We should always make major decisions only after giving much thought to their consequences. Choosing a mate is important, since marriage is a lifetime relationship (Romans 7:1-4). It is foolish to enter into marriage without giving much thought to what kind of husband or wife the person will be. There is also the matter of children who may be born to the union. As we contemplate marriage, we must also consider their welfare. Is he the kind of man who will make sure he brings his children up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord"? (Ephesians 6:4) Is she the kind of woman who will take seriously her responsibility to be a "keeper at home," who guides the household? (Titus 2:4,5)
As important as the decision regarding marriage is, it pales in significance to the decision to become a child of God, to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus made it abundantly clear that one must count the cost before making the decision (Luke 14:25-33). Just as a man would not decide to build a tower, or go to war, without counting the cost, neither should he decide to become a child of God without counting the cost. This decision's consequences govern the soul's final home. We should not be too eager to baptize anyone, especially the young, until they count the cost.
Text and Context
All three of the synoptic gospels record the conversation Jesus had with His disciples. They had just witnessed the sad refusal of the rich young ruler to relinquish his possessions in order to complete what was lacking in his obedience to God. (Matthew 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23) After hearing the exchange, the disciples expressed the belief that it was impossible for the rich to be saved. Jesus let them know it was not impossible, but it would require a person to trust completely in God, something the rich man was unwilling to do. Jesus assured them that they would be rewarded if they were willing to give up all they had "for the kingdom of God's sake." (Luke 18:29)
Matthew used the expression, "for my name's sake," while Mark used the phrase, "for my sake and for the gospel's sake." There is not a significant difference, since to do one is to do the other. The idea is that one must be willing to give up anything in life, including possessions and family, in order to follow Jesus and to live according to His commands. Furthermore, those who are willing to give up these things, have God's assurance that it will be worthwhile. We receive a benefit in this life, as well as eternal life.
After this conversation, both Mark and Luke recorded Jesus' announcement to the disciples that He was going to Jerusalem where the Jews would put Him to death (Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-33). Matthew's account included the same announcement, but following the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Jesus was willing to give up His own life for the sake of the kingdom; He was, therefore, not asking us to do anything that He, Himself, was unwilling to do. We must make sure we are not involved in anything that will separate us from God (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
Jesus informed the disciples that God would more than compensate them for anything they gave up for the sake of following and serving Him. While we may suffer the loss of relationship with our physical families, we still have a spiritual family to help us bear up under the stress that comes from being estranged from our physical families. Paul described Timothy as his "son in the faith." (1 Timothy 1:2) John wrote that he was glad to hear that "his children" were faithful (3 John 4). Along the way, we may have to forfeit material things, such as houses and farms, but a home in heaven awaits those who are willing to make these sacrifices.
Applications
How people go about freeing themselves from situations and relationships that threaten their relationships with God depends on the particulars in each case. For example, one who is in business with an unscrupulous partner can take the necessary legal steps to dissolve the partnership (2 Corinthians 6:17). If my job interferes with putting the kingdom first, it may be necessary to change jobs (Matthew 6:33).
A more complicated situation might arise if the marriage relationship is involved. If a couple discovers they are in adultery, as was the case with Herod and Herodias, they need to dissolve the marriage in every sense of the word. This would include taking the legal steps necessary to inform others of the relationship change (Matthew 19:9; Mark 6:17,18). This would be the only way for them to cease living in adultery (Colossians 3:5-7).
In recent years, some have endeavored to apply what Jesus said to Scriptural marriages that are, in some way, detrimental to one partner's ability to serve God faithfully. Preachers are beginning to teach that, in certain situations, it would be permissible, even necessary, to divorce one's mate "for the kingdom's sake." It is necessary to carefully examine some of these justifiable reasons to determine whether the circumstance with which a Christian is dealing justifies the premise that fornication is not the only cause for divorce.
Each of the following points is taken word for word from an outline of a preacher who teaches there are causes, other than fornication, for divorce. This preacher does not teach that, in such situations, either of the divorced mates has the right to remarry, but that they may divorce for the kingdom's sake.
- A person may have to divorce his mate to break an unscriptural marriage (Matthew 19:9). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
Answer: The list begins with a situation unlike any of the others in that when the Bible condemns divorce, the context demonstrates that the marriage is one that meets with God's approval. Divorcing someone to whom a person is not bound is what John the Baptist was trying to get Herod to do, since he was married, but not bound, to Herodias, his brother Phillip's wife (Mark 6:17,18). - A person may have to leave his mate to become or remain a Christian (Matthew 10:34-38; Luke 14:26; 18:29,30; 1 Corinthians 7:15). In this case, one is divorcing for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
Answer: Three of the verses cited (Matthew 10:34-38; Luke 14:26; and Luke 18:29,30) teach us that our love for God must be greater than our love for family. However, they say nothing about how that would apply to marriage and divorce.
The remaining passage, "But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace." (1 Corinthians 7:15) deals with a case where an unbeliever is not content to dwell with a believer. In such a situation, the believer is a passive, not active, participant in the divorce procedure. Paul did not say "leave the unbeliever," but to allow the unbeliever to leave, since the only means of keeping that person as a mate would involve being unfaithful to the Lord. - A person may be in a marriage relationship in which his mate runs up bills that the mate has no intention of paying. In this case, one's responsibility to God to pay one's bills would demand that he not be supportive of his mate's ungodly behavior (Romans 13:8).
Answer: The verse cited in this situation teaches us that we must be responsible for our debts, but it says nothing about how this would relate to the need to divorce a mate who refused to honor and obey the truth. Who would decide how much debt is necessary in order to justify a divorce? This does not teach what the author wants it to teach. - A mate may abuse (beat or molest) the children. A person has a responsibility to bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:1-4). Fulfilling that responsibility may require him to leave his mate to provide for the children's spiritual and physical welfare.
Answer: This is a good illustration of an emotional argument that substitutes for Scriptural teaching when a person cannot find a passage to justify his teaching. I don't know of anyone who has any compassion whatsoever who would not be sympathetic toward a woman or man who is in such a predicament. After quoting part of Ephesians 6:4, a command to fathers regarding the training of their children, he wrote that the father may have to leave. In the overall context of what the author is advocating, it is reasonable to conclude that he is speaking of obtaining a divorce. The author assumes there is no other way that the situation can be resolved. This does not teach what the author wants it to teach. - There are some cases in which one must leave to have physical and emotional health. One's obligation to serve God would require him to preserve his physical and emotional well being.
Answer: The author turns to emotional arguments instead of Scripture, and, once again, assumes there are no other solutions to the problem. We should feel sympathy for anyone in such circumstances, but we are not allowed to change God's word in order to remedy the situation. The fact is we are called upon to suffer for doing what is right (1 Peter 2:20). We are allowed to use legal means to protect ourselves from harm (Acts 25:11; 28:19). - Sometimes a couple becomes so alienated from each other, the hostilities have reached a point where they must live apart (Proverbs 21:9; 25:24; 1 Corinthians 7:15,16). We cannot force them to stay together. The Scriptures do not teach a person that he must become a doormat to his partner to keep the marriage together. A person who becomes another's doormat will do more to destroy his mate's love and respect for him than about anything else he can do. A person has to maintain his own self esteem to have proper Bible love. One is to love his neighbor "as himself," and the husband is to love his wife "as his own body." (Matthew 22:39; Ephesians 5:33)
Answer: Notice that the author now envisions a couple so alienated from one another that they must live apart. He then offers passages that speak of bad circumstances in marriages (Proverbs 21:9; 25:24; 1 Corinthians 7:15,16). This is one of the times where the author asserts that it is not just something one is allowed to do; it is what he must do. Part of the justification in this case is the need to maintain one's self esteem in order to have proper Bible love. If this is the case, why did Peter insist that wives could win over their unbelieving mates by conducting themselves properly and being in subjection to them (1 Peter 3:1-6).
Proponents of this doctrine suggest that there is general authority to divorce for reasons other than fornication because Paul said that some Corinthian Christians, who were divorced, were told to remain unmarried or be reconciled (1 Corinthians 7:11,12). They reason that since neither of these two options were sinful, it must have been right for her to depart in the first place. This conclusion is neither logical nor Scriptural. In all probability, some of Paul's readers may have already departed, which, according to what Paul wrote in verse 10, was wrong. According to those who espouse this teaching, Paul is placed in the position of telling them not to do something in verse 10 (depart, leave), but then turns around and tells them, if you must, here are your options. The choice of remaining unmarried or being reconciled does not imply that leaving the marriage in the first place was right in God's sight.
Conclusion
We must be willing to give up anything we have to give up in order to be a part of God's Kingdom. The Scriptures make this abundantly clear. However, we must avoid making unwarranted application to specific situations under the "for-the kingdom's-sake" banner. We must take into consideration all of the passages that bear on the decision at hand; and we must not allow our emotions--instead of the Scriptures--to guide us. For a more in-depth treatment of this subject, I would suggest you read the book entitled, Bible Causes of Divorce and the Role of Government in Divorce, published by Guardian of Truth Foundation, and available at various bookstores operated by brethren.
I want to thank Brother Curry for taking on a serious subject that is causing much controversy within the Lord's church, on many different fronts, and giving us the results of his own personal studies. For the most part, I completely agree with Brother Curry's conclusions. When preachers, whoever they might be, begin to raise emotional arguments to justify certain positions, it raises a flag in my mind. For many years, we have waged battle with our religious friends who raise emotional arguments to get around the need for alien sinners to be baptized. Emotions don't change God's truth.
Larry and I have discussed this subject on a number of occasions. We do have some differences in handling some of the men who are being quickly labeled by others. I'm engaging in personal studies with these men to determine where they are headed. Some, I believe, have said way too much; others have made statements I would not have made, but they've stopped teaching their opinions.
Sadly, I think there are many preachers who are judging men's hearts and motives; that is something only God can do. Some have even labeled me, but my positions have not changed on the subject. Why? Guilt by association. Such reasoning indeed shows a lack of fairness and judgment. Let us keep the doors of communication open and continue to study these issues. No, I'm not suggesting compromise-just love for the souls of ALL men! (KMG)