Text: "Unto you therefore which believe he is precious...." (I Peter 2:7a)

Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, is precious, but only to believers. Faithless individuals cannot understand why Christians value the Lord. They cannot understand how Christians can pray to Christ when they have never seen Him. Neither do they understand how Christ can love people whom they despise.

Christ sees nothing in all creation so lovely as a true Christian. The psalmist exclaimed, "How precious also are thy thoughts unto me. If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand"(Ps.139:17,18).

Unbelievers are like thorns. Their whole life is fit only for burning. They are disobedient, and concerning good works, they are fruitless. Christ is an offence to them. They stumble at His Word.

Christ loves a true Christian because such a one is washed from his sins, and justified by His Spirit. The nature of a true Christian is changed. He is in Christ, and, as such, he has become a new creature: "old things are passed away: behold, all things are become new" (II Cor. 5:17). Christ loves him because the true Christian is a stranger in this world.

Christ is precious to a true Christian because he has tried Christ, and has found Him to be faithful. Christ has delivered him from this "present evil world." He has saved the Christian from his sins. And, the Lord Jesus Christ has granted the true Christian things that beautify salvation, such as peace, joy, and hope.

"Unto you therefore which believe He is precious."

Text: "It hath been said, ’Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:’ but I say unto you, ‘That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery’" (Matt. 5:31,32).

There are some people who take these words of Christ and preach that Christ here forbids divorce. This is not at all what He says. This clearly illustrates the harm that can be done by careless reading of God’s Word. Reader, read the verse again.

Other people take these words of Christ to label as adulterers and adulteresses every one who should marry someone who is divorced. In Deuteronomy chapter 24, in verse 1, Moses wrote by the Holy Spirit that "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." Under such circumstances, God allows divorce.

"And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife" (vs. 2). By this Scripture, God allows those divorced under similar circumstances to remarry. They who prohibit all remarriages of divorced people as being adulterous, make God to counsel adultery in these verses. God does not forbid divorce in every circumstance, but neither does He counsel divorce in any circumstance.

We intend to show from the Bible that God does not prohibit every divorce, nor does He prohibit every divorced parson to remarry.

On July 13th, Catherine and I celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary. It is a marvel of God’s providence that we are so happily married. How can youth "choose" a wife having had no previous experience? It is a testimony to the gracious providence of God. The purpose of this article, therefore, is simply the compelling desire to bring a proper understanding to the teaching of God’s Word on this subject. The writer has no ulterior motive, such as to justify a second marriage.

It is a certainty, however, that if the writer is permissive in this area of life, then, it would be evident in the conduct of his own children, for God would judge him as He does everyone else who is permissive.

Throughout history, there have been Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists, etc. who have sought to counter the moral laxity of their times by taking positions more strict than the Law of God allows. For instance, when they refused to re-instate those who in times of persecution surrendered the Scriptures, or who otherwise denied the faith, they would have been more like Christ to have shown mercy to the repentant. Even Peter denied the Lord, but was after received by the Lord.

If it be asked, "Should we not compensate for today’s permissiveness by exercising greater strictness?" I answer, "No!"

We have no right to be stricter than the Lord.

"When a man hath taken a, wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house she may go and be another man’s wife."

Note first, that while this is referred to as "Moses’ Law" the term does not mean that Moses invented it. This is as much the inspired Word of God as Genesis 1:1. It is called "Moses’ Law" only because God gave it by his hand.

Second, the fact that this is Old Testament does not give us the liberty to trash it. Our Bible has 66 books given to us by the Holy Spirit. It would be error to maintain the discarding of the Old Testament by the New Testament.

Third, Christ never abrogated the Mosaic Law: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5:17). Jesus clarified the Law, and gave its true sense. For instance, in Matthew chapter 5, verse 21, we read, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:’ but I say unto you..." Jesus did not abolish the Old Testament law forbidding murder. Rather, He clarified it, detailing the fullness of the Law.

Again, in verse 27, Jesus said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, ’Thou shalt not commit adultery:’ but I say unto you..." The Lord did not abrogate the law of adultery here, but applied it in its rightful sense to include even unclean thoughts.

So, in verse 31, when Jesus said, "it hath been said, ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:’ but I say unto you..." He did not abrogate the Law of Moses found in Deuteronomy 24:1: He simply gave the true meaning of it.

Fourth, it is plainly said in Deuteronomy 24:2, that "she may go and be another man’s wife." Would the Lord permit her to commit adultery? How absurd! What we have here is an illegitimate divorce. A "legitimate" divorce was allowed in place of death; but in the case of an illegitimate divorce, i.e. one not sanctioned by God, it was allowed on account of the hardness of men’s hearts. In such a case, the innocent party is allowed to marry.

"It hath been said, ’Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, ’That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.’"

First, the word "saving" means "except." Therefore, as in Deuteronomy 24, in order for the Lord to allow her to go and to become another man’s wife, the "uncleanness" blamed on her by her husband had to be other than for fornication, which here includes adultery.

Second, the phrase, "causeth her to commit adultery’ (Matt. 5:32), means that the unscrupulous husband in divorcing his wife does all that he can to cause his wife to commit adultery, for the Scripture says, "Let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband" (I Cor. 7:2). The reason for this admonition is that they may "avoid fornication."

Third, the reason that marriage was instituted at all, was that

"The Lord God said, ’It is not good that the man should be alone I will make him an help meet for him’" (Gen. 2:18). For this reason, people who deny the innocent party in a divorce the right to remarry lay a snare for men as great as celibacy ever was to the Roman Catholic priesthood.

Fourth, the phrase, "and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery’ means that the man who marries a woman who has been divorced on account of fornication (a blanket term that includes adultery, in the same way that the word "adultery" is sometimes used as a blanket term to include fornication, such as in the 7th commandment) such a man and woman are guilty of living in sin by continuing to commit adultery. Whoso puts away his wife for fornication does not cause her to commit adultery. Note the verse again.

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases..."

First, Scripture is clear that if an unbelieving spouse elects to leave a believing spouse, the believer is not under bondage. Then, by what right do other believers keep such a one in bondage?

Second, bondage may take the form of other believers forbidding the brother or sister to remarry, or from serving within the church. The believer is not under bondage if the unbelieving depart. Paul equates such desertion to fornication.

Third, Christians must expect the same degree of mercy that they show to others. If, therefore, they are unforgiving a wayward, but a repentant, spouse, God will so deal with them. God does not counsel divorce, but He does allow it; and where it is allowed, remarriage is also allowed.

A leading Christian magazine recently featured articles celebrating the "singles" ministry conducted by several churches. This emphasis deserves closer scrutiny.

Most singles in churches are not single because they have never been married. Most are relatively young, being in their 20’s and 30’s; and therefore, most are not single on account of the death of their spouse. Most singles in the church are single on account of being divorced.

I am much afraid that by their emphasis, churches often sanction singleness. The modern church gives precious little rebuke, and for exhortation. By their emphasis on programs, churches help to cover up guilt, but guilt is God’s messenger to the wayward.

We would ask why there is not more emphasis by the church to correct singleness through healing marriages that have been breached?

(from "The Casuist" --Article 32, reprinted from The Bible Believer’s Bulletin, October, 1991, p. 7)

A priest is called to a sick person, who, after making Confession, receives the Viaticum. The patient immediately shows violent agitation, pointing his finger to the inside of his mouth. The priest looks there, and, to his horror, sees that to the rubber plate in the roof of the mouth of the patient, the Viaticum sticks like glue. It is a well-known fact that it is very difficult even for a person in good health to loosen with the tongue the sacred species from such a rubber plate, often moistening with some liquid is required to loosen the Viaticum from the plate, and the priest decided to let a member of the family carefully remove the patient’s mouth plate, which he then immersed in a bowl of water, then, after the sacred species had become separated from the plate, he washed the plate in the same water, took the entire contents of the bowl from him, and put it into the sacrarium, then returned to the sick man, and gave him holy Communion once more; the sick man, now relieved of the false teeth, swallowed the sacred species without difficulty. Did the priest act correctly?

In the procedure of the priest in this case may be seen his confusion, and it cannot be recommended for imitation; it was neither practical nor correct. It was at all events unnecessary to go home and get a new species. He would have saved this trouble, as well as the comment which may have been excited by his repeated visit. The simplest way would have been to remove the sacred Host by means of the finger, or with the aid of a knife from the plate, to place it with a little water in a clean vessel (or spoon) and give water and Host at once to the patient to drink. Thereupon he should have washed rubber plate, utensil and finger in the same vasculum, and this ablutio should also have been given to the patient to drink.

The proceeding was, moreover, incorrect; it is not permissible to handle the sacred species in the way he did, and to place the same immediately in the sacrarium.

As the decomposition of the sacred species is so short a time cannot be supposed, and is at the very least doubtful, he should have placed the vasculum in the tabernacle, and only after the elapse of at least a few days might have placed the contents in the sacrarium.

Patrick Henry (1736-1799) -"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"

THINKABLES

"NO ONE has the right" to do wrong."

"Although many women are capable of preaching, God has not authorized them to preach." –Jerome Peterson