Category Archives: Religious freedom

Discipleship, Divorce, Lost culture, marriage, morality

Is the Tide Turning in God’s House? One Courageous Shepherd

December 26, 2015 standerinfamilycourt Leave a comment

by Standerinfamilycourt

Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord,” declares the Lord God, “when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight. For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. Ezekiel 36

And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. Jude 1

SIFC Note: [Late edits have been made to this piece due to the kind advice from a stander who is a Church of Christ member, that ministers in this denomination do not approve of being addressed by a title, such as Reverend. This was done quite inadvertently, with no offense intended. Our sincere apologies to David Sproule. ]

In the fall of 2013, a pastor in a very large Florida church did something unheard of in our age that put a huge smile on the face of the Master. To the very best of his knowledge and comprehension, he stood up for 10 weeks and preached a 97% accurate series on covenant marriage, civil-only divorce and civil-only “remarriage”. He did so with so much uncommon depth of biblical understanding that it could only have been done in the power of the Holy Spirit, and with so much fearlessness that it’s hard to watch the videos that follow without being reminded of the oratories of Peter or Paul or Stephen. This shepherd clearly fears God and labors to snatch real souls from the hell-flames. If our nation is to survive as divinely founded, we need every pastor who calls himself by the name of Jesus Christ to emulate this man!

To be sure, there are other pastors stepping up to the plate to try and shore up “the culture of marriage” in the wake of the horrifying Obergefell ruling last June, and a handful of them are beginning to do so with some degree of introspection because they are beginning to see the “handwriting on the wall” (so to speak). However, the worst of these are urging adulterously-remarried couples to “remain faithful to your current marriage”, which is contrary to the word of God which says they are living in ongoing adultery, as specifically defined on three separate occasions by Jesus Himself. Many are preaching a 90% accurate sermon, but covering their tails by saying something at the end that effectively negates what they’ve just preached, and are stopping short of urging the only action that will help such spouses recover their inheritance in the kingdom of God. Most likely, the majority of them continue to solemnize weddings that Jesus repeatedly called adulterous. No wuss, this pastor sees the message all the way through to its moral and logical conclusion.

Why do we say David Sproule of the Palm Beach Lake Church of Christ is preaching only a 97% accurate call to action?
This is an excellent question. Brother Sproule repeatedly refers to Jesus making an “exception” in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 which he asserts was Jesus’ “permission” for a believer to initiate a divorce (1 Cor. 6:1-8 notwithstanding ) and to remarry if their covenant spouse has committed “sexual immorality”.

At the time Brother Sproule delivered these teachings, he was presumably unaware that his contemporary English bible translation (he tells us he’s reading from the New King James Version) had been tampered with by the manuscript selection / bible translation team led by Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort who in the 1880’s altered the translation of the Greek word porneia from its traditional rendering of “prostitution or whoredom” to “fornication”, then successors changed it to the far more interchangeable “sexual immorality”. Throughout the series, in a false argument that the innocent spouse may remarry, he has used the word “fornication” interchangeably with “adultery”, perhaps not considering scholarly evidence that these two separate sins were not at all used interchangeably by Jesus in those verses, nor several others. Brother Sproule has also frequently interjected “sexual immorality” in the remarriage discussion without recognizing the key point that Jesus was specifically referring to in both of the Matthew passages, that is, undisclosed premarital immorality while a legally binding bride-purchase agreement, predicated on the bride’s virginity, was in force – the betrothal ketubah. We are in the process of writing to Brother Sproule to commend him and to send him an excellent book by Rev. Daniel Jennings, “Except For Fornication“. Please pray that it is received with favor and direction of the Holy Spirit.

An excerpt from our letter where we write to commend Brother Sproule for his series:

Here’s where we feel you are very much on target with your teaching in a way that is truly rare, courageous and biblically-faithful:

Crucially, you recognize and publicly acknowledge that there is a unique one-flesh joining that is supernatural and accomplished by God that is never an element of adulterous remarriage.
You are unequivocally clear that only God can unjoin what He was joined, but the only act of men that does this is death.
You further recognize that God remains in covenant with that one-flesh entity He joined, even when a mountain of man’s civil paper says otherwise. (You are, therefore, more truthful than Dr. John MacArthur).
You deal faithfully with Greek verb tenses in a way that some national ministry leaders who certainly have the education to do likewise can’t seem to muster the courage to do. (You are more accountable than Drs. Voddie Baucham and Russell Moore).

5. To the best of your own knowledge and awareness, you seem to also be very faithful with word translation, and rightly dividing some passages of scripture that most others abuse.

6. You capably debunk the notion that baptism washes away inconvenient marriage covenants. (You are more accountable than Dr. James Dobson and host of other international voices).

7. You are honest about the heaven-or-hell issue involved, and that 1 Cor. 6:9-10 applies to respectable, church-going people whose pastor presided over their second or third wedding.

8. You are forceful instead of wishy-washy in urging people to act on the biblical truth and exit their immoral unions, even when there are children, as if real souls and eternal destinations ARE indeed at stake. (You are more concerned about those souls than Dr. John Piper and most of the stander community’s own pastors.)

9. You refrain from the cowardly and intellectually lazy device of covering the story of the Samaritan woman at the well with unsupported inferences. (You are, therefore, more truthful than Drs. Russell Moore and Robert A. G. Gagnon.)

10. You have quite capably recognized and called out, in an easy-to-understand fashion, several of the more pernicious heresies out there in evangelicaldom (some of which, sadly, appear in my denomination’s 1973 position paper, a cowardly document written in the wake of unilateral divorce enactment, given 60 years of sound prior doctrine that it drastically revised)….

We herewith bring you the entire series, to the extent we could round it up from Youtube. We give a couple of brief highlights or caveats for each video. Most of the videos are 40-45 minutes long, but with minimal overlap, and each one very much worth the time investment to listen.

Introductory Matters on Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage – September 16, 2013
SIFC’s Observations:
(+)  Rightly gives context to the future of our nation depends on obeying God’s marriage law
(+) Points out that the believers’ choice to obey or not obey affects our relationship with God, and is a matter of salvation.
(+) Despite the 21 different views MDR, only God’s commandment matters
(+)  Diplomatically acknowledges the sensitivity of the topic without pandering or back-pedaling
( + )  Our love for God must supercede our love for everyone else.
( + )  Puts forward the true view of repentance
( + ) Exposes the wrongful invoking of God’s love, mercy and grace while in a sinful relationship and unrepentant state
( + ) Cautions about emotions overriding obedience; refers to Ezra purge of unlawful marriages

God’s OVER-view of Marriage and Divorce – September 16, 2013
SIFC’s Observations:

(+)  God is the only One with authority to regulate marriage
(+) Civil law never supercedes God’s law
(+) Emphasizes “1 + 1 = 1” (but see below*)
(+) Points out one of the purposes is to help each other make it to heaven
(+)  Astutely quips that if Rom. 7:2 and 1 Cor. 7:39 were taken seriously    it would be considered “hate speech” in our culture
( – ) Erroneously claims a “divorced” victim of adultery may remarry
( – ) Erroneously implies a civil marriage license is necessary in God’s eyes
( – ) *Erroneously implies that human action is necessary to create the
one-flesh state, rather than God’s supernatural, instantaneous act.

Special encouragement to standers at approximately 28:00, where a permanent marker analogy applies to man-made “permanence” – it does eventually dissipate despite early resistance, but it’s God’s participation in true covenant matrimony that creates the actual permanence; His lack of participation that dooms permanence in the church-sanctioned counterfeit.

Matthew 19 in God’s Original Plan – September 17, 2013
SIFC’s Observations:

(+)  Provides insightful context to Matthew 19
(+) Discusses John the Baptist’s martyrdom for rebuking remarriage adultery and does not wimp out by claiming the problem was “incest”
(+) Unequivocally states that God did not design or provide for marriage dissolution while spouses are alive
(+) Calls out the imperative tense in Matt. 19:6 “let not man separate”
( – )  Equated “uncleanness” in Deut. 24 with adultery – no support offered
( – ) Erroneously claims a “divorced” victim of adultery may remarry
( – ) Erroneously implies a civil marriage license is necessary as a godly citizen (when that license does not reflect God’s law in any aspect)

The Authority and Amenability of Matthew 19:9 – Oct 23, 2013
SIFC’s Observations:

(+)  Points out that God’s marriage law applies regardless of spiritual condition of either spouse at the time of vows
(+) Appropriately emphasizes Christ’s authority to override Moses
(+) Points out that Christ had a role in the Creation – He was there
( – ) Claims Matthew 19:9 as the “core” of Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, instead of the same-occasion, no-exception, mixed-gender passage in Mark 10
( – )  Erroneously repeats that a divorced victim of adultery may remarry
( – )  Appears to be unaware of the relevance of Hebrew betrothal to correctly interpreting Matthew 5:32 and 19:9

Adultery and Jesus’ One Exception – Oct 21, 2013
SIFC’s Observations:

(+)  Points out that there was no gender difference in the way Jesus applied his teaching
(+) Addresses annulment as unbiblical and beyond men’s authority
(+) Calls out that the Church doesn’t join or regulate marriage; God does
(+) Points out that God does not join ineligible marriages
(+) Debunks (instead of appealing to) the Samaritan woman encounter
(+) Calls out the present tense usage in the Mark 6 account of Herod’s remarriage adultery – “nothing Herod could do to ever lawfully have Herodias”
(+) Calls out other pastors who rationalize keeping adulterous marriages intact based on “loopholes”
( – )  Misstated Matthew 19:9 as the “core” of Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, instead of the same-occasion passage in Mark 10
( – )  Repeats (wrongly) that a “divorced” victim of adultery may remarry
( – ) Discussion of “adultery redefinition” discussion seems more complicated in this video than strictly necessary
( – ) Skips discussion of Matthew 19:12 while arriving at a position equivalent to Shammai.   Agreeing with one of the two false choices presented by the Pharisees would cause the disciples’ extreme reaction? This would lead into a discussion about becoming a eunuch?

The Put-Away Fornicator May Not Remarry – November 18, 2013
SIFC’s Observations:

(+)  Refers to the full content Matthew 19:9 including the commonly-omitted prohibition on marrying a divorced person
(+) Calls out the false justifications for remarriage by the adulterous party
( – ) Fails to discern the “slippery slope” of claiming one party is “released” from the marriage bond while the other is not
( – )  Inappropriately conflates fornication with adultery
( – ) Reads from NKJV, inserting “sexual immorality” for the more accurate, specific translation of porneia as a premarital sin as Jesus stated it
( – ) Erroneously repeats that a “divorced” victim of adultery may remarry
( – )   Inappropriately limits Christ’s absolute prohibition against marrying any divorced person to marrying the “fornicator” so divorced
( – ) Relies on an inappropriate inference, which the Greek sentence structure and article usage in Matthew 19:9 does not support
( – )  Neglects to reconcile this theory to Luke 16:18, the exceptionless third occasion where Jesus prohibits everyone from marrying any divorced person.

(Presumably, for the widowed “put-away fornicator”, it is better to remarry than burn !)

The Deserted Believer May Not Remarry – November 18, 2013

SIFC’s Observations:

(+)  Debunks 1 Cor. 7:15 unequivocally and very effectively.
(+) Debunks the related heresy that Christ’s marriage commandments only apply to believers.
(+) Accurately traces Church history back to the 4th century and Catholic apostasy.
(+)  Accurate care made to the different audiences for the various instructions in 1 Corinthians 7
(+)  Calls out that every part of 1 Corinthians7 is equally inspired
(+)  Calls out that Greek choridzo (depart) is not equivalent to apoluo (put away), and that divorce and remarriage are out of context
(+) Calls out that “not under bondage” means not required to choose allegiance to spouse over allegiance to God

Adulterous Marriages Are Sinful and Must Be Severed – November 18, 2013

SIFC’s Observations:

(+)  Acknowledges the emotions that conflict with God’s law, and the need to set aside own prejudices
(+) Calls out the false doctrines that have been raised up in the church
(+) Refutes the heresy that salvation and baptism dissolve pre-salvation covenants or that God’s law does not apply to non-Christians
(+)  Debunks the abuse of 1 Cor. 7:20 and 1 Cor. 7:14 to justify staying in legalized adultery
(+)  Debunks the idea that repentance from a state of adultery is satisfied by confession without requiring severing and termination of the relationship
(+) Affirms that God’s word does not contradict itself
(+) Calls out that elders / shepherds are responsible for the souls of their members
( – ) Refers (wrongly) to “one exception” that permits divorce and remarriage – discussed in a previous video.

Adulterous Marriages Are Sinful and Must Be Severed (Part 2) – November 25, 2013

SIFC’s Observations:

(+) Points out that we will be judged according to God’s word alone, not what a church, pastor, friends or others teach or practice
(+) Revisits in-depth the heresy that baptism washes away prior marriages and “sanctifies” the existing adulterous relationship
(+) Clarifies that baptism forgives repented (discontinued) sins
(+) Correctly points out the Matt.19:9 present-tense verb that makes the definition of adultery an ongoing state of sin
(+) Correctly emphasizes God-joining, only in a righteous marriage
(+) Truthful definition of repentance, contrasting with false repentance
(+) Courageously relates the story of the purging of illicit marriages (with children) in the book of Ezra, elevating God’s instructions above emotional arguments
( – ) Refers (wrongly) to “one exception” that permits divorce and remarriage – discussed in a previous video
( – ) Omits discussion of Hebrew betrothal’s connection with the Matthean exception

Concluding remarks: In the book of Ezra, chapters 9 and 10, the priests of Israel were amazingly quick to agree with the Spirit-anointed, bookish prophet of God even though he told them they must saw off the immoral branches of their own families in order to recover the sovereignty of their nation after decades of exile. Deep-down they knew they had willfully and knowingly violated God’s clear commandment, and the fact that there were children involved wasn’t going to deter God’s directive to purify their community and to purge the immorality from their midst. In many cases, this was polygamy that competed with an existing God-joined covenant marriage between two Jewish spouses whose marriage remained intact and blessed. The separation and severance did not happen without provision for those separated concubines and their children, nor did it happen without a solid plan.

In the same fashion, separating and civilly-divorcing out of a subsequent non-covenant marriage (undertaken while a covenant spouse remains alive) must be led by the Holy Spirit and motivated by an authentic desire to put nothing ahead of our relationship with the Holy One. The plan of severing must treat the children and severed spouse as we would want to be treated if the roles were reversed. It must encourage the severed spouse to make changes in their own life, such as seeking reconciliation with their own covenant spouse, that will recover or attain their inheritance in the kingdom of God, and it must be undertaken with firm finality. (There are many “standers” who are currently standing for restoration of an adulterous remarriage who are hostile to the idea of reconciling with their true spouse for various reasons).

A few of those in an adulterous remarriage now have covenant spouses who are deceased.   The death of that true spouse does not instantly transform an immoral union into holy matrimony without taking a few deliberate steps of repentance.   Is there a living, estranged covenant spouse on the other side of the union?   If so, the adultery continues and your remarriage needs to be terminated.
If not, a season of separation is still a good idea to get alone with God and purge the idolatry that originally motivated entry into the non-covenant union.   If and only if Jesus is our first love are we ever qualified to take a spouse.     Are there estranged relations with covenant children, and / or are they also living in a state of immorality due to emulating your example?    Fix those relations while separated and celibate – confess your wrong choice to them and seek to make restitution to them as best you can.
Will you be unequally yoked if you attempt to undertake holy matrimony?   Under those conditions, you will be renewing a relationship with idolatry if you do. If and when you are in a place where it makes sense for the whole of your family, and you can do so with a clear conscience before God, take new covenant vows before godly witnesses and pastor so that the supernatural one-flesh joining that was precluded from occurring in the adulterous prior vows can now occur by God’s hand, and His irrevocable covenant will attach, transforming the union into holy matrimony if there are no remaining impediments.

“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” – Luke 14:26

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!
www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Discipleship, Lost culture, marriage, morality, Spiritual Warfare

Mary and Joseph: Why Protestant Theologians Downplay Their Betrothal

December 25, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 4 Comments

by Standerinfamilycourt

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”……And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son… Matthew 1:18-24

…They said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.
John 8:41

Even before the time God met with the Israelites on the mountain in the wilderness, gave them the Ten Commandments and told them they would be His people and He would be their God (effectively vowing an indissoluble wedded state on an unconditional basis), we see the analogy of indissoluble holy matrimony woven through virtually every book of the bible from Genesis to Revelation, with some particularly powerful examples, such as the books of Hosea, Malachi and Ezra. Arguably, holy matrimony is the first and holiest symbol He has chosen for His purpose and plan for human families in His creation. We see also throughout scripture how jealous God Most High is of His chosen symbols. Woe to anyone who would mock and trample them in Old Testament times, how much more so after the Bridegroom has laid down His life for His bride and solemnly promised to return for her!

[….Promised to return for her…] At some point, perhaps just a few months prior to her conception by the Holy Spirit, Joseph paid a bride price for Mary as part of the traditional Hebrew kiddushin, the engagement ceremony that resulted in a legally-binding contract to marry a year or so in the future, called a ketubah. Just as Jesus had recited these words to his disciples at the last supper, Joseph had ceremoniously recited them to his Mary:

“In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.” John 14:2-3

Joseph was going about his business preparing a place for Mary when he learned of Mary’s pregnancy and before he was visited by the angel. At that point, the law uniquely regarded Mary as his wife, even though the marriage was not yet consummated. Had Joseph died before returning for Mary, she would have all the rights in Joseph’s family prescribed by the Law of Moses that a consummated wife would have. Had the Romans continued to permit the Jews to carry out capital punishment by stoning, he could have exercised those consequences for her pregnancy, but in the years since that option was withdrawn, a legal document called a “get” or a writ of divorcement was required to dissolve the ketubah, and free him to seek another wife, but only up to and including the wedding night. However, as stoning became unavailable, the remedy for “some uncleanness” found in Deuteronomy 24 was expanded by the rabbis in the centuries between Moses and Ezra or Malachi to unilaterally dispose of betrothed wives such as Mary, as well as wives of long standing. An ugly example was thereby established that would prove troublesome sixteen centuries later.

Even with the most biblically-faithful exegesis of God’s marriage laws, rarely is this important piece of context mentioned or discussed in Protestant churches, despite the heavy emphasis Jesus gave it while instituting the sacrament of holy communion. But why not? When members of the community of covenant marriage standers engage online with various theologians concerning divorce and remarriage based on the culture and context of Hebrew betrothal in understanding Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32, most become uncomfortable and dismissive, as if an annoyingly irrelevant point has been interjected into the “scholarly” discussion. Why?

Many of the writings of Protestant Reformers indicated that they chafed at the idea of divorce and remarriage not being a readily available option in the church of their day. Annulments (extremely rare and costly, though they never should have existed at all in defiance of Matthew 19:6 and Exodus 20:16), had only been conceived of and available for about 300 years at that point, and marriage, God’s holiest symbol, was quite reasonably considered a sacrament otherwise, since holy communion was. The Reformers were recoiling at two basic circumstances: one supremely legitimate as laid down by Jesus, and the other a legalism later contrived by misguided clerics of the 3th and 4th centuries in response to the waves of sexual immorality attacking the church in the form of Gnosticism and similar cults.

Jesus said all of the following: (a) anyone who marries a divorced person commits ongoing adultery, (b) anyone who divorces a consummated wife causes her to commit ongoing adultery, and (c) anyone who marries another after divorcing their spouse commits ongoing adultery. (In other words, holy matrimony is unconditionally indissoluble by men, echoing what He said in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9).

Ascetic clerics such as Tertulian, Origen and Jerome went beyond what Jesus said, and started to teach that celibacy was holier than God’s most sacred symbol. They further argued that sacramental treatment of marriage was essential to cover the resulting “sin” of the marital act, and that married couples should refrain from sexual intimacy except to procreate (thereby contradicting Paul in 1 Cor. 7:3-5, while over-emphasizing verse 1…”it is good for a man not to touch a woman. “) One source attributes to Origen (185-254) the strange assertion that during marital sexual intercourse, the indwelling Holy Spirit departs the bodily temples of the spouses.
Even during an act of adultery or sodomy or pornographic activity, scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit is a Person who is grieved or quenched, but not that He departs a regenerated person’s body.
(Of course, the Holy Spirit is never present during any activity of an unregenerated person who has never surrendered to Christ’s lordship.)

The historian Eusebius also reported that Origen castrated himself in order to embody Matthew 19:12, apparently misconstruing what Jesus said (and Paul echoed in 1 Corinthians 7:11) about remaining celibate if deserted or divorced by a one-flesh spouse. This self-castration account was widely believed during the Middle Ages, and no doubt also influenced the Reformers to ignore the powerful witness intended by Jesus, reducing it to just another “legalism”.

Satan has, from that bite of the apple in the Garden of Eden, constantly attacked the indissolubility and stability of God’s holy ordinance from multiple directions while stirring up the humanistic rebellion of men against it. Erasmus, at the turn of the 16th century wrote of the “harshness” of Christ’s commandment, in his estimation (though this is far from the worst of Erasmus’ direct contradictions of both Jesus and Paul):

“Eulalia: Let your Husband be as bad as bad can be, think upon this, That there is no changing. Heretofore, indeed, Divorce was a Remedy for irreconcilable Disagreements, but now this is entirely taken away: He must be your Husband and you his Wife to the very last Day of Life.

Xantippe: The Gods did very wrong that depriv’d us of this Privilege.

Eulalia: Have a Care what you say. It was the Will of Christ.

Xantippe: I can scarce believe it.

(The Uneasy Wife). Nathan Bailey & E. Johnson. The Colloquies of Erasmus, Vol. 1 (London: Reeves and Turner, 1878)

Under Erasmus’ heavy influence, Martin Luther wrote:

“What is the proper procedure for us nowadays in matters of marriage and divorce? I have said that this should be left to the lawyers and made subject to the secular government. For marriage is a rather secular and outward thing, having to do with wife and children, house and home, and with other matters that belong to the realm of the government, all of which have been completely subjected to reason (Gen. 1:28). Therefore we should not tamper with what the government and wise men decide and prescribe with regard to these questions on the basis of the laws and of reason.”

Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg); Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ; Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther’s Works, Vol. 21 : The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1956 (Luther’s Works 21, S. 21:93

Apparently, in the Age of Reason, neither God’s wisdom nor Paul’s
( 1 Corinthian 6:1-8) were “reasonable” enough any longer. In summary, the fabrication of “biblical grounds” that purportedly removed the eternal consequences from this state of sin Jesus defined three separate times as adultery, was an opportunistic overreaction to Catholic legalism (including the spurious indulgence of marriage annulment) and to asceticism including the extra-scriptural preference for celibacy over holy matrimony. After all, if the Popes were “all wet” with regard to issues of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, then who was to say they were also infallibly correct on the indissolubility of covenant marriage? In an age where few had their own access to the scriptures or books on the history of the Church as yet, it was the perfect opportunity to shed the fear of God that restricted sexual options. But, you ask, what does all this have to do with Joseph and Mary’s Jewish betrothal?

Embrace of the Hebrew betrothal custom as part of the overall symbolism and analogy of the relationship between Christ and His bride the Church presents all of the following threats to the more indefensible elements of Reformation theology, and (more specifically) to key documents arising therefrom– such as the Westminster Confession of Faith:

(1) It presents a far more hermeneutically-sound explanation and interpretation of the “exception clause”, which appears exclusively in the gospel of Matthew, than does any merely implied exception for post-wedding adultery.

(2) It reinforces that the Matthean “exception” was limited to a very narrow premarital provision that became totally irrelevant under the New Covenant ushered in by Jesus.

(3) It causes all of the other marriage scriptures in the Old and New Testaments to perfectly align around God’s having made no provision whatsoever for either divorce or remarriage against the spouse of our youth, and it reinforces the eternal consequences for disobeying – see point (6).

(4) It would compel countless pastors and denominations to admit they have been presiding for nearly 50 years over false weddings, and most mainline denominations to admit this has been the case for some 500 years.

(5) Their nephew is a practicing attorney (just kidding!)

(6) It directly challenges the dogma “once saved, always saved”.
Regarding our initial justification as a legally-binding betrothal that can still be broken by us, provocatively calls into question the Calvinist doctrine commonly referred to today as “hypergrace”. Once all of the other scriptures about not being ready for Christ’s return, and about falling away due to a hardened heart are integrated, dealing with such matters as the Rapture of the Church takes on a much more serious tone. This harmful “OSAS” doctrine asserts that our sins have no eternal consequences, even if there is not physical repentance, so long as we “confess” and “repent in our hearts” of the things Jesus and Paul both said would send us to hell. According to the revisionists, this is attempting to “earn” our salvation, as though the “full price” hadn’t been paid by Christ. (If this is truly the case, then three of the gospels and all the epistles are seven times more wordy and verbose than was strictly necessary.)

Not only is the Jewish betrothal spurned by all but a few modern theologians in discussions of divorce and remarriage, pastors go to great lengths not to even mention it in sermons dealing specifically with divorce and remarriage. Hence, you might hear about it during the “safe zone” of Christmas services, but only as an interesting (but disembodied) curiosity of bible times.

I will betroth you to Me [pay a bride price for you] forever;
Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice,
In lovingkindness and in compassion, And I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness.
Then you will know the Lord. Hosea 2:19-20

For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
2 Corinthians 11:2

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Discipleship, Lost culture, Spiritual Warfare

Jesus was a Libran (Not a Capricorn)…But He Did Eat Organic Food

December 6, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 2 Comments

by Standerinfamilycourt

Jesus was a Capricorn
He ate organic food
He believed in love and peace
And never wore no shoes

Long hair, beard and sandals
And a funky bunch of friends
Reckon we’d just nail him up
If he came down again

‘Cause everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on
Who they can feel better than at any time they please…..

– Kris Kristofferson, circa 1970

So goes the ballad from the heady days when we were all assured that “you can’t legislate morality” (and before the days when we found out that legislating immorality is no problem at all, once this fallacy had been fully embraced by those in civil and ecclesiastical power).

This blog, despite appearances, will not be a rant against paganism in the yuletide traditions of Western culture. There are few aspects of New Testament history where paganism doesn’t pervasively intertwine. This will be more of an urgent plea to the marriage permanence community to “keep our powder dry”, in order to assure that our more urgent message is heard by this culture. We must choose our battles wisely and with eternity in firm focus, Standers. The time seems to be growing short.

It is true that the actual birth date of Jesus is far more likely to have been late September rather than late December. We find this by the account of the conception and birth of cousin John the Baptist, whom scripture tells us was 6 months older than the Son of God (see Luke 1) . We also surmise it by the fact that shepherds would not have had their sheep out overnight in the fields at that December time of year (Luke 2:8-14) . It is also true that some of the things said by the Hebrew prophets concerning Asherah poles, and the like (Jeremiah 7:18, Jeremiah 10:2-4) find a valid enough analogy in the Christmas tree, for a reverent Christ-follower to learn about the pagan history of various traditions, to gain strong insights into how the more serious heresies took root in the Church in similar fashion, and to seek the Lord’s face on how to best honor His birthday, which most likely came in the month of Tishrei (in which both Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and Rosh Hashanah occur), rather than Tevet, the month in which Hanukkah falls.
(Those who instead believe Jesus was born in early March are interpreting the reference to “the sixth month”, concerning the timing of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth in Luke 1, not as the sixth month of that pregnancy, but as the sixth month of the modern Julian calendar. For more information on the Hebrew months of the year, click here.)

Legalism over holiday-tainting seems to be one of the 4 or 5 “wedge issues” dividing and distracting the marriage permanence community, as though celebrating Halloween, Christmas and Easter were transgressions of equal magnitude as those on the 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 lists (though some would be quick to call having a Christmas tree idolatry), and as though a spirit-filled believer, suddenly dying while in the act of committing one of these celebrations, is going to be ushered into hell. Some current-day Judaizers would go so far as to say that Christ-followers should be celebrating Hanukkah and Passover instead of Christmas and Easter. SIFC says, “why choose?” Why not be free to enjoy the richness of all of them?

St. Augustine of Hippo said,

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Prior to that, St. Paul of Tarsus said of an idolatry-tainting issue in his day in the Corinthian church:

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?

Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.
1 Cor. 10:23-33

As the early church grew into the European regions they found the native / pagan holidays had evolved around the agrarian cycle with its busy fall harvest time, followed by the means (in both time and food availability) to celebrate. Winter was also longer and darker there than in the Middle East, so winter festivals were also a time of lifting people’s spirits. It is questionable whether Jesus’ actual birthday could have been celebrated during the height of the harvest season in many of those countries. Making the most of the available time and conditions to harvest was a matter of survival in those days. Is this so dissimilar to the run-in with the Pharisees, when the Lord’s disciples were gleaning grain on the Sabbath?

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat. But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.” But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
Matthew 12:1-7

Yes, it’s true that many of the symbols that became associated with Christmas traditions in Europe had pagan origins, since that was the tradition those pagans had converted in. See this short video for a very balanced and informative look at this. On balance, I find it not that unreasonable that from the time of Emperor Constantine, early church evangelism started wrapping biblical teaching around what its pagan proselytes knew best, so long as Christ’s essential commandments weren’t compromised. Jesus used object lessons in the same way, for sure, and the Apostles likewise saw the need to agree on essentials for the earliest Gentile converts, in order to avoid the legalism of trying to Judaize them, so that the greater work of discipleship, and of advancing the kingdom of God weren’t hindered. By comparison, it was a far more serious matter that Constantine’s court started undermining the commandment of Christ that no man has authority to dissolve the marriage covenant joined by God Most High.

December 25 seems to coincidentally be the observed birthday of quite a few pseudo-deities. (Disclaimer: SIFC has not verified any of these.)

These observations are not being written to slam anyone who feels convicted in this area, but only to stimulate a little more thought about kingdom priorities. Covenant marriage standers certainly would have a tendency to be drawn to these ideas, absent any other input. After all, year after year, many of us suffer through the holiday season having to put up with the miserable fact that our one-flesh is celebrating with the counterfeit who is doing their best to escort them to hell. There typically isn’t much money for gifts, travel, party invites, or ability to accept the ones that come, for many who stand praying for the repentance of their prodigal. The joke’s on the adulterers, isn’t it, if they’re reveling in a false occasion while the real date brings the everyday relational turmoil of living in a sinful state.

But what of maintaining an attitude and welcoming environment for the sudden repentance of that wandering one-flesh? Is a home that now bans all the things the Holy Spirit has perhaps been faithfully stirring up in their memories going to feel welcoming to them? Is that the message that’s plastered all over your wall, Stander?

May I suggest applying the “T-H-I-N-K filter” to the frequency, tone and content of posted items on this topic?

Is it True? (Mostly, it is! But what do they see you actually doing?)
Is it Helpful? (Probably not — are there better ways to walk this out by positive example?)
Is it Inspiring? ( We have to be honest here, don’t we? Scrooge was inspiring! Leaving room for the work of the Holy Spirit is inspiring.)
Is it Necessary? (Most things that aren’t heaven-or-hell issues are probably best left to the move of the Holy Spirit, and led by our example instead of grating rebuke.)
Is it Kind? (That depends on each of the elements above, does it not?)

If our conviction is strong about celebrating Jesus’ birthday as close as possible to the actual date, and doing so in some way that excludes objects that could be seen as idolatrous, why not start that tradition in our home and invite someone over in late September, perhaps even post those pictures with a non-disparaging explanation? Why not then spend Dec. 25 serving the community in some way? We’re sure to be asked about it, which then opens up an opportunity to witness. Could a posted meme possibly be more effective than this?

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Discipleship, morality, Spiritual Warfare

What Therefore God Has Joined Together, Let the Bishop Annul? (Years Later)

December 1, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 1 Comment

r” McAnnulment2 by Standerinfamilycourt

They prophesied by Baal and led My people Israel astray.
“Also among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing:
The committing of adultery and walking in falsehood;
And they strengthen the hands of evildoers,
So that no one has turned back from his wickedness.
Jeremiah 23:13-14

Effective today, December 1, 2015, Pope Francis has determined that it will be cost-free and streamlined for a covenant-breaking Catholic to unilaterally obtain a denial that God supernaturally joined them with their covenant husband or wife as an inseparable one-flesh entity. A single bishop can now decide that even vows made decades earlier in a Catholic church wedding were “not sacramental” and did not create an indissoluble covenant, due to various “impediments”, usually a taking the form, in most U.S. dioceses, of a perjurous retroactive claim of “lack of consent”. Imagine a cleric lacking the awe, reverence and holy fear of God, instead finding the temerity to inform the Most High of the effectiveness of His Own supernatural act and covenant participation, while bearing false witness before and about the Omniscient and Omnipresent One in the process.
God help them!

The true witness of Jesus Christ is this: ‘…For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be — the two — for one flesh? so that they are no more two, but one flesh; what therefore God did join together, let NO MAN put asunder.’
(Matt. 19:5-6)

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

A valid Catholic marriage results from five elements:
(1) the spouses are free to marry
(2) they freely exchange their consent
(3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children
(4) they intend the good of each other
(5) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

Rationalization:
“And the church also recognizes—with the same love of justice and desire for mercy as Jesus—that imperfect people enter into what are called “attempted marriages”. Despite their good intent, their best efforts, and maybe a very long time, something vital was missing or in the way that prevented the union from ever being able to rise to the level of a sacrament.”

Same mercy as Jesus? Would that be mercy and justice toward the rejected covenant family, or futile “mercy” toward the one who wants a decree of Church permission to ignore Jesus’ thrice-stated definition of adultery (creating a hellbound offense if not repented by termination of the immoral relationship, according to 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Gal. 5:19-21)? What was Jesus’ definition of the ongoing state of adultery? Did He not say it was the attempt to legalize and sanctify an unlawful union to one who has a living estranged spouse, and therefore, an undissolved covenant in God’s sight–not any man’s faulty, fleshly sight, including that of a hireling shepherd?

The Lord Jesus said:

“…and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matt. 5:32

“…and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.” Matt. 19:9b (YLT)

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Luke 16:18

The Protestant Church, of course, would be all about trying to find several “biblical exceptions” for blanket application (whereas there are none stated above by Jesus) to counter the unpalatable, allegedly “unmerciful” marriage law of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, pretends to respect Christ’s commandment by not finding per se exceptions, but instead by paying meaningful lip service, in a manner as recently articulated by Fr. Peter Daly:

“It is pretty clear from the Gospels that Jesus did not approve of divorce and remarriage. He says it amounts to adultery, which is pretty strong language, especially coming from Jesus. But if we are his followers, we have to at least try to deal with his teaching. Our annulment process is an attempt to take his teaching seriously and still allow people a second (or third) chance…..The problem with the process in the Roman Catholic church is that it takes what ought to be a pastoral matter and turns it into a legal one.” – National Catholic Register, January 13, 2014

In what way, exactly, is the Roman Catholic annulment process taking the teaching of Jesus “seriously”, Fr. Daly? And… “rise to the level of a sacrament”? Does the performance of the human participants in covenant with God make the covenant a sacrament, or is it a sacrament precisely due to God becoming a party to that covenant? When Jesus, in that upper room on the night when He was betrayed, as He took up the bread and the cup, reciting verbatim the words of the traditional Hebrew betrothal ceremony, did He hold out standards for His disciples’ participation to “rise to the level of a sacrament” that evening? Do the Catholic Fathers have that same expectation of those receiving Eucharist, that some element of their performance “rise to the level of a sacrament”? Was it not Jesus who took up the basin and washed the disciples’ feet in that last supper ceremony? Did John the Baptizer offer to examine the “sacramental validity” of Herod’s and Herodias’ respective covenant marriages before putting his head on the literal execution block, in bluntly warning them “it is not lawful for you to have her” ?

Pastoral matter, Fr. Daly? What about the more urgent pastoral matter of snatching people from the fire? Is it not more urgent to warn people to get out of unlawful adulterous unions, warning them away from hell? Is their temporal happiness really more important than their souls or their inheritance in the kingdom of God?

The usual purpose of committing the unspeakable abomination against one’s covenant family, of denying that the covenant marriage ever validly existed, is usually undertaken to gain (purported) sacramental status in a church ceremony for a subsequent and conflicting union that Jesus made crystal clear was continuously adulterous–by even the ready admission of the Roman Catholic Church. But Who is it that judges whether He created a one-flesh entity? And Who is it that determines whether He will replicate the same between two adulterers? Is it even plausibly the Bishop? From Whom does the claimed sacrament flow? What man will dare desecrate His sacred symbol of holy matrimony, which the Holy Spirit has woven through scripture from Genesis to Revelation, and hope to stand upright before a Jealous God?

Did the apostles, Peter or Paul, ever “onboard” the sinners along with their sin in any of the churches?

“You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

“For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

“Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

^“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.” 1 Corinthians 5

It appears that Paul was decidedly “unmerciful” when it came to the sanctity and utter indissolubility of holy matrimony! Almost as “unmerciful” as his Lord and Savior.

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the ante-Nicene church fathers is aware that the 1st through 4th century early church, then the Roman Catholic Church, grew and developed for centuries without any apparent need for sanctioned marriage annulment — in an epoch that knew little else than arranged marriages.

Indeed, the words of St. Ignatius (A.D. 100) should give strong pause to the contemporary fathers of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as every shepherd of the universal church of Jesus Christ:

“Do not be in error, my brethren. Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a one becoming defiled in this way shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.”

According to The Original Catholic Encyclopedia, the codification of provisions for declaring a sacramental marriage “null” first emerged in the mid-12th century under the papacies of Alexander III and Innocent III, after some bishops had been allowing remarriage on an ad hoc basis. This development led to a period in history where a succession of pontiffs in the 14th and 15th centuries were themselves far from celibate, and many lived profoundly immoral lives before and during their papacies. Earlier codifications from the Roman era dealing with marriage and breach of marital sanctity, such as Julia et Papia and Codex Theodosius do not mention any provision for seeking a declaration of nullity even though Theodosius promoted unilateral divorce in the 5th century. There is nothing scriptural on which to base the heinous practice that was formally adopted in the 12th century (while ironically also formally adopting requirements that clergy must take a vow of celibacy), and both practices were a clear departure from earlier authority that held more faithfully to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

The sharply rising incidence of “nullity” in the 20th and 21st centuries also seems to be tied primarily to Western nations with easy, unilateral divorce. It is certainly notable in those countries that arranged marriages among Catholics, where consent might legitimately be called into question, are virtually nonexistent. According to Robert H. Vasoli, author of “What God Has Joined Together – The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism” ( Oxford University Press, 1998), approximately one-third of the average 60,000 annulments per year are granted because one spouse was a non-Catholic, with the bulk of the remainder being granted on claims of lack of consent, usually due to a purported “lack of emotional maturity” to sustain a viable marriage (conflicting evidence of longevity being deemed “irrelevant” for this purpose).

In this, they join the rogue family law courts in adjudicating a fiction that a marriage that was obviously healthy for 3 or 4 decades is suddenly “irreconcilable”, even worse, wasn’t “viable” from the beginning due to the requisite lack of “emotional maturity” on the part of one of the spouses. (Emotional maturity that was ample on the wedding day might more likely have taken flight in the fear of losing a late-life adulterous relationship.)

Citing the “rubber stamp” predilections of the U.S. tribunals (which on average grant 3 annulments for every 1 annulment granted anywhere in the rest of the world despite representing only 6% of the world’s Roman Catholic population), on page 7, former Notre Dame sociology / criminology professor, Dr. Vasoli asserts, “A salient premise that undergirds the system, one seldom stated for public consumption, is captured succinctly in an anonymous tribunalist’s comment, ‘There is no marriage which given a little time for investigation, we cannot declare invalid.’ ” Is there overwhelming evidence that this staggering number of “invalid” marriages (as in some cases retroactively determined some 30 years after the wedding) being driven by anything other than our immoral unilateral divorce laws ? According to this author, the result has been a tidal wave: in 1968, the American church granted fewer than 600 annulments; today it hands out more than 60,000 a year.

More recently, two Catholic writers independently reported on the September, 2015 announcement by Pope Francis authorizing local bishops to remove barriers to annulment on demand, countering the Vatican’s claim that what outsiders accurately saw as the most comprehensive changes in annulment policy in some 300 years were merely an “administrative improvement”. John Zmirak wrote in Stream Magazine, September 11, 2015:

“…But liberal priests and bishops did not view annulments as what they are — rare, exceptional events that recognize an injustice, such as a girl who was married by force. Instead, many bishops, especially in America, began to hand out annulments to almost anyone who asked, on spurious psychological grounds such as “emotional immaturity.” In my own Catholic high school, the quarters that once housed Christian Brothers (who all cleared out after Vatican II) were turned into an annulment tribunal with the highest “success” rate in the world. Some 99 percent of marriages examined in that tribunal turned out to have been invalid….That means one of two things: a) We Americans are very good at faking annulments of perfectly valid marriages, so that couples can contract second, adulterous marriages with a clear conscience; or b) We are very bad at performing valid marriages….

Zmirak continues, “Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI ….saw the American annulment rate as an international scandal, and tried to tighten the rules from Rome, making it harder for local bishops to accommodate the divorce culture, and giving some support for those spouses who didn’t want their marriages (sometimes of 20 or 30 years, with multiple children) declared in retrospect null and void. An abandoned Kennedy wife, Sheila Rauch Kennedy, famously fought her powerful husband’s annulment petition — and when she lost had the bad manners to write a book exposing what a farce the procedure had become.

“Pope Francis has apparently reversed most of the reforms that the previous two popes imposed, and made annulments easier, quicker and cheaper. That surely will mean that they will become more common.”

Writing in Crux, September 8, 2015, John L. Allen Jr. suggests a very sinister political calculus by this Jesuit pontiff:

“All along, reform in the annulment process seemed the most obvious compromise measure, a way of giving both camps at least part of what they wanted. Those opposed to revising the Communion ban could take comfort that the Church was not softening its stand on divorce, while progressives would be pleased that the Church was at least trying to show greater compassion and outreach.”

We would suggest that the only “compromise” was to what remained of the integrity of Catholic families. The result allows “the faithful” to continue to live in sanctioned adultery with the Church’s unobstructed blessing — disregarding the commandment of Christ entirely, along with the eternal consequences awaiting unrepentant adulterers, instead of counseling those adulterers to terminate the relationship in order to take communion in a worthy manner (1 Cor. 11:27-32), not to “eat and drink judgment to himself if he does not judge the body [of Christ] rightly”, and to recover their forfeited inheritance in the kingdom of God. For all of Pope Francis’ profession of “mercy” and “compassion”, His Holiness’ failure to see beyond the temporal, mirrors that of most Protestant leaders, and turns both of those concepts on their head considering the eternal costs of condoning the sin.

We know that there is no scriptural precedent to justify men retroactively declaring a consummated marriage “null”, and in fact no recognition in the courthouse of the Most High of man’s repudiation of the consummated marriage of our youth, as declared by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9, where He asserts that man is given no authority to unjoin what God’s hand has joined. We also know that for the first ten centuries of Christendom, there was no provision for marriage nullity, either written about or taught until it was legislated by a medieval pope. This begs the question, on what basis was this supported? Contemporary Catholics point to translations of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 where the “for fornication (Greek “porneia”) exceptive clause” is rendered “except for unlawful marriage”. However, this is not the case in the Catholic Douay-Reims 1899 version nor the Catholic Revised Standard Version where the exception reads “for unchastity“. Tellingly, the first time an exception for “unlawful marriage” occurs is in a version introduced in 1970 called New American Bible Revised.

Speaking of fornication or unchastity, “logou porneas” certainly does not translate as “unlawful marriage”!

Sc4All_M5.32a — Original Greek Text (Textus Receptus)

Protestants can hardly afford to cluck about the time-honored sport of bible translation vandalism undertaken to accommodate the Sexual Revolution, wherein Westcott & Hort in the 1880’s transformed “porneia” (unchastity, whoredom, fornication) into adultery via the revisionist rendering “general sexual immorality”, while completely jettisoning the remarriage-damning last phrase of Matthew 19:9, “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Indeed, we now have not only the Queen James Version, but also the 2011 New International Version coming out with homosexual-practice-friendly retranslated renderings. Comparison with Greek interlinear text tools, as illustrated above, is becoming compulsory to the accurate bible study of the 21st century “Berean” because of this.

Baal was the pagan god of the worship of sexuality, to whom child sacrifices were made. Jeremiah’s prophecy is being unmistakably fulfilled in our time in both the Catholic and Protestant Churches as a result of the systematic destruction of the sanctity of marriage in both the Church and Western society:

How long until judgment on our land and the American church is complete by the Lord’s hand? Jesus repeatedly asked, what would He find on the earth when He returned, perhaps already knowing.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:18-19

SIFC: For a deeper study into the biblical meaning and significance of the supernatural one-flesh joining, and God’s exclusive participation in the covenant of holy matrimony, including why (despite a pastor’s participation) this is never replicated where one or both of the partners has a living, estranged covenant spouse, please click here.

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Discipleship, Prayer, Spiritual Warfare

The Hound of Heaven By Francis Thompson (1859–1907)

November 28, 2015 standerinfamilycourt Leave a comment

`Ye did not choose out me, but I chose out you, and did appoint you, that ye might go away, and might bear fruit, and your fruit might remain, that whatever ye may ask of the Father in my name, He may give you.
John 15:16

‘Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?’ declares the Lord. `Do not I fill both heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord.”
Jeremiah 23:24

Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.
If I take the wings of the dawn,
If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea,
Even there Your hand will lead me,
And Your right hand will lay hold of me.
Psalm 139:7-10

[ This classic poem is the biblical rebuke to the permissive heresy “once saved, always saved”, and to the humanistic corruption by Martin Luther, John Calvin and Erasmus of the doctrine of “free will”. Enjoy! – “standerinfamilycourt”]

I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat—and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet—
‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’

I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
Trellised with intertwining charities;
(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,
Yet was I sore adread
Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside).
But, if one little casement parted wide,
The gust of His approach would clash it to.
Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,
And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars;
Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon.
I said to Dawn: Be sudden—to Eve: Be soon;
With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over
From this tremendous Lover—
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,
The long savannahs of the blue;
Or whether, Thunder-driven,
They clanged his chariot ’thwart a heaven,
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their feet:—
Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.
Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat—
‘Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.’

I sought no more that after which I strayed
In face of man or maid;
But still within the little children’s eyes
Seems something, something that replies,
They at least are for me, surely for me!
I turned me to them very wistfully;
But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair
With dawning answers there,
Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.
‘Come then, ye other children, Nature’s—share
With me’ (said I) ‘your delicate fellowship;
Let me greet you lip to lip,
Let me twine with you caresses,
Wantoning
With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses,
Banqueting
With her in her wind-walled palace,
Underneath her azured daïs,
Quaffing, as your taintless way is,
From a chalice
Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.’
So it was done:
I in their delicate fellowship was one—
Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies.
I knew all the swift importings
On the wilful face of skies;
I knew how the clouds arise
Spumèd of the wild sea-snortings;
All that’s born or dies
Rose and drooped with; made them shapers
Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine;
With them joyed and was bereaven.
I was heavy with the even,
When she lit her glimmering tapers
Round the day’s dead sanctities.
I laughed in the morning’s eyes.
I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,
Heaven and I wept together,
And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;
Against the red throb of its sunset-heart
I laid my own to beat,
And share commingling heat;
But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.
In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s grey cheek.
For ah! we know not what each other says,
These things and I; in sound I speak—
Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.
Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;
Let her, if she would owe me,
Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me
The breasts o’ her tenderness:
Never did any milk of hers once bless
My thirsting mouth.
Nigh and nigh draws the chase,
With unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;
And past those noisèd Feet
A voice comes yet more fleet—
‘Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st not Me!’
Naked I wait Thy love’s uplifted stroke!
My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,
And smitten me to my knee;
I am defenceless utterly.
I slept, methinks, and woke,
And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.
In the rash lustihead of my young powers,
I shook the pillaring hours
And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,
I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years—
My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.
My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,
Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.
Yea, faileth now even dream
The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist;
Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist
I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,
Are yielding; cords of all too weak account
For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.
Ah! is Thy love indeed
A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed,
Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?
Ah! must—
Designer infinite!—
Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou canst limn with it?
My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust;
And now my heart is as a broken fount,
Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever
From the dank thoughts that shiver
Upon the sighful branches of my mind.
Such is; what is to be?
The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?
I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds;
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
From the hid battlements of Eternity;
Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then
Round the half-glimpsèd turrets slowly wash again.
But not ere him who summoneth
I first have seen, enwound
With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned;
His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.
Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields
Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields
Be dunged with rotten death?
Now of that long pursuit
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
‘And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught’ (He said),
‘And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited—
Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child’s mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!’
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’

Lord, may we rest confidently in Your promises while You, O God, faithfully pursue our prodigal.

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Discipleship, Divorce, Lost culture, Marriage Restoration, morality, Spiritual Warfare

Keys to Breaking the Back of the Evangelical “M-D-R” Heresy: One-Flesh Joining and Biblical Covenant

November 16, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 1 Comment

by Standerinfamilycourt

…so that they are no more two, but one flesh; what therefore God did join together, let no man put asunder.
Matt. 19:6

Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.
Malachi 2:14-15

Even now, most marriage-permanence disciples and ministries don’t fully understand the foundational concepts that make non-widowed remarriage constitute the ongoing state of adultery, in every case. As a consequence, the best of these are constantly battling rationalized pleas for worldly exceptions that can seem impervious to scriptural correction, and suffering endless accusations of “legalism” evoked by the very idea that those who do not repent of marrying someone else’s covenant spouse will not inherit the kingdom of God. Virtually NO Protestant pastor today preaches on the foundational facts underlying the thrice-repeated words of Jesus concerning this:

“everyone who marries a divorced [person] enters a state of ongoing adultery”. [Matt. 5:32b; Matt. 19:9b-KJV; Luke 16:18]

The most enlightened pastors who correctly and faithfully quote Jesus in the “what” of marriage permanence do so without giving any deep voice to the “why it is so.” Jesus said, “…from the beginning it was not so”, referring to false, man-made declarations of marriage dissolution, and He bluntly stated this was not possible by the hand of men. The last such sermon or writing we’re aware of that came close to Christ’s explicitness of this foundational truth in God’s marriage law went like this:

Isaac Williams (1802-1865) Church of England

” ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Here our Lord sets aside the letter of Holy Scripture, in one case, in the passage in Deuteronomy, (which He speaks of as the command of Moses,) on account of the higher law of Christian holiness and perfection…And therefore this passage in the book of Genesis not only is spoken, as St. Paul says it is, of the Sacramental union betwixt Christ and His Church, but does also signify that marriage is of itself of Divine sanction, and the union formed of God, and necessarily indissoluble as such…for if God hath joined, man cannot put asunder.”

But precisely why is it not possible for marriage to be dissolved by an act of men?

We really don’t need to look any further than Matthew 19:6 and its parallel verse, Mark 10:8-9 to see where Jesus tells us concisely why:

“…so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let NO HUMAN* separate.”

(*the Greek word in the manuscripts is anthropos, meaning “mankind”, not “andra” / “aner” or “man”.)

GOD creates the one-flesh entity, and from that point on, no longer sees two individuals. From that point on, only death can make one-flesh two again, which immediately eliminates every single one of the myriad rationalizations for remarriage while the spouse of our youth remains alive. [This is directly echoed in Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Cor. 7:39.]

Yet GOD does something even further upon the making of vows before Him of holy matrimony, after He has created the irrevocable, inseparable one-flesh entity: He unconditionally enters covenant with that new entity. (Malachi 2:14) This foundational fact means that holy matrimony is never replicated in a non-widowed remarriage, for God does not abandon covenant, nor join into a competing one. That’s why Jesus was so unrelenting and exceptionless in insisting that to marry another while having a living spouse, or to marry someone’s discarded spouse, is always to enter a state of ongoing adultery until repented and terminated. To do so, brazenly mocks the God of the marriage covenant!

(See also Genesis 2:21-24, and Ephesians 5:31 , noting that in every one of these stated cases, a man leaves his father and mother, not the spouse of his youth)

It’s literally that simple. However, to fully grasp the implications of all this, one must know the attributes of God’s character and how He deals with His own covenants, to which He is always the dominant party — for the most part, unconditionally.

What are those attributes?

Holiness – He will not abide nor inhabit that which is immoral and undertaken in treachery. (Not to be confused with the outward appearance of blessing, for He causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. )

Omnipotence – If not for His mercy and forbearance, we would be instantly consumed. Yet He brings the foreign invader and the internal blight, against which He withdraws His mighty hand of protection from a nation in order to chastise toward repentance, for the purpose to restore relationship with Him.

Integrity – Ancient covenants were always unconditionally binding on the stronger, more powerful party, i.e. Himself. He does not break covenant even when men do. Biblical scholars J. K. Tarwater and D.W. Jones exhaustively studied a total of 267 Old Testament, and 34 New Testament covenants of the Lord, and found that He broke not a single one of them in all of biblical history.

Justice – Unrepentant covenant-breaking and self-worship will have its day of retribution and recompense, even if it doesn’t occur in this life. Undertaken in this life, the cost of repentance is finite. Undertaken in the next life, the cost is unending.

Jealousy for His Symbols – From the severe discipline Moses received as a consequence of disobeying God in striking the rock (a symbol for the crucified Christ – Numbers 20:8-12) to the instant death that was meted to the priest Uzza for touching the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chronicles 13:9-10), the Most High allows no violation of His sacred symbols, of which holy matrimony was the very first and most sacred of symbols (Ephesians 5:31-32).

As though it wasn’t symbolic enough for Jesus, the Bridegroom, to rehearse virtually the entire script at the last supper of the traditional Hebrew betrothal ceremony (John 14:1-4; Luke 22:14-20) as He instituted holy communion, the actual elements of bread and wine represent a bit more than His flesh and his blood, they also represent one-flesh and the biblical marriage covenant itself: “I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you in My Father’s house.”

(For a deeper study on God’s Character and His Covenants, follow this link.)

Before we take on the entrenched culture of “sanctified adultery”, calcified by 500 years of Reformation-sourced twin heresies: that men can dissolve the marriage covenant contrary to what Jesus asserted, and that born-again believers are not accountable for their post-conversion apostasies (behind which are the all the demons of hell), we first must establish an immovable foundation whose pilings are the unambiguous teachings of Christ contained in scripture, whose bricks of covenant are the unchangeable attributes of God’s character, and whose mortar is the supernatural binding of one-flesh that only God can unbind. It is the unshakable knowledge that this foundation is not replicated, (nor can it ever be replicated) in unions that Jesus repeatedly characterized as in the ongoing state of God-mocking adultery.

This enhanced understanding of one-flesh and of holy covenant allows us to get out of the weeds of endlessly arguing about word usage and etymologies, of suffering charges of harshness under humanistic standards of perceived justice, and misguided concerns about “repeat sin” in undertaking the necessary acts of repentance. It’s the stuff of the book of Ezra, a contemporary of Malachi, where more than a hundred of the priests could have made all the same arguments, and thereby permanently forfeited the sovereignty of their nation, but instead they heeded the “thus saith the Lord” of their covenant to put away their foreign wives, for whom most had likely put away their one-flesh covenant wives previously, or were living in polygamy–as a good 60% of the contemporary Western church is today. Imagine how rapidly God’s kingdom would be rebuilt if only a modern-day Ezra would be raised up by the Lord, and His shepherds would repent and become as faithful!

Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.’
Jeremiah 33:25-26

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Discipleship, Spiritual Warfare

Naghmeh Abedini is a Stander, Her Husband a Prodigal, It Turns Out

November 15, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 4 Comments

by Standerinfamilycourt

There were those who dwelt in darkness and in the shadow of death,
Prisoners in misery and chains,
Because they had rebelled against the words of God
And spurned the counsel of the Most High.
Therefore He humbled their heart with labor;
They stumbled and there was none to help.
Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble;
He saved them out of their distresses.
He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death
And broke their bands apart.
Let them give thanks to the Lord for His lovingkindness,
And for His wonders to the sons of men!
For He has shattered gates of bronze
And cut bars of iron asunder. – Psalm 107: 10-16

It was in October a year ago that “standerinfamilycourt” was in Indianapolis at a womens’ conference with 8,000 other women and Naghmeh Abedini, whose pastor husband, an Iranian-born U.S. citizen had been brutally imprisoned in Iran for over two years at that time. Nancy Leigh DeMoss (since just yesterday, Mrs. Wolgemuth) had persuaded Naghmeh at the last minute to take a pause in her busy efforts at advocacy for the release of her husband, to come and give her and Saeed’s testimony, and receive prayer with and by the other ladies attending.

Naghmeh updated us on his visits with attorneys and his parents, the venues the Lord has taken her to testify and make her appeal (the U.N., Congress, the Secretary of State’s Office, cable news networks), her introverted nature that she had to overcome by the power of God, and there wasn’t a dry eye in the house as she read the riveting letter from prison that Saeed had gotten to his little girl, Rebekka, for her birthday the month before, carried to Nagmeh by Saeed’s parents:

“My dearest Rebekka Grace, happy eighth birthday. You’re growing so fast and becoming more beautiful every day. I praise God for His faithfulness to me every day as I watch from a distance through the prison walls . . . (He gets to watch pictures of the kids growing up. And Rebekka’s hair used to be that short, in the picture, and now it’s long, so he gets to see how the kids are growing up.)

. . . and see pictures and hear stories of how you’re growing both spiritually and physically. Oh, how I long to see you! I know that the question is why you have prayed so many times for my return, and yet I’m not home yet. Now, there’s a big “why” in your mind. You’re asking why Jesus isn’t answering your prayers and the prayers of all the people around the world praying for my release and for me to be home with you and our family.

The answer to the “why” is “Who.” Who is in control? The Lord Jesus Christ is in control. I desire for you to learn important lessons during these trying times, lessons that you carry now for the rest of your life. The answer to the “why” is “Who.” The confusion of “why has all of this happened,” and why your prayers are not answered is resolved with understanding Who is in control-the Lord Jesus Christ, our God.

God is in control of that whole world and everything that is happening in it, for His good purpose, for His glory-and will be worked out for our good-Romans 8:28. Jesus allows me to be kept here for His glory. He’s doing something inside each of us, and also outside in the world.

People die and suffer for their Christian faith all over the world, and some may wonder why, but you should know the answer to why is Who. It is for Jesus. He’s worth the price. He has a plan to be glorified through our lives. I want you to read the book of Habakkuk. He had the same questions as you, but see how the Lord answers him in Habakkuk 2:3: “The vision comes-and doesn’t delay-on time. Wait for it.”

Mommy and I always had big desires to serve Jesus and had great visions to be used for His kingdom and His glory. So, today we pay a cost because God Who created us called us to that.

So, I want you to know that the answer to all your prayers is that God is in control. He knows better than us what He is doing in our lives and all around the world. Therefore, declare as Daniel and his friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego did in Daniel 3:17-18: ‘”If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the fiery furnace. He will deliver us from your hand, O King. But, if not, let it be known to you, O King, that we do not serve your God, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”

Learn and declare as Habakkuk did that, even if we do not get the result that we’re looking for, God is still good and we will praise His holy Name. Habakkuk 3:17-19: “Though the fig tree may not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines; though the labor of the olive may fail and the fields yield no food; though the flock may be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord. I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength. He will make my feet like deer’s feet, and He will make me walk on high hills.”

Then, my dear beloved daughter Rebekka Grace, I pray God will bring me back home soon, but if not we still sing together, as Habakkuk did, “Hallelujah!”-either separated by prison walls or together at home. So let Daddy hear you sing a loud “Hallelujah,” that I can hear all the way here in the prison. I’m so proud of you my sweet, courageous daughter.

Glory to God forever. Amen. Kisses and blessings. Daddy.”

When she was finished reading, the ladies formed hundreds of prayer circles to pray for Saeed’s release, along with the three other Americans being held in Iran, and also to pray for the persecuted church in every country where people are imprisoned and killed for following Jesus instead of the state religion. In the months that followed, it seemed Saeed was close to being released on a couple of different occasions, and our State Department became more vocal if not more effective in calling for his release. We were gratified to hear that the Lord had protected Saeed’s life and has supernaturally touched the life-threatening medical conditions for which he was being denied treatment, but the Lord has held back from his release.

This week, Naghmeh disclosed Saeed’s long struggle with pornography addiction and the abuse that existed in their home prior to his arrest and detention in Iran, and she announced that she will be stepping back from public advocacy for his release while continuing to pray and to leave those efforts in the hands of their attorneys at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).

Could his imprisonment have been a divine intervention? “Standerinfamilycourt” hates the heresy known as OSAS (“once saved, always saved”) because it is a web of emboldened entrapment, luring people into activities, such as pornography and adultery, that lead to demonic oppression, which in turn requires exhaustive spiritual warfare to free them. A shockingly high number of pastors, when interviewed anonymously, have admitted to viewing porn in a short window of time prior to the interview.
Several studies have documented the biochemical changes to the brain that result from pornography addiction that then lead to other destructive behaviors. Apparently, this was an issue in Saeed’s life well prior to his imprisonment in Iran. Many covenant marriage standers will tell us they feel that Satan targeted their prodigal, who had been extremely fruitful in the kingdom of God and had clearly been used of the Lord just before their fall.

Naghmeh is taking all of the same abuse from her fallen kingdom warrior that most non-famous standers do from their backsliding prodigals. It’s exhausting and appears to all observers to be thankless–until God suddenly moves on the situation. Wives like Naghmeh are torn between speaking out to try and secure the help they know their one-flesh needs, and showing him the unconditional respect of not speaking negatively about him in public. Naghmeh is also at considerable risk as she makes a public announcement that she is stepping back to be with her children and seek the Lord for what to do next, as we recently saw with Anna Duggar. Everyone will have an opinion, and in our self-focused, microwave culture, usually not one that is protective and supportive of healing the marriage. She will be subjected to wave after wave of slander against her one-flesh (–slander doesn’t necessarily have to be untrue, just delivered in a fleshly and venomous way that rationalizes or reinforces somebody else’s unbiblical prior choices), and will be regaled with corresponding unsolicited advice. If she decides to follow fully biblical instructions, such as those Paul gave in 1 Cor. 7:11, she can count on being publicly castigated and assured that no power in heaven or on earth can change her husband’s heart issues. As sad as the Paris events were that deflected attention away from her announcement, this development served as a merciful shield from the “Christian” magpies out there.

Naghmeh and Saeed are part of a fairly large nondenominational church in Boise, ID. It is difficult to tell from their stated doctrines whether they believe that any act of men, from abuse to civil divorce or civil remarriage dissolves the marriage covenant, contrary to Christ’s word on the matter [Matt. 19:6 and Mark 10:9] — and this is a crucial issue in today’s largely apostate evangelical church.

From the church website: “The Bible is our creed. Therefore, any effort to define the basis of our teaching necessitates emphasis on the whole Word of God as the sole source of our beliefs. Furthermore, it seems unwise to adhere to the labels of much of Christendom, whether it’s Fundamentalism, Pentecostal, Calvinism, Armenianism, Charismatic, Dispensational, Reformed, etc. It is unrealistic to think that any individual man-made system of beliefs is completely error free or, conversely, without merit at all. It is therefore our sincere desire to simply teach the Bible true to its original languages and respectful of its historical context, the context of each passage, and the accepted and normal use of language (i.e. being able to discern the difference between a parable and a proverb, a prophecy and an historical account, etc.). We trust that this will enable us to understand the intended meaning and truth that is to be found in God’s inspired Word. “

The above sounds hopeful, that the leadership of this church values the “Berean” approach. If so, the Holy Spirit has far fewer obstructions in the form of wishful interpretations than might otherwise be the case in an evangelical church of today. When Saeed is finally released, he will have been so traumatized that he will likely not be immediately returning to ministry, and we can be praying that appropriate church discipline, repentance and marital healing, by the grace of God, happens first.

Back to the womens’ ministry conference in Indianapolis….it was perhaps providential that the Cymbala family, from Brooklyn Tabernacle was also there, with a wonderful session of testimony and extended, soaking prayer for the redemption of prodigals and the breaking of spiritual bondage holding them captive. Additionally, a covenant marriage stander by the name of Vicki Rose gave the account of her restored marriage, after addiction, adultery and divorce.

Also, providentially, Nancy’s closing session, also focused on the redemption of prodigals, was around Psalm 107–and very powerful! May the Lord quicken all of this back to Naghmeh as she seeks His face, leading her to watch the videos again and realizing that the Lord knew, and orchestrated all of it!

Standers, though we bear shame for the sake of the kingdom, we know that deception can (and does) fall on the strongest kingdom warrior, yet God will still find a way to be glorified in the end. Let’s take heart, as we hedge this precious marriage in our prayers.

Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. – 1 Peter 4:1-2

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

citizenship, Discipleship, Lost culture, Spiritual Warfare

Another Year, Another Set of Reformation Day Musings: Our Betrothal to Christ

November 1, 2015 standerinfamilycourt Leave a comment

by standerinfamilycourt

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Matt. 16:19

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. 1 Timothy 2: 5-6

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
1 Peter 2:9-10

It was exactly a year ago that the events of 2013-2014 had me thinking about All Saints Day in a way I never had before. There had been a startling and shocking rise in martyrdom abroad. The Vatican had just concluded Installment 1 of their Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, with the alarming news that the Vatican was seriously considering changing 2,000 years of marriage doctrine to emulate an apostate aspect of the Protestant Church — with no apparent regard to the resulting societal degradation, nor awareness of discipline of the Lord’s hand coming to bear on her rebellious cousin in consequence of the same.

With my fledgling blog and Facebook pages, this Pentecostal believer had been slowly forging alliances with traditional family champions and organizations, a disproportionate number of whom were Roman Catholics. I had just come through Round 1 with the family court system / Sexual Revolution Enforcement, which left me feeling like a bit of a religious martyr myself ahead of the pending constitutional appeal of the retaliatory decree. I felt the urge to capture these events in an early blog, not even realizing that the year 2015 would unfold so very many significant related events that would be very much of a reprise of the prior year. And so, here we are, still even more threatened by the twin terrors that overhang our nation: sexual anarchy and militant Islam, and wondering if there will be a Great Awakening, or instead, the sealing of God’s judgment.

The Lord had considerably more to walk this covenant marriage stander through in the months following this post. The original thought was to use the blog and Facebook page to write about my journey through the family court system and appeal process, through the lens of faith in Jesus Christ and the lens of what the word of God has to say about the indissolubility of covenant marriage. I hoped to inform anyone interested of the many ways in which unilateral divorce laws deny basic fundamental rights protected by our Constitution for all other citizens except “Respondents” to a so-called no-fault petition. Little did I realize that this effort would soon put me in contact with a treasured network of accomplished bible scholars and church historians, right within the community of covenant marriage standers, who would bring so much richness to my task, and transform the direction of these pages in a way that was much bigger than my limited vision, to bridge between the national, political pro-family network and the geographically-dispersed community of standers, two groups who may never have become aware of their common journey, or even aware of each other’s existence otherwise. I can’t begin to describe the awe that comes with feeling the Lord’s hand in orchestration of an assignment, and the providence that unfolds for it to be advanced. I can only sing His praises for it.

In the early months of 2015, I was introduced to the ante-Nicene church fathers, and would find out that for the 400 years after Jesus went to the cross, every one of them articulated in his own way, what prior to this I only knew through scripture and personal Holy Spirit revelation, that man had no power or authority to dissolve a marriage covenant, nor unjoin what God had joined short of death.
I learned hermeneutic, historical and cultural facts that, for the first time in my long walk with the Lord, caused the scriptures on marriage to finally hold together, rather than contradict each other.
I learned much more about the forces and activities involved in the Reformation’s handling of marriage doctrine, including motives and mechanisms that impacted the way scripture came down to us.
I learned about the church wolves who co-opted and countermanded the teachings of Jesus they deemed to be too harsh. In the process, I learned some appalling facts about the dark side of the character of some of the Reformers, and I learned the history, circumstances and effects of fraudulently handing marriage over to the civil (state) authorities in order to obtain access to dissolution proclamations denied by the Church of Jesus Christ.

In the process, I resolved all lingering doubt in my mind that unrepentant rebellion against God, in marrying another person while a covenant spouse is alive, will cost a person their inheritance in the kingdom of God. In other words, 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Galatians 5:19-21 is most certainly talking about this kind of adulterer. In fact, I realized that this type of adulterer is the only type Jesus is ever recorded in the gospels as defining, and that He warned about this soul-corrupting sin on three different occasions, in a way that leaves me wondering how anyone could possibly wager their eternity on an “exception clause” called fornication (misconstrued, “adultery”).

The news that came down in early September from the Vatican removed all doubt that the Roman Catholic Church was casting about for a way to shore up membership by joining its Protestant counterparts in betraying Christ’s teaching on the absolute indissolubility of sacramental covenant marriage. Since Pope Innocent III in the 12th century, the mechanism for doing so had been “annulment”, i.e. the outright denial that the events Jesus describes in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:8-9 have actually occurred between a biblically-eligible husband and covenant wife who, sometimes many years and children earlier, had repeated vows before God and (sometimes), a priest. In what Pope Francis has dubbed “the year of mercy”, this initiative speeds up the denial of covenant process and makes it cost-free at the sole discretion of a local bishop. Obviously, with inheritance in the kingdom of God at stake, one has to question how truly “merciful” this approach is, but making what is portrayed as an “administrative enhancement” was observed by commentators as aimed at taking the pressure off the twin proposal to administer communion to remarried adulterers. That seemed fine with a majority of the Western prelates, but SIFC was thanking God for the spirited opposition of the African church fathers to abandoning the sanctity of marriage in this fashion.

This past year, of course, also brought the constitutionally-jarring Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v Hodges on June 26, 2015, and along with it, an opportunity to observe the response of both the Protestant and Catholic Churches, particularly with regard to any signs of introspection, not just the predictable denouncement of the 50-state imposition of sodomized marriage over the democratic will of the super-majorities in numerous states. It should be noted that the “mercy” proposals of the RCC included the same embrace of “married” or “committed” sodomists as well as “married” adulterers. For now it appears that this latter proposal failed in the 2015 Synod completely, and opposition from the Pope was unequivocal. This essentially puts the Catholic and Protestant churches on the same page — tolerating legalized adultery, but vocally rejecting recognition of legalized sodomy. To be sure, there have been some glimmers of introspection concerning accommodation of so-called no fault (unilateral) divorce start to hit the evangelical blogosphere, along with some non-cleric Catholic voices urging a challenge of the religious freedom infringements, but nothing of substance so far. There also does not appear to be much evidence that the “Marriage Pledge” advocated a year ago by First Things Magazine is being implemented, whereby more than 800 clergy of all traditions vowed to stop signing civil marriage licenses if same-sex marriage was imposed by the courts.

In this past year, SIFC also learned to critically question her NIV and NAS bibles, and (thankfully) how to hold them up to the various online tools of detection and scrutiny. I learned that part of the need for this actually had roots in the Reformation and also in the backlash against the Reformation. Once again, this provided the missing puzzle piece for my prior (externally-imposed) fog of why the two or three most commonly relied-upon marriage scriptures didn’t seem to line up with the vast body of the remaining scriptures. My eyes were opened up to incredible facts about how ancient bible manuscripts were chosen and the variations those choices caused in consequence of faithfulness to the original teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

(photo and downloadable PDF by Sharon Henry)

Since the King James Version has never been for me very conducive to undistracted personal bible study, it was a relief to learn that there is now a contemporary bible translation available, and actually downloadable free-of-charge in PDF version which is translated from faithful manuscripts by a qualified born-again translator, Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s New Testament, called Sovereign Creator Has Spoken (2013).

Of course, the basic tenet of the Reformation, that we are saved by grace alone, by faith in Jesus Christ alone (justification) has also come into sharper focus for me during this unexpected 2015 journey. It did not take long to determine several years ago that heresies tend to pair off, and the heresy that there are “biblical grounds” to marry someone else’s spouse or marry an eligible person following man’s divorce on certain grounds was usually justified with the corollary that even if Jesus really meant what He said about this being adultery, Jesus died for all sins, “yesterday, today and tomorrow”, the idea of physical repentance from remarriage adultery was therefore “legalism” and “salvation by works”. SIFC certainly agrees that Jesus died for our sins of yesterday, and for our nonwillful, unconfessed sins of today, but the tomorrow part has always been a bit problematic. Always before, I resolved it by what the Lord responded back to me in times of prayer and fasting: that a clearly-regenerated (born again) soul can walk away from their salvation, but the fact that they are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a deposit makes that hard — and the Lord pursues hard. Seemingly on an unrelated note, I couldn’t help but notice in certain conversations I observed standers having online with theologians, any mention of the Hebrew betrothal analogy in general, and Mary and Joseph’s betrothal in particular, were summarily dismissed and rebuffed. Usually this was in the context of the running dispute over whether the Greek “porneia” in the presumed Matthean exception clause was to be rendered “whoredom / fornication”, or “sexual immorality”, thereby including post-wedding adultery and (although this rendering still contorts the sentence structure of both Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9), justifying a claim that the marriage covenant is dissolved with Christ’s “authority”. By the same reasoning, then, the OSAS crowd must accept that Christ can therefore divorce us and marry another, but in bizarre fashion, some of them actually make this very same argument against themselves!

Then I had an opportunity to read Casey Whitaker’s “Have Ye Not Read?” – Chapter 10, and struck upon a much deeper insight about Paul’s admonition to “finish the race”. Marriage forms the basis for analogy for our walk with the Lord in so many different aspects, and I believe it does so uniformly when indissolubility is embraced by the believer as well.

Is the marriage supper of the Lamb not in heaven? Is it therefore in the future? Do we not have to actually show up for it? Can we be walking (or running) in the opposite direction and expect to arrive there properly attired and equipped before we run out of time?

“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son….But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he *said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matt. 22: 2, 11-14

Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, ⁴but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. But at midnight there was a shout, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. Later the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open up for us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you.’ Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour. Matthew 25: 1-13

These two parables, of course, like so much of Matthew’s gospel make sense only in the context of the Hebrew betrothal. Christ died for our justification, enabling but not guaranteeing our sanctification.

Finally, there has been much discussion lately whether the Counter-Reformation continues, and in similar vein, whether the Reformation is itself now under reformation. The last 15 minutes or so of the video linked above addresses this more authoritatively than SIFC could, including the connections with the Emergent Church, with the Jesuit challenges, and with the push toward ecumenism. All of these things have unmistakable ties to the prophecy of Daniel, and to that in Revelation. Given the fulfillment of the prophesied recent events in the Middle East and given Russia’s renewed involvement, given the push by Pope Francis, who is indeed the first Jesuit pope, while recently in the U.S. to meet with representatives of non-Christian religions, and given the documentation of plans originating in the late 19th century exposed in A. Ralph Epperson’s 1989 book concerning the New World Order, SIFC’s pope-watching has begun in earnest. Yet at the same time, the backlash has also been noticeably ramping up from those who say there will be no Rapture of the church, and that all prophecies were fulfilled by A.D. 70. In general, these are evangelical leaders who want the current system of entrenched institutional serial polygamy to continue, and for whom the culture war is an ideology of politics dressed in piety far more than it is truthfully contending for the kingdom of God.

We shall see what 2016 brings, especially in terms of the scheduled change in leadership for the United States.

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Church Discipline, citizenship, Connection of Unilateral Divorce to SSM, Discipleship, Divorce, Fundamental Rights, morality, Religious freedom

Questions, RE: Ask Dr. Brown’s Warning to Shepherds Who Mislead The Sheep

October 28, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 1 Comment

Dr. Brown, in August of this year you did a marvelous piece that went out to hundeds of people on our page and was very well-received. It was called “Christians HAVE been Hypocrites, Now What?” Connecting the dots, it stands to reason that each retained act or position of hypocrisy pushes more sheep over the cliff (or keeps them hiding in the bramble bushes!).

In it, you quite accurately stated,

“That’s why I’ve said for years now that no-fault heterosexual divorce has done more in the church to undermine marriage than all gay activists combined, and that’s why I’m all for any spiritual movement that calls us to recognize, confess and forsake our sins by the grace of God and the power of Jesus’ blood. Repentance blames no one else and makes no excuses. Instead it takes full responsibility and makes an about-face, receiving mercy and restoration from the Father.”

The community of covenant marriage standers would like to ask a few questions about how this is playing out in your church and circle of influence, therefore, in the months since you wrote this piece:

(1) Are you expecting most of the repentance to come from the flock? If so, is there any particular sin cordoned off as not requiring cessation and renouncement as part of repentance?

(2) Are you teaching people the full truth about how Jesus defined adultery? Do you teach Matt. 5:32b as well as Matt. 5:28? Do you teach Matt. 19:9b (or only the NIV version)? When was the last time you preached on Luke 16:18?

(3) Are you teaching people that the “b” portion of these scriptures, relating to the otherwise-innocent person who marries somebody else’s spouse, carries NO “exception clause”?

(4) Speaking of question (2), are you teaching your flock the things that are necessary since the start of the 20th century (post-Westcott & Hort) to be true “Bereans”? Are you teaching them the basic principles of hermeneutics, what an interlinear text tool is online, the character and history of the men who shaped their NIV, and the critical information about the manuscripts their bible is based on? Do they know that 47 verses have likely been eliminated from their bible version due to the prejudiced choice of manuscripts? Do you teach them to compare modern lexicons, commentaries and bible dictionaries with those written prior to the 19th century and encourage them to research the discrepancies when it’s a verse dealing with marriage and sexual ethics?

(5) Do your people know who the church fathers were for the first 4 centuries of the church, and whether any of them taught a “Matthean exception” or a “Pauline privilege”? Do they know the true history of and when and why these things actually began to be taught in the church?

(6) Do you have people in leadership or on staff who are the husband of more than one wife, the wife of more than one husband, or do you give them a pass if it’s 1-at-a-time? Have you considered the example that this sets, in light of Paul’s well known instructions to Timothy and Titus?

(7) Are you rewarding and incentivizing no-fault divorce by performing weddings that you’d be deeply ashamed to invite Jesus to, after the way HE defined adultery? Are you pronouncing some people “man and wife” instead of pronouncing them serial polygamists?

(8) Do they see you and your team walking before them in the uncompromised fear of God above all fear of men?

(9) What are you doing politically to repeal or reform unilateral divorce? Your congregation no doubt knows which constitutional protections are violated by sodomous/polygamous/incestuous marriage — but do they know that unilateral (no-fault) divorce laws violate the exact same fundamental rights, including religious freedom and right-of-conscience? Do they know how much these violations have cost taxpayers every year in transferred social costs?

(10) Do you preach “once saved, always saved”, or do you realize that our human marriages are an analogy of the Messianic Covenant all the way from Genesis to Revelation? Surely with your background you’re aware that Jesus’ “script” for the Last Supper was verbatim the Hebrew betrothal ceremony, and that an unfaithful bride who turned away and didn’t show up for the marriage supper, no oil in her lamp, no wedding garments, without confessing and repenting, broke her ketubah and would be divorced by the Bridegroom instead of becoming the bride as intended. Is it then so inconsistent for Paul to apply 1 Cor. 6:9-10 , Galatians 5:19-21 and Hebrews 13:4 to those Jesus actively and repeatedly called adulterers?

For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.

2 Corinthians 11:2

Knowing that God protects and delivers when we are no longer mocking Him, we trust you have been working on some of these and will consider the ones you haven’t had a chance to think about just yet. – “standerinfamilycourt”

#1M1W4L #LukeSixteenEighteen

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, Marriage Restoration, morality

Casey Whitaker’s “Have Ye Not Read?” – Chapter 10

September 21, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 6 Comments

SIFC: This chapter from the excellent book by Casey Whitaker further illuminates the essential points we made in the May, 2015 blog, “God’s Character and His Covenants.” (Links to scriptures are provided by us, and are in NASB Version except where faulty underlying manuscripts omit critical portions of a verse, in which case we provide the KJV.)

Key thought: Those who would rationalize the abomination of marrying someone else’s spouse in God’s eyes, or EVEN WORSE, would misuse the Lord’s name to perform such a ceremony as the undershepherd of an entrusted flock, also tend to pervert the doctrine of eternal security. Is our salvation actually a consummated covenant, or merely a betrothal which is dependent upon finishing the race in Christ? Is the distortion, “once saved, always saved” sending people to hell, and causing pastors to deceive their assigned flock into dying in unrepentant disobedience of the 7th commandment?

(transcribed verbatim by Standerinfamilycourt. A downloadable PDF link to the full book, “Have Ye Not Read?” by Rev. Casey Whitaker is available here. )

The symbolism of marriage representing Christ and the church is beautiful. It helps us to get a bigger picture of God’s design for marriage and what Jesus meant in the “clarification clause” in Matthew 19:9. In the Old Testament, there is the marriage covenant of God the Father with the House of Israel (Israel and Judah), which even divorce and separation has not annulled, at least in a spiritual way. There have been many Israelites who have become Christians (weren’t there thousands of Jews that came back to their Master by being obedient to Jesus Christ after the resurrection?) and God forgave them. Zacharias, Elizabeth, Mary, and Joseph (all Jews) understood the significance of their miraculous babies (Luke 1,2). Even Simeon and Anna (Jews) knew that God’s promise was being fulfilled.

In the New Testament, there is the betrothal/espousal marriage of Jesus (God in the flesh), and the church. The marriageof Christ and the church will never end. It will never be tainted with divorce or any other separation from Christ.

However, the spiritual consummation after the wedding of Christ and the church has not yet occurred. The church is still only in the engagement period (betrothal/espousal period) with Christ. There are some interesting passages of Scripture that point this out. In 2 Corinthians 11:2 it says that we are Christ’s fiancée, so the marriage is yet to come: “For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”

In Ephesians 5:22-33 human marriage is given as an illustration of Christ and the church. Many people had always viewed this passage as if the church was already married to Christ. However, in verse 27 it indicates that the marriage is yet to come by using the future tense. It is not the past tense: “that He might present her to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.” The fact that the church is not yet fully married has some very interesting implications. It has opened up some new insights that many people have never seen before.

The consummation of marriage in a spiritual sense of Christ and the church occurs after the whole church is gathered together in heaven at the end of the world. God gives us a glimpse of this in Revelation 19:7-9: “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God” (KJV).

There Are Some Interesting Points About the Marriage of Christ and the Church:

There must be death first from Satan, then sin, and also self, so that we can be remarried to Christ—divorce is not sufficient. Death is the only thing that can end a marriage and free a person to marry another. This is true in human marriage as well as in marriage in the spiritual sense to Christ. In Romans 7 where Paul states that death frees a person from the first marriage so that they are free to marry another person, he also says in verse 4: “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God” (KJV). This death occurs in the spiritual sense so that we can be betrothed/espoused to Christ.

The marriage of Christ and the church will never, ever end. There cannot, and never will be, a divorce of Christ and the church. This is her eternal destiny.

Human Marriage Is a Type or Shadow of Christ and the Church. A type (typos in Greek), or “archetype,” often called a “shadow”, “parable,” “allegory,” or “figure” in Scripture, is a person, thing, or action that precedes and prefigures a greater person, thing, or action. That which is prefigured is referred to as an “antitype.” The concept is summarized in Scripture itself. (Thank you, Myron Horst.)

We are told marriage is a type or shadow in Ephesians 5.

Examples of Other Types or Shadows:

Baptism – Why is it so important to be buried in water live Paul said in Romans 6? It is a shadow of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Jesus commanded this.

Communion – It is a shadow of Jesus’ body and blood. Jesus commanded this.

Isaac, after his miracle birth, carried his own wood and was obedient to his father Abraham according to Genesis 22. The ram in the thorny thicket (a type of Christ being the sacrifice with thorns on his head) was provided by the angel for Abraham to use instead of Isaac. The event took place on Mount Moriah. The potential sacrifice of Abraham’s son was a type or shadow of Jesus’ miracle birth. Jesus carried His cross and was obedient to His Father’s will on the cross. It is very probable the great sacrifice took place on Mount Moriah (Calvary).

The Rock that Moses struck and the water came out in Exodus 17 was Jesus. It was a shadow of Jesus being pierced with a spear on Calvary, when living water came rushing out of His side. Remember how Moses disobeyed the second time with the rock in Numbers 20? He was told to speak to the Rock. Instead, Moses struck the rock twice and the penalty was that he was not going to lead his people to Canaan. Joshua was going to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land. Who was Joshua shadowing? The Greek name “Jesus” is a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehoshua or Yeshua, the English form of which is “Joshua.” Only through Jesus do we have an opportunity to go to the real Promised Land.

Animal Sacrifice in the Old Testament – It was a shadow of Christ being our sacrificial Lamb to take away our sins. This was an Old Testament ordinance.

The Temple was a physical building created by Solomon and was the dwelling place of God. The common man could not enter into the Most Holy Place. Only a priest could go into this special place once a year. Jesus’ body was that temple (John 2:19-22) and Christians are also the temple (Acts 7:48, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20). People who are Christians are priests (Hebrews 4:14-16, 1 Peter 2:5) and have instant access to the Most Holy Place. Why? The curtain was torn (Matthew 27:51, Hebrews 10:20).

The Curtain was a type or shadow of Jesus’ flesh becoming sin for mankind and opening the way for us to come to the Most Holy Place.

As a type, human marriage cannot break what the type or shadow is. Therefore, if Christ had allowed divorce then remarriage in the “exception clause” in Matthew 19:9, He would have destroyed the type. Human marriage would no longer have been the illustration of the marriage of Christ and the church. If Jesus had stated that divorce would free a person in a human marriage to marry again, it would not illustrate the eternal destiny of the church in which there cannot be, and will not be any separation from Christ. Any other explanation of the “exception clause” other than it referring to fornication with another during the betrothal period does not line up with the marriage of Christ and the church. Any other interpretation removes marriage from being a true type of Christ and the church.

Because the time on earth is the engagement/betrothal/espousal period of Christ and the church, it is possible for a person to forfeit their salvation here in this life before they die.

Jesus did this to present her to Himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault (Ephesians 5:27).

Doesn’t this sound like the betrothal period?

Marriage, which only death can end, is an illustration of the absolute eternal security given to the church. In heaven there will be no more death. Therefore, there can never be a divorce, annulment, or an ending of the marriage of Christ and the church. If God permitted divorce and then remarriage to another person, marriage would no longer illustrate the church’s eternal security with Christ.

The marriage of God the Father with Israel (including Israel and Judah) under the Old Testament (Covenant) took the death of Jesus. The marriage of Christ (God in the flesh: Isaiah 9:6, Matthew 1:23, John 1:1, John 1:14, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 20:28,29,
1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Timothy 4:10, Titus 2:10, 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:7, Revelation 22:13) and the church under the New Testament (Covenant) illustrate the permanence of marriage until death. Divorce does not end marriage.

Only death can end the marriage covenant and free one to marry another. (Horst, Whitaker)

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Let's Repeal No-Fault Divorce!