LBCF Chapter 25: Of Marriage

All right, we're up to chapter 25 of the

London Baptist Confession, and the title of this chapter is Of Marriage. This chapter is divided into three parts, four paragraphs.

This is one of those chapters in the confession that they could have done better, let me put it that way.

There are two key issues that this chapter fails to address when it comes to the subject of marriage.

The first issue was not crucial when the confession was drafted, so when we go through that, you'll see why it wasn't crucial then.

However, due to the moral decline in our society, the issue is now an important one, and I'll get to what that is in just a minute.

This omission is one of the few weaknesses in our confession. Usually when I'm up here,

I'm bragging about the confession, how great it is, and all, but here is one of those chapters where there is definitely a deficiency in this chapter.

Even though it's an understandable omission. So before we examine the confession itself, we're going to examine, we're going to address the two omissions, and I hope you'll see why

I'm addressing the omissions first instead of getting right into the confession. The first omission is to define what marriage is.

If you notice when we get to it, the first paragraph, it talks about the monogamous role of marriage, or rule of marriage, but it doesn't define what marriage is.

So you cannot have any meaningful debate on divorce and sexual immorality without an adequate definition of marriage.

You've heard over and over from this pulpit, from almost any teacher that we've had here, talking about when it comes to debate or evangelism or apologetics, you have to define your terms, because if you don't define your terms, you're going to wind up talking over each other, all right?

So we have to first have a definition of what marriage is.

Marriage is a covenant of companionship. This information or the wording over these next couple of sentences on the slides come from J.

Adams. In fact, I would recommend highly anyone who is struggling or counseling,

J. Adams has written a book called Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, and it's probably, from my perspective,

I think it's one of the best books written on the subject. Marriage is a covenant of companionship, all right?

Therefore, marriage is a public and formal promise by a man and a woman to each other which brings them into a marriage union, all right?

Now notice, a covenant of companionship, but the marriage is actually the formal promise by a man and woman to each other that brings them into this covenant of companionship, all right?

And it is intended to provide them with a multi -dimensional life of companionship.

This intimate companionship is to be sexual, vocational, verbal, and emotional. You could probably add a couple of other things, but I think these four pretty much cover the gamut, okay?

So we also need to understand that a covenant is not merely a promise. It is a promise, but it is not merely a promise.

It is a promise and a commitment publicly and formally certified by the swearing of an oath.

Now this is an important point. When is a marriage solemnized?

A lot of people say, well, we have to consummate the marriage on the wedding night, etc., and that's fine to use that terminology, but the marriage is binding at the taking of the oath, okay?

And it's important that we recognize that. Therefore, public marriage ceremonies in which vows or oaths, remember we looked at vows and oaths last week, are given, rings are exchanged, witnesses are present, and God has acknowledged those are not empty traditions.

One of the things that I hope you have garnered from our study in the

Gospel of John is how important symbolism and imagery is in the Word of God, right?

We've looked at so many different images, the imagery of a garden.

Look how many things in the Gospel of John took place in a garden, okay? And there's all kinds of symbolism, you know?

A fish has a certain symbolism to it. Bread, the eating and drinking has meaning to it, okay?

And so public marriage ceremonies are important because witnesses are present at the giving of vows, all right, and a covenant relationship.

God has acknowledged, and symbols, rings being exchanged, these are important symbols.

They are the ceremonies in which the marriage covenant is embodied, okay?

The intimate relationship that a man and woman have is one of the blessed benefits of the covenant relationship.

It does inform the covenant relationship, okay?

Therefore, the ceremony should not be, I'm sorry, should be taken seriously and not taken lightly or ignored.

I've performed, I think it's somewhere around 50 weddings in my term as a pastor, and there are certain things that I insist upon if I'm going to officiate at the marriage, and one of them is the vows.

It's become very popular today for people to write their own vows, and usually what

I'll say is, if you want to write something to your spouse, your future spouse, and you want to say that publicly, I have no problem with that, but you will take the vows that I put forth for you because there's certain elements of vows that are important, and that's part of the officiant's job, the pastor's job, is to make sure that the covenant vows are formally taken and in the right perspective, in the right order, okay?

So they should not be taken lightly or ignored. I mean, you have people today getting married in hot -air balloons, skydiving with the preacher, officiating.

I've seen scuba weddings where they're underwater taking their vows. No, it should be taken seriously, alright, because you're entering into a covenant of companionship, and in the covenant, you are also taking vows before God.

That's why we had that up there before. Therefore, sexual activity outside of a marriage covenant is a transgression of God's law, pure and simple.

You can see here now, if you can get somebody to acknowledge what marriage really is, then this becomes a no -brainer, but if somebody says, well, no, marriage is just, you know, willy -nilly stuff, it doesn't really matter, okay?

No, but if they understand what a covenant of marriage is, then this becomes very clear.

It is sin, okay? So that's the first omission, is from the confession, and again, most people, most scholars think that the reason that it was omitted is because it wasn't really an issue.

Everybody understood what marriage was, so there wasn't a need, you know, for it. However, in our day, there's a great need for it, especially within the church.

It's, of course, it is outside the church, but you have churches that don't recognize what a covenant, what a marriage union is, and if you mention that it's a covenant, they'd have no idea what a covenant is, okay?

Now, the second omission is a statement on divorce. This one is more puzzling than the first omission, and the reason it's more puzzling is in chapter 25 of the

Westminster Confession and also the Savoy Declarations, they have two paragraphs on divorce, all right?

Both of them have two paragraphs stating a position on divorce, all right?

So it's somewhat of a mystery why the Baptist omitted these two paragraphs. There is, some people theorize that it could just be that they wanted to distance themselves a little bit further from the

Westminster. I don't know. I don't know if that could be said to be true or not, but, because there is no explanation given in any of the writings that I know of, you know, surrounding the 1689, right?

But in view of the practice of divorce in our society today, it is crucial that churches have a biblical position on divorce and remarriage.

So this is where we're kind of left hanging a little bit, holding to the 1689, and we have adopted pretty much what the

Westminster Confession says on divorce and remarriage. I don't know if we've done it formally, but in practice we have.

The Westminster Confession, if I summarizes the biblical position around three issues, this is on divorce now we're talking about, okay?

Firstly, the divine attitude towards divorce, the essential nature of divorce, and the proper grounds for divorce.

So if you take those two paragraphs, and in fact what I've done is

I have taken those two paragraphs from the Westminster Confession and I've included them as the last two slides of the study today, just so you can see for yourself what the

Westminster Confession says. And when you read them, you're gonna find it all the more puzzling why these weren't included verbatim into the

Baptist Confession. But these are the three ways, things that the

Westminster Confession highlights. So first, let's look at the divine attitude.

First attitude, God hates divorce because it is always the result of sin, yet it is necessary in a fallen world under the curse.

God permits it because it is not necessarily a sin to divorce. Now here, I want you to notice something.

Notice the distinction. It is always the result of sin. If two people are getting divorced, it's because of sin, all right?

But it is not always a sin to divorce. Do you see the difference?

It's a subtle distinction, but it's an important one, all right?

Just because somebody's getting a divorce doesn't mean they're sinning. But if they've gotten a divorce, it's because of sin, okay?

Does anybody have a issue with that? If you don't understand it, let me know and I'll explain it.

All right, now we move to the second thing that the

Westminster Confession addresses, and that is the essential nature of a divorce. What is a divorce?

Since marriage is a formal covenant, divorce must be carried out by a formal bill of divorce.

You can't just decide one day, I don't want to be married anymore, and just leave and say, that's it,

I'm divorced. No, there has to be a formal bill of divorce. You need to understand a marriage covenant has a legal aspect to it, all right?

It is a legal transaction that takes place. Therefore, it takes a legal transaction to nullify that marriage covenant, okay?

Adultery does not dissolve a marriage. Some people think, oh, my husband, my wife, they committed adultery, therefore they broke the covenant, therefore we're not married anymore.

No. They have broken the covenant, and that may give you grounds for divorce, but the adulterous act does not negate the formal covenant.

You are still married, but you're married to an adulterer, all right? Does that make sense?

Okay. See, since marriage is a covenant of companionship, divorce breaks that companionship.

Remember, the covenant of companionship, it's an intimate relationship, and when one person commits adultery, that breaks that companionship.

That means all the benefits, sexual, vocational, verbal, and emotional are terminated.

Once a divorce decree is issued, if it's a legal divorce, biblically legal

I'm talking about, if it's a biblically legal divorce, then all the benefits are broken, okay?

That means a divorced man and woman cannot go back and on a night of too many martinis do something.

I'm trying to say it as gently as I can, all right? That would be fornication, even though they had previously been married, okay?

Because the covenant has been broken by divorce, if the divorce is legal as well. Biblical divorce also means a person is free to remarry.

Now this is where you get a lot of pushback, especially from fundamentalist churches who also don't believe that divorce is available for any reason, all right?

But according to the Scriptures, looking at what a covenant relationship is, if the divorce is biblical, that means that if one person is suing for divorce for reasons given in Scripture, when that divorce is granted, that person is free to remarry.

First Corinthians 6 is definitive about this, talking about not being in bondage any longer and is free, okay?

Which leads us to the third of the issues, and that is the proper grounds for divorce.

There are two biblical grounds for divorce, and only two enumerated in Scripture.

Since marriage is a covenant of companionship, the proper grounds are those which absolutely contradict the covenant, okay?

Desertion is an absolute contradiction, because it is a covenant of companionship.

If one spouse deserts the other, and desertion can happen in several different ways, all right?

It doesn't necessarily just have to be physical desertion, all right? But there are other ways of deserting, all right?

Desertion is an absolute contradiction to the marriage relationship, the marriage covenant, and therefore is grounds for a biblical divorce.

And of course, adultery is an absolute contradiction as well. If one spouse commits adultery, the other spouse has the right to sue for divorce according to the

Scripture. However, the right to divorce need not be exercised in all cases.

Just because there has been unfaithfulness or even desertion, there is still a possibility of reconciliation, of repentance, forgiveness.

We need to take in all the considerations. You don't just look at the verses concerned with marriage and divorce, but as husband and wife are still brothers and sister in Christ, and so there is still the idea that if forgiveness is proper, then that should be granted, and the marriage relationship can be in fact saved, okay?

That's the omissions. Kind of major ones, aren't they? And you can see why,

I hope you can see why I wanted to address the omissions, because it sets up the rest of the confession.

And in fact, you could even argue that in the Westminster, it's paragraphs 5 and 6.

Maybe at least the first paragraph 5 probably should have been paragraph 1, because that defines what marriage is.

No, I'm sorry, both paragraphs in the Westminster are divorce. There is no paragraph in the

Westminster also about defining marriage, okay? But you can see that it would be helpful if you had a paragraph 1 that defined marriage first.

Questions? All right, yes. How do we see this applying to unsaved couples?

God's law is the same for both saved and unsaved, all right? There are further restrictions on the saved person, all right?

Remember, this is a confession of the church, and so you're going to see that there are

Christian restrictions that the unsaved person doesn't necessarily have, all right?

So, wait till I go through our confession, and if it doesn't answer your question, then ask it again.

Okay? All right, so now we go to part 1 of our confession of faith, all right?

Part 1 is paragraph 1, and this is what it says. Now, notice it says, the monogamous rule of marriage.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. Now, you can kind of argue that there's a little bit of a definition in there, but it still doesn't define what the marriage union is, all right?

It's telling you that to be legal, biblically legal, it has to be between one man and one woman, okay?

So, that blows away any of the same -sex marriages, the transgender marriages, whatever is going on out there today, you know?

All right, one man, one woman, he and a she, okay?

Neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, okay?

Greg Bonson once said, he says, any man who marries two women just gets what he deserves. Don't give me any cards or letters, that's

Greg Bonson who said that. I would never say that, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time, okay?

I see I have some counseling to do here, okay?

So, that's the first part of the confession, is the monogamous rule of marriage.

That says it out pretty plainly, all right? And that is our chapter, paragraph one.

Part two talks about the major purpose for marriage. And it starts in paragraph two, wait, one of the major purposes for marriage is for the mutual help of the husband and wife.

And that's what it says right there, marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife. Now again, just pause for a minute.

This is where I think it would have been helpful if we had that paragraph before describing what marriage is, all right?

Because if you understand that it is a covenant of companionship and those four elements that we put forth of what that means, it becomes obvious, all right, that it's for the mutual help of the husband and wife.

When I officiate at a marriage ceremony, and as I've said, I've performed, I think it's somewhere around 50 marriages over the last 28 years.

And what I do is, well, firstly, I require about 10 weeks of premarital counseling, okay?

And my goal is to try to talk them out of it. And no, I'm kidding. So, anyway, the whole idea of that premarital counseling is to prepare them because one of the piece of advice

I give them is once you, quote, tie the knot, so to speak, once you've ratified this covenant, the relationship between a man and a woman is different.

I don't care if they've even been living in sin and they've been living together in the same household. The minute you tie the knot, make it legal, the relationship changes.

And I've seen that over and over again, okay? And so that's one of my primary goals in the premarital counseling.

The other primary goal I have is to make sure they understand why they are getting married.

All right? And I'll give you a little scenario. What usually happens is a couple will come in, especially if it's a younger couple, you know, in their late teens, early 20s, and they come in and I ask, you know, why do you want to get married?

Of course, they hold each other's hands, they look at each other, you can see the stars floating around, all right?

And the answer comes back, because we're in love.

And they think they've nailed it, okay? We just nailed it, we gave them the answer.

And I said, oh, I'm so sorry, we might have a little problem here.

And they look at me now, they're crushed, and they say, why is it? What do you mean by love? Well, when he looks at me,

I just feel so good. And so I said, all right, what happens when he looks at you and you don't feel that way anymore?

What are you going to do? Divorce him? Because you're not in love anymore? And so we have to go through a whole explanation of what is love, okay?

And what is the purpose for marriage? So we go through that in the premarital counseling, then at the altar on the day that they get married.

And I've done this every single time I have officiated at a wedding. After the vows, after the homily, after everything is done, the exchanging of the rings, if they have the unity candle, they light the unity candle, they have their favorite song is sung.

And here we come, and now I'm ready to pronounce them husband and wife. And I look at him,

I said, all right, now here's my last counsel before you get married. And I look at him, and I look at the husband,

I say, from this day forward, apart from your relationship with Jesus Christ, the number one relationship you have is your wife.

And you have to ask yourself every day when you get up, how can I help my wife become the woman God intends her to be?

That's the purpose of marriage, the mutual help of the husband and wife.

And then I turn to the wife, and I say exactly the same thing. And if you listen to that advice, and if you're here today, and you're married,

I don't care how long you're married, ask yourself that. Is that the way you look at each day? That the number one relationship in your life is your wife, your spouse, your husband, and am

I, how am I helping her to become the man or woman that God intends her to be?

That's what this is saying, okay? To be also, talk about the major purpose of marriage is for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue.

Issue simply means children, okay? And once you have children, you will be amazed at how many issues you wind up having.

All right? But for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and they chose their words wisely, a legitimate issue.

Children born within a covenant relationship, there are legalities that come in and legalities that come into play.

In fact, some people, I've talked to some people, and they said, you know, why does the government, why do we have to get a marriage license and let the government know and all of that?

The government needs to know if you get married, all right? Because there are legal issues beyond the scope of the church that are involved.

Inheritances, that's not the purview of the church, that's the purview of the government to oversee and the court system, all right?

So, you need to allow that to take place and it becomes a legitimate issue.

You know, children who come from a covenant relationship, whether it's by natural birth or whether it's by adoption, it doesn't matter, all right?

Because there's legalities involved, they become the heirs, all right? So, this is very important as well.

Another point is for the preventing of uncleanness. If everybody was in a monogamous relationship, what would happen to STDs?

It's exactly right, they would disappear because it wouldn't be the opportunity to spread them.

All right? So, that's the major purpose. Part three is the lawful parties to marriage and the general rule comes first.

This is paragraph 3a of the confession, all right? It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry.

As I look out here, we got all sorts of people who are married right here, all right?

All sorts. In other words, the general rule is there's little restriction, all right?

Who are able to, with judgment, to give their consent, all right? That's the general rule, all right?

In general, very generally, you can pretty much marry whoever you want, but there are some specific restrictions.

The first one is the Christian restriction. It is the duty of Christians to marry in the

Lord, all right? And therefore, as such as profess the true religion should not marry with infidels, all right?

Or idolaters, neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, all right?

By marrying with such as are wicked in their life or maintain damnable heresy, all right?

So, as a Christian, you have freedom to marry, but only in the Lord and with these few exceptions, okay?

Now, paragraph 4 continues with the specific restrictions, but these are natural restrictions.

Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden in the word, all right?

Consanguinity, everybody knows what consanguinity is? All right, consanguinity means relating to your...

I'm glad I didn't say that. That means pertaining to your ancestors, means you're coming from the same parentage, all right?

And affinity in this context means something very similar. This talks about a marriage relationship within the bonds of close familial ties, okay?

Which is forbidden by the word, okay? Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.

In other words, no government has the right to usurp that authority and say, well, no, this is okay.

If the word of God says no, it's no. Yeah, all right?

Now, that's it so far. Now, what I've done is I've just included, so you can just take a quick look at these.

This is paragraph five of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract being detected before marriage gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.

What that means, and this is specifically coming out of the

Jewish state in ancient Israel, where contracts of marriage were performed before the marriage ceremony was actually engaged in.

That's why when Joseph was betrothed to Mary, that's why he called her his wife, even though they had not been together, but they were legally married.

That's why he was seeking to put her away. He was seeking to divorce her because of her pregnancy, all right?

And you still had other societies where this was true, where they would come in and a person would be betrothed, and betrothed is the same as the covenant of companionship is engaged.

So, if the person was unfaithful to that, they could seek a divorce. That's why that paragraph is, that first part of paragraph is in there.

Oops, sorry. Jumping the gun here. All right. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another as the offending party were dead, okay?

And again, we don't have any problem with this. I wish we had these paragraphs in the

London Baptist Confession, all right? It's a very well -constructed paragraph.

Paragraph six elaborates, although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom

God has joined together in marriage. You see what it's saying? They're recognizing, you know what?

There are people who are going to try to take advantage of this, and divorce somebody for not biblical reasons, all right?

Yet, nothing but adultery or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage.

Notice the high view of marriage. In other words, just because somebody has committed adultery or has deserted, there's still remedy.

There's still remedy within the church and the magistrate. And if it can't be remedied, then divorce is still an option.

It says, where in a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed and the person's concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

In other words, you have two covenant institutions who are ordained by God.

You have the state and you have the church who can give aid and guidance. If crimes are being committed from one to the other, the state has the obligation to step in and to prevent that from a man to a woman.

And it can be either way, all right? You know, it's not lawful for a woman, a man to kill his wife.

It's not lawful for a woman to kill her husband. The last one being even more egregious than the first one.

All right, so these are the two paragraphs from direct from the Westminster.

Any questions? Yes, Dave. How do we deal with the issue of life -threatening physical abuse?

Can that be, I mean, I can make an argument that the person is violating their vows in terms of they're not protecting their spouse or caring for their spouse, but you don't see that particular issue explicitly mentioned in the scriptures.

No, you don't, but I would say, firstly, the church should be intervening, all right?

And if you follow through, there's a very simple thing.

If they're both church members, obviously, it's much easier, all right? If the one who is committing these crimes, all right, firstly, the authorities should be involved.

He's committing an act against the person that is in the penal law as well, but aside from that, the church needs to step in and call him to repentance.

If he fails to repent, all right, he's subject to excommunication. If he's subject to excommunication, all right, he's deemed to be a non -believer.

All right, and then I think the desertion statute falls into play. That's the way

I would interpret, and that's the way I would do it, and if he doesn't, you know, if he does, then he's repenting, then you have a possibility of reuniting them, all right, but under no circumstances would

I say that the church can just silently sit by and let that go on. I think that comes under desertion, and desertion can be emotional desertion and a few other things as well.

Yeah? If you have to get the civil magistrate involved where because of their crimes, they have to go to jail, well, that's desertion as well.

Yeah, so that's the question that's always asked, but I think if you just follow through with all the procedures of church discipline,

God is faithful. Yeah, well, look, remember what even the confession said.

It's, you know, divorce is possible when the behavior absolutely contradicts the covenant relationship, and you have, you know, sexual, verbal, vocational, and I figured what the last one was.

Okay, good question. Any other questions? Yes? Going off of his question, so if the person, if like, let's say the wife is going to church, but the husband is not, would the church still step in, or would it more so just be a legal thing?

Well, are you saying that he's not a member of the church? Yeah. Yeah. If he's not a member of the church, obviously, you can't exercise church discipline, all right, and so you can, then you would have to deal with the wife and definitely get the magistrate, civil magistrate, involved in it, and then the desertion clause,

I think, would still take, would still apply. It's just that you're taking one leg of enforcement is taken away from you.

The same thing is true as if you have, you know, somebody from another church, not in the marriage context, but if you have, let's say, two brothers or two sisters that are involved in a dispute, and one belongs to a biblical church, the other one's going to church, but they don't practice discipline.

You try to do Matthew 18, but they refuse, you know, and there's no bite in it, and that's one of the problems with churches that don't practice discipline.