Yep, a déjà vu experience. Biblical marriage is being redefined again. This time, though, it isn't heterosexuals doing the redefining, it is homosexuals. They are determined to have a piece of the farcical marital façade that is promoted and exercised by heterosexuals. This is what happens when you adopt and promote secular marital concepts and call them Biblical. We now have one fornicated union (homosexuals) joining along with another fornicated union (unqualified heterosexuals) rehearsing a secular civil concoction in the name of God, and both declaring a Biblically viable marital oneness. It is all self-deceiving vanity, of course.
Someone will probably say and ask, "Yeah, but secular and Biblical traditions have always promoted marriage between a man and woman and not between two of the same gender. So, how can you say that heterosexuals have redefined marriage?"
Okay, it is very simple, so bear with me.
Yes, secular marriage has traditionally been between a man and woman. However, secularly, it's just a tradition. Secularly, anyone can be married, as long as the tradition is changed by the present generation that wishes to do so, beginning a new tradition. All one has to do is observe and see who is really the force behind the push for homosexual marriage. It is the approval and help of heterosexuals - both religious and secular. There isn't a homosexual population large enough to succeed on their own in procuring approval of these so-called marriages, which have already been granted in certain states.
And don't assume that my comment regarding heterosexuals redefining marriage is based upon them helping homosexuals marry secularly. It has nothing to do with it. Heterosexual approval of so-called homosexual marriage is further evidence of humanity spiraling downward into a degrading Sodom and Gomorrah mentality of Godlessness. A Biblical term for it is "reprobation."
A reprobate despises things holy. Often, through various forms, he makes up his own science/god/religion, which he uses to justify his unholy actions or the unholy actions of others. "A sign of the time - going forward in reverse."
Howbeit, Biblical marriage between a man and woman is not a tradition, because it can't happen any other way as with secular tradition. Since it is not a tradition, it can't be changed – it is God's determined way. Man or his institutions whether it be government or religion do not define it. Not only that, just because you have a male and female doesn't necessarily mean you have a Biblical marriage. If it is to happen, it can only happen between a qualified male and a qualified female.
Where the problem exists is with Christian men and women, particularly. Their view of marriage is not Biblical, but identical with secular traditional concepts. By believing and exercising the same concepts as the secularists, Christian heterosexuals, therefore, have already redefined true Biblical marriage.
Let me show you what I mean by identifying some of the concepts that are shared by the church and the world:
Vows – Church leaders advocate that vows of commitment stated by heterosexuals to each other publically is what God uses to join them together making them one flesh. Christian's like to call this their covenant. It gives it more of a holy Biblical ring, even though there is no similarity whatsoever to the covenants exercised in the Bible, and is the same thing non-Christian secularists practice, often multiple times, now including homosexuals.
Not only that, these leaders refuse to look at the examples of marriages in the Bible and see that actual marriage was never by covenant, but by legitimate sexual intimacy. Until they accept this fact, they will always be in league with secularists and be ignorant and most likely sinful toward true Biblical marriage.
Many church leaders, whether pastors or seminary theologians, like to use Mary and Joseph as an example of marriage by covenanting. They hold to this, because in both Matthew and Luke they are declared to be husband and wife to each other.
Well, it is true. They are called husband and wife in Scripture. However, if these leaders would observe further, they would realize that they were husband and wife by an espousal only. An espousal was a Jewish covenant for marriage, arranged by the man and the girl's father. It was the acquisition by a man for a woman to wife, where the man and his acquired wife had not yet consummated that arrangement by their sexual intimacy, making a marriage.
So, they were husband and wife by an agreed acquisition exclusively and nothing more. If you read one of my previous articles or my book "It's Good For A Man Not To Touch A Woman," you would have noticed I make mention of a bedchamber experience attached to marriage.
This is why the Scripture very clearly indicates that Mary was the espoused wife of Joseph and not his married wife. How do we know this? We know this, because Matthew chapter one states clearly that Joseph never knew (sexually intimate) Mary until after "she had brought forth her firstborn son..." (KJV). She was a virgin. In every instance the Bible states they were espoused and not married. It is amazing how some preachers when preaching about their situation will put their speculative secular spin within the story, which causes people to believe something that never existed.
Allow me to teach you something that you most likely haven't ever heard before. There are Biblically three categories of husband and wife: Espoused, Married, and Fornicated. Can you guess who Jesus declared to be a fornicated wife?
Hear this truth. When Joseph realized, most likely from Mary, that Mary was pregnant, he was not going to put her away for fornication (adultery). He was going to put her away, under Moses' law, for the breach of the espousal contract. It wasn't for fornication, because fornication is a sexual joining against one's first approved sexual joining (marriage). One cannot commit fornication (in this case adultery) against a contract (covenant, vow, or marriage license). Since Joseph never knew (sexually intimate) Mary, she could not have committed adultery against him, even if she had literally been sexually intimate with another man.
In fact, now he was afraid of being sexually intimate with her, because he assumed by taking her now he would be committing fornication (adultery) with her, "...fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife..." (Matthew 1:20).
Notice how that Joseph (a Godly man) was going to put Mary away without any thought of restoring his marriage, as is promoted by present day marriage counseling ministries. Those ministries today would deem Joseph as not being Christ-like and forgiving. Do you suppose this Godly man was not aware that "God hates putting away?"
Let me ask these questions. As is touted by the church that God joins two people as one flesh through the covenant and not sexual intimacy, if a man having a covenant (vows) with one woman goes and makes a covenant with another, not being sexually intimate with either woman, will he have committed adultery with the second woman through their covenant? Is this how one commits adultery? If not, why not, since it is the covenant that both Christians and secularists declare that God makes them one flesh through? How is it that all acts of fornication against marriage are sexually intimate in nature, but the making of a marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy?
Being espoused to someone is different from being married to someone. God does not join two people in the flesh by an espousal. Mary and Joseph were an espoused husband and wife to eventually be husband and wife by marriage (an approved joining as one flesh by God). I teach this story in my book.
The Apostle Paul stated with great clarity that marriage is enacted by a man and a woman's sexual intimacy and not by a covenant (espousal). I have pointed out in previous articles and in my book Scripture illustrations of a man and woman being joined in the flesh (married) where no covenant is remotely insinuated or implied as the connector.
Church leadership must begin to understand and teach the truth of what it is to be married by God (MbGOD) and quit promoting fornication by promoting wrong secular marital concepts, which homosexuals have now latched a hold of. To promote fornication (even unknowingly) is a horrible thing.
The joining of two people as one flesh couldn't be more exact in application, confirming what I consistently declare, than what is found in 1Corinthians 6:15&16, "...What! Know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." This is an example of husband and wife by fornication.
Can you think of the Pauline Scripture that describes and identifies a married wife becoming a fornicated wife? If you can't, you can email me at my website and I will gladly tell you.
I ask...was Paul saying that the Christian man who joins himself to a harlot, making his self "one flesh" with her, does this through a covenant (vow) of marriage with her? I had no idea that this is what men went to harlots for. And it must have been before a public gathering to boot. Ha! Ha! However, if it wasn't him making a public covenant of marriage with her, what do you suppose Paul was referring to as the action that would make a Christian man "one flesh" with a harlot? No, it's not playing checkers!
If their sexual intimacy was what made them one flesh, which is only reasonable to infer, how could anyone believe and teach that God makes a man and woman one flesh through a vow (present day covenants), public or private? No Scripture backs up this failed idea. I don't know what you classify this idea under, secular or crazy. Regardless, it is redefining true Biblical marriage.
Divorce – How often is it said "God hates putting away." Church leaders say this consistently and yet what action do they take against those Christians that do it. In fact, many church leaders themselves are doing it. Does any come to mind? What is even more outrageous is that other church leader's invite these unbiblical divorced leaders to speak at their conventions. If God hates it so much, why are they doing it? Why are they so accepting of others that do it? Why are the laymen not holding their feet to the fire? Does anyone even know why God hates divorce?
Worse yet, church leaders are so out of touch with Scripture that the one effort they do make in taking action toward divorce is wrong. This is through counseling the spouse who is dealing with a fornicated spouse advising them to so-call restore their marriage by taking their fornicated spouse back. This is just the opposite of what they should be advising.
Allow me to expand a little more on this unbiblical counseling and upon the acceptance of adultery by the church.
I have declared in certain previous articles in this blog that once a person commits fornication, they can never have a legitimate marriage before God thereafter. You must read them to be informed of my argument. I make it very clear that their act of fornication has either severed their qualified marriage and/or disallows them to ever enter into a qualified marriage.
Whenever I expound this truth, the most common disagreeing response is that if the adulterer repents, then, God will forgive and wash that sin away so that their present marriage still qualifies or they are qualified to enter into another marriage, because the consequence of that sin is removed through repentance and forgiveness.
So, then, by upholding this notion, heterosexuals that commit adultery are more privileged with God than homosexuals, because the consequence of their sexually intimate sin(s) can be eliminated and they can continue to be sexually intimate, even with the one they had fornicated themselves with. Whereas, homosexuals will always bear the consequence of their sin and cannot continue to be sexually intimate with whom they fornicated themselves with. The consequence resulting from their sin is never removed through repentance and forgiveness. Their fornication therefore would be worse than the adulterer's fornication.
The Bible states pointedly that both adultery and homosexuality are abominations before the Lord. One isn't less than the other. They both defile the flesh by their connections and make one unfit for true marriage. Both of these sexually intimate sins create deformed connections that are not disconnected.
Let me describe what I mean: An adulteress has a body and two, three... heads. An adulterer has a head and two, three... bodies. Male homosexuals have two, three... heads and no body, where female homosexuals...well, you should get the picture.
These defiled connections committed by born again Christians are never undone, no matter how much repentance is exercised. It is a consequence of creation conveyed on them as a result of their sexual joining. It is why Paul emphatically declared "God forbid" that a Christian man should take a harlot and become one flesh with her.
This also happens to the unbeliever through creation. However, the unbeliever's connections can be undone when they are born again and made a new creation in Christ. The same as is happened to those already made new, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed..." (1Cor. 6:11-19).
A person is made a new creation (made pure and holy) only once. Therefore, this doesn't keep happening over and over each time you repent, which would have to happen, particularly and predominantly with committing fornication, for your connections (sins against your body) to be eliminated, but it doesn't. This is why your fornicated sexual connections adversely affect the body of Christ – "God forbid." This is what I have explained in many of my articles, particularly my last?
A Biblical marriage is one head and one body and nothing else. This is a pure and undefiled joined union – the only one that God accepts. A Christian must not defile God's marital way. By doing so, you commit a sin against Him and against your own body.
Lastly, I would like to point out an example that typifies the Church's ignorance of Biblical marital concepts, which is conveyed quite frequently.
The church presently teaches that if two people live together without a marriage license, they are living in fornication. However, if they will exercise secular marital rites publically, then, church Pastors will be happy to officiate and consign acceptance to the two alleged fornicators, now declaring them married before God. It's as if the couple saying certain vows publically causes all their supposed fornication and wrong, which these pastors teach against, to suddenly be wiped away. Their living together is now assumed to be legitimate and acceptable to God.
According to Scripture, the fallacy of this teaching is 360 degrees. The truth is:
1. If this couple, a man and woman, had never been sexually intimate with anyone else, they are not committing fornication.
2. If these two had both put away their spouses for fornication and had not been sexually intimate with anyone else, they are not committing fornication.
3. If these two had experienced the death of their spouse and had not been sexually intimate with anyone else, they are not committing fornication.
4. If these two were new converts having unbelieving spouses that departed from them and had not been sexually intimate with anyone else, they are not committing fornication.
5. If one of them is any of the 4 above and the other is any of the 3 above different from their live-in and had not been sexually intimate with anyone else, they are not committing fornication.
6. If either of them are none of the above, they are committing fornication and to suppose that by exercising a secular prescription will halt their fornication is unbiblical and wishful thinking.
So, you see, just because you have a man and woman doesn't mean you have a marriage. You might have a secular marriage, but it doesn't mean it's Biblical.
The church's view on marriage, divorce, and fornication is absolute secularism with a religious twist and is the redefining of Biblical marriage.
Am I saying there is no hope? Not at all, there is a remedy, but it will only come about by abandoning these wrong secular concepts and begin to embrace true Biblical concepts. Otherwise, I can't predict what kind of judgment the church is going to face. It's definitely something to think about before one takes communion.