Your cart is currently empty!
Author: Pastor Greg Allen
-
Non-Christian Marriages & Adultery
A visitor to our website writes:
“As a Christian, I have been struggling to find the answer to this issue. If someone has sexual relations with a woman or man that is married, it is considered adultery. But what if that marriage is between two non-Christians and is not recognized in the eyes of God? ie. civil ceremony, etc. Would that still be considered adultery?”
* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
First, let me begin by suggesting that it’s an error to assume that a marriage between two non-Christians is not recognized in the sight of God.
Jesus was once challenged by the Pharisees with the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” (Matthew 19:3). I think it would be fair to say that the Pharisees who asked this question were NOT believers in Jesus. What’s more, the entire debate they were having was because there were some who wanted to know whether or not they could put away their own wives without guilt. Jesus answered them by saying, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate” (vv. 4-6). They went on to ask why Moses had commanded that a certificate of divorce be given to one’s wife and that she be put away. Jesus answered, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (vv. 8-9).
My point in citing these statements of Jesus is that (1) they were spoken to unbelievers; and (2) they treat marriage as sacred in the sight of God–even in the case of those who are unbelievers. Similarly the apostle Paul, when he writes to the Corinthians about marriage issues, speaks of a situation in which a believer is married to an unbeliever; and he treats that marriage as being as valid and inviolable in the sight of God as a marriage would be between two believers (1 Corinthians 7:12-16). In teaching these things, the Scriptures infer that a marriage between two unbelievers is just as much a marriage in the sight of God as is a marriage between two believers.
So, to answer your question; the violation of a marriage between two unbelievers absolutely constitutes adultery. A civil ceremony is a non-religious marriage ceremony that is not entered into in the context of a church; but it is still a legal marriage from the standpoint of the state. This would also be true in the case of “common-law” marriages; which eventually become legal marriages from the standpoint of the state, and which then cannot be terminated except by a legal divorce. Since such a marriage is recognized by the legal authority of a state, God calls us to honor it as a full marriage in His sight in that we are to honor Him by honoring the laws and authority of the state (Romans 13:1-6).* * * * * * * * * *
Now; suppose a man and a woman are in a relationship with each other that is NOT a legal marriage in any respect–either in the sight of God or in the eyes of the state. Let’s suppose we’re talking about a live-together situation. If someone in that relationship were to have sexual intimacy with some third party, it obviously would not be called “adultery”; since a covenant bond of marriage had not been violated. But it would still be a sin. It would be a sin by a different name–“fornication”. (The live-together situation itself, by the way, is also “fornication”.)
It’s helpful to think of marriage as a circle. Sexuality has God’s blessings and approval so long as it occurs between one man and one woman within the commitment of that circle. When someone outside that circle steps in and has sexual relations with someone in that circle, that is called the sin of “adultery”. But when someone who is not at all within the “circle” of marriage has sexual relations with someone else who is not at all within the circle of marriage, that is called the sin of “fornication”. And both are violations of God’s standard of marriage. What’s more, both sins equally receive the warning of His judgment. Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”
I would say that it would be best to ask the question, “What is the situation that God has clearly placed His blessing upon sexuality between two people?” And the answer is clear and exclusive: life-long, legal marriage between one man and one woman.
In Jesus,
Pastor Greg
Bethany Bible Church
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Genesis 48:5
A visitor to our website writes:
Could you please tell me why in Genesis 48 verse 5 why Israel tells Joseph that Ephraim and Manasseh are his?
* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
The old patriarch Jacob had been given twelve sons; and now in the passage you referenced, as he lay sick and dying in Egypt, he speaks some of his closing words of blessing to his beloved son Joseph. He strengthens himself on his bed and, among other things, says; “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, and said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a multitude of people, and give this land to your descendants after you as an everlasting possession.’ And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine” (Genesis 48:3-5, emph. added).
It’s important to remember that Jacob had thought that he had lost Joseph. Back in Genesis 37, Joseph’s other brothers had sold him into slavery in Egypt (which, of course, was in the hand of God to preserve the twelve tribes during a time of famine; Genesis 50:20). Now that he sees that he didn’t lose Joseph after all, he formally adopts Joseph’s two sons as his own and gives them a blessing among his other sons.
The reason that Jacob was motivated to do this may have been because of his deep love for his deceed wife Rachel. Jacob had only two sons through her—Joseph and Benjamin (35:24). He particularly loved Joseph because he was the son of his old age (37:3). And so, as a memorial to his wife Rachel (who had died giving birth to Benjamin), and probably out of gratitude that Joseph had been returned to him, he claimed Joseph’s two sons as his own.
Whatever Jacob’s motivation may have been in this, however, God’s providential hand was clearly seen. There was no tribe in Israel called by the name of “Joseph”; and the tribe of Levi was not given an inheritance of land in Israel. So, the two half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, together with the others, constituted a full twelve tribes with the possession of land (see Numbers 1:5-16).
Jacob also demonstrated a faith that God would bring him and his family back to the land of promise after their time in Egypt was over. Blessing them as he had blessed his other sons suggested his confidence that they would have an inheritance of land given to them on their return—which, of course, they did.
Blessings in Jesus’ love.
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
Levi the Tax Collector
A visitor to our website from Korea writes to ask:
Would the Levi, the tax collector, in the chapter 5 of the Book of Luke be a descendant of the tribe of Levi, a son of Jacob in the
Old Testament? The people of the tribe of Levi was supposed to work as priests or at least some attendants in the temple, weren’t they?* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
Greetings; and thank you for writing.
The name “Levi” (which means, “attached”) came originally from the man Levi who was born to the patriarch Jacob by Leah. Leah was often in competition with her rival, Rachel (who was Jacob’s other wife) for her husband’s love. When the ancient Levi was born, Leah said, “Now this time my husband will become attached to me” (Genesis 29:34)—and that’s how he got his name.
And you are right—the decendents of ancient Levi was the tribe that served in the ministry of the temple. Ancient Levi’s descendent Aaron (the older brother of Moses), along with Aaron’s sons—was appointed by God to serve in the priestly role. So, it may be that Levi the tax collector was named after Levi the son of Jacob. But the fact that Levi the tax collector was named “Levi” doesn’t necessarily mean that he was of the tribe of Levi. We don’t know anything about the tax collector’s ancestry except that he was Jewish, and that he was born of a man named Alphaeus (see Mark 2:14).
A tax collector, in Jesus’ day, was a Jewish man who collected taxes from his own Jewish kinsmen on behalf the gentile Roman government. He made his living by collecting not only the required revenue appointed by the Roman government, but by also collecting a percentage above the required amount as his own cut. Such man was considered to be a notorious traitor to his own people. It would be hard to imagine that a man of the priestly tribe (the tribe of Levi) would have done such a thing; but it’s not impossible either. (See Judges 17:7-13 for a story of an ungodly Levite.) In the end, we simply don’t know.
You may find it interesting that this man Levi is the same man who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. When the other gospel writers tell the story of how Jesus called him to become one of His disciples, they use a different name for him. Mark and Luke, in their gospel accounts used the name “Levi” (Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32). But when they listed him as one of the apostles, they used the name “Matthew” (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15). Many people in the Bible had two names; and so, when Mark and Luke wrote of his ministry as an apostle, they chose to call him by his more familiar name “Matthew”; but when they told the story of his being called while a tax-collector, they used his lesser-known name “Levi”. Perhaps they did this out of respect for his apostolic ministry; and out of a desire to protect his ministry from the scandal of his notorious past.
But Matthew didn’t hesitate to use his name. In telling his own story in Matthew 9:9-13, he told the story of his sinful past as “Matthew”. In fact, even when he included his name in the list of apostles, he identified himself with his sin by writing it out in bold letters: “Matthew the tax collector” (Matthew 10:3). He had been a very notorious and very despised sinner in the sight of his Jewish kinsmen. But he was a sinner that Jesus loved. He was a man that Jesus called to Himself, and that He pardoned and cleansed, and that He placed into his service, and made into one of His own twelve ambassadors to the world, and to whom He gave the privilege of penning the longest and most “Jewish” of the four gospels.
Thanks again for your note; and blessings in Jesus’ love,
Pastor Greg Allen
Bethany Bible Church
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.) -
A TRUE SON IN OUR COMMON FAITH
Preached on Sunday, January 18, 2010
from
Titus 1:4-5; with various passagesTheme: The New Testament record of Titus’ ministry gives us an example of “a true son” of gospel faith.
-
PRUDENT SPEECH IN GOD'S PRESENCE
PM Home Bible Study Group; January 13, 2010
Ecclesiastes 5:1-7Theme: Because of the vanity of our words, we need to speak carefully in the presence of God.
-
THINGS ABSENT
AM Bible Study Group; January 13, 2010
Revelation 21:22-27
Theme: This passage enlivens our desire for the New Jerusalem by telling us the things that will not be there.
-
A PASSION FOR GOD'S PLAN
Preached on Sunday, January 10, 2010
from
Titus 1:1-4Theme: In the introduction to his letter, Paul exemplified a passion for God’s plan of redemption through His Son Jesus Christ.
-
FROM GOSPEL-BELIEVING TO GODLY LIVING
Preached on Sunday, January 2, 2010
from
Titus 1:1-4Theme: The theme of the New Testament book of Titus is that genuine faith in sound gospel teaching is to manifest itself in a life of holiness and good works.
-
THE CAPITAL CITY OF ETERNITY
AM Bible Study Group; January 6, 2010
Revelation 21:9-21
Theme: This passage describes, in detail, the beauty of the New Jerusalem that will be our home throughout eternity.
-
The Oceans
Question:
Why does God do away with the oceans? In Rev. 21:1, we are told there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and there will be no more sea. As much as I trust God’s judgment, I have to admit it kills me to think I will never stand by the wild, free, beautiful ocean ever again—for all eternity. I grew up by the ocean, and it is my favorite place on earth. To know I’ll never hear a seagull cry as it soars over the open water makes me feel positively claustrophobic! I know I am not alone in this since so many people visit and live by the sea. Why does a loving Father take away something that so many of His children hold so dear?
* * * * * * * * * *
Dear friend,
Excellent question! And it’s one that I used to wonder about quite a bit too—since I have also lived near the ocean most of my life.
I think you have begun this question rightly—that is, by affirming that you trust God’s judgment. I think that, when we read something like this in the Bible that we don’t fully understand, or that doesn’t fit-in with the way we think things ought to be, the best way to begin is by trusting God’s greater love and wisdom. He is God, and we are not; and there’s most likely aspects to the things He is preparing for us that we—in our limited understanding or narrow focus—can’t understand or see. I take a lot of comfort in the fact that the heavenly Father, who is fitting me to live eternally in this glorious new heavens and new earth, is the same One who created the heavens and earth we now occupy. The Lord Jesus—through whom the Father made the vast beauty we enjoy now in just six days (Colossians 1:16)—is the same One who has been preparing our future home for us since He left us (John 14:2-3), and who has given His own life to make it possible for us to be there. If His word says that there will be “no sea”, then—even though I love the beauty of the sea in this present, fallen creation—I can trust that what He has in store is far more wonderful than I can imagine.* * * * * * * * * *
In seeking to understand this, we need to keep in mind what else the Bible tells us about the new heavens and the new earth. Though it says that there will be no sea, it also affirms to us that there will be lots of water. In fact, Revelation 22:1-2 says, “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” How there could be a continually flowing river with no sea is as much a mystery as how the source of the river could be the throne of God and of the Lamb in the midst of the city. We can’t measure what we read of the new heavens and the new earth by what we know of the earth we now dwell in. The differences will be beyond our understanding. But we need to keep in mind, in any case, that though there will be no sea, there will be water—even a great river of water!
The verse you’re referring to says, “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea” (Revelation 21:1). One explanation that some commentators have given for this is that the sea—as we now know it—will no longer be needed in terms of its provision to the earth of water. This present earth’s ecological system is water-based; and the oceans of the earth are essential to its hydrologic cycle—providing the earth’s surface with water through the processes of evaporation, cloud-covering, and rainfall. In the original language of that verse, it says, “and the sea is no longer”—with a definite article before the word “sea”. It doesn’t say that there will be no more “seas” or “oceans”; but specifically that THE sea will no longer exist. And perhaps this is meant to specify that “the sea” as a property of the ecological system will no longer be needed in the new created order, because the river of water of life provides all that is needed.
Some commentators have argued that “the sea” is meant to be understood symbolically. They understand “the sea” as another way of describing the multitudes of people on the earth in this present, ungodly world system—the people of the Gentile nations who are in continual turmoil with one another. And there’s some biblical support for this idea in the book of Revelation itself. After all, we’re told that ‘the beast’ (that is, the antichrist) is said to rise up “out of the sea” (Rev. 13:1)—the clear implication being that he rises up from out of the midst of the turmoil of the nations. What’s more, the vision of “the great harlot who sits on many waters” is given to us in Rev. 17:1; and we’re told in verse 15 that “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues.” Others have pointed out that “the sea”—in the minds of ancient peoples—was not viewed as favorably as we view it today. It was, to them, a place of great mystery and danger. It was sometimes associated with death and judgment (see Jonah 2:3-6 as a possible example of this.) But the problem with this view is that, if we symbolize “the sea” in this way in Revelation 21:1, then we’d have to symbolize much of what else the passage tells us about the new heavens and new earth. John doesn’t seem to me to be speaking symbolically in this passage.
One possibility—a view that takes into account both the literal feel of this passage, but also recognizes that “the sea” is connected to the multitudes of people on the earth—is that the absence of the sea suggests the gathering together of all people under one great King. Just think of how, in this present world in which we live, the nations and peoples of earth are divided from one another by the fact that a “sea” separates them. The sea delineates nations and separates cultures and people from one another. Perhaps the fact that, in the new heavens and new earth, ‘the sea is no longer’ means that the redeemed people of all the nations of the earth will finally be one great people ruled by one King: Jesus. Perhaps it’s meant to show that that the glorified people who dwell on the new earth will no longer be divided one from another as they have been in centuries past on the old earth.* * * * * * * * * *
Now; I know that all of that doesn’t perhaps take away the frustration you and I might feel right now over the idea of our beautiful ocean not being in the new heavens and the new earth. But something I read once by C.S. Lewis comes to mind. He once wrote, “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered to us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far to easily pleased” (C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory [New York: Collier Books, 1980], pp. 3-4).
Could it be that we’re too eager to hang on to the idea of the beauty of the ocean of this present creation, because we’re “half-witted creatures” who cannot imagine what is meant by God’s glorious offer a new heavens and a new earth? That puts us back into the position of trusting God’s greater love and wisdom; doesn’t it?
Blessings,
Pastor Greg
(All Scripture quotes are taken from the New King James Version.)