Sister Carrie was raised under family and church discipline so very close to that of Matthew that you would think the two families had known each other and been in the same church for years. Matthew and Carrie underwent a trial and testing by supervised and chaperoned "hands-off" courtship for nearly one year to They passed the test with great admiration from all who looked on for the period of courtship. The second was for this minister's daughter, Liberty, who married Amos Pranger, who grew up in a missionary family in Russia.
Genesis: The Book of God’s Kingdom – 07 (“The Ordinance of Marriage – 01”)
The fourth was for a Chinese couple in Shanghai, China, who both having unsaved parents, placed themselves under our supervision in these matters. Lastly, for a Chinese pastor to a godly Filipina, where the parents had a godly view of marriage and family and were involved in the courtship. To close this paper on the subject of the ordinance of headship, we commend to you a study of the headships in Scripture.
You may want to use this as a family study, or as part of a Sunday School or Bible school course. Parting Thoughts that Should Be the Introduction. The ordinance of headship is not something to begin teaching when our young people are ready for marriage. By the time they are planning to wed they have absorbed metric tonnage of cultural anti-Christ and anti-Bible thought. Headship needs to be trained into the children of Scriptural Christian families from early childhood Deuteronomy ; Psalm ; Ephesians ; 2 Timothy ; etc.
Headship is a major subject of teaching for aged sisters to young sisters Titus It Is Our Observation that Filipino parents these days, in the main, allow their children to choose their own friends and fall in love or in lust with any person or persons they choose.
After nuptials, the parents and other relatives find themselves spending a great deal of time trying to clean up marital messes or keep the marriage of their children in tact. There is an inordinate amount of meddling and interference by parents and in-laws in the homes of newlyweds, brought on because of domestic disputes between brides and grooms who were neither taught nor trained in God's standards during their growing-up years. Parents of newlyweds are guilty of gross neglect in this area of training Mom was abroad working, Dad was too lazy to teach the sons, the Bible was never opened in the home, and so forth , but now somehow they believe that they have the wisdom to straighten out the messed-up marriages of their offspring.
This is utter foolishness. Most were unwise when they were raising their children-and most remain fools! They passively allowed their children for years to be deceived by the world with its UN education system and entertainment gods. And now they are being deceived by and about their married children.
I appeal to young Christian parents! I mean, parents aged in their early to late twenties particularly. I believe you have lost at least one generation. Your parents or in-laws, your aunts, uncles and cousins will not listen to God or His word! World Health Organization. I beseech young Christian parents! Raise a new generation of Bible- believing , Bible- practicing, Christ- honoring young people.
Raise a generation of young brides and grooms that see Christ and His Church as the anti-type of their home. Raise a generation that understands the Ordinance of Headship from early childhood! That is, there is a deliberate refusal to teach that the husband or father is the head of the woman. This teaching has one or two or both purposes: 1.
The Philippines is the home of a matriarchal society where many men cower under their wives. Educated men have told me that eighty percent or more of the homes in Batangas Province are run by the women in the home; 2. Of course both motivations are wrong and destructive, and violate sound Scripture principle. We speak here of adult daughters, perhaps of marriable age, who should have been trained by the word and the rod in days and years gone by.
To Get the Point Across? Patenaude, Th. Principle Text 3. In the sentence structure of God's word, we learn the following: That there are four clauses in the verse. Regarding the first clause, it is one of eight times the Apostle Paul uses this structure in either the positive form e. In the second clause, "that the head of every man is Christ;" the man is a human husband or father. In the third clause, "and the head of the woman is the man" the man is again a human husband or father. The  man in this third clause is not Christ. A human husband or father is the head of a human wife or daughter.
This is easily seen from the cross-reference of Ephesians "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; The husband is spoken of as being the head of the wife instead of Christ. The wife as a child of God and member of Christ's body-in that particular respect may be said to have Christ as her head. But the wife is not in actuality the Church, therefore to stress that aspect is to evade the practical issue at hand. The fourth clause reveals that ultimate headship belongs to God the Father see 1 Corinthians , as illustrated by the Son of Man when He sojourned and ministered on the earth.
The man is answerable to Christ for how he exercises his headship over his wife and daughters. This does not, however, negate the headship of the man in his own home. What Headship is Not 1. Headship is not a cold, blind following of a husband's commands by a wife or daughter for the sake of some kind of domestic autocracy. Headship is not the means whereby the husband or father may simply be the boss. Headship is not physical threat or abuse by a husband toward his wife or daughters. Headship is not public humiliation, ridicule or embarrassment of wives or daughters by the husband or father.
Headship is not always one hundred percent agreement of the wife with the husband's decisions. Headship is not a lack of consideration of the needs of wives or daughters. Headship is never an acceptable excuse for neglect of wives or daughters, nor is it a justifiable reason for defrauding wives see 1 Corinthians Headship is not a setting aside of a wife's participation in the management of a household.
Headship is not a neglect of the use of the God-given gifts and talents of wives and daughters see Proverbs ff. Headship is not a hiding away of wives and daughters from friendships and fellowship with God's saints. What Then Is Headship? The home-the family-is the first institution established by God. The family is pan-dispensational. That is, the family spans all dispensations; there is not one age of man in which the family doesn't have the dominant role.
Headship, therefore, is a recognition of the primacy of the family in society, and that the family must have a God-ordained authority structure. Before there was a chosen and elect nation, Israel, and before there was a New Testament Church on the earth, there were families. Primacy belongs to the family. Headship is a believer's recognition that the woman in the garden Genesis chapter 3 was beguiled and deceived by the subtlety of the serpent Satan, angel of light-2 Corinthians The consequence of this beguiling is the need of the woman for a head, covering, power and authority in a protective position over her.
Headship is a believing woman's recognition that without the protective power of the man her husband or father , she is more susceptible to attacks upon her spirit and mind by angels 1 Corinthians these being angels which kept not their first estate-Jude 6 , than would be her husband or father under similar attack. Headship is a believing recognition that the woman is the "weaker vessel" 1 Peter who is to be given honour provision; protection by the husband. Headship is the believing woman's recognition and acceptance of God's decree Genesis that Headship is the believing recognition on the part of both husband and wife that the marriage union is designed by God to be a type-a picture-an illustration to the world, as well as to the heavenly principalities and powers of Christ's protective, supplying and sacrificial love for his Church.
Headship further is an illustration of the Church's trusting submission to Christ, her Head Ephesians Headship is a recognition of the example to be set in the homes of the bishops of the local churches of God 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1 , which is connected to the decree of Genesis Part of the qualifications for the bishop, as found in 1 Timothy 3: 4, 5 read, 4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5. Romans instructs, 8. The position taken here includes: 1. The bride and groom are mistaken to believe that this performance is mandated upon a man's ministry; 2.
The bride and groom are wrong to judge God's minister if he declines to perform at wedding ceremonies; 3. The Gospel minister has the prerogative to decline involvement in the sealing of wedding vows for any particular marriage or for all of them; 4. The Gospel minister will give account at the Judgment Seat of Christ for that to which he attaches Christ's name in the performance of his calling.
The Origin of Marriage
This minister will not submit to civil licensure of his ministry in any way or for any reason, even for the purpose of officiating marriage unions. Both bride and groom must be able to articulate a credible Scriptural profession of saving faith in Jesus Christ. Other of God's people must have known this profession for a significant time prior to any interest in marriage. This minister will officiate or otherwise lend endorsement to no marriage where either one or both parties do not give satisfactory evidence of regeneration.
Neither bride nor groom may be divorcees from a previous marriage union while a former spouse is still living. It was a legal presumption that in this case the betrothed parties wished to lessen the sinfulness of their action as much as possible, and therefore performed it with the intention of marriage and not of fornication. The efficient cause of the marriage contract, as well as of the sacrament, was even in this case the mutual intention of marriage, although expression was not given to it in the regular way.
This legal presumption ceased on 5 Feb. The external sign is a contract; hence marriage, even as an effective sign or sacrament, has precisely the nature and quality of a contract, its validity depending on the rules for the validity of contracts.
And, as we can distinguish between a contract in its origin and a contract in its continuance, so we can distinguish between the sacrament of marriage in fieri and in facto esse. The sacrament in fieri is the above-mentioned mutual declaration of consent; the sacrament in facto esse is the Divine bond which unites the married persons for life. In most of the other sacraments also there is this distinction between sacrament in fieri and in facto esse ; but the continuance of the other sacraments is based mostly on the inamissible character which they impress upon the soul of the recipient.
Not so with marriage; in the soul of the recipient there is a question of no new physical being or mode of being, but of a legal relationship which can as a rule be broken only by death, although in individual cases it may otherwise be rendered void, provided the marriage has not been consummated.
In this respect, therefore, marriage, especially as a sacrament, differs from other contracts, since it is not subject to the free will of the individuals. Of course, the choice of a partner and especially the contracting or non-contracting of marriage are subject to the free will of the individuals; but any revocation or essential altering of the terms is beyond the power of the contracting parties; the essence of the contractural sacrament is Divinely regulated.
Of still greater importance is the contract aspect of the sacrament in fieri. In the other sacraments, the conditional administration is admissible only within narrow limits. There can only be questions of conditions of the present or past, which, according as they are verified or not verified in fact, there and then admit or prevent the valid administration of the sacrament. But generally even these conditions have no influence on the validity; they are made for the sake of greater reverence, so as to avoid even the appearance of regarding the sacramental procedure as useless.
The Sacrament of Marriage, on the contrary, follows the nature of a contract in all these matters. It admits conditions not only of the past and present, but also future conditions which delay the production of the sacrament until the conditions are fulfilled. At the moment, these are fulfilled the sacrament and its conferring of grace take place in virtue of the mutual consent previously expressed and still continuing.
Only diriment conditions are opposed to the essence of the Sacrament of Marriage, because it consists in an indissoluble contract. Any such conditions, as well as all others that are opposed to the intrinsic nature of marriage, have as a result the invalidity of both the contract and the sacrament. A further quality of the Sacrament of Marriage, not possessed by the other sacraments, is that it can be effected without the personal presence of the mutual ministers and recipients.
A consensual agreement can be made in writing as well as orally, and by proxy as well as in person. Hence these methods are not opposed to the validity of the sacrament. Of course, according to ecclesiastical law, the form prescribed for validity is, as a rule, the personal, mutual declaration of consent before witnesses; but that is a requirement added to the nature of marriage and to Divine law, which the Church can therefore set aside and from which she can dispense in individual cases.
Even the contracting of marriage through authorized representatives is not absolutely excluded. In such a case, however, this representative could not be called the minister, much less the recipient of the sacrament, but merely the agent or intermediary. The declaration of consent made by him is valid only in so far as it represents and contains the consent of his principal; it is the latter which effects the contract and sacrament, hence the principal is the minister of the sacrament.
It is the principal, and not the agent, who receives the consent of and marries the other party, and who therefore also receives the sacrament. It does not matter whether the principal, at the exact moment when the consent is expressed by his agent, has the use of reason, or consciousness, or is deprived of it e. The actual use of reason is no more required for it than in the baptism of an infant or in extreme unction administered to an unconscious person.
It may even happen in the case of marriage that the consent, which was given many years ago, only now takes effect. This occurs in the case of the so-called sanatio in radice. Through this an ecclesiastical impediment, hitherto invalidating the marriage, is removed by ecclesiastical authority, and the mutual consent previously given without knowledge of the impediment is accepted as legitimate, provided it is certain that this consent has habitually continued according to its original intent.
At the moment of the ecclesiastical dispensation the original consent becomes the effective cause of the sacrament and the hitherto presumptive, but now real, spouses receive the sacramental effect in the increase of sanctifying grace, provided they place no obstacle in the way. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism. Hence only one who has been validly baptized can contract a marriage which is a sacrament; but every one can contract it who has been validly baptized, whether he has remained true to the Christian faith , or become a heretic, or even an infidel.
Such has always been the teaching and practice of the Church. Hence it is a general principle that all baptized persons are subject to universal ecclesiastical laws, especially marriage laws, unless the Church makes an exception for individual cases or classes. Hence not only the marriage between Catholics, but also that contracted by members of the different sects which have retained baptism and validly baptize, is undoubtedly a sacrament.
It matters not whether the non-Catholic considers marriage a sacrament or not, or whether he intends to effect a sacrament or not. Provided only he intends to contract a true marriage, and expresses the requisite consent, this intention and this expression are sufficient to constitute a sacrament. But if he is absolutely determined not to effect a sacrament, then, of course, the production of a sacrament would be excluded, but the marriage contract also would be null and void.
By Divine ordinance it is essential to Christian marriage that it should be a sacrament; it is not in the power of the contracting parties to eliminate anything from its nature, and a person who has the intention of doing this invalidates the whole ceremony. It is certain, therefore, that marriage contracted between baptized persons is a sacrament, even the so-called mixed marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, provided the non-Catholic has been validly baptized.
It is equally certain that marriage between unbaptized persons is not a sacrament in the strict sense of the word. There is, however, great uncertainty as to how those marriages are to be regarded which exist legitimately and validly between a baptized and an unbaptized person. Such marriages may occur in two ways. In the first place, a marriage may have been contracted between unbelievers, one of whom afterwards becomes a Christian , while the other remains an unbeliever.
Here believer and unbeliever are taken in the sense of baptized and unbaptized. Paul expressly states I Cor. And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. Secondly, there may be question of a marriage, which from the beginning was a mixed marriage, i.
By ecclesiastical law, such a marriage cannot take place without a dispensation from the Church, which has made disparity of worship between baptized and unbaptized a diriment impediment. In regard to both kinds of mixed marriage it may be asked whether they have the character of a sacrament, and whether they have the effect of imparting grace at least to the baptized party.
As to the unbaptized party, there can clearly be no question of sacrament or sacramental grace, for baptism is the door to the other sacraments, none of which can be validly received before it. The opinions of theologians on this point vary considerably. Some maintain that in both kinds of mixed marriages the baptized party receives the grace of the sacrament; others deny this in the case of a marriage contract contracted by unbelievers which subsequently becomes a mixed marriage, and affirm it in the case of a marriage contracted by a believer with an unbeliever in virtue of a dispensation from the Church; a third class again deny that there is a sacrament or sacramental grace in either case.
The first view was held as probable by Palmieri De matrimonio christiano, cap. The third opinion is upheld by Vasquez and Thomas Sanchez, and is at the present time vigorously defended by Billot De sacramentis: II, De matrimonio, thesis xxxviii, sec. No side brings convincing proof.
Perhaps the weakest grounds are adduced for the opinion which, in regard to marriage contracted by unbelievers, claims sacramentality and the sacramental grace after baptism for the party who, subsequently to the marriage, is baptized. These grounds are mostly negative; for example, there is no reason why an unbaptized person should not administer a sacrament, as is clearly done in the case of baptism; or why the sacramental effect should not take place in one party which cannot take place in the other, as in the case of a marriage between baptized persons where one party is in the state of grace and the other is not, so that the sacrament of marriage confers grace on the former, but not on the latter.
Besides, it is not fitting that the baptized person should be altogether deprived of grace. As against this view, there seems to be a weighty reason in the fact that such a marriage contracted in infidelity is still dissoluble, even after years of continuation, either through the Pauline Privilege or through the plenary authority of the Holy See.
And yet it has always been a principle with theologians that a matrimonium ratum et consummatum i. Hence, it seems to follow that the marriage in question is not a sacrament. This argument reversed, together with the reason of fitness mentioned above, tells in favour of the sacramentality of a marriage contracted with ecclesiastical dispensation between a baptized and an unbaptized person.
A further reason is that the Church claims jurisdiction over such mixed marriages, institutes diriment impediments to them, and grants dispensations.
This authority regarding marriages Pius VI bases on their sacramentality; hence it seems that the marriage in question should be included among marriages that are sacraments. In the first place, many deny that the mixed marriages in question pertain exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Church, but claim a certain right for the State as well; only in case of conflict the Church has the preference; the exclusive right of the Church is confined to marriages between two baptized persons.
The Church also possesses some authority, no doubt, over all marriages contracted in infidelity, as soon as one party receives baptism, but this does not prove the sacramentality, after the conversion of one party, of a marriage contracted by infidels. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether matters affecting the nature of Christian marriage are subject to ecclesiastical authority for the sole reason that Christian marriage was raised to the dignity of a sacrament, or for the more general reason that it is a holy and religious thing.
In the document cited above Pius VI gives no decision on the point. In fact the elevation of marriage to a sacrament can well serve as a ground for ecclesiastical authority, even in regard to a marriage which is only an inchoate sacrament. As positive proof against the sacramentality of the mixed marriages with which we are dealing, the advocates of the third opinion emphasize the nature of marriage as a contract. Marriage is an indivisible contract which cannot be one thing for one party and another thing for the other party.
If it cannot be a sacrament for one, then it cannot be a sacrament for the other. Lamech, a descendant of Cain was the first polygamist Gen. The manner in which this incident is introduced reveals it to have been a spiritual aberration. Third, marriage was designed with a hierarchial arrangement.
This is no license for a dictatorship or any form of abuse, but it does acknowledge a graduation of authority within the home. Tragically, this has been the case far too often. Both ideas may, be involved cf. Fourth, the marriage union was intended to be a lifelong arrangement. Though it is the fad in our modern world, husbands and wives do not have the right to change marital partners as easily as they would change a garment!
What Does the Bible Say About Marriage Laws?
Having given some consideration to the sacred traits of the marriage union, it is now appropriate that we raise this question: Why did God ordain marriage? First, marriage accommodates our social needs. The need is most ideally fulfilled in the marriage union. Second, marriage provides the means for the gratification of sexual desire — a virtuous, God-given inclination. The Creator never intended, however, for human beings to engage in promiscuous sexual liaisons.
Sexual activity outside of a legitimate marriage commitment is fornication. But if one desires not to live celibate, he is free to marry to avoid fornication 1 Cor. Third, a home sanctified by marriage affords the ideal environment for the rearing of children. The conception of children is to follow marriage Gen. How heartbreaking it is that so many are bringing children into this world without the benefit of a two-parent home. Fourth, the husband and wife arrangement was intended to facilitate the divine plan for human redemption. This point cannot be pressed too strongly.
Let me amplify. Jehovah, in his infinite knowledge, knew — even before the world was formed — that humanity would stray, and so need the atoning sacrifice of his Son Eph. That being the case, one must conclude that everything the Creator did, throughout the ages of Old Testament history, ultimately, was in view of the coming of Christ.
The very first thing on the sacred agenda was the institution of marriage. When family life unravels, national devastation is certain to follow eventually. It is within the marriage-blessed home that children first learn the principles of responsibility, justice, and the respect for authority. When these virtues have been neglected in a youngster, he or she makes a poor candidate for the gospel. Too, the warm love between husband and wife is frequently used in scripture as an apt illustration for the affection and devotion that God has for his people cf.
Here is why these points are so crucial. They help explain why the laws regarding marriage are so strict. A breakdown in this institution undermines acceptation of the gospel. What a burden to bear. As mentioned above, God desires that the marriage commitment remain intact as long as both mates are living. We must also note that the marital union does not obtain beyond death Mt. In a recently published book, Why Marriage Matters: Reasons to Believe in Marriage in Post-Modern Society , author Glenn Stanton has assembled a massive array of evidence, surveying a century of social studies, which forcefully demonstrates the lasting trauma that divorce wreaks upon both adults and children.
For example, divorcees are more likely to become addicted to alcohol, commit suicide, be subject to depression, etc. Too, children of divorced parents are much more prone to both mental and physical ailments than children of undivorced parents. For a summary of this material, see ""The Devastating Effects of Divorce"". This latter clause warrants closer investigation. The perfect tense has to do with an antecedent action, the impact of which remains in force. The thrust of the statement is this:.
Jackson, p. Accordingly, Jesus, in anticipation of the inauguration of the New Covenant, brings marital responsibility back to a higher plateau.