____________________________
Marriage Covenants
____________________________
Herewith are both the initial question and the subsequent revelation (as when written for the first time) on the matter of covenant breaking doctrine as now preached at this ministry.
These were originally posted to the
Friends and Fellowhelpers email listservs, on
June 21 and 24, 2000, respectively.
-----Original Message-----
From: E
To: FAF Listerv
Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2000
Subject: Marriage Covenants
I have a question here:
When my wife and I got married, my Marriage Vows included the words "forsake
all others and cleave unto my wife."
Now, if this were just a contract between partners, I could claim lack of
prior knowledge concerning the fact that God considers Polygyny acceptable,
and use this to say I am not bound by that part of my marriage vows.
We are not dealing with a contract, however, but a covenant. There are
biblical examples of covenants in which members of the covenant are not
entirely aware of the ramifications of all provisions of the covenant when
they agree to it. It is however, still binding.
For example, salvation. When we get saved, we come into a covenant
relationship with God. I don't know of very many who are truly aware of
everything they are agreeing to when they get saved.
And what about the baby born to Jewish parents? He is part of an entire
race born under covenant, but of course did not participate in the
establishment of the covenant.
I have a hard time coming up with some reason that would allow me to say I
am now no longer bound by my agreement to "forsake all others".
If I made that agreement (and I did), and I later come along and say I am no
longer bound by it, how can my wife ever trust me? How could she depend on
me to stand by my word, from that time on?
I don't see any clear answer to this one. Guys, Gals? Got any ideas? I
don't consider the status quo bad. My wife is, in my opinion, one of the
best any husband could ever have. But this is important to me. What if God
told me to marry a second wife? Would I be bound not to by the terms I made
in my first marriage? If my wife decided she liked the concept of polygyny,
would that then open the door?
E
<><
The Founder of this ministy then wrote the following reply, which turned
out to be the original revelation that this ministry would thereafter
be preaching about the matter of covenant breaking doctrine, as yet another
affirmation of love-not-force.
-----Original Message-----
From: TRUTH BEARER
To: FAF Listerv
Date: Saturday, June 24, 2000
Subject: Re: Marriage Covenants
Greetings in the love of the Lord.
Dear Friends and Fellowhelpers,
While this is addressed specifically to E,
who raised this excellent issue here, my reply here
is going to be another one of those "meaty" replies,
which might be of interest to anyone else here
who might enjoy these kinds of posts. :-)
I pray this be a blessing for all who have opportunity to read it.
Dear E,
What a blessing you are to us here at FAF!
You have raised an excellent question here. Thank you!
And I see that there have also been some excellent replies to
you indeed here at
FAF. Amen. (And thank you to all who have indeed
so replied, such a great replies!)
I would like to now share some further thoughts on this discussion as well.
E, the issue you raise is precisely why I myself hold that a Christian
marriage is defined as being at the consummation between two believers
in Christ (although I realize that there are some other denominational
views on this), and not to be confused with issues of "hybrid"
marriages between believers and unbelievers, to which
1_Corinthians 7:12-16
would otherwise apply. As for believers, though,
the marriage is at consummation for, after all, Jacob was married to LEAH
in the morning, despite the celebration feast the night before, wherein he
thought he was getting his bride Rachel. (See
Genesis 29).
Besides, Jesus instructed us to NOT make oaths, to not make swearings.
As it is written,
" Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not forswear thyself,
but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
"But I say unto you,
Swear not at all;
neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool:
neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,
because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
"But let your communication be,
Yea, yea;
[[ or ]]
Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is MORE THAN THESE [[ two sayings ]]
cometh of evil."
(Matthew 5:33-37.)
So, it is for that reason that I do not support the idea of making
swearings or vows, even in marriage. Plus, marriage
is a permanent relationship for Christians anyway, so that, while
spoken words can be recanted (whether rightly or wrongly),
a consummation can never be "un-done", even if,
as is common among most of us in our fallen world, the bride
was not a virgin at marriage.
Now, besides this, though, the question becomes...
Even though the words that are said in a Wedding
are often referred to as "Wedding Vows",
is there actually any VOWING or OATH-making going on?
Or is it more simply, the act of making a committed promise,
a contract, a COVENANT?
Although some Weddings might use the following words,
(but if so, then they would truly be violating Jesus' words against
doing so, as shown above), usually, though,
the words of the common known supposed "Wedding vows"
do not actually include the terminology of saying "I SWEAR"
or "I VOW". And with that as the case, such would
then indicate that this is NOT actually a vow or oath, anyway,
but is only a COVENANT.
Mind you, this fact does not "get us off the hook" here (as it were),
for truly, we are not to break covenants.
As it is written,
"...covenantbreakers...
" Who knowing the judgment of God,
that they which commit such things
are worthy of death,
not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them."
(Romans 1:31b,32.)
So, we cannot be covenant breakers, either. Not at all.
But there is a difference between a vow and a covenant.
Namely, a covenant can be MUTUALLY re-written,
even MUTUALLY nullified, while a VOW is a permanent
thing. (Even Jephthah still had to fulfill his horrifying VOW
of
Judges 11:30-39, as even called as being faithful in
Hebrews 11:32. Does that horrifying example make it
any wonder why Jesus told us not to vow in
Matthew 5:33-37? Yikes!)
(Mind you, of course, before some "wag" :-) tries to trip me
up here with a funny semantic question....
if one had a made a stupid VOW to serve
the devil, such a VOW would not thereafter so bind a man
that he could not become saved in Christ Jesus, of course.
Praise God His mercy! :-)
The matter before us, therefore, is about the PROMISES
which a husband and wife make to each other, that they
are not VOWS in actuality but are instead PROMISES,
a COVENANT.
And a COVENANT between two parties may certainly be
"re-negotiated", as long as it is MUTUALLY agreed.
(Then it would not be "covenant breaking".)
Indeed, even the Lord has made a NEW Covenant.
(Praise the LORD!)
As it is written,
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
that I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day that I took them by the hand
to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
WHICH my covenant THEY BRAKE,
although I was an husband unto them,
saith the LORD:
"But this shall be the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel;
After those days, saith the LORD,
I will put my law IN their INWARD parts,
and write it IN their hearts;
and will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour,
and every man his brother, saying,
Know the LORD:
for they SHALL all know me,
from the least of them unto the greatest of them,
saith the LORD:
for I will forgive their iniquity,
and I will remember their sin no more."
(Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Alleluia Hallelujah!
And as that is all explained in another place,
as it is written,
"For if that first covenant had been faultless,
then should no place have been sought for the second.
"For finding fault with them, he saith,
[[ the above passage as we just saw from Jeremiah 31:31-34 ]]
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that
I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them
out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I
regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws
INTO their mind, and write them IN their hearts: and I will be to them a God,
and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know
me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their
unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
"In that he saith,
A new covenant,
he hath made the first [[ covenant ]]
old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."
(Hebrews 8:7-13.)
The LORD has indeed made a NEW Covenant (Hallelujah!),
thereby indeed showing us the difference here
between covenants and vows.
However, obviously, for any one who might think that
they or any of us should be or are still under the old covenant,
thinking that they had not been one to "break it", such ones
might be thus perceiving that the Lord made the new covenant
without a mutuality of their consent.
This would not be correct, of course, because of these
two things:
- ) None of us today were alive at the time of the making
the New Covenant as made with the blood of Christ,
which means that we as only offered the New Covenant
anyway (by God's grace), as the old covenant would "vanish away".
- ) As it is written,
"the Scripture hath concluded
all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ
might be given unto them that believe."
(Galatians 3:22)
Because, as it is written,
"whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all"
(James 2:20),
therefore truly, as it is written,
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
(Romans 3:23)
Hence, the LORD
"hath made [[ Christ our Lord ]]
to be sin for us: who knew no sin; that we might
be made the righteousness of God in him."
(2_Corinthians 5:21.)
Alleluia Hallelujah!
So, rather than His holding fast to the Old Covenant,
the LORD in His wondrous mercy made a NEW
Covenant, for our good. Alleluia!
And this brings us back to the marriage issue.
We know that the marriage (itself) is NOT open to "re-negotiation",
even though a COVENANT may indeed be so "re-negotiated"
when done MUTUALLY. (This is why I say that a Christian
marriage is not defined as being at the time of making a covenant,
but only at the consummation between the two believers.)
Marriage may not be "un-done", even if COVENANTS
may be "re-negotiated".
(And, obviously, such "re-negotiation" may ONLY be done
within the confines of righteous and Scriptural doctrine.
This fact should be understood as a "given" here, but
it had to be said here, just in case anyone might
misunderstand or mis-apply the points being made herein.
That is, a Christian may not "re-negotiate" a New COVENANT
in their marriage with unGodly concepts that are outside
the parameters of righteous Godly Christian Marriage doctrine.)
Truly, even as COVENANTS might be able to be MUTUALLY "re-negotiated"
(within the righteous parameters), the Christian MARRIAGE
itself is still permanent and not subject to being "changed",
regardless of any such MUTUALITY of agreement between
the wife and husband.
Regarding this permanence in Christian Marriage,
this is quite clear in the Scriptures.
When the Pharisees asked the Lord Jesus in
Matthew 19:3
if it was acceptable for a man to divorce his wife
for "EVERY CAUSE" or reason, Jesus replied in the
verses through verse 9, saying back the exact answer of
Deuteronomy 24:1. According to that, no, the only ONE exception
whereby a man was therewith allowed to put away a wife was "her uncleanness",
her being in fornication ---and for no other reason could he put
her away.
After all, we know that,
as it is written,
"For the LORD... saith that he hateth putting away".
(Malachi 2:16a,c.)
And indeed, in Jesus' reply to the Pharisees in that passage
of
Matthew 19:3-9, He starts His answer by making reference
to the fact that a consummation can not be "un-done", as being
thereafter as "ONE FLESH".
As it is written,
"And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning
made them male and female,
And said,
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be ONE FLESH?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but ONE FLESH.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. "
(Matthew 19:4-6.)
And then, at the end of His reply to the Pharisees,
as it is written,
"And I say unto you,
Whosoever shall put away his wife,
EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION
[[ just as explained in Deuteronomy 24:1 ],
and shall marry another
[[ replacing the unjustly put away wife, violating Exodus 21:10 ]],
committeth adultery
[[ by causing the unjustly put away wife to break her wedlock ]]:
and whoso marrieth her which is put away
doth commit adultery."
(Matthew 19:9.)
So, Jesus was clearly explaining how permanent
Christian Marriage truly is.
Moreover, we have the COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD
in 1_Corinthians 7:10-11 that the husband must not put away a wife.
As it is written,
"And unto the married I command,
yet not I,
BUT THE LORD [[ commands this ]],
Let not the wife depart from her husband:
But and if she depart,
let HER remain unmarried,
or
be reconciled to her husband:
and let not the HUSBAND put away his wife. "
(1_Corinthians 7:10-11.)
And so yet again, this goes back to my own reasoning for saying
that Christian Marriage is defined as being at the consummation
between two believers, as THAT is permanent, something
which, once done, one can never go back and "un-do".
(Hence the reasoning why we should also get back to
holding virginity back to its proper place, so that
that would impact our thought-process along these matters,
bit that's another heart-filled discussion altogether. :-)
And so, the matter is that, while marriage, as being defined
as at consummation between two believers in Christ Jesus
(because a believer should not deliberately become
unequally yoked, as in "married",
with an unbeliever, as per
2_Corinthians 6:14), the CHRISTIAN Marriage
between two true believers (as opposed to fakes) is permanent.
As it is written,
"The wife is bound by the law
as long as her husband liveth;
but if her husband be dead,
she is at liberty to be married to whom she will;
only [[ that she marry a believer man ]]
in the Lord."
(1_Corinthians 7:39.)
And as it is written in another place.
"For the woman which hath an husband
is bound by the law to her husband
so long as he liveth;
but if the husband be dead,
she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if,
while her husband liveth,
she be married to another man,
she shall be called an adulteress:
but if her husband be dead,
she is free from that law;
so that she is no adulteress,
though she be married to another man."
(Romans 7:2-3.)
So, truly Christian Marriage is permanent,
so long as the husband lives.
But while the Christian Marriage is so permanent,
the terms of the promises made, the COVENANT,
however, those may be MUTUALLY "re-negotiated".
And as such, if a first wife mutually agrees with her husband
for a "re-negotiation" of their marriage COVENANT, whereby the whole
"forsaking all others" clause is mutually agreed to be deleted,
all so that another wife, were God to so call that to happen (as per
1_Corinthians 7:17), would thereafter be able to easily enter the family,
then all that should certainly be fine and proper. In such case
of mutually made "re-negotiation" to therewithafter
remove that binding clause upon the husband, then there is no
covenant breaking occurring.
Mind you, this is not to suggest that a wife has a sort of
"veto-power", as that is not Scriptural. (That's because
this is about the husband's own authority to which he binds
himself in this matter, that his word be ever true.)
But rather, this is simply saying
that a first wife's inability to embrace Christian Polygamy
most often has more to do with the man not YET helping
her to be able to embrace it, than about much else. So,
one should look at her inability not so much as "disobedience",
but rather as a symptom for the man to grow even moreso
in his selflessly-giving Christ-like love to her, so that
she could then come to embrace it.
And truly, this whole matter yet again brings us back
to the TRUTH BEARER Vision of love-not-force and
whether God really DID call a man to add another wife
to their family.
We know that it is only as the Lord would so call.
As it is written,
"But as God hath distributed to every man,
as the Lord hath called every one,
so let him walk.
And so ordain I in all churches."
(1_Corinthians 7:17.)
Be it
- NO wife,
- ONE wife, or
- MORE THAN ONE wife,
it should only be as God would call.
And we know that God would not call a man to be a
COVENANT BREAKER, nor to have his Christian Marriage
be torn apart as the first wife is not yet able to embrace
Christian Polygamy. (God hates divorce, even threat of
divorce.)
But clearly, such men who would apply the
FORCE view of polygamy
are indeed willing to be a COVENANT BREAKER with a
first wife, as such men would be seeking to UNILATERALLY re-write the
COVENANT which they had each made with their first wives. And as we saw, the Scriptures
show us that God says that covenant breakers are "worthy of death",
as it is written,
"...covenantbreakers...
" Who knowing the judgment of God,
that they which commit such things
are worthy of death,
not only do the same,
but have pleasure in them that do them."
(Romans 1:31b,32.)
And this verse even goes so far as to
refer to how such ones,
including COVENANT BREAKERS,
not only commit such things, but even
HAVE PLEASURE IN THEM THAT DO THEM too!
(God forbid.)
And so, if God would call a man to more than one wife,
then the Lord would work the work, the Lord would help
the first wife embrace it to indeed have the calling.
But if a man has to
FORCE polygamy in his family,
by just "marrying" another without regard for his
first wife or for his COVENANT with her, then how could
God be involved in that with which to even start?
And yet, we have a better way, truly given of God, for our
good, as we move forward with the
TRUTH BEARER Mission
of Bringing Christian Polygamy to the Churches:
We have come to know it as the
TRUTH BEARER Vision of love-not-force,
that a MAN must grow in such profound
selflessly-giving Christ-like love for his first wife that
he thereby helps her to willingly embrace Christian Polygamy.
And surely, as God is fully able, therefore, if God
truly indeed ever calls a man to marry another wife,
then, because we know that the LORD hates divorce,
and opposes CONVENANT BREAKING,
the Lord would most assuredly also empower the first
wife to gladly embrace it as well. The LORD would not ever
"need" a man to
FORCE polygamy
on his wife to perform
His Will, because the Lord hates divorce (and would not
use "testimonies" which would lead others to fall into divorce)
and the Lord condemns covenant breaking.
The LORD is able to do His own will.
If God calls a man to polygamy, the Spirit is ABLE to
work the work as the man simply walks in love-not-force.
And so what we really see here is yet another
confirmation from the Scriptures of the necessity
for the TRUTH BEARER Vision of love-not-force
in Christian Polygamy, (in addition to the simple
Spiritual truth of it all, and that men not lose
their first wives by otherwise wrongly applying
the cruel FORCE view upon them). Namely,
this additional affirmation that this this gives is
that love-not-force would also cause none of us to
be COVENANT BREAKERS, nor to teach others
to do so, all of which is "worthy of death", as we
saw in
Romans 1:31b,32.
Additionally, this message also forewarns us to whom
we should beware if any ones among us might attempt
to teach us of Christian Polygamy principles
---especially forewarning us if these one would even
be so audacious to even purport to be "called of God" to
teach Christian Polygamy, while their testimony is that of
being such an unrepented COVENANT BREAKER
(even if their first wife later acquiesced to
the unilaterally changed covenant.)
Contrariwise, when a man follows and applies the message
of love-not-force, it is not about his being cruel toward the
"wife of his covenant" (as in
Malachi 2:14) and not about being so
self-absorbed so that he simply FORCES or "expects" her to
"just accept" what he has self-exaltingly "decreed". Rather,
it is about a man growing with so much profound
love for his wife, so profound as that of Christ Himself
so selflessly loving the Churches, that the husband therein
has Spiritual power, whereby the very Spirit of God
truly works the work and empowers the first wife
to joyfully embrace the Scripturality and even
application of Christian Polygamy for their own
family.
If God calls, then God is able to work the work to make it
happen. It is just that simple. Love-not-Force.
And with this, then the first wife is joyfully willing to MUTUALLY
agree to the change of their Marriage COVENANT,
whereby the "forsaking all others" clause (if that is what
was so promised) is then no longer deemed to be part
of their promises to each other.
That way...
No covenant breaking, no vow- or oath-breaking,
and no divorce.
Love-not-Force.
Oh the awesome truth of our God!
And I thank you for asking such an excellent question!
I praise God every day for the revelation of this vision
of love-not-force for all of our sake, as He only continues to re-affirm
and re-affirm in even more ways beyond what we first
realized from it, all as being the right way we are to walk,
as we go forward with the TRUTH BEARER Mission
of Bringing Christian Polygamy to the Churches.
May the love of the Lord Christ Jesus be with us all.
© June 24, 2000, TruthBearer.org
P.O. Box 765, O.O.B., ME 04064