absorbable.

Unfortunately, summer in Ohio is not a good time to grow lettuce in a greenhouse that is poorly vented. I am pretty certain that the plants cooked in the 100+ degree daytime temperatures. I gave up for a while.

I was determined to try again. On October 23 I seeded 9 glass-wool blocks and on October 27 I set them in the 7” tank in the greenhouse using 1 teaspoon of MaxiGro per gallon plus a teaspoon of Epsom salts. That day (the 27th) I seeded another 9 blocks, and 3 days later set up the 5-1/4” tank under lights in the basement and installed the plants.

The first week of November was cold. The plants inside were doing very well; the plants in the greenhouse were not making progress and had hardly grown at all. I drained the solution into 5 gallon buckets, moved the tank into the basement onto the shelf below the one that was already there, refilled the tank, and the plants began to grow.

On November 25 we started using lettuce from the 5-1/4” tank, and have had a salad almost every day since without having to buy lettuce from the store. The 5-1/4” tank was replanted on December 8 and that planting has almost been harvested.

The plants filled the space between the tank tops and the lights; there was only about 6” of growing room over the 7” tank. I also noticed that only about half the solution was used during the growing period, so I disassembled the 7” tank, cut it down to 4-1/4” inches, replaced the 2x2 bottom support rails with 1/2” plywood, and replanted it on December 23. Matt and Angie expressed interest in the system and gave me several Folgers coffee cans; the 3 lb size holds about 1 gallon, and I planted the December 1 crop in those.

We finished harvesting that batch on January 17. From that batch I learned that on average, over the 6-7 weeks from seed to end of harvest, the lettuce plants used roughly 1/2 gallon of solution.

Tanks #3 & #4 were built 4-1/2” deep; they have about 11” clearance from the tank top to the lights, which allows Romaine to grow nicely.

When the 5-1/4” tank is done in a few days (bottom right in the picture, it too will be disassembled and cut down.

If I assume I can buy a head of Romaine lettuce at the store for $1, I can look at recovery costs. At this point, with all 4 tanks in production, I have calculated that the average cost per head of lettuce is about 7 cents in fertilizer, 5 cents in the glass-wool cube, and 46 cents in electricity for the lights, for a total of 58 cents in consumables. At about 1 teaspoon of perlite per pot, that is negligible and could be recycled if I felt like it.

The tanks and lights are fixed costs, but the tanks were built from scrap lumber with the polystyrene tops being the expensive part. The six 2-tube fixtures I had already, but they run about $15 each at Ace Hardware if I had to buy them again, and I replaced the flourescent tubes with 17 watt 5000K direct-wire LED tubes purchased on-line for about $8 each. The net pots at 18 cents each are reusable indefinitely. So I figure it cost about $200 in setup costs to produce a rotation of 36 heads of lettuce in one full cycle, or $5.56 per head.

It takes about 4-6 weeks to cycle through the system, so the hard costs would be reasonably recovered in 10 cycles (about 1 year), at which point we can expect to harvest bug-free, contaminant-free lettuce year-round for far less cost than in the store. Having observed two notable nationwide lettuce recalls due to E. Coli contamination in the past 12 months, in my opinion, the effort is worthwhile.

Marriage 106

A Final Thought — Covenants and Contracts

FINALLY! Nearly 2 years of slo-mo-shun, but we have reached the end of this series. At least, as far as I will take it. A few definitions are in order to start this section.

Covenants and contracts should not be confused or conflated.

Covenant - a unilateral statement of a commitment, with the force of an oath. The maker of a covenant states the nature of the relationship and the terms under which he is bound. The covenant may express conditions that determine actions, but agreement to the covenant by any other party is not a requirement for the covenant to be valid. Once entered into by the covenanter, the covenant cannot be broken without the oath being broken.

Contract - a mutual agreement under which two parties must perform specified acts for the contract to be valid. If one party defaults, the contract is null and void. Contracts require the capacity of both parties to perform (a person who is incapable of understanding the terms has no capacity), an exchange of something of value (there must be a transaction), and an agreement by both parties that the validity of the contract demands mutual performance.

Both a covenant and a contract can have language to the effect that when Party A performs Action A and Party B performs Action B, a specified outcome can be expected. The difference between the two lies in the fact that a contract can be broken and becomes null and void upon the failure of one of the parties to perform. A covenant remains in place even if the recipient of the covenant fails to perform, because the maker of the covenant is bound by God to perform what was promised. A contract is established according to a legal formula among equals, but a covenant is established through the exercise of grace toward a recipient who has no power to reciprocate.

A typical contract exists in the form of a purchase agreement, where Party A will pay Party B for an item or service. If Party A defaults on the payment, Party B is entitled to recover the item, not perform the service, and/or collect damages. If Party B fails to deliver the item or perform the service, Party A is entitled to not make the payment, or recover the payment, and/or collect damages.

A typical covenant is illustrated by God's promise to never destroy all life on earth with a flood. While He instituted laws/instructions to be adhered to by all descendants of Noah, the establishment and adherence to the covenant was not conditioned by their obedience. A covenant establishes a debt of honor.

Similarly, His covenant with Abraham was not dependent on Abraham doing anything. Abraham was the friend of God; he would do anything God requested, even to the point of offering his son as a sacrifice. In grace, God covenanted that He would make Abraham the father of many nations. Then he told Abraham to hit the road, and Abraham obeyed. God covenanted that Abraham's descendants would inherit the land in which Abraham was a stranger; He told Abraham to circumcise all the males in his camp, and Abraham obeyed. If an individual male did not have his foreskin cut off, that individual would be cut off from the promise, but God would still keep His promise to Abraham.

Again, at Sinai, God repeated the promise and told the nation of Israel that He would be their God and they would be His people. He did not say that He would be their God IF they would be His people. They were to follow the instructions He gave them; if they did they would appear as His peculiar holy people to all the nations of the earth, and if they did not, he would punish them, but He would never break His covenant with them. They had no choice in the matter, but acquiesced in awe of the God who promised to bless them as they obeyed.

The concept of covenant is central to Judeo-Christian theology. The New Covenant through Jesus is an extension of the Old Covenant to Abraham with regard to the promise that all nations would be blessed through the the faith of Abraham. Whom He wills to be saved He calls, and in whom He calls He creates within the person a new heart through the working of His Holy Spirit. Just as He covenanted with the congregation of Israel to be His spiritual bride, so He covenants with the congregation of the Church to also be His bride; in so doing, He makes of the two one new body. For that reason, the Apostle Paul compared marriage to the phenomenon of the Church, and we can use this comparison to clarify what marriage actually is.

The Greco-Roman concept of marriage considered the two partners to be equals in many respects. As a result, the Gentile Church looked upon marriage as a contractual relationship. The man and the woman each brought something to the agreement, and the relationship was conditional. As long as the terms of the contract were maintained, the contract was valid. If one of the parties broke the agreement, the other had the right to terminate the contract. This understanding is written into both ecclesiastical and civil law. It is interesting to observe how Judaism adopted the Greco-Roman way of thinking; contrasting of modern Judaic practice with Biblical Israeli practice shows that the Gentile influence grew through the Diaspora, especially post-Maimonides.

As a result, in most religious groups, the marriage must be formalized in some way in order to be considered valid. Likewise, in most civil jurisdictions around the western world, the state holds the power to determine who can and who cannot marry, and it delineates the responsibilities of the parties under contract law. Divorce is possible because contracts can be terminated if one or both parties default.

In contrast to this is the teaching of Scripture. At the beginning of human history we are shown the first marriage. It was not contractual, did not follow a legal formula, and occurred because God brought the woman to the man. The man declared that she was now “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh” - a statement of covenant, and God declared that they had been adhered together and became “one flesh”.

Further, Jesus taught that if God had joined the two together, then it was not possible for human agency to take the “one flesh” apart. The first marriage did not contain a contract in any regard, and consequently any contractual arrangements added to a marriage are simply extra agreements which do not impact the permanence of the covenant.

Because human governments have intruded into personal relationships by defining marriage in an unBiblical manner, the Church has a special responsibility to teach what marriage is, and to maintain guardianship over these relationships. The problem of divorce is epidemic even in Christian churches, and a clear understanding of the difference between covenant and contract needs to be put forward. Hindering that are the theological teachings that treat salvation more as a contract than as a covenant; a view of marriage as a contractual relationship goes hand-in-glove with forms of works-based salvation.

Regardless the definition of marriage by any government, a Biblically oriented marriage is first of all a covenant which a man makes toward a woman, as Adam declared that Eve was now “his” — “my bone, my flesh”. Since her father has primary responsibility for her until she passes under the authority of her husband, the man has no right to simply make off with a woman of his desiring (although that sometimes occurs) without expecting unpleasant consequences. God’s instruction through the Mosaic Code in this kind of situation was intended to prevent bloodshed. Nevertheless, a marriage incepted by rape is still a valid marriage under the Biblical definition, and the man who makes such a covenant will have difficulties.

Current worldly beliefs aside, the woman becomes the responsibility of the man, and he is answerable to God for her care and her actions. Further, the Bible very plainly declares that as a covenant relationship, it is binding for as long as both partners are alive. It is at this point that society — governments, the Church, the traditions of a culture — brings the marriage contract into the picture. Contractual obligations, such as the duty of care and protection, marital intimacy, and forsaking of all others, form a layer on top of but separate from the marriage covenant. Some of the contractual terms of the marriage may during the term of the contract be modified by mutual agreement, as with any contract, but the covenant cannot be broken without sinning.

It is at this point that the teaching of Jesus regarding divorce has been set aside by many groups. Because no man can take apart what God has joined together, divorce is a possibility but only occurs because of sin, and while it may terminate the marriage contract, it never ends the marriage covenant. For this reason He taught that if a man divorced his wife — broke the contract — for any reason other than that she had been another man’s wife (as a result of sexual intercourse) prior to his marriage, he would be committing adultery against her. (Again, breaking the contract is not equivalent to nullifying the covenant.) Further, if any man married (had sexual intercourse with) a divorced woman, he would be committing adultery against her husband if he were still alive. (Interestingly, the Apostle Paul states that those who commit fornication — sexual intercourse without lifelong commitment — defraud the person for whom the other person has been intended by God and incur the wrath of God.)

When questioned as to why Moses had permitted divorce, Jesus’ answer was that it was because people were going to sin in that way even if divorce were not allowed — because of the hardness of their hearts toward each other and God.

The Church of Jesus Christ is supposed to be a light to the world, an example of godly living in order that sin might be exposed as the unrighteousness that it is. Jesus asked, though, if the salt lost it’s saltiness, what good would it be? If the light is placed under a basket, so that it cannot illuminate our own lives, how can it penetrate the darkness of the world around us?

An undisciplined congregation is a hindrance to the Gospel. The warning to the Church at Laodicea was not an empty threat; “Because you are neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” Jesus said that there would be those who would claim to have a contract with Him, who would practice “Christianity” but ignore His command in His covenant to “love one another, as I have loved you.” To those who ignored the terms of His covenant, He would say, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.”

God forbid that we should be found in such a condition when we stand before Him.

Marriage 105

Divorce, Remarriage, Polygamy

Taking up where we left off, the statement was made that “under the Bible’s definition of marriage, a person has as many spouses as he/she has had sexual intercourse with”. That statement is so contrary to current Western thinking that it will need to be considered in light of the fact that (1) the Scriptures, both Tanach and New Testament, reveal the mind of God, (2) that God is not only all-knowing and all-powerful but also does nothing that is not entirely good for His creation, (3) that He is perfectly righteous and just, and orders the affairs of men, and (4) in all of His declarations and works there is a unity of purpose.

The discussion that follows is for those who claim to be Believers in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and who desire to live under His authority in His kingdom.

There has been much discussion about whether or not it was God’s will that a man would have more than one wife; we will look at that later. There was never any question, Scripturally, that a woman should not have more than one husband. The main issue is that the marriage was consummated through sexual intercourse, and from that point forward the man and the woman were bonded as one.

The term “serial polygamy” has been used to describe the situation where people marry, divorce, and then marry new partners. This has been also called “serial monogamy” when the relationship requires that intercourse be limited to the current marriage partner; however, under the definition of marriage according to Scripture, such a distinction seems to be a “straining at gnats”. Whether or not the relationships are simultaneous or sequential is irrelevant, because, according to the Bible, a marriage only ends with the death of one of the partners, and polygamy occurs whenever one of the individuals has more than one living spouse. The only thing that is really of concern is whether or not the relationships are sinful.

Certain questions are pertinent.

If two people are married, can they divorce and remarry someone else?

The teachings of Jesus, repeated by Paul, are that they are not to divorce. The command is clearly stated, (1 Cor 7:10-11)

“To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.”

This recognizes the fact that there may be some situations where a separation may be needed, but it is an absolute prohibition of divorce. The woman who separates from her husband and takes a new partner commits adultery. The Church must exercise disciplinary procedures in such cases.

Can a woman take a new husband if her separation from her first husband occurred before she was converted?

In some groups it is taught that a woman divorced prior to conversion is not under the same constraints because the pre-conversion relationship was not a valid “Christian” marriage, but such an argument is nonsense, since the corollary to that would be that married couples undergoing conversion together would be in the same situation, and there has not been any argument made, to my knowledge, that such marriages were not valid. Further, it is interesting to note that in His dispute with the Sadducees, He implies that marriage is for this world-age only (Matthew 22:30) “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” While we are in this body, it matters not what our relationship to the Lord is with respect to marriage. The converted and unconverted are under the same definition of marriage. The fact that a court of law has issued a divorce decree does not end a marriage. A woman whose husband is still alive and who takes a new partner commits adultery.

What if a woman was simply living with a man without a formally recognized marriage, then leaves him (or is left by him), and she later becomes converted; is she free to marry?

The definition of marriage does not make a distinction between whether or not the relationship is formally or legally recognized. Historically (see Froehlich’s testimony as an example) it was often the case that marriages were entered into without sanction by either Church or State. Even today, the concept of the common-law marriage, while divested of legal sanction in most jurisdictions, remains a valid legal relationship if it was entered into prior to losing legal sanction (grandfathered) and definitely so in those jurisdictions that still recognize it (such as the State of Kansas, at this writing). Such a woman who takes a new husband while her former partner is still alive commits adultery.

Can a woman who has been raped marry a different man? Counseling of a rape victim is perhaps one of the sadder counseling situations that can be experienced. It may very well be that the imposition of the death penalty under the Law was done to free such an innocent party from the man who forced himself upon her. There is no guidance given where the Law of God has been superseded by laws of men which do not free the rape victim.

Paul provides some advice that may be applicable in the same chapter cited above. (Verse 17) “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.” (Verse 20) “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” (Verse 24) “So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.” He concludes the chapter with (Verses 39-40) “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” That is extremely difficult advice to follow.

What of the man who marries a woman whose husband is still alive?

The teaching of Jesus is unequivocal; (Matthew 5:32)

“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” and (Luke 16:18) “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

Again, the Church must exercise disciplinary procedures in such cases.

What of the man who has divorced his wife and remarried, whose first wife has not remarried, and all three of them are subsequently converted?

Here is where the path gets slippery. Based on what we have seen from the Scripture so far, such a man is married to both women. Not only are the man and woman “one flesh”, all of them together are “one flesh”. The concept may be strange, but I would only refer to the relationship between Christ, the Church, and the Nation of Israel. Both the Church and the Nation of Israel are referred to as the Bride of the Lord, and Paul states that the Church has been grafted into Israel. This is a great mystery, without a doubt.

While the law of the land may not recognize such a polygynous marriage, I believe that God does recognize it. How the household arrangement in such a situation is resolved would be a matter of great forbearance on the part of all involved. The man cannot neglect the needs of either of his wives, and they must reconcile with each other. We have examined earlier the historical record of men in the Bible who had more than one wife. Nowhere is such an arrangement labeled as sin. However, we can see where the situation caused heartache, rivalry, and strife, and the instructions of Paul to both Timothy and Titus make clear that such a man cannot be allowed to hold a position of leadership in the Church. Nevertheless, such families need the support of the Church, since the surrounding society will be hostile to the arrangement, and as difficult as marriage to one person can be, the temptations attending such a complex relationship will be even greater.

Finally, what of the man who is married and desires a second wife?

The complexity of such a situation is great. While I believe that it is possible for a man who is a Believer to marry more than one woman contemporaneously, and that such a relationship is not inherently forbidden by Scripture (remember, the only direct prohibition is with respect to men who are being considered for Church leadership), it is to be actively discouraged. There are numerous factors which can and should be raised as objections, but if such a relationship is developed, the Church has the responsibility to stress a spiritually healthy approach to the concepts of conjugal relations and subjection. The counsellor tasked with such a situation will need to be patient, prayerful, and deeply grounded in the Word of God and uncompromising in his presentation of the principles regarding loving the other more than self.

We will conclude the discussion with the next segment. Brethren, love your wives as Christ loved the church, and wives, reverence your husbands.

Marriage 104

The Heinous Doctrine of Divorce

In the preceding parts of this discussion we have shown that, based on the Judaic and Christian Scriptures, marriage is a permanent bond between a man and a woman, defined as occurring at an initial act of sexual intercourse. Regardless the amount of intellectual and/or emotional discomfort this may create in current Western society, disregarding that fact has done an incalculable amount of damage within Christianity, destroying relationships and causing mental and emotional harm to children and adults alike.

From the words of Jesus, in Matthew 5:31-32 He stated,

“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.”

And Matthew 19:3-9

And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said, ‘Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.”

As well as in Mark 10:2-9,

“And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

And Luke 16:18

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

It was the express teaching of Jesus that (1) when the two join together in sexual intercourse they become one flesh, (2) that such joining is an act of God without any further action or sanction by any other authority, and (3) it is a bond which human agency cannot break. Thus Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:16,

“What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”

and in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11,

”But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.”

and verse 39,

” A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

This was not a new teaching. Recall that after the return to Judea by the exiles, there had been intermarriage with the non-Israelite people who had either been transplanted in the land by the Babylonians, or who had wandered in due to the depopulation that resulted from the war with Babylon. Ezra forced the men who had married foreign wives to divorce them (Ezra 10). It was further related by Ezra (Ezra 10:44),

“. . . and some of them had wives by whom they had children.”

Now if the Scriptures are searched, it is truly stated that God’s people were not to intermarry with the heathen. However, nowhere in the Torah is it commanded that a man who had married a foreigner must divorce her. Thus the words of Malachi, in opposition to Ezra’s act (Malachi 2:13-16),

“And this again ye do: ye cover the altar of Jehovah with tears, with weeping, and with sighing, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, neither receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Jehovah hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.And did he not make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? And wherefore one? He sought a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For I hate putting away, saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith Jehovah of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

It is one of those interesting facts of Scripture, that while Jesus quotes Malachi, He never quotes Ezra.

We have alluded previously to the influence of patriarchal societies in regard to marriage customs. One of the marks of a patriarchal society is the practice of inheritance through the father. It is stressed repeatedly throughout the Tanach. The entire purpose for granting a divorce was not to end a marriage; God did not change the decree made at the first marriage. His purpose in permitting divorce was to provide for the innocent parties who would be affected — the children — to have some inheritance somewhere.

If a man divorced a wife with whom he had children, those children retained all their rights of inheritance even if their mother remarried. However, if she remarried without a formal release of the ketubah, any children she might have from that time on would be considered children born outside of wedlock and with no inheritance rights. A man who had children with a woman who was not free from the contractual relationships of her marriage had no obligation to provide an inheritance to those children; since she had no divorce papers. She was not free to contract with the second man because she was still under contract to the first. Consequently, it was considered a duty, a mitzvah, for a man to grant a divorce to a wife who left him, and the “chained woman”, the “agunah” who leaves her husband and who has not been granted a divorce, is still a problem in Jewish law today.

In no way, however, did the granting of a divorce undo the sexual intercourse that had instituted the marriage. While Graeco-Roman culture made the marriage contract the primary “glue” of the marriage, the mistaken idea that it did so carried on into the Church Age and was generally accepted because it was the pattern and practice of the pagan peoples among who the Christians dwelt. The first three centuries of church history are replete with the efforts of the bishops to purge as many vestiges of Judaism from Christianity.

Early on the simple concept of marriage as held by Jesus and His disciples began to be corrupted by the early bishops, who first suggested, then demanded, that couples obtain the permission of the church, through the bishop, to marry. That then developed into requirements that the marriage be formalized by the bishop, and ceremonies were developed to standardize the process. Along with this, the catechisms of the churches were developed to include a definition of marriage quite apart from the one in Scripture, and instead to echo the laws and customs of the Roman Empire.

The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage". The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband." This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh". If consent is lacking there is no marriage. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1626-1629

Note that in Roman Catholic theology, it it is the consent (agreement) rather than the sexual intercourse that "makes the marriage" -- a refutation of the teaching of the Apostle Paul, and of Jesus. The relationship of marriage thus became a “sacrament” which needed to be performed in a church by a church official. Protestantism got rid of most of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, except for baptism, communion, and marriage.

The Anabaptist movement generally removed marriage from the list of sacraments, but due to the statements of Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14,

”Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?”

and 1 Corinthians 7:39,

” A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”

even the Anabaptists, and most professing Christians today, maintained a belief that a wedding ceremony somehow makes a marriage more valid. This is because the concept of "equal yoking" and "only in the Lord" required some sort of validation by the congregation that such a relationship existed.

As the Church became more entangled in the governing of the relationship of marriage, it had to face the problems that arose when the relationships soured. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had traditionally refused to permit divorce since that was the teaching of Jesus, but it then adopted the position that since it had defined marriage as a matter of consent, that if somehow that consent were fraudulently obtained or in some other way shown to be illegitimate, then the marriage could be annulled by decree of the church. A semantic ploy, the argument being that if the marriage were invalid (by the Church’s definition) then annulment was not the ending of a marriage, since (by the Church’s definition) the marriage had never occurred. It was a small step from there to recognize divorce, using the same reasoning.

Within Protestantism divorce was once considered to be possible only because traditionally most Protestant groups ceded the authority to legitimize marriage to government. If civil authorities had the right to regulate marriage, then they could also dissolve marriage. Thus, divorce was viewed as possible, but nevertheless sinful. In the latter part of the 20th Century social pressures began reshaping that area of Protestant theology, to the extent that what was once deemed shameful became acceptable; the Roman Catholic position that marriage required mutual consent became the norm. Thus, if the situation within the marriage changed such that consent was no longer there, the marriage would become void and divorce would end it.

The words of Jesus, however, can never be relegated to the dustbin of history if one is to call himself a true disciple. “What God has joined together is impossible for man to take apart.” A divorce decree may be granted by a civil authority, but it has no validity in Scripture with regard to ending a marriage, and the following points can be summarized from the teaching of the New Testament:

1. When a man and woman engage in sexual intercourse, the two become one flesh by the act and decree of God, and the bond cannot be broken except by the death of one of the partners. Divorce never ends a marriage.

2. A woman who engages in sexual intercourse with a second man commits adultery against her first partner, if the first partner is still living.

3. The only legitimate reason for a man to permanently separate from his wife is because he discovers she was involved in fornication prior to the marriage. If he permanently separates from her for any other reason, he is guilty of causing her to commit adultery.

4. If a man permanently separates from his wife for any other reason than that she committed fornication prior to marriage, and takes a second wife, he commits adultery.

5. A man who engages in sexual intercourse with a woman whose husband is still living commits adultery.

There is no leeway in the teaching of Jesus for the practice of divorce. The way is very narrow, yet we will see that there are other misunderstandings about the mystery of marriage.

Marriage 103To The Death, orThe Doctrine of the Sanctityof the Undefiled Woman

Cultures have had varying degrees of regard for virginity, but regardless the standing that the condition enjoys, it is irrefutable that it is impossible to restore it after having been lost; virginity is a state of pre-coital experience. Further, it should be noted that there does not appear to be any built-in species resistance to promiscuity; the level of behavior associated with recognition of chastity seems to be controlled more by social expectations than anything else. Interestingly, that may be just another way of saying that sin is a universal human trait.

In cultures where strict patrilineal inheritance is the rule, there seems to be a stricter standard with respect to the importance of virginity. That, however, is often selective. It is also generally one-sided, in that female virginity is prized, guarded, and infractions severely punished — often with death as the punishment for an unmarried woman who is found to no longer be virgin — whereas loss of male virginity in those same societies is seen as something celebratory, or at very least not a matter to be concerned about.

Such double standards color even the so-called Christian societies, where men who “sow their wild oats” are viewed as doing what just comes naturally, whereas a woman doing the same thing is viewed as “loose” or unfit for decent company. While there are varying degrees of acceptance or condemnation of such behaviors from one social group to the next, for the Christian, there must be a single standard, and that is total chastity, i.e., sexual intercourse is reserved for (and delineates) the confines of marriage.

From our previous discussion, we demonstrated that Biblical teaching shows that sexual intercourse joins the partners as a single relational unit, “one flesh”, which is then the operational definition of marriage. Further, within the Commonwealth of Israel, law and tradition strove to maintain purity of lineage.

A number of laws dealt with the treatment of unmarried women. Some appear at face to simply objectify the woman, as Deuteronomy 22:13-20:

“If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity; then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate; and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; and, lo, he hath laid shameful things to her charge , saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.”

Human society has not gotten any better through the ages at dealing with dissatisfaction and jealousy. The Hebrew requirement in the above situation is far more considerate than that found in a neighboring culture, where a man can simply pronounce the words, “I divorce thee”, and his wife is cast out of his home. God’s requirement in this situation was justice; if the woman was innocent, the man was punished and forever forbidden to divorce her. If she was guilty, then because she was committing adultery — her previous intercourse had linked her to a different man — her death was a necessity to free the man who had innocently entered into marriage with another man’s wife from the adulterous relationship.

There is additional New Testament insight to be gained from the statement of Paul in Romans 7:2-3:

”For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.”

Paul’s understanding of this undoubtedly came from his discipleship under Gamaliel. We know that many of Jesus’ teachings were also part of the teachings of Hillel, and further explorations of the Talmud might disclose the Pharisaic basis of his position. While the passage only speaks of the dying of the husband freeing the wife, it is patently obvious that the husband’s relationship would also end if the wife died. Freedom from the relationship, via death, provided avoidance of adultery if the survivor remarried.

Similarly, the very next verses deal with an all-too-common occurrence today (Deuteronomy 22:22):

”If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.”

and Leviticus 20:10,

”And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

God was not about to be playing favorites; the adulterous man was as guilty as the adulterous woman. The purpose — to eliminate evil from society.

The woman was to be protected as much as possible from predacious men. In the first article of this series the Talmud was cited, “Kiddushin 1,1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage.” The contract (ketubah) was often drawn to ally families through their children, and could be made years prior to the actual physical consummation of the wedding (see the account of Joseph and Mary in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke). Thus the statements of Deuteronomy 22:23-27:

”If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.”

It was assumed that if the woman was honorable she would fight her attacker. It was also assumed that as the wife (betrothed) of her husband, she would be careful the she did not dress to incite other men, and that she would take care to avoid compromising situations such as being alone with a man or getting drunk in a mixed group. The claim of date rape would not hold up in such a situation; dating as practiced in contemporary Western culture would have been considered scandalously promiscuous behavior. One of the most serious problems, especially in the Christian culture, is a lack of understanding by each unmarried man and woman that, if it is God’s will that they marry at all, they are the the predestined mate of the person they will marry, and they should conduct themselves as already betrothed until such time that the actual betrothal occurs.

For this reason, and this reason alone, dating by Christian youth should be severely discouraged, since such encounters desensitize people to the fact that, in the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28, “whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” A man should lust only after his own wife, and a woman should lust only after her own husband, and within the context of “dating”, adulterous thoughts, as defined by Jesus, toward someone whom a person will not actually marry, are impossible to avoid.

”But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter; for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.”

Once again, the death penalty was to be applied to the man committing adultery with another man’s (betrothed under the ketubah) wife. The purpose — to put away evil from Israel, but also to free the woman from the unwanted relationship.

Then, in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 we find a situation that seems to approximate the dating culture:

”If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.”

An objection to this has been the idea that the woman is being forced to marry the man against her will. However, close examination of the context does not support that. First, if the episode occurred in a place where help would be available (in the city) and she did not cry out or attempt to fight him off, the presumption is that the episode was consensual, and under the Talmudic citation above, they had willingly married. Secondly, the phrase “and they be found” implies that they jointly tried to conceal it, and that it was consensual, whether in the city or in the countryside.

Finally, we have the situation described in Exodus 22:16-17:

”And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

This is a bit more difficult, but may be associated with the divorce process as discussed in Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

”When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife . And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”

It is important to understand the divorce process as outlined above. Remember the citation from the Talmud; usually all three elements were present in a marriage: the agreement, money, and sex. The divorce document basically rescinded the agreement and returned the money (nothing could be done to nullify the sex). In the case of the father not giving up his daughter, it could be either for her protection or because of his own greed and hard-heartedness due to pride. In both cases, the dowry was returned to the father so that a second marriage could be arranged and the woman would be able to bring something to the bargaining table. The statement of Jesus addresses both situations in Matthew 19:3-9:

”And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said, ‘Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?

He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.”

(In Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11 the qualifier “except for fornication [porneias, generally adultery or incest]” is missing, but it is present in Matthew 5:32.)

In the view of Jesus, there was no action that could end a marriage aside from death — man-made regulations could not overturn the decree of God, and divorce had been provided because of the inevitability of human sin and the need to make sure that the woman who was put away from her husband would have the wherewithall to continue her life. The permission to remarry in Deuteronomy 24 did not, in the teaching of Jesus, eliminate the sinfulness of that second union while her first husband still lived.

Even today, among the Orthodox Jews, the descendants of a woman who obtains a civil divorce but not a religious divorce (in which the terms of the ketubah are nullified) are considered mamzer, unable to fully function in Orthodox Jewish society and synagogue worship. The writing of divorce was needed to bestow a semblance of decency to the lives of those innocently affected by a man unable to live up to his commitments. (Remember : divorce often happened to women who fell out of favor with their husbands and not because of adultery, in which case they would have been executed instead of divorced. Within the constraints of the written Torah, a woman did not have the right to divorce her husband.)

Some Christians have argued that Paul taught that divorce was permitted in certain instances in I Corinthians 7:12-15. However, he prefaces his statement in verse 12 by saying that what follows is his own private advice, not the Lord’s teaching. In the 15th verse, where he states “if the unbelieving depart, let him depart” he is not advocating for divorce but simply saying that an unbeliever determined to commit adultery will do so regardless of the believing spouse’s efforts and the believer should not allow his or her peace with God to be disturbed by the other’s actions. That Paul is NOT permitting divorce is evident from his words in verses 10 and 11 immediately preceding,

”And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband, but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife.”

So, from Jesus we see that if a man divorces his wife, except for her participating in sex outside of marriage, he commits adultery, and if he divorces his wife for any other reason and then remarries, he commits adultery. If a divorced woman remarries, she commits adultery. Why? Because divorce does not end a marriage, only the death of one of the spouses ends a marriage.

From Paul, we have the teaching repeated. Wives are not to leave their husbands. If they do leave, they are not to remarry, and if possible should reconcile with their husbands. (Very realistically, there are situations where for the good of the relationship there must be a temporary separation, but it should never be the precursor to divorce.) Men are not to divorce their wives, and there are no qualifiers as to what the wife may or may not have done. If an unbelieving spouse leaves, the believing spouse is not required to compel them to stay or to divorce them.

The intent of God’s direction in these matters has always been to maintain the sanctity of His people. The rules of His kingdom often contradict the rules of human law, but those who walk in faith according to His Word will find that trading the practices and customs of this age for the truths of the Scriptures will bring peace and joy in fellowship with those who share the desire to serve the God of Israel, blessed be His Name forever in Jesus Christ our Lord.

Marriage 102The Doctrine of the Chosennessof the Bride

There are several issues that must be put to rest in order to come to grips logically with the Bible’s statements about the husband-wife relationship. None of these issues is currently politically correct. Most are not comfortable in contemporary Western society. They are all not even theologically acceptable in contemporary theology.

First, to the order of creation. In Genesis 1, it is stated that God made mankind as male and female. It is a matter of conjecture whether the “them” refers to more than one of each. In Genesis 2, He took the man (et-haAdam, the special creation of verse 7) and set him in the garden — alone. Because it was not good for the man to be alone, and there was no other creature that was fit to serve with the man,

“21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.”

Note the order. God first. Then the man, chosen to work (l’avdah) in the garden. Not just any man — Adam was formed specifically for the task of tending the Garden. Then the woman, uniquely made to help the man. Note that the man had no choice as to where he would work — no free will there. The woman had no choice as to who she might marry; she was made specifically for the man because it was God who determined that the chosen man should not be alone. Note the man’s reaction; she is bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, and observe God’s pronouncement that they are indeed one flesh. In light of Malachi 2:15, this is a very special match-up.

The order and the purpose will be repeated and reinforced throughout the Scripture. Paul reminds us of this in I Timothy 2:13. God arranged the first marriage. Parents in most cultures had strong influence in the marriages of their children. Even today, there remains the warning that Christians should not be unequally yoked with unbelievers in marriage — there should be planning and purpose in the arrangement. This idea has been sadly abused, especially where pagan thinking has been allowed to influence theological expression. That there is a purpose behind the making of each individual is clear, though, and there is a grand design realized within the lives of all those who embrace the Will of God.

Secondly, note the relationship. The two become one flesh. The “fitness” of Eve for Adam was a critical component in her making, and the concept of Malachi 2:15 (“For what seeketh the one? A seed given of God.” JPS Tanach) gives the reason why in the following ages, the fidelity of the wife would become a life and death issue. Despite her vanity that led her to be tricked by the serpent, she was still the “fit” partner of Adam. He may have blamed God for giving her to him, but he never did tell God to take her back.

Thirdly, the task. The very first command that God gave to mankind was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. In Genesis we are introduced quickly to the “begats”. The concept of family and descendants immediately becomes apparent to the reader. If, perchance, the narrative of Genesis 1 leaves open the possibility of a different potentiality, we clearly see in the 2nd and 3rd chapters that God chose Eve to be the mother of a godly line. All of her descendants trace the male line through Noah to Abraham.

The Scripture does not give us much information about Noah. It states these facts about him : he was “a just man”, he was “perfect in his generations”, and he “walked with God”. Despite believing God’s warning about the Flood, and being labeled “righteous”, we are told that he “found grace in the eyes of the LORD”. In other words, he also deserved to drown, but God picked him out and favored him. His righteousness was in his faith in God, that translated into obedience — “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.”

The really curious statement about Noah is the one about being perfect in his generations, coming after the statements about the “sons of God” taking wives from the “daughters of men”. If there ever was a different line than that which descended from Eve, it provides a possible solution to not only the question of where Cain got his wife, but also the strange phrasing about the source of the giants. There is an implication that Noah’s “chosen-ness” was connected to his matrilineal descent as well as from his fathers.

The narrative is strangely silent concerning women for the next few centuries. It is finally, more than 400 years after the Flood, that Abram comes on the scene, and the first post-Diluvial woman to be mentioned is Sarai, his sister, and then in the same verse, Milcah, his brother’s daughter.

Abram marries his sister, Sarai. He also marries his sister’s Egyptian slave. He also marries concubines - plural. God picks him out from all the other men of his time and tells him “Go West, young (70 year old) man, to the place I will tell you. Take your wife [singular], your slaves, your flocks, all you have, and start walking until I tell you to stop.” God promises to make him the father of many nations through Sarai, even though at 60 years old she still has not had a child.

Abram obeys, and despite all his flaws, is labeled righteous because he believed God — the proof of his faith was obedience. Even though he does some stupid stuff along the way, he has been picked out by God, and becomes known as the friend of God. He fathers Ishmael through Sarai’s slave, Hagar. Sarai gives Hagar to Abram to be his wife — alongside Sarai. Thus Abram and Hagar became one flesh, just as Abram and Sarai were one flesh. The marriage between Abram and Hagar does not end the marriage between Abram and Sarai, even though it alters the relationship between Sarai and Hagar. While Hagar is not the “wife” in whom the original promise was vested, the promise to Abram that his descendants would be a great nation was additionally extended to Ishmael.

But when Sarai is 89 years old, Abram gets Sarai pregnant at last, according to God’s insistence and in spite of her thinking she was too old. It is a defining moment in history; the LORD changes their names. The reason Abraham’s marriage to Sara has prominence is because God had picked her to be the mother of a special nation — the carrier of a Godly seed. Abraham at this point prefers that Ishmael would be the chosen one. God tells Abraham that both Ishmael and Isaac will father great nations, but that His covenant, regarding the godly line and redemption from sin as promised to Eve, would be with Isaac.

God chose Isaac before he was even born, but what is more interesting is that He chose Sara instead of Hagar, despite the indications that Abraham agreed to the arrangement with Hagar without any argument. Isaac and Ishmael were not the only sons of Abraham, but it was Isaac to whom God referred when he said, “Take now your son, Isaac, your only son…”

So it goes. Abraham sends his most trusted slave to find a wife for Isaac. The narrative shows us that Rebekah was picked out by God, and we see how God sets things up so that men think they are controlling the situation. Rebekah was the daughter of Milcah,who was the sister of Lot. Behind the scenes, we see Milcah’s son Laban scheming; it would not have been surprising had he been hatching a plan to force Rebekah to go as a way of getting the treasures that Abraham’s servant carried. It was God, however, who picked out Rebekah and Rebekah willingly — apparently eagerly — went to Isaac (she appears to be seeking an escape from her idolatrous family). Despite what seems to be the planning of men, the hand of God is obvious.

From what we are told, Isaac appears to have been a one-woman man. There is a curious twist, though, in the narrative. When he blesses Jacob, he states, “be lord over thy brethren and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee”; when he blesses Ishmael, he states of Jacob, “all his brethren have I given to him for servants”. Plural, brethren? Again, we see God picking a favorite in Jacob, who is a scheming, lying, fearful little brother in the shadow of Esau.

Isaac would have preferred that Esau carry the family blessing. Through the curtain of human intrigue, we see God arranging everything ahead of time. Rebekah recommends that Jacob go see her brother Laban, and Jacob marries two of his cousins. While we see a bit of a tragi-comedy in all these marital maneuvers, we are reminded that the hand of God is at work, choosing the wives for His chosen men. Jacob is smitten with Rachel, yet God chooses Leah, who will be the mother of Judah.

Judah’s sons by Shuah the Canaanite were wicked, yet God chose Tamar to continue that lineage. While we may be somewhat flustered over the chain of events, Tamar appears to have been a more Godly influence than Shuah, and her son Pharez was the forebear of Salmon. Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute, testified to the greatness of the God of Israel, and was the mother of Boaz. Ruth the Moabite descendant of Lot, vowed to Naomi the she would adopt Naomi’s God, and was the grandmother of David the King.

Throughout the story, we see the choosing, the joining, and the laboring together as the lineage of Messiah is developed. There is a purpose to God’s choosing, even when it appears that the situation has accidentally developed out of sinful situations. In every marriage, while it may appear to be at first the choice of a man for a woman and perhaps her choice to accept the proposal, ultimately it is the choice of God as to who marries whom. For this reason, once the choice is made, for good reasons or bad, regardless how it is made, and the marriage consummated, any action to separate the marriage partners or defile the relationship is an act of rebellion against God, Whose choice has been executed behind the curtain of human cluelessness.

Marriage 101Sexual Intercourse = Marriage

My Sunday School did not offer a course in marriage. Neither did my high school nor my college. What I did know about marriage came from watching my parents, which was a healthy tutelage, from television, which was somewhat farcical, and from conversations with my peers, who were as ill-informed as I was. In general, ignorance tutored ignorance. I have to confess that when the time came that I was considering marriage, I was well supplied with misinformation and misconceptions.

My parents provided the positive influence. Dedicated to one another, hard working and devoted to team effort, they exemplified a pair bond. As to how that came about, we had the story that Dad had visited the Cipkar farm on a trip with his father, had met Mom, they had corresponded, he proposed, Grandpa said she couldn’t get married until after the crops were in and that Dad couldn’t return her after they married. So they got married and lived happily ever after. Siblings occurred, but strangely enough, the idea of my parents engaging in sex never really consciously entered my mind. Easy as that.

Television provided a second input. Marriage on television was displayed in half-hour segments, generally in a comedic setting. It was relatively sterile. There were occasional fights and reconciliations, children might be born, but again, while there were hints that perhaps something might be happening after the lights went out, TV in the 50’s and 60’s was generally very careful to avoid being educational in that respect. Sex was hinted at but not discussed directly; there was something seemingly unhealthy about it.

The influence of my peers was even less positive. We knew there was something mysterious about female physiology that was so forbidden that quite naturally we sought out all the information we could gather from whatever sources came to hand. The father of my best friend had a stash of girly magazines (which were off-limits to him, but he somehow was able to access them) and our sex education course was built largely around those. In secret we discussed the differences between “them” and “us”. The stories accompanying the pictures provided a basis for understanding that men wanted sex, women avoided sex, and when sex occurred, women participated because they either had to, or because they were immoral in some way.

The above is undoubtedly shocking to hear in the early 21st Century, but for many of my peers, the situation was very similar. As I neared the end of my high school years and entered college, the “knowledge” that I had about sexuality and what marital relations should be was discordant. Too many of the concepts conflicted, but there was still no way to resolve the discord. I understood that sex was acceptable within marriage, but if it occurred outside of marriage, there was a stigma, especially for girls.

As badly warped as my view of the physical aspect of marriage was, in retrospect, my concept of the social interactions that were part of the courtship ritual were just as flawed. Television and the occasional movie had presented courtship and marriage as the interaction between two people, totally outside the fabric of the greater family. Somewhere in the mix was the idea that a man would interact with his future wife’s parents, at least once or twice before the actual marriage ceremony. His family and her family had almost nothing to do with the relationship, or so the cinematic revelation went. Granted, way down deep this created some cognitive discord, but wasn’t the medium a reflection of reality? So it was perceived.

Dating in some ways reinforced those concepts. The girls parents had to be acknowledged and placated, but they were necessary obstacles to winning a girl’s heart. The important thing was the formula that would work out as boy + girl + love = marriage.

With that baggage I was encountered by Jesus and He changed the course of my life. It would be wonderful to say that somehow he magically wiped away all my prior miseducation and filled me with perfect understanding of how human relationships should be handled, but that did not happen. I was to be re-educated one step at a time, most likely so that I could end up writing this.

As a new convert, I realized the truth of God’s statement, “It is not good for man to be alone.” I also realized that the criteria that I had set for a marriage partner before my conversion were not suitable for a godly marriage. I did not want to enter a marriage that would be destined to fail.

The first bit of wisdom that was imparted to me was that the woman who was to be my wife must love God more than she loved me. In my unconverted state, that would have been unthinkable, but I now understood that if my wife were to love God in that fashion, she would never stop loving me. I began to examine the young ladies who were “available”, and soon came to realize that most of them had been educated in somewhat the same fashion I had previously been. In talking with them it was evident that they would prefer that I would woo them after the fashion of the world, playing to their needs.

Would I flatter them and make them feel important? Could I provide a good living for them? Did I have the proper social graces that they would not be embarrassed by my actions? Did I have potential for social advancement so that I could take them up with me? There were times when I wondered if I were being measured and evaluated based on the criteria that I had now been taught to reject.

I had gotten to know Violet at church camp as another new convert. She was serious — it was refreshing to meet a girl who did not seem to have husband-hunting in the back of her mind. Over the course of a year I realized that here was a young woman who did want God to have first place in her life, and whose compassion for others was such that she would humble herself to make sure that others were cared for. I grew to love her for that.

The fact that she was extremely attractive physically was not lost on me, and over the years I would need to learn to reconcile our sexuality with what I read in the Bible. That reconciliation would lead me to conclusions about the marital relationship which are not normative in current mainstream Christian thinking. It has also lead me to reevaluate the entire concept of marriage from the perspective of both the Tanach and the New Testament.

This is critical to theological well-being, since the Tanach repeatedly refers or implies to Israel as the “bride” of God, and the New Testament copies the thought with the drawing in of Gentile believers to be included in the “bride”. A number of evangelical theological concepts are intertwined with that. Current orthodox rabbinical Judaism parallels evangelical thought in many respects, and both have been heavily influenced by sources and thinking outside the written Word of God.

A unified and sound Biblical approach to the subject of marriage has several prerequisites. First is an unwavering faith that God Himself is righteous and good, and that all things He has decreed are also good, whether they are understandable by His people or not.

Secondly is an acceptance of the Bible, and especially the written Torah, as the Word of God. If that is the case, then whether what it says is humanly comfortable or not has no bearing on the universal validity of what is written there. The thinking of sages and the practices of cultures all fall outside the legitimacy of practice if they are in discord with God’s written Word.

With that we will begin the examination of marriage. In the realm of physical human existence, there is no escaping the fact that the only definition of marriage in the Bible is sexual intercourse. The reader is introduced to marriage in the second chapter of Genesis. “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” [Gen. 2:23-25, NASV]

The first marriage in history had no ceremony, no formulas, no rituals, no promises or covenants. Those were all added later, by the practices of men, and not by God. For those who want to really be uncomfortable, there was no consent given by Eve, either (although she had no other choices, herself). Throughout the Bible, there is no ceremony prescribed, even when customs are described. In the evangelical arena, it is interesting to read the treatise of S. H. Froelich, Matrimony According to the Word of God.

From the perspective of orthodox Judaism, the Mechon Mamre website article Marriage states,

“The Torah provides very little guidance with regard to the procedures of a marriage. The method of finding a spouse, the form of the wedding ceremony, and the nature of the marital relationship are all explained in the Talmud. (Mishnah) Kiddushin 1,1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage.”

Because the institution of marriage can be entered into in such a simple way, in former times the concepts of chastity and virginity were considered extremely important. Outside of strict religious practice, promiscuity was largely treated with a double standard; men could be promiscuous without incurring extreme social censure, but women who were promiscuous suffered various forms of punishment. Numerous social safeguards were nevertheless erected to protect women, but most of those were overthrown in the aftermath of the mid-20th century “sexual revolution”.

It will be important to remember, however, as the subject is explored, that under the Bible’s definition of marriage, a person has as many spouses as he/she has had sexual intercourse with. This is clear from a careful analysis of written Torah, as well as the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. No other definition has Scriptural validity, and deliberate ignorance of the fact has lead to conclusions that have caused numerous people to live in sin.

Indiscriminate Justice

A President has been elected under the slogan “Make America Great Again”. The greater part of the States award him their Electoral College votes, but the few States on the east and west coasts with much larger populations skew the popular vote toward his opponent. The President is a man with a great sense of business and a definite vision of what the office of President entails, but he lacks political and diplomatic skills. He delights in directly communicating with the people, but in doing so, frequently antagonizes those who disagree with him, because while he can be charming, he is also used to getting his own way, by bullying if necessary. He is not a politically correct communicator.

The nation has suffered for a number of years from economic and domestic policies which have been viewed as egalitarian and desirable by the President’s opponents. Large numbers of people have become wealthy as a result of those policies, but a much larger part of the population has suffered poverty and despair. Large numbers of aliens have been permitted to enter the country, skirting the legal immigration process, to take advantage of the social programs, bringing with them customs which clash with the resident society and diseases which medical services are unfamiliar with and ill-equipped to handle. Some also bring with them the threat of terrorist activity as a part of their religious beliefs. At the same time, the social programs are strained and cannot meet the needs of the citizens for whom they were originally designed. Local law enforcement is taxed not only with criminal activity imported with the new arrivals, but also with the added problems of domestic abuse, identity theft, and voter fraud from people who have a very different perception of what behaviors are appropriate in this country.

The new President takes measures to enforce the existing laws, which his predecessor deliberately ignored to allow the situation to grow. His predecessor, and the two Presidents before him, had identified seven nations which were particularly prone to harbor terrorists and which either lacked adequate information services to identify such persons, or who actively trained and encouraged them to attack the country. The President calls a 90 day halt to allowing persons from those countries to enter or visit in order to set up a system to provide better background checks. He also instructs the immigration services to enforce the existing immigration laws, deporting aliens who have entered the country without going through normal channels and have also been convicted of crimes since they arrived. Large numbers of people see those actions as inhumane or contrary to their vision of what the country ought to be, and carry out protests and riots to block the authorities. Some of the people who have benefitted financially from exploiting the migrants file lawsuits to halt the action, and unjust judges, obeying the voice of the mob rather than the law, enjoin the President from enforcing the law.

What is a follower of Jesus Christ supposed to make of this? Is not God a God of mercy and compassion? Should the church rebuke the President for enforcing the law and taking steps to control the entry of persons who are unknown or might have dubious backgrounds?

What is the Christian to make of such verses as Micah 6:8 and Matthew 23:23? Should not mercy and compassion be at the forefront of our efforts? Is this a case of discrimination in justice against foreigners?

Micah 6:8 tells us that God requires us to “do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God”. Matthew 23:23 contains a statement that the weightier matters of the Law are “judgment, mercy, and faith”. Why is mercy second and not first in both sequences? What of the statement in James 2:13, that “mercy exults against judgment”?

Prior to leaving office, President Obama was asked if he would pardon Hillary Clinton for breaking the law regarding using private emails for government business, and Edward Snowden for releasing secret government communications. Neither request was granted. He could not pardon them, because they had not been convicted of a crime, even though it was evident that they had committed crimes. Mercy is not possible until judgment has been passed first. If one is not capable of judging, then neither is he capable of being merciful or forgiving.

What is judgment; how does one apply justice? After all, Deuteronomy 16:20 concludes how righteousness in judgment was to be effected under the Law : “Justice, justice, you shall do!” The Law was to be applied without discrimination, and was to be applied equally to both the citizen and foreigner alike.

Are there unjust laws? Possibly so, but when a law is in effect to treat all persons equally, and one group of people is allowed to disregard it, that is injustice. When a nation has laws designed to protect its people, and foreigners are allowed to disregard those laws, that is injustice. Is a person who permits someone to break those laws — even for “humanitarian” reasons — being merciful, or is he being unjust? Unless the lawbreaker has been convicted of his lawbreaking, mercy is not possible. The person who permits the lawbreaker to proceed is being unjust to his fellow citizen, and is actually discriminating against those strangers who do obey the law, who do not practice identity theft, who obtain legal permission to hold a job and earn money. That person who permits the lawbreaker to proceed unhindered is a partner in crime.

So the Christian is commanded to love; to show compassion and mercy. Can he do that without considering the precursor to mercy? Can he show favoritism to the stranger over the fellow citizen and still consider himself just? Before we speak out against the authorities which God has placed over us, should we consider whether we ourselves are acting in indiscriminate justice?

There is a strain of theology which teaches that God is merciful and loving and non-judgmental. If that were true, then there would have been no need for Christ to die in our stead for the sins which we have committed and for which we would suffer eternal deportation to the Lake of Fire. God has judged all humankind worthy of eternal damnation, for there is no one who has not not transgressed His law. The Scripture relates that even the thought of foolishness is sin, punishable by eternal separation from our Creator, who is holy and abhors the violation of His orders.

Having judged us, He was then able to be merciful, offering Himself by taking on a human body in the person of Jesus, and forgiving us by paying the price for our sins Himself on the cross. Forgiveness is not possible without paying the price for the wrong in place of the one who has wronged us.

It would be the gravest injustice to tell someone outside the Church that God will save him from eternal damnation by simply “accepting Jesus” without also telling them that they must repent of their sins because salvation comes through the payment in Jesus’ blood for those very acts. Jesus may have forgiven a person and paid the price of admission to Heaven, but the Scripture is clear about the woes of those who disregard the preciousness of the blood of Christ and go on sinning as though the price was despicable.

The Christian must feed and clothe and help the alien in his land, but must also warn him that his breaking of the immigration law is an insult to those who serve and protect. To despise the laws that were set up to protect the health and safety of our country’s citizens — laws defended and paid for in the blood of those who have sworn to uphold the law of the land for our good — is to despise their sacrifice. The alien who has entered the land illegally should understand that we judge that action as unrighteous, that we can mercifully meet his immediate needs, but that he must repent by returning to his own land and following the rules if he wishes to join us here. Repentance is never easy. Repentance is usually accompanied by tears. But supposed “mercy”, without such judgment, is simply a form of damnation, leaving the alien to live in fear until the day he is caught and banished from the Promised Land.