Reaffirming the
Marriage Covenant
Correcting Practices by
People of Faith that led to
Obergefell v. Hodges
— ISV INSIDE —
by
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
FEATURING THE
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD
VERSION FOR
SCRIPTURE
QUOTATIONS
Reaffirming the
Marriage Covenant
Correcting Practices by
People of Faith that led to
Obergefell v. Hodges
by
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
— ISV INSIDE —
FEATURING THE
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD
VERSION FOR
SCRIPTURE
QUOTATIONS
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Correcting Practices by People of Faith that led to Obergefell v. Hodges
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
BS”D (‫)בס"ד‬1
Copyright © 2015 by William P. Welty, Ph.D.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY.
A Koinonia Institute publication. A set of DVDs containing lectures by the author
based on this material and a PowerPoint® teaching outline for use in educational
settings is available from the Koinonia Institute Study Center web site. For more
information, please visit https://koinoniainstitute.org.
All Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible: International Standard
Version® (ISV®), v2.0. Copyright © 1996-2015 by ISV Foundation. All
rights reserved internationally. Used by permission. Visit the ISV
Foundation at http://isv.org.
Except for brief quotations in printed reviews, no part of this published material
may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or otherwise utilized in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, whether now existing or hereafter
invented, whether by photo-duplication, off-set printing, photocopying,
microfilm, microfiche, photorecording, Internet publishing, placed in any
information storage and retrieval system, or processed by any computer-driven
page composition or desktop publishing software without prior written
permission of the copyright holder.
1
The conservative, evangelical Christian community is in lock-step as co-belligerents with the
Orthodox Jewish Community with respect to the subject matter of this Special Communication.
Accordingly, as one way to acknowledge publicly our mutual interests described herein, we have
added this traditional Jewish document blessing to this material. The abbreviation BS"D (Besiyata
Dishmaya, which in reads in Aramaic ‫ )בסיעתא דשמיא‬means “with the help of Heaven”. The English
acronym BS"D (also written in Hebrew as ‫ )בס"ד‬has become a Jewish term among several orthodox
religious Jewish denominations, reproduced at the beginning or end of formal written
communications as a reminder to the reader that all comes from God, including the content presented
in the document, and to contextualize what is important in the text; namely, that without God’s help
we can do nothing successfully. BS"D is not derived from any religious law of Jewish faith, but is
universally considered an accepted and respected tradition.
AUTHOR’S DEDICATION
TO DENISE MARSHALL
(http://denisemarshallministries.com)
A genuine ‫( אֵ שֶׁ ת־חַ יִ ל‬ʾēšěṯ ḥǎyil), the Woman of Valor described by Proverbs
31:10-31, my best friend, and the finest and most convincing proof I have
met in this life that the incarnate God is alive and living today, repairing
the brokenhearted and bringing hope to those who are despairing.
“She clothes herself with fortitude, and fortifies her arms with strength.
Strength and dignity are her garments; she smiles about the future.
She speaks wisely, teaching with gracious love. Reward her for
her work—let her actions result in public praise.”
Proverbs 31:17, 25-26, 30-31 (ISV)
TO DR. BRIAN HUGHES
(http://calvarychapel.org.nz)
Senior Pastor, Calvary Chapel of Auckland, New Zealand
A Teacher of Righteousness after the finest of biblical traditions
TO DR. GARRY ANSDELL
(http://hosannachapel.org)
Senior Pastor, Hosanna Chapel of Bellflower, California
One of the more practical and thorough systematic expositional
Bible teachers active in the United States of America today
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Our thanks to Dr. Chuck Missler, CEO and Chairman of the Koinonia
Institute, for extending this opportunity to contribute to students and
friends of the Institute yet another work, this time on the subject of the
United States Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the
case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Also thanks to the Rev. Mark Frueh, senior
pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church of Minot, ND, who chaired an
interdenominational committee of church pastors to assist in creation of
the Ceremony of Divestiture.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Dr. William Welty is the Executive Director of the ISV
Foundation of La Mirada, California, producers of the
Holy Bible: International Standard Version. He is a
graduate of California State University at Fullerton,
California (B.A., Religious Studies, 1974) and a
graduate (Master of Divinity, 1978) of Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School at Deerfield, Illinois. He also holds a Ph.D. degree in Christian
Communications (2005) from Louisiana Baptist University. Dr.
Welty is a member of the Board of Directors of Koinonia House and
serves pro bono in the dual roles of Research Analyst in Advanced
Communication Technologies and Adjunct Professor of Middle Eastern
Studies on the faculty.
About the Holy Bible: International Standard Version
The Holy Bible: International Standard Version is produced
by the ISV Foundation of La Mirada, California directly
from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Hebrew
Scriptures and from the Greek New Testament, using a
team of conservative biblical and lay scholars drawn
from the international Christian community. It is published in a
variety of electronic formats, including apps for Apple® iTunes®
and Google® Android®. Amazon Kindle®, Barnes and Noble
Nook®, Adobe® Acrobat® PDF, and HTML format editions are also
available. Visit http://isv.org to learn more.
Table of Contents
The Fire Storm ................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Community Response to Obergefell ............................................................................ 3
Conservative Christian Community Response to Obergefell ................................... 3
Jewish Community Response to Obergefell .............................................................. 12
Russian Orthodox Church Response to Obergefell .................................................. 14
The Threat of First Amendment Restrictions in Light of Obergefell ..................... 16
The Camel’s Nose in the Tent: Unintended Consequences of Obergefell ........... 25
The Potential for Legislative Backlash ..................................................................... 28
Euphoric Responses by Same-Sex Marriage Advocates to Obergefell ................ 36
Background and Standing in the Present Dialogue ............................................... 40
Our Previous Dealings with Same-Sex Issues ......................................................... 43
The Ugandan Correspondence .................................................................................. 44
The Republic of Germany Correspondence ............................................................ 46
Part One: How America’s Definition of Marriage Came to the Critical
Junction Reached in the Obergefell Decision ............................................ 46
Political and Theological Apostasy is at the Heart of the Problem ...................... 52
First Failure: Surrendering Family Educational Responsibilities to
Government .......................................................................................................... 54
Second Failure: Surrendering Family Care Responsibilities to
Government .......................................................................................................... 55
Third Failure: Surrendering Responsibilities to Care for the Poor and
Needy to Government ......................................................................................... 58
Fourth Failure: Surrendering the Definition and Enforcement of God’s
Standard of Marriage to Government ............................................................... 60
The Result: The Abandonment Disciplinary Wrath of God Rests on our
Nation and Culture .............................................................................................. 61
How God Abandons a Nation and its Culture ....................................................... 66
Part Two: In Support of the Biblical Standard of Marriage and in
Defense of its Standards Relating to Sexuality Morality and
Practice .............................................................................................................. 73
—i—
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
First Things First: Temptation to Engage in Homosexual Behavior is
not a Sin ................................................................................................................. 73
On Making a Biblical Distinction between Temptation and Behavior:
“Being Gay” as Temptation vs. Homosexual Behavior .................................. 74
On “Nature” and “Natural”: The “Mystery of Iniquity” at Work in
Humanity’s Fallen Nature .................................................................................. 77
Conflicting Standards of Jurisprudence: Modern vs. Biblical Models for
Administering Criminal Justice ......................................................................... 79
The Woman Caught in Adultery: Guidelines for Jurisprudence from
the Example of Jesus Adjudicating a Criminal Case of Sexual
Immorality ............................................................................................................ 82
Part Three: Equipping the Local Church to Take Back the High Ground .......... 85
The Church’s Largely Unheralded Role in Stabilizing Marriage during
the Roman Era ...................................................................................................... 89
Roman Era Marriage: An Unwieldy and Impossibly Complex Set of
Regulations ........................................................................................................... 90
On Rethinking Biblical Standards for Marriage and Eligibility for
Remarriage .......................................................................................................... 103
The Role of the Church in Judging Outsiders: Specifically, We DO NOT
Have One ............................................................................................................ 107
Paul’s Counsel Regarding Moral Integrity and Marriage ................................... 108
Instances when Divorce is Prohibited by God’s Standards .................................. 111
Instructions by Jesus on Marriage and Divorce .................................................... 115
A Sample Statement of Policy and Procedures for Marriage and
Remarriage .......................................................................................................... 117
Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage after Divorce is
Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive, by the Rev. Dr. John
Piper .................................................................................................... 118
The Way out of the Weeds ....................................................................................... 138
What’s Involved in Repentance? ............................................................................. 139
What the Church Needs to Do ................................................................................ 143
Daniel’s Prayer: A Do-it-Yourself Guide to Corporate Repentance for
the Body of Christ .............................................................................................. 145
Daniel’s Example: How to Repent When You’re Not Guilty .............................. 145
A Call for a Divestiture of Civil Government Authority over the
Christian Church ................................................................................................ 154
— ii —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Recommended Actions with a View to Administering Both Justice and
Grace .................................................................................................................... 156
Appendix One: A Response to Sarah Harris’ The New Testament and
Same-Sex Relationships ............................................................................... 161
Introduction: A Call to Normative Dialogue, not to Emotional
Posturing ............................................................................................................. 164
The Importance of Proper Context: Toward a Cogent Hermeneutic
of Romans 1:26-27 ............................................................................................. 173
Executive Summary: A Plethora of Truthful Statements Mixed with
an Abundance of Presuppositional Errors .................................................... 176
On Paul’s So-called “Silence” in not Discussing “Sexual
Orientation”....................................................................................................... 179
On Pederasty, “Committed Same-Sex Relationships,” and Dr.
Harris’s Argument from Silence Regarding the Historical World of
Romans............................................................................................................... 183
On “Nature” and “Natural”: The “Mystery of Iniquity” at Work in
Humanity’s Fallen Nature ............................................................................... 186
On the “Silence” of Jesus in not Endorsing Same-sex Relationships:
A Problematic Interpretation of the Choice to be a Eunuch for the
Kingdom of God ............................................................................................... 189
The Counsel of Jesus: Is There a Sin More Grievous than
Homosexual Behavior? .................................................................................... 192
On the Error of Assuming Government Should be Dictating the
Definition of Marriage ..................................................................................... 194
The Slippery Slope Argument—Is Polygamy Next? ...................................... 196
Appendix Two: A Suggested Covenant of Divestiture and Ceremony of
Divestiture for Use by the Local Church .................................................. 201
A Public Ceremony for Celebrating the Covenant of Divestiture ............ 203
Some Thoughts on Repenting .................................................................................. 217
The ABC’s of Personal and Corporate Change ..................................................... 217
Step 1: Admit your Spiritual Poverty ..................................................................... 217
Step 2: Begin to Mourn ............................................................................................. 218
Step 3: Be Brought to a State of Humility .............................................................. 218
Step 4: Begin to Hunger to Know Him ................................................................... 219
Step 5: Treat Others the Way Jesus has Treated You ........................................... 219
iii
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Step 6: Let your Heart be Transformed from the Inside out ............................... 220
Step 7: Let your Life begin to be Productive for God’s Glory ............................. 220
Step 8: Watch Some People Hate you for your New Life .................................... 221
Step 9: View Yourself in Light of Eternity, not Present Circumstances ............. 221
Index of Scripture Quotations .......................................................................... 223
An Introduction to the Koinonia Institute ..................................................... 225
Mission Statement ......................................................................................... 226
— iv —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
v
The Fire Storm
The White House, decorated at night by Presidential Executive Order in rainbow colors following release of Obergefell v. Hodges by the United States Supreme Court.
INTRODUCTION
n 26 June 2015, as part of its series of judicial rulings released by the Supreme Court of the United States just prior
to entering summer recess, SCOTUS announced its landmark decision in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, by which it established homosexual marriage as national policy intended to be binding on all states, U.S. military services and their foreign bases, and
U.S. territories. This Special Communication is intended to discuss the
Obergefell decision, and to accomplish these three objectives:
—1—
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
 First, to set forth briefly some thoughts as to how
America’s definition of marriage came to the critical
junction reached in the Obergefell decision; and,
 Second, to enumerate some principles in support of the
biblical standard of marriage in general and in defense
of its standards relating to sexual morality in particular; and,
 Third, to chart a list of suggestions in order to equip local churches to take back the high ground of marital
union from draconian government interference with
Christian standards of practice.
We conclude our analysis by reaffirming the sanctity of the traditional marriage covenant as perfected in its standards by Jesus of
Nazareth.
—2—
Community Response
to Obergefell
Vote Tally, Obergefell v. Hodges. The case was decided by one vote. If only a single justice
had changed allegiance, today Obergefell v. Hodges would merely be a footnote in U.S. judicial history.
CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO OBERGEFELL
As many observers predicted, a firestorm of criticism quickly
erupted from the conservative evangelical Christian community following release of Obergefell v. Hodges. David Barton, Founder and
President of Wallbuilders, an American national pro-family organization, immediately summarized anti-homosexual marriage attitudes
and concerns in a succinct Statement on the Supreme Court Decision
released on 27 June 2015:
The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v.
Hodges that established homosexual marriage as
national policy is unambiguously wrong on at least
—3—
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Homosexual rights advocates protest in Washington, DC in the ramp up to release of Obergefell v.
Hodges. Image source: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/06/gaymarriage.png
three crucial levels: Moral, Constitutional, and
2
Structural.
Barton’s Statement contained this significant warning:
The Supreme Court’s decree on marriage will
become a club to bludgeon the sincerely-held rights of
religious conscience, especially of those in the several
dozen States who, through their republican form of
government, had enacted public policies that
conformed to both the Moral Law and the traditional
Common Law.
While the Supreme Court decision paid lip service
to the rights of religious people to disagree with its
2
Barton, David. Statement on the Supreme Court Decision. Cited from http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=169861
—4—
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
marriage decision, history shows that not only does
this acknowledgment mean little but also that it will be
openly disregarded and ignored, particularly at the
local level. After all, there are numerous Supreme
Court decisions currently on the books – including
unanimous Court decisions – protecting the rights of
religious expression in public, including for students.
Yet such faith expressions continue to be relentlessly
attacked by school and city officials at the local and city
levels. (See www.religioushostility.org for thousands
of such recent examples.)
Even before this decision was handed down,
numerous States were already punishing dissenting
people of faith, levying heavy fines on them or closing
their businesses – not because those individuals
attacked gay marriage but rather because they refused
to personally participate in its rites. These
governmental actions were initiated by complaints of
homosexuals filed with civil rights commissions – and
all of this was already occurring without a Supreme
Court decision on which they could rely. Now that
such a decision does exist, expect a tsunami of
additional complaints to be filed against Christian
business owners, and both the frequency and the
intensity of the penalties to be increased.
Barton is not alone in holding this view or views similar to it.
Respected Internet news portal and aggregator World Net Daily
quoted Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, a conservative law firm
that defends biblical marriage, as claiming “This ruling by the five
—5—
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
lawyers is no law at all. It is lawless and must be treated as such.” 3
Libertarian Senator Rand Paul, junior Senator for Kentucky, opined
on 28 June 2015 in an editorial published by Time’s Internet news
portal:
I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my
marriage registered in Washington. … Some rights are
more equal than others. … The government should not
prevent people from making contracts but that does
not mean that the government must confer a special
imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage. …
Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not
government recognition of marriage is a good idea, for
either party. … Since government has been involved in
marriage, they have done what they always do – taxed
it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue
that government’s involvement in marriage has made
it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe
government does little right.4
On 26 June 2015, Patrick Howley, a political reporter for the conservative news portal Daily Caller, suggested:
Churches could lose their tax-exempt status with
the IRS if they refuse to recognize the Supreme Court’s
ruling Friday legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states,
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned in
his dissenting opinion. He cited a comment made
months ago by the U.S. government’s top lawyer on
the same-sex marriage case.
3
Rand
Paul:
Shut
Down
Government’s
‘Marriage’
Racket.
Cited
from
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/rand-paul-shut-down-governments-marriage-racket/.
4
Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether. Cited from
http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/.
—6—
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
“Hard questions arise when people of faith
exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict
with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for
example, a religious college provides married student
housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a
religious adoption agency declines to place children
with same-sex married couples,” Roberts wrote.
“Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged
that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions
would be in question if they opposed same-sex
marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38.
There is little doubt that these and similar questions
will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people
of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they
receive from the majority today.”5
The neo-conservative (i.e., in our view, the quasi-evangelical)
magazine Christianity Today reported that a coalition of evangelical
Christian leaders assembled by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission released this public statement in response to the Obergefell
decision:
5
Roberts Warns Churches Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status for Opposing Gay Marriage. Cited from
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/roberts-warns-churches-could-lose-tax-exempt-status-foropposing-gay-marriage/.
—7—
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
As evangelical Christians, we dissent from the
court’s ruling that redefines marriage. The state did
not create the family, and should not try to recreate the
family in its own
image. We will not
capitulate
on
marriage
because
biblical
authority
requires that we
cannot. The outcome
People of traditional, conservative, evangelical
of
the
Supreme
American churches are
under seige due to Obergefell v. Hodges.
Court’s ruling to
redefine marriage represents what seems like the result
of a half-century of witnessing marriage’s decline
through divorce, cohabitation, and a worldview of
almost limitless sexual freedom. The Supreme Court’s
actions pose incalculable risks to an already volatile
social fabric by alienating those whose beliefs about
marriage are motivated by deep biblical convictions
and concern for the common good.
The Bible clearly teaches the enduring truth that
marriage consists of one man and one woman. From
Genesis to Revelation, the authority of Scripture
witnesses to the nature of biblical marriage as uniquely
bound to the complementarity of man and woman.
This truth is not negotiable. The Lord Jesus himself
said that marriage is from the beginning (Matt. 19:4-6),
so no human institution has the authority to redefine
marriage any more than a human institution has the
authority to redefine the gospel, which marriage
mysteriously reflects (Eph. 5:32). The Supreme Court’s
—8—
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
ruling to redefine marriage demonstrates mistaken
judgment by disregarding what history and countless
civilizations have passed on to us, but it also represents
an aftermath that evangelicals themselves, sadly, are
not guiltless in contributing to. Too often, professing
evangelicals have failed to model the ideals we so
dearly cherish and believe are central to gospel
proclamation.
Evangelical churches must be faithful to the
biblical witness on marriage regardless of the
cultural shift. Evangelical churches in America now
find themselves in a new moral landscape that calls us
to minister in a context growing more hostile to a
biblical sexual ethic. This is not new in the history of
the church. From its earliest beginnings, whether on
the margins of society or in a place of influence, the
church is defined by the gospel. We insist that the
gospel brings good news to all people, regardless of
whether the culture considers the news good or not.
The gospel must inform our approach to public
witness. As evangelicals animated by the good news
that God offers reconciliation through the life, death,
and resurrection of His Son, Jesus, we commit to:
 Respect and pray for our governing authorities
even as we work through the democratic
process to rebuild a culture of marriage (Rom.
13:1-7);
 Teach the truth about biblical marriage in a way
that brings healing to a sexually broken culture;
—9—
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
 Affirm the biblical mandate that all persons,
including LGBT persons, are created in the
image of God and deserve dignity and respect;
 Love our neighbors regardless of whatever
disagreements arise as a result of conflicting
beliefs about marriage;
 Live respectfully and civilly alongside those
who may disagree with us for the sake of the
common good;
 Cultivate a common culture of religious liberty
that allows the freedom to live and believe
differently to prosper.
The redefinition of marriage should not entail
the erosion of religious liberty. In the coming years,
evangelical institutions could be pressed to sacrifice
their sacred beliefs about marriage and sexuality in
order to accommodate whatever demands the culture
and law require. We do not have the option to meet
those demands without violating our consciences and
surrendering the gospel. We will not allow the
government to coerce or infringe upon the rights of
institutions to live by the sacred belief that only men
and women can enter into marriage.
The gospel of Jesus Christ determines the shape
and tone of our ministry. Christian theology considers
its teachings about marriage both timeless and
unchanging, and therefore we must stand firm in this
belief. Outrage and panic are not the responses of those
confident in the promises of a reigning Christ Jesus.
While we believe the Supreme Court has erred in its
ruling, we pledge to stand steadfastly, faithfully
— 10 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
witnessing to the biblical teaching that marriage is the
chief cornerstone of society, designed to unite men,
women, and children. We promise to proclaim and live
this truth at all costs, with convictions that are
communicated with kindness and love.6
On 27 June 2015, the Christian Family Coalition, through its Florida office, issued the following statement:
Today, five corrupt and outlaw judges on the U.S.
Supreme Court violated the dignity, equality and
voting rights of ALL Americans by illegally and
unconstitutionally inventing a so-called “right” to
“homosexual marriage” and tyrannically imposing it
on the nation.
The U.S. Constitution does not envision nor grant
any so-called “right” to “homosexual marriage.” The
five justices that conspired to impose this legal
fraud on our country have lost all credibility and
authority to remain on the bench. This illegitimate
edict will simply be ignored and resoundingly rejected
by ALL law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.
No amount of corrupt lawyers or judges can ever
trample our rights and freedoms by overthrowing our
democratically-approved State Constitutions and
suppressing our rights as voters.
Regardless of what extremists think or say,
Marriage is and only be the union of a husband and a
wife. Nature and Nature's God, hailed by the
6
Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration of Marriage. Cited from
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/june-web-only/here-we-stand-evangelical-declarationon-marriage.html.
— 11 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Declaration of Independence signers as the very source
of Law in our land, will not be sabotaged by this
illegitimate edict issued by five corrupt lawyers.
The American people are ready to defend their
democratic freedoms and civil rights by rejecting
this attack on Democracy that crassly imposes an
arbitrary, irrational definition of Marriage; one that
violates our freedom to live and work in harmony with
our beliefs and values.7
JEWISH COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO OBERGEFELL
Meanwhile, the conservative, Hebrew Scriptures-observant Jewish community has not remained silent in their protests to the Obergefell decision. For example, on Friday morning, 26 June 2015, the
Orthodox Union Advocacy Center released this official statement:
In response to the decisions announced today by
the United States Supreme Court with reference to the
issue of legal recognition of same sex marriage, we
reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith,
enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and
Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and
condemns the institutionalization of such relationships
as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining
marriage as a relationship between a man and a
woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At
the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for
others and we condemn discrimination against
individuals.
7
Narrow Supreme Court Marriage Ruling Unconstitutional: Americans Will Never Accept
Illegitimate Edict. Cited from http://cfcoalition.com/full_article.php?article_no=633.
— 12 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
We are grateful that we live in a democratic
society, in which all religions are free to express their
opinions about social issues and to advocate
vigorously for those opinions. The reason we opt to
express our viewpoint in a public forum is because we
believe that our Divine system of law not only dictates
our beliefs and behaviors, but also represents a system
of universal morality, and therefore can stake a claim
in the national discourse. That morality, expressed in
what has broadly been labeled Judeo-Christian ethics,
has long had a place in American law and
jurisprudence.
We also recognize that no religion has the right to
dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do
not expect that secular law will always align with our
viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy
remain with the democratic process, and today the
process has spoken and we accord the process and its
result the utmost respect.
In the wake of today’s ruling, we now turn to the
next critical question for our community, and other
traditional faith communities – will American law
continue to uphold and embody principles of religious
liberty and diversity, and will the laws implementing
today’s ruling and other expansions of civil rights for
LGBT
Americans
contain
appropriate
accommodations and exemptions for institutions and
— 13 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
individuals who abide by religious teachings that limit
their ability to support same-sex relationships?8
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH RESPONSE TO OBERGEFELL
According to World Net Daily news writer Leo Hohmann, response from the conservative Russian Orthodox Christian Church
outside of Russian was equally condemning of Obergefell v. Hodges:
A prominent American cleric of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia called the June 26
Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage an
“earthquake” that turns God’s established order on its
head.
Archpriest Victor Potapov of St. John the Baptist
Orthodox Church in Washington, D.C., spoke frankly
with Pravmir,9 an online Orthodox Christian website.
He blamed “homosexual propaganda” for the ruling
but also heterosexual Christian couples who have not
had the proper respect for the marriage covenant that
God intended.
The Orthodox Church is among the most
conservative Christian denominations and has
defended Russia against cultural attacks by liberal
elements that have had their way in American culture.
“Unfortunately, over the last 15 years, homosexual
propaganda has been being circulated and many have
already been influenced,” the archpriest said. “Even
some Orthodox say: ‘Well, it is not that bad. Let them
8
Orthodox Union Statement on Supreme Court’s Ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Cited from
http://advocacy.ou.org/2015/orthodox-union-statement-supreme-courts-ruling-obergefell-vhodges/.
9
Citing http://www.pravmir.com/archpriest-victor-potapov-an-earthquake-of-sorts-istaking-place-in-america/.
— 14 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
do what they want. It doesn’t concern us.’ That
earthquake of sorts that is occurring, though, is
changing the order established by God. It is terrible
that we are encroaching on the will of God.”
Marriage is not revered in
Russia or America
To an extent, Christians
must take their share of the
blame for what happened, he
said.
“I see that marriage is not
revered in Russia or in America.
Young people are fine to live
together, and only after five or
six years decide to have a church
marriage, but prayer in the
wedding rite is addressed to a
chaste couple,” Potapov said.
Archpriest Victor Potapov of Wash“Can you imagine, we, priests,
ington, D.C
marrying people who already
have children. I am not talking about the older
generation that did not know the Church, but about the
current generation of young people. We do not honor
marriage properly as a divinely established
institution.”
Asked how the Orthodox community in America
was receiving the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges,
Potatov said:
“To tell you the truth, we feel like we are in
mourning. Of course, no one was surprised that it
happened. We all understood that the majority of the
— 15 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Supreme Court would vote in favor of the decision to
register same-sex marriages. It all started a long time
ago, and over a year ago, the Supreme Court declared
the Marriage Protection Act illegal. Now this is the
result.
Archpriest Potapov cited the comments from
Russian-American lesbian journalist Masha Gessen as
proof that the LGBT movement will not be satisfied
with marriage equality.
“[H]omosexuals claim that they are looking for
equality in civil life and they want gay husbands and
wives to have the right to visit each other in the
hospital, inherit property, to have children, and the
rights which are provided to traditional couples. I
think, though, they actually are pursuing other goals.
Just this morning, I read an interview with a rather
famous Russian emigrant, Masha Gessen, who has
long been an activist in the LGBT movement. She, of
course is an anarchist, but they listen to her opinion in
America, and she said: ‘Our goal is to destroy marriage
as an institution, so that there is no longer the concept
of marriage.’ Her words need to be taken very
seriously.”10
THE THREAT OF FIRST AMENDMENT RESTRICTIONS IN LIGHT OF OBERGEFELL
The OUAC statement cited above raised a significant question
that has not escaped analysis by both sides of the Obergefell decision.
10
Orthodox
Cleric:
Marriage
Ruling
an
‘Earthquake’.
Cited
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/orthodox-cleric-marriage-ruling-an-earthquake/.
— 16 —
from
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
In an article aptly entitled Pentagon Urged to Boot Chaplains who Oppose ‘Gay’ Marriage, World Net Daily’s military desk writer Jack Minor
wrote:
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to redefine
marriage in all 50 states, the Pentagon is now being urged to “cleanse
itself” of chaplains who refuse to support same-sex marriage.
Activist Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military
Religious Freedom Foundation, is demanding the U.S.
military conduct a purge of chaplains who holds to the
traditional teaching of homosexuality and marriage
espoused by the first commander in chief, George
Washington.
Weinstein claims chaplains who are “maintaining
the state of antagonism between their religion and the
sexual/gender identities of service members” have no
business serving in the military.
“Nobody is arguing that these losers don’t have a
right to their religious beliefs,” wrote Weinstein in an
op-ed.11
“At this stage, the only honorable thing that these
losers can do is to fold up their uniforms, turn in their
papers, and get the hell out of the American military
chaplaincy. If they are unwilling or too cowardly to do
so, then the Department of Defense must expeditiously
cleanse itself of the intolerant filth that insists on
lingering in the ranks of our armed forces.”
While Weinstein frequently calls for the courtmartialing of military members who attempt to share
their faith with others, he is now calling for an entire
11
Weinstein’s op-ed piece can be read at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/26/1397034/MRFF-Demands-Ouster-of-All-Homophobic-Military-Chaplains#.
— 17 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
class of chaplains to be fired regardless of whether
their beliefs affect their job performance or not.
Brig. Gen. Doug Lee, now chairman of the
executive committee for the Chaplain Alliance for
Religious Liberty, said Weinstein’s views are extreme,
showing a lack of understanding of a chaplain’s
mission.12
It hasn’t taken long for the threat of first amendment restrictions
to affect the conservative, evangelical Christian community. On 1
July 2015, writing for the New York Daily News, news writer Nicole
Hensley reported:
She didn't have to do it this way, but evidently this
Mississippi county court clerk wanted to make a
statement.
Grenada County Circuit Clerk Linda Barnette
decided to relinquish the elected position she's held for
24 years rather than issue a marriage license to a samesex couple.
“I choose to obey God rather than man,” Barnette
wrote in a resignation letter Tuesday, attributing her
decision to Friday’s Supreme Court pronouncement of
the right of all men and women to marry, regardless of
sexual orientation.
In her all-caps letter to the county's Board of
Supervisors, Linda Barnette said she would “obey God
rather than man.”
12
Cited from http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/pentagon-urged-to-boot-chaplains-who-oppose-gaymarriage/.
— 18 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Most clerks who objected to the
Court's ruling grudgingly complied or
simply delegated the responsibility to
staffers; Barnette, whose husband was
the longtime festival director for the
Billy Graham Evangelical Association,
is among a scattering of county clerks
and probate judges in Southern states
who have refused.
“The Supreme Court’s decision
violates my core values as a Christian,”
Grenada County Circuit
Barnette wrote to the county’s Board of
Clerk
Linda Barnette
Supervisors. “My final authority is the
Bible. I cannot in all good conscience issue marriage
licenses to same-sex couples under my name because
the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is contrary
to God’s plan and purpose for marriage and family.”
The Clarion-Ledger spoke to a voter who
questioned why she would isolate gay and lesbian
people seeking to marry, but not others.
“She's given marriage licenses to people who have
committed adultery and stolen and lied, and when
their parents haven't approved,” Grenada County
resident Lue Harbin told the Ledger, speaking of
Barnette. “It’s just crazy the way she’s thinking. That's
her job, and she's not there to judge people."
My final authority is the Bible. I cannot in all good
conscience issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
under my name.
Grenada County wasted no time picking
Barnette's replacement. Michele Redditt is the new
— 19 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
circuit clerk and her office is already issuing licenses,
according to the ACLU of Mississippi.
Nearly a dozen counties continue to hold out in
defiance, but that number is changing with each day.
Simpson County Circuit Clerk Steve Womack
reportedly told a gay couple seeking marriage license,
“Best of luck, but I can’t help y’all here,” the Ledger
reported.
Most clerks, like Desoto County Clerk Dale
Thompson, made it clear they did not agree with the
Supreme Court’s ruling, but begrudgingly complied.
In Texas, Hood County Clerk Katie Lang refused
to license marriages between same-sex couples, citing
“religious doctrines.” She did not resign, however, and
eventually allowed staffers to issue licenses as required
by the Supreme Court.
Her statement remains on her Hood County
profile despite this week's change in plans.
A vast majority of Louisiana parishes have made
marriage licenses available to gay couples despite early
fears that it would take almost a month pending a
lower-court ruling.
About 18 counties in Alabama continued to refuse
marriage licenses to gay couples early Wednesday, but
that number began to dwindle after an order by U.S.
District Judge Callie V.S. Granada instructed all
probate judges to enforce Friday's ruling.
— 20 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Those county judges run the risk of being charged
with contempt of court if they persist, according to the
National Center for Lesbian Rights.13
The last sentence in the New York Daily News story quoted above
should not be ignored by the reader. The implications are ominous.
Here’s the NCLR press release to which the NYDN story refers:
(MOBILE, Ala., July 1, 2015)–U.S. District Judge
Callie V.S. Granade today issued an order confirming
that her injunction directing all Alabama probate
judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
is now in effect and requires immediate compliance. A
violation of Judge Granade’s order could result in a
county probate judge being held liable for contempt of
court, attorneys’ fees, financial penalties, and any other
remedies the court deems proper.
In today’s order, Judge Granade stated: “by the
language set forth in the order, the preliminary
injunction is now in effect and binding on all members
of the Defendant Class.” In that May 21 preliminaryinjunction order, Judge Granade directed all Alabama
probate judges to stop enforcing the state’s marriage
ban – effective immediately after the U.S. Supreme
Court’s ruling affirming marriage equality. The
Supreme Court issued its decision last Friday, so the
injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ban went
into effect that day.
Although most of Alabama’s county probate
judges are issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
13
Cited from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/clerk-resigns-scotus-ruling-marriageequality-article-1.2277815.
— 21 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
couples, a minority are not. So the civil rights groups
representing the plaintiffs in the federal class-action
lawsuit asked Judge Granade to confirm that her order
is now in effect. She immediately granted the request,
issuing today’s order that all probate judges must issue
licenses to same-sex couples under the same terms and
conditions that they are issued to opposite-sex couples.
The four organizations representing the plaintiffs
in the class-action lawsuit are the American Civil
Liberties Union of Alabama, Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, the National Center
for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law
Center.
The lawsuit—Strawser v. Strange—was brought by
five same-sex couples. It initially resulted in an order
from Judge Granade requiring the issuance of
marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Mobile
County. The order was expanded in Granade’s May 21
order to cover all Alabama counties.14
The actual court order referred to in the NCLR press release
reads as follows:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’
motion for clarification. (Doc. 144) in which they seek a
clarification as to whether the preliminary injunction
entered on May 21, 2015, (Doc. 123) is currently in
effect and binding upon all probate court judges. In
that preliminary injunction order the Court stated
“that because the issues raised by this case are subject
14
Federal Court Confirms that All Alabama Counties Must Stop Enforcing Unconstitutional
Marriage Ban. Cited from http://www.nclrights.org/press-room/press-release/federal-courtconfirms-that-all-alabama-counties-must-stop-enforcing-unconstitutional-marriage-ban/.
— 22 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
to an imminent decision by the United States Supreme
Court in Obergefell v. Hodges and related cases, the
above preliminary injunction is STAYED until the
Supreme Court issues its ruling.” (Doc. 123, p. 14
(footnote omitted)). The United States Supreme Court
issued its ruling on June 26, 2015… Obergefell v.
Hodges… Accordingly, by the language set forth in the
order, the preliminary injunction is now in effect and
binding on all members of the Defendant Class.
Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification is therefore
GRANTED as set forth above.
DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of July, 2015.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE15
The Defendant to which the Court Order applies is Luther
Strange, acting in his official capacity as Attorney General for the
State of Alabama. Accordingly, the Order is binding upon all state
employees who register marriages.
The attack noted above on Grenada County Circuit Clerk Linda
Barnette wasn’t the first. Others quickly followed, according to
World Net Daily’s Cheryl Chumley, who wrote in her online news
article SCOTUS Fallout: Let the Lawsuits Begin:
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit
against a Kentucky clerk for refusing to give wedding
licenses to four couples, two of whom are “gay.”
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said her religious
beliefs barred her from complying with the recent U.S.
Supreme Court ruling that requires states to marry
15
The NCLR press release was accompanied by a URL link to an Adobe Acrobat PDF copy of the
actual
court
order:
http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Alabama-JudgeClarification-Order.pdf.
— 23 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
homosexuals. And instead of discriminating, she
decided to stop issuing licenses altogether – for
homosexuals and heterosexuals, Fox News reported.
Davis is hardly alone.
A clerk in Decatur County, Tennessee, resigned
her post, along with two office assistants, because of
their opposition to the high court’s ruling and their
worries about lawsuits if they stood strong on their
religious beliefs.
And in New Orleans, the state Office of Vital
Records hesitated on issuing same-sex “marriage”
licenses until late this week, the Associated Press
reported.
Kentucky’s highest-ranking officials – Gov. Steve
Beshear and Attorney General Jack Conway – warned
clerks on Friday, right after the court’s decision made
the media waves, to comply or risk criminal charges
that could bring up to a year in jail.
Some clerks in the state failed to immediately
comply, but then changed their minds. Davis,
however, said she couldn’t, and wouldn’t ever, issue a
“gay marriage” license.
“It’s a deep-rooted conviction. My conscience
won’t allow me to do that,” she said, Fox News
reported. “It goes against everything I hold dear,
everything sacred in my life.”
ACLU filed its suit in U.S. District Court in
Ashland, requesting an injunction that would compel
Davis to start issuing licenses and punitive damages
for allegedly violating the rights newly created by the
Supreme Court.
— 24 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
In court documents, ACLU legal director William
Sharp said Davis’ religious beliefs are “not a
compelling, important or legitimate government
interest.”16
THE CAMEL’S NOSE IN THE TENT: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
OBERGEFELL
Now that the floodgate has opened by which the definitions and
standards of traditional marriage have been rewritten by Obergefell,
proponents of alternative marriage forms are coming out of the
16
Cited from http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/scotus-fallout-let-the-lawsuits-begin/?cat_orig=faith. A partial catalogue of WND news articles regarding this thread includes at least the following
(Click on the links in the electronic edition of this Special Communication to load them in your
browser):
Forecasts dead on! Polygamists’ demand cites Supremes
Final order! Christian bakers must pay $135,000
Millennial GOPers: Let’s back gay marriage
Justice Thomas slammed as ‘clown in blackface’
Episcopalians vote yes to gay marriages
Famous Iwo Jima flag goes gay
Polygamous trio applies for marriage license
‘Blame Supremes’ for clash with 1st Amendment
Mom scorched for 8-year-old in ‘gay’ march
Franklin Graham: ‘Gay’ rainbow ends badly
Glenn Beck slams Disney on Cinderella’s rainbow castle
Serious pushback over same-sex marriage
Fox News anchor stands up for ‘gay’ marriage
Deserters! Republicans jump ship on marriage
Pentagon urged to boot chaplains who oppose ‘gay’ marriage
Rand Paul: Shut down government’s marriage racket
Rush Limbaugh: Here’s what’s next for marriages
How deceitful Obama became ‘gay marriage president’
Texas attorney general: Marriage ruling ‘lawless’
Lawmaker: Congress can halt same-sex ‘marriage’ in tracks
Family group: Marriage ‘persecution’ starts
Cruz amendment makes Supreme Court subject to elections
Schlafly: Marriage ruling ‘not the end, it’s the beginning
Resistance! No marriage licenses for anyone
The Big List of marriage-ruling reactions
Scalia: Marriage ruling ‘threat to democracy’
What presidential candidates, others, are saying
Obama hails high court: ‘#LoveWins’
Supreme Court: ‘Gay marriage’ legal nationwide
— 25 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
closet. For example, about a week after Obergefell was released by
SCOTUS, World Net Daily news writer Cheryl Chumley reported:
A married Montana man has taken his wife and his
girlfriend to the Yellowstone County Courthouse and
told
the
clerk:
Marry us – if the
Supreme
Court
OK’d “gay” unions,
then we should be
allowed to join
together in holy
polygamy.
“It’s
about
Nathan Collier wants the legal right to be married
to two
women.
marriage equality,” said Nathan Collier,
who
filed for
a marriage application to two women, Victoria and
Christine, CBS News reported. “You can’t have this
without polygamy.”
Victoria is currently his legal wife. Christine is his
girlfriend.
County officials at first denied the application, but
then backtracked and said they’d have to consult with
attorneys.
Critics of government-sanctioned “gay” marriage
have been warning for years that would-be
polygamists would use same-sex unions as a means of
pressing an equal opportunity argument. And Collier
specifically cited the Supreme Court’s ruling as
justification for his application, pointing to Chief
Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion that spoke of
the legal argument the case was handing polygamists.
— 26 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Collier, 46, is a former Mormon who was
excommunicated for polygamy.
He told KTVQ in a previous interview he and his
two female partners had been hiding their relationship
for years, but then decided to go public with an
appearance on the reality cable show, “Sister Wives.”
They now want government-stamped legitimacy for
their union.
“We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already
happy, strong, loving family,” he said to KTVQ.
The three have seven children.
“My second wife, Christine, who I’m not legally
married to, she’s put up with my crap for a lot of
years,” Collier said. “She deserves legitimacy.”
And Christine said, CBS reported: “It’s two
distinct marriages, it’s two distinct unions and for us
to come together and create family, what’s wrong with
that? I don’t understand why it’s looked upon and
frowned upon as being obscene.”
Collier has already looked into legal
representation, if need be, and sent an email to the
ACLU of Montana about his campaign.
His efforts could prove precedent-setting.
Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy
advocacy group Principle Voices said Collier’s
application is the first she’s heard about, CBS said.17
17
Polygamous Trio Applies for Marriage License. Cited from http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/polygamous-trio-applies-for-marriage-license/.
— 27 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
THE POTENTIAL FOR LEGISLATIVE BACKLASH
Now that the floodgate has opened by which the definitions and
standards of traditional marriage have been rewritten by Obergefell,
conservative proponents of traditional marriage are beginning to
propose radical changes to licensing of marriages, at least on certain
state levels. For example, shortly after the Obergefell decision was released by SCOTUS, World Net Daily news writer Chelsea Shilling reported:
Some state legislators and judges are considering
getting out of the marriage business entirely – refusing
to offer licenses to anyone – in the wake of the Supreme
Court’s decision Friday that legalizes same-sex
marriage in all 50 states.
Mississippi State House Judiciary Chairman Andy
Gipson, R-Braxton, told the Jackson Clarion Ledger
he’s still reviewing the Supreme Court ruling, but one
possibility could be for the state to quit issuing
licenses.
“One of the options that other states have looked
at is removing the state marriage license requirement,”
Gipson said. “We will be researching what options
there are. I personally can see pros and cons to that. I
don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage
certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an
option out there to be considered.”
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said the Supreme
Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage “usurps”
states’ rights to self-governance. He also said he’s
reviewing the state’s “options.”
“Gov. Bryant will continue to do all that he can to
protect and defend the religious freedoms of
— 28 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Mississippi,” spokeswoman Nicole Webb told the
Jackson Clarion Ledger.
The idea also surfaced in Oklahoma this year,
where the House passed a bill that would remove state
judges and county clerks from the whole process,
leaving clergy and notaries to sign marriage papers.
And in Alabama, two probate judges have pulled
the plug on weddings altogether.
Probate Judge Wes Allen, who issues marriage
licenses in Pike County, Alabama, said in a statement:
“My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in
February, and I have no plans to put Pike County back
into the marriage business. The policy of my office
regarding marriage is no different today than it was
yesterday.”
Friday’s Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Allen
argued, didn’t void the Alabama law that says
“marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of
probate” in the state.
“The word ‘may’ provides probate judges with the
option of whether or not to engage in the practice of
issuing marriage licenses,” Judge Allen said, “and I
have chosen not to perform that function.”
Also, in Geneva County, Alabama, Judge Fred
Hamic declared, “I will not be doing any more
ceremonies.”
Hamic told a Washington Post reporter, “If you
read your Bible, Sir, then you know the logic. The Bible
says a man laying with a man or a woman laying with
a woman is an abomination to God. I am not mixing
— 29 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
religion with government, but that’s my feelings on
it.”18
As for now, residents of those counties seeking to
get hitched will need to get their marriage licenses
from the state’s other probate offices.
As WND reported in October,19 Idaho State Sen.
Steve Vick told Radio America’s Greg Corombos he
was seriously considering legislation to get the state
government out of marriage entirely because he fears
churches will be the next target in the aggressive
homosexual agenda.
Vick admitted eliminating state sanctioning of
marriage would be a big step, and he said he was
only beginning to explore that option.
“I have discussed it with just a few people,” he
said. “I don’t have a bill drafted or anything. I have
discussed it at some of the town halls I’ve been at. It
actually seems to be fairly well-received. In my
opinion, if we’re not allowed to determine the
standards for a marriage license, then maybe we
should just not issue them.”
The senator said these are the kind of things states
must consider since the will of the voters has been
rejected in the federal courts. He believes efforts to
force believers into approving and participating in
same-sex weddings are already targeting the church
itself.
18
Citing http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/opponents-divided-how-or-whether-to-resistsupreme-court-ruling/2015/06/26/3219f626-1c12-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html.
19
Citing http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/brand-new-call-no-marriage-licenses-for-anyone/.
— 30 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
“I believe the next step will be to say that churches
themselves cannot discriminate,” he said. “They
cannot discriminate, and the church will have to marry
same-sex couples and not be allowed to say anything.
Clearly they’re going after the freedom of the church’s
speech through the hate-speech statutes.”20
In the weeks following release of Obergefell v. Hodges, a growing
climate of anti-government sentiment with respect to federal (and
even state) regulation of marriage standards did not escape notice:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision creating
“same-sex marriage” has resulted in conflicts in local
communities, lawsuits and the resignation of clerks
who claim it violates their religious rights.
Now, among the strategies to protect First
Amendment rights are two proposed voter initiatives
in Colorado. One would preserve the traditional
definition of marriage by recognizing it as a “religious
expression.” The other would require the state to
establish a list of businesses willing to accommodate
same-sex couples.
The proposals, filed by
Littleton residents Gene
Straub and D’Arcy Straub, a
lawyer, each will need
98,000 signatures to be placed on the election ballot, the
Denver Post reported.21
20
Resistance! No Marriage Licenses for Anyone. Cited from http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/resistance-no-marriage-licenses-for-anyone/.
21
Citing http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28430496/colorado-ballot-measure-seekslimit-gay-marriages-civil.
— 31 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
The proposed constitutional amendment reads: “A
marriage is recognized as a form of religious
expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be
abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing
any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage
in opposition or agreement with any particular
religious belief.”
The Post explained that any same-sex couple
“married before the proposed amendment takes effect
or in another state would have their relationship
redefined as a civil union, which carries some but not
all of the legal rights of marriage.”
The second initiative would require the state to
maintain a list “of businesses willing to provide
services to LGBT couples, so that those opposed could
contract with them.”
The proposal is designed to protect business
owners like the Oregon couple fined $135,000 for
declining to make a cake for a lesbian wedding.22
WND has compiled a list of cases in which
Christian business owners have been targeted legally
or otherwise because of their stance on marriage.23
As WND reported,24 legal defenders of traditional
marriage have warned that the Supreme Court ruling
creates a conflict between the newly created right and
the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.
22
23
24
Citing http://wnd.com/?p=2181385.
Citing http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/.
Citing http://wnd.com/?p=2178555.
— 32 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Among other consequences of the ruling,25 clerks
have been forced to quit, judges have stopped issuing
marriage licenses altogether and one U.S. senator said
the decision should be ignored, comparing it to the
Dred Scott ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court
formally declared blacks were inferior to whites.
And, notably, Christian leaders representing tens
of millions of constituents have told the Supreme
Court they will not abide by the decision.
‘Radically redefine’
The Post reported the Straubs are scheduled to
meet July 16 with the Colorado Legislative Council
staff to talk about the language of the proposals.
Among the opponents is “gay” activist Dave
Montez, who called it “an unnecessary attempt to
radically redefine all marriages in Colorado in order to
undermine the Supreme Court’s recent decision.”
“Even before last week’s Supreme Court decision,
the 37 states that already had marriage equality had
proven that when loving, committed, gay couples
share in the freedom to marry, families are helped and
no one is hurt,” he said, according to the Post.
In fact, the vast majority of those 37 states have had
“gay marriage” imposed on them by federal judges,
mostly against the wishes of the voters.
Another opponent of the proposed initiatives is
state Rep. Dominick Moreno, a member of the
Colorado House Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Caucus.
25
http://wnd.com/?p=2173485.
— 33 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
“You can’t override the Supreme Court, especially
at the state level,” he said, the paper reported.
‘Ignore it’
WND reported26 it was Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a
candidate for the GOP nomination for president, who
told NPR that there are many across America who can
just ignore the Supreme Court ruling.27
He said the case was brought by parties from four
states, but that “does not mean that those who are not
parties to a case are bound by a judicial order.”
Cruz said it’s tragic that the Supreme Court
justices decided to rewrite the Constitution instead of
doing their job, which is to interpret the law.
“It is a sad moment for the court when you have
judges seizing authority that does not belong to them,”
he said.
One change that would help, Cruz believes, is to
put justices on the election ballot periodically for
retention or removal by voters.
“If judges overstep their bounds, violate the
Constitution, then the people have a check to remove
them of office. I’ve called for that change,” he said.
Another Republican presidential candidate,
former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said, if elected,
he would sign executive orders to protect businesses,
churches and others from the “discrimination,
intimidation, or civil or criminal penalties” expected
for exercising their religious beliefs.
26
Citing http://wnd.com/?p=2173485.
Citing http://www.npr.org/about-npr/418600824/complete-transcript-senator-ted-cruzinterview-with-npr-news.
27
— 34 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
He said the attorney general also could prosecute
violations of First Amendment rights.
“While some cowardly politicians wave the white
flag and surrender to this unconstitutional, out-ofcontrol act of judicial tyranny, I reject this decision and
will fight from ‘Day One’ of my administration to
defend our Constitution and protect religious liberty,”
he said.
“This ruling by the five lawyers is no law at all,”
said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a
prominent legal defender of biblical marriage. “It is
lawless and must be treated as such.”
At Conservative Review, Senior Editor Daniel
Horowitz said the Supreme Court has threatened the
nation’s foundational principle.
“We have seen the court redefine statutes. We have
seen the court redefine the Constitution like they did
with Obamacare and in Roe v. Wade. But now we
witness the court go a step further and void out natural
law, the very foundation on which the Declaration of
Independence was constructed – the document that
asserts fundamental rights and liberties.”
The decision, he said, was based on “indefensible”
assertions and “is not just immoral.”
“It is irrational and illegal,” he said of the majority
opinion written by Associate Justice Anthony
Kennedy.28
28
Pushback: Voters Now Look to Redefine ‘Gay Marriage’. Cited from
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/pushback-voters-now-look-to-redefine-gay-marriage/.
— 35 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
EUPHORIC RESPONSES BY SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ADVOCATES TO OBERGEFELL
Just a few hours after SCOTUS released its ruling in the Obergefell case, the main stream media responded with euphoric praises for
the decision, and (in the case of Pittsburg’s PennLive/The Patriot
News) with a draconian abridgement of first amendment freedom of
the press:
As a result of Friday's ruling, PennLive/The PatriotNews will very strictly limit op-Eds and letters to the
editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.
These unions are now the law of the land. And we
will not publish such letters and op-Eds any more than
we would publish those that are racist, sexist or antiSemitic.29
The Episcopal Church, not known for its solid, evangelical
stance regarding a conservative, orthodox interpretation of biblical
truth and practice, responded a week after the Obergefell decision by
endorsing same-sex weddings at their annual convention in Salt
Lake City, Utah. Breitbart News reported on 1 July 2015:
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Episcopalians voted
overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow religious
weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the
church’s embrace of gay rights that began more than a
decade ago with the pioneering election of the first
openly gay bishop.
The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal
General Convention, just days after the U.S. Supreme
Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. It passed in
the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and
29
Cited from http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/06/gay_marriage_anthony_kennedy_o.html#incart_2box_opinion.
— 36 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
lay participants at the meeting. The House of Bishops
had approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with
five abstaining.
The Rev. Brian Baker of Sacramento said the
church rule change was the result of a nearly fourdecade long conversation that has been difficult and
painful for many. Baker, chair of the committee that
crafted the changes, said church members have not
always been kind to one another but that the dynamic
has changed in recent decades.
“We have learned to not only care for, but care
about one other,” Baker said. “That mutual care was
present in the conversations we had. Some people
disagreed, some people disagreed deeply, but we
prayed and we listened and we came up with
compromises that we believe make room and leave no
one behind.”
Baker said the House of Bishops prayed and
debated the issue for five hours earlier this week before
passing it on to the House of Deputies.
The Rev. Bonnie Perry of Chicago, a lesbian
married to a fellow Episcopal priest, hugged fellow
supporters on Wednesday and said, “We’re all
included now.”
“For the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
people in our congregations now know under the eyes
of God and in every single state in this blessed country,
they are welcome to receive all the sacraments,” she
said.
The Very Rev. Jose Luis Mendoza-Barahona of
Honduras gave an impassioned speech, saying the
— 37 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
new church law goes against the Bible and would
create a chasm in the church.
“The fight has not ended, it’s starting,” he said.
“Those of us in the church who are loyal followers of
Christ are going to remain firm in not recognizing
what happened today.”
The vote eliminates gender-specific language from
church laws on marriage so that same-sex couples
could have religious weddings. Instead of “husband”
and “wife,” for example, the new church law will refer
to “the couple.” Under the new rules, clergy can
decline to perform the ceremonies. The changes were
approved 173-27. The deputies also approved a
gender-neutral prayer service for marriage on a 184-23
vote.
The measures take effect the first Sunday of
Advent, Nov. 29.
Many dioceses in the New York-based church of
nearly 1.9 million members have allowed their priests
to perform civil same-sex weddings, using a trial
prayer service to bless the couple. Still, the church
hadn’t changed its own laws on marriage until
Wednesday.
The Episcopal Church joins two other mainline
Protestant groups that allowed gay marriage in all
their congregations: the United Church of Christ and
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). The 3.8-millionmember Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lets
its congregations decide for themselves, and many of
them host gay weddings.
— 38 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
The United Methodist Church, by far the largest
mainline Protestant church with 12.8 million members,
bars gay marriage, although many of its clergy have
been officiating at same-sex weddings recently in
protest.
The Episcopal Church is the U.S. wing of the
Anglican Communion, an 80 million-member global
fellowship of churches. Ties among Anglicans have
been strained since Episcopalians in 2003 elected
Bishop Gene Robinson, who lived openly with his
male partner, to lead the Diocese of New Hampshire.
Many theologically conservative Episcopalians either
split off or distanced themselves from the national U.S.
church after Robinson’s election.
On the eve of Wednesday’s vote, Archbishop of
Canterbury Justin Welby, spiritual leader of the
world’s Anglicans, issued a statement expressing deep
concern about the move to change the definition of
marriage.
Robinson said after the vote, “It’s a day I wasn’t
sure I would live to see.”
“What we’re seeing I think in the Episcopal
Church, and last week with the Supreme Court
decision, is an entire culture evolving into
understanding that gay and lesbian, bisexual and
transgender people contribute just as much as anyone
else to this society and deserve all the same rights,”
Robinson said.
After the Supreme Court ruling last week, many
conservative churches, including the Southern Baptist
— 39 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Convention and the Mormons, renewed their
opposition to gay marriage.
The gay marriage decision is the second major
news to come from the convention, the top
policymaking body of the church. The church elected
its first black presiding bishop last weekend, with
Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina winning in a
landslide.
Curry has allowed same-sex church weddings in
North Carolina, and he said the Supreme Court
“affirmed the authenticity of love” by legalizing gay
marriage.30
BACKGROUND AND STANDING IN THE PRESENT DIALOGUE
For a number of years now, I have served pro bono as a Senior
Research Analyst in Advanced Communication Technologies and as an
Adjunct Professor of Middle Eastern Studies on the faculty of Koinonia
Institute. Koinonia Institute is a conservative, evangelical think tank
founded by Dr. Charles Missler and now located in New Zealand. It
serves the Christian and international business community, creating,
developing, and distributing materials to stimulate, encourage, and
facilitate serious study of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and
to facilitate application of a biblical worldview to all areas of human
culture. My Master of Divinity degree was earned from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School one of the most respected evangelical, conservative Protestant seminaries in the United States. I studied under
Dr. Gleason Archer, one of the foremost authorities in biblical languages in the world, and learned from Dr. Walter Kaiser, the nowretired President of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, which
30
Episcopalians Vote to Allow Same-Sex Weddings in Churches. Cited from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/01/episcopalians-vote-to-allow-same-sex-weddings-in-churches/.
— 40 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
was founded by Dr. Billy Graham. I maintained regular communication with Dr. Archer until his death, and remain in contact with
Dr. Kaiser to this day. My Ph.D. was earned in 205 from Louisiana
Baptist University of Shreveport, Louisiana in the field of Christian
Communications, where my dissertation concentrated on the application of a biblical worldview to emerging trends relating to international satellite telecommunications.
I taught New Testament Greek for ten years at Simon Greenleaf
University of Anaheim, California, which was founded by internationally renowned evangelical Christian apologists Dr. John Warwick Montgomery and the late Dr. Walter Martin, both of whom I
knew well. (Trinity International University, parent of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, owned and operated by the Evangelical Free
Church of America, acquired Simon Greenleaf University in the late
1990’s and now operates it as Trinity Law School.) I sat for a season
on the board of advisors of the law school.
As to my affinity for biblical languages, I am a professional Bible
translator by full-time occupation. Some of my public contributions
to the field of evangelical Christian scholarship are documented to
some extent on my personal web site. They include at least the following:
 Production of a study in partnership with Dr.
Charles Missler of I, Jesus: an Autobiography, an
analysis of the complex claims of the New Testament that the very same God who, as the Creator of the Universe, had appeared to Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob—and all of Old Testament Israel—
also revealed Himself in the fullness of time as
the Covenant God-incarnate, fully divine and
fully human Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah;
and,
— 41 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
 Production of Anselm Writes Again, a modern retelling and paraphrasing of St. Anselm’s classic
apologetic on the Incarnation Cur Deus Homo in
the format of a 21st century Internet email blog;
and,
 Production of a Harmony of the Gospels from the
text of the Greek New Testament and the Holy
Bible: International Standard Version; and,
 A study entitled On the Jewish Community's Rendering of Et-Asher Formulae in the Tanakh (JPS
1917, et al.), a Hebrew language analysis and defense of the NT claim that Zechariah 12:10 contains a prediction that the God of Israel incarnate would one day be impaled by a weapon of
war; and,
 A study of principles of biblically-based charitable giving entitled Emigration to the High Countries: On Converting Wealth to the Coin of the Future Kingdom; and,
 A study in Marital Dysfunction in Jacob’s Family,
a Hebrew language analysis of certain aspects
of inter-spousal conflict evident between Jacob
and his multiple marriage partners; and,
 Rethinking the Veil: On First Corinthians 11:2-16,
an essay that addresses a commonly misunderstood passage in the Apostle Paul's first letter to
Corinth regarding the veiling of women; and,
 Production by me of the base translation of
about one third of the text of the Hebrew Old
— 42 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Testament for the Holy Bible: International Standard Version; and,
 Serving as Old Testament editor of the ISV from
the late 1990’s until the present.
I also contributed to a defense of the West in general and of the
Christian faith in particular from attacks against it by conservative,
Wahhabi-like, radical Islam, such as:
 A defense of Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an; and,
 Contributor to Between Christ and Mohammed, a
book-length analysis of the differences between
Christianity and Islam.
In sum, I possess academic qualifications sufficient to speak reliably and professionally on the subject matter of the Obergefell decision with respect to the theology, grammar, syntax, and historical
context of the biblical text in general, and specifically, how the Obergefell decision stands in contradiction to those standards. Accordingly, the scholarship contained within this Special Communication
speaks for itself. A more exhaustive treatment of my academic training and background with respect to the Christian community may
be accessed at my personal web site http://williamwelty.com, where
copies of many of my scholarly works may be downloaded gratis.
OUR PREVIOUS DEALINGS WITH SAME-SEX ISSUES
In June 2013 we were invited to review and critique a presentation made about a year before by New Testament Studies lecturer
Dr. Sarah Harris of Carey Baptist College (Auckland, New Zealand)
on the subject The New Testament and Same-Sex Relationships. We responded to a transcript of her presentation in which she addressed—
incorrectly, it turns out—a number of statements made by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27. As we pointed out in our rebuttal paper,
— 43 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
which we entitled A Response to Dr. Sarah Harris’ Paper The New Testament and Same-sex Relationships,31 Dr. Harris had reached problematic conclusions based on flawed thinking and a number of presuppositional errors that displayed either a misunderstanding or a deliberate ignoring of the Jewish and Roman cultural and theological
milieu of the New Testament era in which the Apostle Paul wrote
the longer section of Romans 1:24-32, of which Romans 1:26-27 is
only a small portion. We demonstrated that Dr. Harris had committed the classic tautological mistake of assuming as true what one is
attempting to prove. This resulted in Dr. Harris endorsing same-sex
relationships, a position that cannot be supported by a cogent syntactical analysis of the Pauline triune “slippery slope” doctrine of divine abandonment wrath that is the true focus of Romans 1:24-32.
THE UGANDAN CORRESPONDENCE
Our interest in providing this current analysis owes its origin to
an invitation we received in mid-2014, when we were invited to comment on the Republic of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014,
which was signed into law by President Museveni of the Republic of
Uganda. That year, a firestorm of international controversy immediately erupted when news of the signing broke across the world news
media. Virtually all of the world’s liberal news media carried one
variant or another of the story.32 Nearly all of these stories were critical of President Museveni because he signed the legislation into law.
These stories also criticized the entire Parliament of Uganda because
31
A copy of this paper is attached hereto as Appendix One.
See CNN’s story at http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/world/africa/uganda-anti-gay-bill/, Al
Jazeera’s story at http://wwwaljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/02/ugandan-president-sign-anti-gaybill-20142245119120579.html, The Washington Post’s news story published at http://theobamacrat.com/2014/02/17/uganda-anti-homosexuality-bill-and-the-presidents-response-the-rescue-fund-tohelp-lgbt-people-escape-africa/, and Time Magazine’s story at http://world.time.com/2014/02/24/ugandan-president-signs-anti-gay-bill/. Most of these stories reflected a variant of a Reuters story at
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-uganda-gaybill-idUSBREA1N05S20140224.
32
— 44 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
it had proposed the legislation several years earlier. We were invited
to write to President Museveni by a prominent Ugandan citizen regarding the controversy and to suggest a possible pathway by which
his government might be equipped to craft and implement a public
policy concerning same-sex relationships that:
 Remains true to biblical standards consistent
with a nation that wishes to honor the standards
for those who love the God of the Bible; and,
 Still leaves room for the grace of God in dealing
with the weaknesses of human nature,
all within the context of a policy of jurisprudence that by no
means clears the unrepentantly guilty, but also extends grace to the
repentant, as befits a mature, godly culture. How this can be so was
described in the correspondence.33 Our correspondence to President
Museveni was written from a biblical worldview, and took a conservative, traditional view of moral jurisprudence consistent with
evangelical Christian tradition, presenting a possible solution to
challenges being faced by government relating to administration of
same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships.
In our letter to President Museveni, we suggested that critics of
the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 were committing certain presuppositional errors when they oppose that legislation. However, we
also suggested that the application of jurisprudence to the legislation
had raised a number of practical questions concerning that certain
blend of justice, prudence, and grace that should characterize mature, wise societies. We presented an equitable solution to the controversies being raised throughout Uganda with respect to the AntiHomosexuality Act of 2014, crafting a recommended jurisprudence
33
A copy of this letter may be downloaded from http://williamwelty.com/docs/essays/2014_0301_YMuseveni_RE_Administering_Moral_Justice_signed.pdf.
— 45 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
that remains true to the biblical text. We both described and defended the traditional biblical view that classifies homosexual behavior as a form of sexual immorality and “being gay” as a form of temptation to engage in that behavior which should be resisted by those
who are tempted to engage in it. Our letter to Chancellor Merkel expressed similar sentiments.
THE REPUBLIC OF GERMANY CORRESPONDENCE
About a year later, we were invited to recraft the letter of counsel
for the benefit of Her Excellency Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the
Federal Republic of Germany.34 In presenting this correspondence to
her, we encouraged her to make copies of the material freely available in the public interest to her staff, to members of her political
party, to national, regional, and municipal judiciary leadership, to
the citizens of the Republic of Germany, and to the news media. We
invited Chancellor Merkel to post the contents of our communication on government or political party web sites.
Our correspondence to these individuals contributed some
thoughts regarding what President Museveni and the God-loving
people of Uganda were going through as they attempted to respond
equitably to the demands of both liberal and conservative critics of
Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014. Similar observations were
made on behalf of Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union
political party in Germany.
PART ONE: HOW AMERICA’S DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE CAME TO THE
CRITICAL JUNCTION REACHED IN THE OBERGEFELL DECISION
In an insightful article entitled The Church and the “New Normal”
published on 29 June 2015 as part of his response to the Obergefell
34
A copy of this letter may be downloaded from http://williamwelty.com/docs/essays/2015_0618_AMerkel_RE_Administering_Moral_Justice_signed.pdf.
— 46 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
decision, Catholic Christian George Weigel, Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington, D.C.’s Ethics and Public Policy Center (where he holds
the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies) observed:
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s marriage
decision, these sober thoughts occur:
(1) The Supreme Court of the United States
(SCOTUS) has rendered a decision that puts the Court
at odds with the Constitution, with reason, and with
biblical religion.
(2) SCOTUS has gotten it wrong before. It got it
wrong on race in Dred Scott and it repeated the mistake
in Plessy vs. Ferguson (which upheld segregated public
facilities). It got it wrong by concocting a constitutional
“right” to abortion-on-demand in Roe vs. Wade and
doubled-down on that mistake by getting it wrong on
abortion again in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood. Now
SCOTUS has gotten it wrong on marriage. There are
remedies to SCOTUS getting it wrong; one of them is a
careful re-examination, during the 2016 campaign, of
the theory of “judicial supremacy,” which holds that
the Constitution means whatever a majority of the
Court says it means.
(3) The marriage battle was lost in the culture long
before it was lost in the courts. The foundations of our
culture have eroded; now, the New Normal insists that
literally everything is plastic, malleable, and subject to
acts of human will. The result is a moment of profound
moral incoherence in which understandings of human
nature and human happiness that have stood the test
of experience for millennia are being discarded as mere
rubbish—and those who resist trashing the moral
— 47 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
patrimony of humanity are dismissed as irrational
bigots, religious fanatics, or both. This New Normal is
willfulness-on-steroids,
especially
when
that
willfulness involves human sexuality. Nothing, it
seems, constitutes aberrant behavior—except the
public defense of traditional virtue.35
Even conservative radio commentator Dennis Prager weighed in
on the issue. In an insightful op-ed piece entitled The Formal End to
Judeo-Christian America published on 30 June 2015 on the TownHall.com web site, he observed:
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the
redefinition of marriage seals the end of America as the
Founders envisioned it.
From well before 1776 until the second half of the
20th century, the moral values of the United States
were rooted in the Bible and its God.
Unlike Europe, which defined itself as exclusively
Christian, America became the first Judeo-Christian
society. The American Founders were Christians -either theologically or culturally -- but they were
rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Even Americans who
could not affirm traditional Christian or Jewish
theology affirmed the centrality of God to ethics.
Americans, from the Founders on, understood that
without God, there is no moral truth, only moral
opinion -- and assumed that those truths were to be
gleaned from the Bible more than anywhere else.
35
The Church and the “New Normal”. Cited from http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/the-church-and-the-new-normal,
— 48 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Beginning with the Supreme Court’s ban on
nondenominational school prayer in 1962, the samesex marriage decision has essentially completed the
state's secularization of American society. This is one
thing about which both right and left, religious and
secular, can agree. One side may rejoice over the fact,
and the other may weep, but it is a fact.
And what has replaced Judaism, Christianity,
Judeo-Christian values and the Bible?
The answer is: feelings. More and more Americans
rely on feelings to make moral decisions. The heart has
taken the place of the Bible.
Years ago, I recorded an interview with a Swedish
graduate student. I began by asking her whether she
believed in God. Of course not. Did she believe in
religion? Of course not.
“Where, then, do you get your notion of right and
wrong?” I asked.
“From my heart,” she responded.
Supporters of Obergefell v. Hodges protesting in Washington, DC
— 49 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
That is why five members of the Supreme Court
have redefined marriage. They consulted their hearts.
That
is
understandable.
Any
religious
conservative who does not acknowledge homosexuals'
historic persecution or does not understand gays who
desire to marry lacks compassion.
But let’s be honest. This lack of compassion is more
than matched by the meanness expressed by the
advocates of same-sex marriage. They have rendered
those who believe that marriage should remain a manwoman institution the most vilified group in America
today.
It is the heart -- not the mind, not millennia of
human experience, nor any secular or religious body of
wisdom -- that has determined that marriage should
no longer be defined as the union of a man and a
woman.36
Mr. Prager is spot-on with respect to his concluding statement
that it is the human heart, not the rule of law, which determined that
marriage is not longer to be defined as the union of a man and a
woman. So was SCOTUS Justice Roberts, who wrote:
The fundamental right to marry does not include a
right to make a State change its definition of marriage.
And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of
marriage that has persisted in every culture
throughout human history can hardly be called
irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact
any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are
36
Cited from http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/06/30/the-formal-end-to-judeochristian-america-n2018986.
— 50 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples,
or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the
Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every
State to license and recognize same-sex marriage.
Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I
begrudge none their celebration. But for those who
believe in a government of laws, not of men, the
majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved
considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—
through the democratic process—to adopt their view.
That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate
and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter
of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the
people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex
marriage, making a dramatic social change that much
more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal
judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the
Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority
expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even
a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to
remake society according to its own “new insight” into
the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the
Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half
the States and orders the transformation of a social
institution that has formed the basis of human society
for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han
Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who
do we think we are? It can be tempting for judges to
— 51 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
confuse our own preferences with the requirements of
the law.37
George Weigel, Dennis Prager, and Justice Roberts are each correct in their respective assessments. It will be our task in the remainder in this first section of our study to set forth some thoughts as to
how our Judeo-Christian culture in today’s America came to be characterized by such moral relativism that the rule of law and biblical
truth could be overridden by the rule of emotion and feelings.
POLITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL APOSTASY IS AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM
In light of George Weigel’s comments above that “The marriage
battle was lost in the culture long before it was lost in the courts,” we
suggest that a form of political apostasy has led to Obergefell that was
proximately caused by an antecedent cultural and theological apostasy
into which God’s people have descended over the last couple of generations. We observed both of these forms of apostasy beginning to
take hold in the 1960’s.
 The political apostasy that has led to Obergefell
is the willful and deliberate decision by the residents of the fifty states to ignore the provisions
of the tenth amendment to the United States
Constitution, which specifically reserves all
governmental powers not enumerated in the
Constitution to the member states themselves. If
marriage is to be regulated at all (a premise
which we will deny herein), such regulation is
reserved for state processes, not those of the federal government.
37
Dissenting opinion of Justice Roberts, Obergefell v. Hodges, page 2-3.
— 52 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
 The theological apostasy committed by God’s
people started by its surrender of divinely mandated requirements set forth in Scripture:
 To educate our children; and,
 To care for our own families; and,
 To support the poor and needy; and,
 To define and enforce God’s standard of
marriage within our Christian congregations on a local church level—
all without government regulation or interference. Each of these
forms of church apostasy occurred gradually, following a slipperyslope pattern of fulfillment by which each of these mandated responsibilities have been surrendered to the hegemony of the state and
federal governments. This process of apostasy has slowly and inevitably led to the Abandonment Wrath of God being readied for application to God’s people in America.
In our view, each of these four failures has its genesis in a special
form of idolatry, which we define for the purposes of this Special Communication as looking to federal, state, and local government instead
of God himself for our day-to-day needs for education, family care,
and welfare. Once the people of faith surrender their hegemony over
the education of their children, and once they look to any person or
institution other than to the fruit of their own work, to God, and to
God’s people with respect to care for their own families and for the
poor, infirm, elderly, needy widows, and orphans in their midst, it
is only a matter of time before government extends its domination
over the remaining articles of faith and practice for the believing
community. The Obergefell decision is the natural outworking of the
consequences of the Church committing the sin of idolatry by looking to government and accepting it the provision of education and
— 53 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
welfare for its members instead of looking to their own local resources.
FIRST FAILURE: SURRENDERING FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO
GOVERNMENT
The slippery slope that has led to the Obergefell decision began
when we started to neglect the essential lesson taught by Moses to
Israel as the nascent people of God entered the land promised to
Abraham by God, as enumerated in Deuteronomy 4:5-10:
See! I taught you the statutes and the ordinances,
just as the Lord GOD commanded. Therefore, observe
them when you enter the land you are about to
possess. 6Observe them carefully, because this will
show your wisdom and discernment in the eyes of
people who’ll listen to all these decrees. Then they’ll
say: ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning
people.’ 7For what great nation has a god so near like
the LORD our God whenever we call on him? 8And
what great nation has all the decrees and righteous
ordinances like all this teaching that I’m giving you
today? 9Only guard yourselves carefully so you won’t
forget the things that you saw and let them slip from
your mind for the rest of your life. Tell them to your
children and to your grandchildren. 10The day you
stood in the presence of the LORD your God in Horeb,
the LORD told me, ‘Gather the people before me so they
may hear my words, learn to revere me the whole time
that they live in the land, and teach them to their
children.’”
5
By this passage from the Torah, which was given to God’s people in the opening years of their hegemony over the land of Israel,
— 54 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
we are instructed that education of children is a personal family responsibility. It’s a requirement of Scripture. Fundamentally, a biblical worldview of education entails the communication of the works,
character, nature, ways, and the Word of God to the youth of each
generation by their parents.
Here in the United States, starting with the implementation following the Civil War of that certain social experiment called “public
education” (which should more accurately be called “government
schooling”), the Church of Jesus Christ has slowly and inexorably
surrendered and delegated this responsibility to state and federal authorities. In public schools today, in some states a middle school and
high school grade girl cannot obtain a Coca-Cola® soft drink or a
candy bar for lunch, but she can get a free intrauterine device (IUD)
implanted without parental knowledge and consent, with the costs
paid for by taxpayer funds.38
SECOND FAILURE: SURRENDERING FAMILY CARE RESPONSIBILITIES TO
GOVERNMENT
Scripture is clear in its reminder of how families are to care for
their own, including the elderly and infirm. Surrender and delegation of this responsibility to local, state, and federal authorities has
facilitated descent by the Church into societal apostasy. The Apostle
Paul enumerates his requirement for the Church to care for its own
in 1 Timothy 5:3-16:
Honor widows who have no other family
members to care for them. 4But if a widow has children
or grandchildren, they must first learn to respect their
own family by repaying their parents, for this is
3
38
Seattle 6th Graders Can’t Get Soda but Can Get IUD. Cited from http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/6th-graders-cant-get-soda-but-can-get-iud/?cat_orig=education. Portal
citing http://cnsnews.com/news/article/kathleen-brown/seattle-6th-graders-cant-get-cokeschool-can-get-iud#.VZWEw4cakhs.facebook.
— 55 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
pleasing in God’s sight. 5A woman who has no other
family members to care for her and who is left all alone
has placed her hope in God and devotes herself to
petitions and prayers night and day. 6But the selfindulgent widow is just as good as dead.
7Continue to give these instructions, so that they
may be blameless. 8If anyone does not take care of his
own relatives, especially his immediate family, he has
denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 9A
widow may be put on the widows’ list if she is at least
sixty years old and has been the wife of one husband.
10She must be well known for her good actions as a
woman who has raised children, welcomed strangers,
washed the saints’ feet, helped the suffering, and
devoted herself to doing good in every way.
The reader will note that the Apostle Paul sets restrictions on
who is to receive corporate support from the local church. In other
writing venues in the New Testament, the Apostle informs us that
able-bodied individuals who do not work should not be fed through
the largess of the charitable resources of the local congregation. In 1
Thessalonians 4:10-11, Paul reminded the Thessalonians how he had
presented his life work and ministry as an example of this principle.
He wrote:
11Also,
make it your goal to live quietly, to mind
your own business, and to work with your own hands,
as we instructed you, 12so that you may win the respect
of outsiders, and have need of nothing
In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13, the Apostle counseled the Thessalonian church by saying:
— 56 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
6In
the name of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah, we
command you, brothers, to keep away from every
brother who is living in idleness and not living
according to the tradition that they received from us.
7For you yourselves know what you must do to imitate
us. We never lived in idleness among you. 8We did not
eat anyone’s food without paying for it. Instead, with
toil and labor we worked night and day in order not to
be a burden to any of you. 9It is not as though we did
not have that right, but we wanted to give you an
example to follow. 10While we were with you, we gave
this order: “If anyone doesn’t want to work, he
shouldn’t eat.”
11We hear that some of you are living in idleness.
You are not busy working—you are busy interfering in
other people’s lives! 12We order and encourage such
people by the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, to do their work
quietly and to earn their own living. 13Brothers, do not
get tired of doing what is right.
By this counsel, the Apostle restricts provision of local church
giving to those who are unable to work, including older women who
do not have families to support them. With respect to younger
women whose husbands have died, Paul counseled Timothy:
But do not include younger widows on your list.
For whenever their natural desires cause them to lose
their devotion to the Messiah, they want to remarry.
12They receive condemnation because they have set
aside their prior commitment to the Messiah. 13At the
same time, they also learn how to be lazy while going
from house to house. Not only this, but they even
11
— 57 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
become gossips and keep busy by interfering in other
people’s lives, saying things they should not say.
14
Therefore, I want younger widows to remarry,
have children, manage their homes, and not give the
enemy any chance to ridicule them. 15For some widows
have already turned away to follow Satan. 16If any
woman is a believer and has relatives who are widows,
she should help them. The church should not be
burdened, so it can help those widows who have no
other family members to care for them.
The New Testament is clear and equivocal in its mandate that
the Church is to care for its own. Families are to take care of their
own members to the degree that they can do so, with the larger local
Church instructed to care for widows over the age of sixty who do
not have families to care for them. Single parents whose singleness
has come about due to widowhood are permitted (and even recommended) to remarry, provided they have met the same criterion of
singe-husband devotion that is required of men who aspire to ministry eldership (1 Timothy 5:9). For the Body of Christ to solicit assistance from government aid to fund its own ministry responsibilities
contributes to the encroachment of first amendment rights and responsibilities inherent in our biblical mandate to care for our own.
THIRD FAILURE: SURRENDERING RESPONSIBILITIES TO CARE FOR THE POOR
AND NEEDY TO GOVERNMENT
The clear premise of Scripture is that God’s people are to care for
the poor and needy in their midst. James 1:27 reminds us:
A religion that is pure and stainless according to
God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and
widows who are suffering, and to keep oneself
unstained by the world.
27
— 58 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
He also asks Christian readers a very embarrassing question in
James 2:14-18:
What good does it do, my brothers, if someone
claims to have faith but does not prove it with actions?
This kind of faith cannot save him, can it? 15Suppose a
brother or sister does not have any clothes or daily
food 166and one of you tells them, “Go in peace! Stay
warm and eat heartily.” If you do not provide for their
bodily needs, what good does it do? 17In the same way,
faith by itself, if it does not prove itself with actions, is
dead.
18But someone may say, “You have faith, and I
have actions.” Show me your faith without any actions,
and I will show you my faith by my actions.
14
Simply put, churches are to care for their own poor and needy,
especially children who do not have fathers at home, along with their
single parent mothers. This process can serve to incentivize nonmembers to join the local congregation as a condition of receiving
support, thus providing an evangelistic opportunity to spread the
Gospel to those whose circumstances of life create an opportunity to
learn about how God can provide providential care for his children.
The surrender and delegation of this responsibility by the
Church to state and federal authorities has facilitated descent into
societal apostasy by a steady and relentless encroachment of government to Church authority, responsibility, and discipline. But James
also provides both a warning and a solution to the problem. In James
4:4-10 he writes:
You adulterers! Don’t you know that friendship
with the world means hostility with God? So whoever
wants to be a friend of this world is an enemy of God.
4
— 59 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Or do you think the Scripture means nothing when it
says that the Spirit that God caused to live in us
jealously yearns for us? 6But he gives all the more
grace. And so he says,
“God opposes the arrogant
but gives grace to the humble.”
7Therefore, submit yourselves to God. Resist the
Devil, and he will run away from you. 8Come close to
God, and he will come close to you. Cleanse your
hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you
double-minded. 9Be miserable, mourn, and cry. Let
your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy
into gloom. 10Humble yourselves in the Lord’s
presence, and he will exalt you.
5
FOURTH FAILURE: SURRENDERING THE DEFINITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
GOD’S STANDARD OF MARRIAGE TO GOVERNMENT
Now that government’s encroachment is complete with regards
to God-ordained hegemony over family education, family provision,
and care for the infirm, elderly, and single parents who are members
of the local church, one of the final bastions of sovereignty left on
which to encroach is to interfere with standards of pre-marital and
post-marital moral purity. The Obergefell decision is, in our view,
only the opening salvo in the coming battle for the moral purity of
God’s people.
The heart of this final descent into political and theological apostasy into which the Church has fallen is the fundamentally false presupposition that marital licensing, regulation, and recording of marriage statistics by local, state, and federal authorities is biblically allowed on any level. We contend that surrender and delegation of responsibility on the part of the Church to administer its own marital
— 60 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
standards apart from government interference, regulation, or reporting in any manner whatsoever has facilitated descent into societal
apostasy by the Church.
THE RESULT: THE ABANDONMENT DISCIPLINARY WRATH OF GOD RESTS ON
OUR NATION AND CULTURE
One of the sloppiest theological errors into which the Church has
descended over the last few decades entails its flawed understanding of how the judgment of God works. Misunderstandings relating
to the application of God’s grace to the Christian life have exacerbated the problem. Simply put, many Christians think they are exempt from the judgment of God that falls as a consequence of failure
to maintain his standards for life and conduct. “Christians are not
under condemnation,” they say. They’re right about that from a positional standpoint in eternity.
But they’re wrong about this issue if they think that they can escape the consequences of reaping what they’ve sown regarding disobedience. God will discipline his own, and one outworking of that
discipline is the abandonment disciplinary wrath of God. We can gain
an understanding of how the abandonment disciplinary wrath of
God works by analyzing what the Apostle Paul has to say about the
subject in the first chapter of the book of Romans. Perhaps it is not
insignificant for the purposes of our study that Paul’s analysis in Romans chapter one comes within the context of his explanation of how
God’s abandonment wrath results in the descent of the disobedient
into homosexual behavior.
There is much confusion and willful stubbornness being manifested on both sides of this debate, so we’ll set forth as an instructive
example our record of email correspondence that we created a number of years ago when the ISV Foundation received a communication
— 61 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
from a Christian pastor about Romans 1:31 regarding the outworking of God’s wrath concerning homosexual behavior. We reproduce
the entire email thread here. A reader wrote to us as follows:
I am very disturbed that you translated the Greek
word in Romans 1:31, astorge as “heartless.” The
reason I am very disturbed over this is: The last half of
chapter one, the entire context is describing how far the
human race has departed from the natural use of men
for women, and vice versa. Paul then describes this
practice as an “abomination unto God”.
We responded:
You are partially correct. Actually, every act
described in Romans 1:29-31 is an abomination to God,
i.e., every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, depravity,
envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, viciousness, gossips,
slanderers, God-haters, haughty, arrogant, boastful,
inventors of evil, disobedient to their parents, foolish,
faithless, heartless, ruthless. Each of these is
abominable. And you're only going to focus, as noted
below, on homosexuality? Please, don't focus on just
one abomination in Romans 1. Paul certainly doesn't.
Meanwhile, more on your misunderstanding of
astorge, below...
The reader responded (incorrectly, as we’ll point out, below):
He is not saying in verse 31, “heartless” = ISV, nor
other modern versions “unloving”. The context rules
out the use of a basic translation such as this, and Paul
is very explicit in using this Greek word astorge
because what he is discussing is UNNATURAL
AFFECTION, he is not saying “unloving”, because the
— 62 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
misdirected love of lesbians and homosexuals is very
strong, indeed.
We attempted to correct this error. We wrote:
Your ignorance of basic Greek (astorge as the only
use of the root word storge, which means natural
affection coupled with the alpha privative that turns it
into “without natural affection”) is appalling. The
“unnatural affection” about which Paul is talking isn’t
homosexual behavior. That’s because his discussion on
sexual behavior ends at the conclusion of verse 27 and
a new subject begins in verse 28.
For Paul to say they lacked natural sexual affection
would require him to add the alpha privative to eros;
i.e., to invent a Greek word such as aneros (or the like,
meaning “without sexual affection”). Instead, the
“natural affection” spoken of by Paul in Romans 1:31
as being lacking refers, strictly speaking to being
“without parental affection”. Think of today's “prochoice” movement that induces women to kill their
unborn children and you won’t be far from the mark.
But astorge as homosexual behavior? Not hardly, sir.
That's described in verse 26-27.
As I just mentioned, by the time you get to verse
28, Paul has passed beyond the sins of homosexual
behavior and is now discussing “degraded minds that
perform acts that should not be done.” Paul's
statement of the landslide of degradation does not end
in homosexual behavior in verse 27. Instead, it
continues beyond that sin to other things. Reread
Romans 1:26-32 again. Disobedience to parents (verse
— 63 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
30) and ruthlessness (verse 31) are farther down the
scale of depravity than is homosexual behavior. Do
keep that in mind next time you address your church's
youth group, won’t you? The meanness with which
young people can mock others their age relentlessly,
picking on those who are different in dress, mental
capacity (above or below theirs, attacking “geeks” or
the mentally challenged) or their disrespect and/or
rebellion to their parents is listed by Paul in Romans
1:28-32 as worse on the list of debauchery than is
homosexual behavior—even though homosexual
behavior is clearly the result of “degrading passions”
(Romans 1:26). Next time you’re tempted to rail against
homosexual behavior, do remember, won’t you, to
conclude by pointing out that the sins in verses 29-31
are worse than homosexual behavior.
But the reader responded:
I, as a retired minister, have counseled with this
type of person, and they do have great (but entirely
“misdirected”) love for each other! “Unloving”?— NO!
So we replied:
This comment misunderstands Romans 1:31. As
noted above, these sins are on the list farther down
than homosexual behavior. Paul changed his subject
matter from homosexual behavior when he began
verse 28. That's why we begin it with the words,
“Furthermore, because...”
To all of this the reader responded with remarkable stubbornness:
— 64 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Paul is describing in this passage what an
abomination lesbians and homosexuals are to God
because the entire context is about UNNATURAL
LOVE, men to men, and women to women.
So we replied:
No. Again, the discussion of homosexual behavior
ended at the conclusion of verse 27. Verse 28 is a whole
new list of “acts that should not be done”; i.e., sins that
spring from the behavior of not thinking “it
worthwhile to retain the full knowledge of God”. Not
the full knowledge of straight sexuality, by the way.
But this reader continued to maintain his view that….
Your translation of this Greek word to “heartless” is totally incorrect,...
So we reminded him:
No. It’s totally correct for the context, since by the
time verse 31 comes along, Paul has left homosexual
behavior and gone on to the next level of depravity
noted in verse 28.
And he continued to respond:
...it misses the point (the teaching of the context)
altogether.
So in our final response, we wrote:
You missed the context. The context of
homosexual behavior was concluded at verse 27. Verse
28 starts a new, more grievous list of sins to which
people have been given over by God through mental
deficiencies of some kind (verse 28). By the way, Jesus
noted that there was a sin greater than homosexual
— 65 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
behavior. He said that Capernaum would see the
judged sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah rise at the
resurrection and condemn them, because if the mighty
works that had been done in that town had been done
for Sodom and Gomorrah, those two cities would have
remained until Christ's day.
So Jesus himself said that to reject his message is
worse than is homosexual behavior. That’s a better
message for evangelism, wouldn’t you think, than
discussing homosexual behavior? After all, those folks
are so blind to their sexual sin that they can’t tell good
from evil. But they can and do know that they’ve
rejected Jesus' command to repent! They’ll be blind to
your condemnation of their sexual activity, so why not
tell them that your own sin before you met Christ was
worse than theirs?
You had rejected the message of Jesus, and one day
the homosexual practitioners of Sodom and Gomorrah
might have risen to condemn you, but for the grace of
God. And then tell them to go and do likewise. Tell
them to repent of not believing the gospel, and the
forsaking of homosexual behavior will follow on
naturally as the Holy Spirit grants them repentance.39
HOW GOD ABANDONS A NATION AND ITS CULTURE
The larger context of Romans 1:24-32 must be studied as a matter
of first principle in order to understand how God’s abandonment
39
This thread was originally posted as part of the ISV Foundation’s Catacombs blog web site.
— 66 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
disciplinary wrath functions.40 The complete passage reads as follows in the Holy Bible: International Standard Version (and for those
familiar with the New Testament Greek text, in the indented Greek
text set forth below):
24For
this reason, God delivered them to sexual
impurity as they followed the lusts of their hearts and
dishonored their bodies with one another. 25They
exchanged God’s truth for a lie and worshipped and
served the creation rather than the Creator, who is
blessed forever. Amen.
24 Διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς ἐν ταῖς
ἐπιθυμίαις
τῶν
καρδιῶν
αὐτῶν
εἰς
ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα
αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς· 25 οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν
ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει καὶ
ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ
τὸν κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς
αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
26For
this reason, God delivered them to degrading
passions as their females exchanged their natural
sexual function for one that is unnatural. 27In the same
40
See, for example, Dr. John Piper’s excellent exegetical analysis of Romans 1:24-32 (Part One,
downloadable from http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-other-dark-exchangehomosexuality-part-1 and Part Two, downloadable from http://www.desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/%20sermons/the-other-dark-exchange-homo–sexuality-part-2), and a sermon entitled
Discerning the Will of God Concerning Homosexuality and Marriage (downloadable from
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/discerning-the-will-of-god-concerninghomosexuality-and-marriage). Dr. Piper’s Position Paper on Homosexuality (downloadable from
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/bethlehems-position-on-homosexuality) has been published as a guide for church polity and practice by Bethlehem Baptist Church,
from which Dr. Piper is retired as Teaching Pastor. Dr. Piper’s presentations includes practical
pastoral counsel from a conservative, evangelical, reformed, Calvinist, Baptist perspective for
individuals who are concerned about homosexual tendencies, either within themselves or within their
relatives.
— 67 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual
function toward females and burned with lust toward
one another. Males committed indecent acts with
males, and received within themselves the appropriate
penalty for their perversion.
26 Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς
πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν
μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ
φύσιν, 27 ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν
φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν
τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν
ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργα–ζόμενοι
καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.
28Furthermore,
because they did not think it
worthwhile to keep knowing God fully, God delivered
them to degraded minds to perform acts that should
not be done. 29They have become filled with every kind
of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full
of envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, and viciousness.
They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, haughty,
arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to
their parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, and
ruthless. 32Although they know God’s just
requirement—that those who practice such things
deserve to die—they not only do these things but even
applaud others who practice them.
28 Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν
ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς
εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα, 29
— 68 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
πεπληρωμένους
πάσῃ
ἀδικίᾳ
πονηρίᾳ
πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου
ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας, ψιθυριστὰς 30 κατα–
λάλους θεοστυγεῖς ὑβριστὰς ὑπερ–ηφάνους
ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν
ἀπειθεῖς, 31 ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους ἀστόργους
ἀνελεήμονας· 32 οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ
ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι
θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν ἀλλὰ
καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν.41
The Apostle documents a three-fold abandonment by God of the
unrepentant and rebellious sinner into His wrath:
 First, Paul states in Romans 1:24 that “for this
reason (a refusal to retain a knowledge of God
on the part of sinners), God delivered them”
(Gr. Διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς) to sexual impurity (Gr. ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις). This resultant dishonoring (Gr. τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι) of their bodies resulted in further degradation of the human condition as they exchanged God’s truth for a lie
(Gr. μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ
ψεύδει) and focused their worship and spiritual
service on God’s creation rather than on God
Himself (Gr. καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ
κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα,), which is the very essence of idolatry.
 Second, Paul claims that a non-repentant response to God’s first stage of abandonment
41 Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wigner, A. (1993). The Greek
New Testament (4th ed.) (410–411). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.
— 69 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
wrath causes God to deliver them “for this reason” (Gr. Διὰ τοῦτο) to degrading passions as
their females exchanged their natural function
for one that is unnatural” (Gr. εἰς τὴν παρὰ
φύσιν), while males burned with lust (Gr.
ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει) toward one another,
committing indecent acts (Gr. ἄρσενες ἐν
ἄρσεσιν) with males and receiving within themselves a penalty suitable for their behavior that
had been deviating (Gr. ἀπολαμβάνοντες) from
God’s standard of holy sexual behavior.
 Third and finally, Paul claims that “Furthermore” (Gr. Καὶ καθὼς)—i.e., as a consequence of
their non-repentant response to God’s second
stage of abandonment wrath, God delivered
them (Gr. παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς) to a “degraded mind” (Gr. εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν), a Pauline
term that connotes a warped worldview of life
in general, so that all sorts of “acts that should
not be done” (Gr. ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα,) are
performed.
The end result of living under Paul’s third stage of God’s abandonment wrath is precisely the situation in which the homosexual
community finds itself at the present time. Specifically, they know
“God’s just requirement—that those who practice such things deserve to die” (Gr. τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα
πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν), but “they applaud others who practice” (Gr. καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν) these kinds of activity.
We suggest that it is no coincidence that many of the sins listed by
— 70 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
the Apostle Paul in his first chapter of the letter to the Romans are
noted as capital offences under the Old Testament law.
It’s not just engaging in homosexual behavior that warranted the
death penalty by stoning. So did consensual premarital relations and
adultery. Even sustained, willful, and continuous disobedience to
parents was subject to execution by stoning under the Law of God
set forth in the Torah. As we will note in Part Three: Equipping the
Local Church to Take Back the High Ground, beginning on page 85, below, as a matter of historical and biblical record, not one single person is recorded in Scripture as having been executed for commission
of any crime of moral turpitude.
David was not executed after committing the dual sins of adultery and murder, for example. No rebellious teenagers were recorded as having been stoned to death for juvenile delinquency. Hosea never insisted on having his adulterous wife stoned to death. Instead, he brought her back from the slave market into his own house,
an astonishingly public action which he purposely intended to serve
as an evangelistic witness to spiritually adulterous Israel of his day.
Also as a matter of record, the closest we get to observing drastic
punishments either carried out or contemplated for sexual sin is in
the New Testament. Joseph, because he was a righteous man, considered divorcing his fiancé Mary, who had become pregnant out-ofwedlock. Absent receiving a personal message directly from the
throne of God to inform him that Mary had not been unfaithful to
Joseph, the man could lawfully have insisted on her execution by
stoning. Instead, he decided to divorce her quietly, but then changed
his mind after being assured by an angelic visitation.
The Apostle Paul did not insist on the execution of the man in
Corinth who was involved sexually with his father’s new wife. Instead, Paul instructed the local church to deliver the offender over to
— 71 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Satan so that he could be afflicted physically. This was done by removing him from fellowship temporarily, until he repented, after
which Paul instructed the Corinthians to welcome him back into regular attendance at local church functions.
With respect to divine judgment for immoral behavior on a cultural level, the most prominent incident of divine wrath against sexual misconduct is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah recorded
in the book of Genesis. While the incident is striking in its violence,
it remains the only incident recorded in history that is directly attributable to the wrath of God being poured out for this kind of behavior.
The usual pattern displayed by God when a culture decays is for
him to superintend its destruction from within. Babylon collapsed overnight due to the debauchery of its king, as recorded in the fifth chapter of the book of Daniel. God’s people escaped from this destruction
and were returned to the land of Israel at the direct orders of the
replacement government. The Roman Empire collapsed from within
due to its debauchery, and the Church survived. Perhaps a similar
set of events remains on the horizon for the United States of America.
If so, God will take care of his Elect.
Bluntly stated, we suggest that God is more
interested in the continued state of holiness being
displayed by his Elect than he is in the continued
hegemony of the United States of America.
God’s people will survive the collapse of America to the degree
that he has decreed that survival, if he has decided to judge the
United States.
Meanwhile, we conclude our summary observations regarding
the abandonment disciplinary wrath of God to remind our readers
— 72 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
that the evidence of Scripture seems to indicate that while the behavioral standards are always kept high, actual enforcement of the draconian punishments set for moral disobedience are not observable in
the text of either the Old Testament or the New Testament.
As we’ll see below, the offender is merely “outed” publicly. David was rebuked publicly by Nathan, for example, but not executed.
The prophet Hosea bought his wife out of slavery in a public forum
as a testimony to God’s forgiving nature. The woman at the well and
the woman caught in adultery were revealed by Jesus to be unfaithful to their present husbands, but neither was punished civilly or
criminally. The actual punishment for moral failure in the Church as
set forth in Jesus’ own letters to his churches in the book of Revelation is recorded as being wielded by Jesus himself, as Lord of his
Church.
PART TWO: IN SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL STANDARD OF MARRIAGE
AND IN DEFENSE OF ITS STANDARDS RELATING TO SEXUALITY
MORALITY AND PRACTICE
In order to craft a way out of our current cultural morass in
which the Church has found itself trapped, we provide below an executive summary of the standards of marriage and sexual morality.
Accordingly, it is to this thorny subject that we turn in order to describe how these standards relate to sexual morality and practice in
general, and to same-sex wedding and marriage standards in particular.
FIRST THINGS FIRST: TEMPTATION TO ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS
NOT A SIN
Our view is that being tempted is not, strictly speaking a sin. Even
Jesus was tempted on occasion, “yet he never sinned,” as the New
Testament claims in Hebrews 4:15:
— 73 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to
sympathize with our weaknesses. Instead, we have
one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
yet he never sinned.
15
As the famous American evangelist Dr. Billy Graham once said,
“We cannot help it if a bird flies over our head. We can help it if we
allow it to make a nest in our hair.”
This communication is suggesting a cogent and practical methodology by which the Body of Christ can maintain high standards
relating to traditional marriage while at the same time bringing to
bear a biblically justifiable response to civil and criminal justice relating to homosexual activity in general and homosexual marriage
in particular.
Along the way, room is left for both the administration of justice
and the extension of grace to those who need it. In short, by the end
of this communication we will have set forth a recommended standard of jurisprudence for the administration of moral standards for
people of faith who take the message of the Bible seriously within
the context of a traditional, grammatical-historical method of interpretation of the biblical text as set forth in its original languages. Our
intention in crafting our proposed standards is to ensure that God’s
hand rests on the people of God for good, and not for discipline, for
generations to come.
ON MAKING A BIBLICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN TEMPTATION AND BEHAVIOR:
“BEING GAY” AS TEMPTATION VS. HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR
The term “sexual orientation” is not used in the Bible. However,
this is irrelevant because the terms “sexual orientation” and “being
gay” are modern terms of cultural discussion, the usage of which
was foreign to the thinking and theological vocabulary of the first
— 74 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
century of the Christian era in which the New Testament was written, even though homosexual behavior by both men and women was
a well-documented phenomenon. Its existence in the human condition is a consequence, Paul writes in Romans 1:26-27, of God’s abandonment wrath. But then again, biblical writers do not make much
of a distinction between the temptation to sin and committing the sin
itself. Accordingly, if New Testament writers were to be asked about
“sexual orientation,” they would suggest that what our culture today calls “being gay” should more accurately be called “temptation
to engage in homosexual behavior.”
Biblical writers would tell us that temptation to engage in homosexual behavior should be resisted after the same manner of Christ’s
warning that to lust after someone with the intention of committing
sexual immorality carries the same guilt before God as does committing the act in real time. And they would say that the Christian
church should deal with homosexual behavior after the same manner as it has been instructed to deal with the unrepentantly immoral:
they are to expel the unrepentant Christian from the fellowship of
believers if the disobedient person rejects admonitions to turn from
the sinful behavior. And they are to treat these people as if they are
unbelievers, which means they are to show them grace and unconditional love, sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them as a means
of becoming reconciled both to God and to the local church.
To sum up, “being gay,” which biblically means “being tempted
to homosexual behavior,” is to be resisted by all who wish to become
godly believers. As Dr. Sarah Harris, a well-known proponent of
same-sex relationships has said:
the heart of what Paul is saying to the church in
Rome when he says you deserve to die, Paul
understands that all sin separates us from God and
brings death, but that salvation brings life in the Spirit
— 75 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
and transformed lives to all, on condition of faith. [He]
wants people to choose life.42
Dr. Harris is correct about this. But proponents of homosexual
behavior go astray when they fail to distinguish between temptation
and behavior. The Apostle Paul’s instructions concerning sexual behavior are clear and unequivocal. In 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, he writes:
3For
it is God’s will that you be sanctified: You
must abstain from sexual immorality. 4Each of you
must know how to control his own body in a holy and
honorable manner, 5not with passion and lust like the
gentiles who do not know God. 6Furthermore, you
must never take advantage of or exploit a brother in
this regard, because the Lord avenges all these things,
just as we already told you and warned you. 7For God
did not call us to be impure, but to be holy. 8Therefore,
whoever rejects this instruction is not rejecting human
authority but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.
Please note the Apostle Paul’s use of the special term of theological art that the ISV translates as “sexual immorality”—it’s the Greek
word porneia. Christians are not merely commanded, they are admonished to abstain from this behavior. The general word porneia used by
the Apostle in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 connotes a plethora of sexual behavior.
This all-encompassing word contains within its meaning concepts of forbidden sexual behavior, including (but not merely limited
to) sexual relationships with animals, children, or individuals other
than the spouse, rape, prostitution, participation in sex slave and sex
trade industries, pre-marital seduction, and even some forms of
42
Dr. Sarah Harris, The NT and Same-sex Relationships. See Appendix One.
— 76 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
physical abuse of the spouse when that abuse is motivated by aberrant attitudes of sexual domination.
In short, all forms of those variegated patterns of sexual behavior
that most people admit are mostly rejected by modern culture are
included in the Pauline definition of porneia. Paul’s warning is severe: “the Lord avenges all these things.” (1 Thessalonians 4:6b) Finally, we must remember that pre-marital sexual activity is also a
subset of porneia. Homosexual activity before marriage is just as forbidden as is heterosexual sexual activity.
ON “NATURE” AND “NATURAL”: THE “MYSTERY OF INIQUITY”
AT WORK IN HUMANITY’S FALLEN NATURE
Proponents of the view that homosexual activity is “natural for
me” descend into a humanistic, relativistic worldview when they
wrongly conclude that “‘against nature” or “contrary to nature”
never means “what is natural to me.” To adopt such a relativistic
world view would have been foreign to apostolic thinking within the
context of Jewish and Roman culture of the first century A.D.
While we concede that certain pro-gay commentators almost
universally agree that Paul does not use the language of ‘nature’ to
describe one’s inborn sexual disposition, this “agreement” by the
pro-gay community of theological commentators merely demonstrates that they, too, are subject to the same abandonment wrath
that informs the text of Romans 1:24-32. Conservative Christians
claim that pro-gay theologians are subject to having been given up
as a consequence of their non-repentant response to God’s second
stage of abandonment wrath—i.e., God delivered them to a “degraded mind,” as Paul tells in Romans 1:24-32, which is a Pauline
term that connotes a warped worldview of life in general, so that all
sorts of “acts that should not be done” are performed.
In other passages of the New Testament, the Apostle Paul hints
at the profound complexity of sin: he calls it a “mystery of iniquity”
— 77 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
(to use that old, quaint, King James term) that is at work within the
lives of the disobedient. How far this mystery of iniquity has penetrated the human condition is never spelled out completely in Scripture—we’re only told that the condition is eternally fatal and that the
one and only cure for the affliction is for us to confess with our
mouth and believe in our hearts that Christ has taken our place in
punishment so that we can be saved from this condition.
Meanwhile, has the mystery of iniquity penetrated not merely
into the human spirit and soul? Could it be that the mystery of iniquity has infected the very DNA of the human genetic code itself? If
sin has infected the human genome, the homosexual community
may well be correct when some of their adherents claim that they
cannot help being predisposed to homosexual behavior. If so, it’s going to take the resurrection body at the Last Day to remove the problem once and for all.
But then again, all humans are predisposed to sin. That’s what sin
does to fallen human beings. All post-fall sin comes about as a consequence of the abandonment wrath of God working within the human condition, Paul tells us in Romans chapter one. And all of it,
homosexual temptation included, can be resisted by the omnipotent
power of the indwelling Spirit of God Himself. And so there is a way
of escape from the penalty, the power, and one day the presence of
the mystery of iniquity that the Bible calls “sin”. That way of escape
is called the “Good News”. The process of salvation from the mystery of iniquity includes:
 The past action of God in Christ reconciling Himself to the world through the death and subsequent resurrection of His Son; and,
 The present act of sanctification by which we are
instructed to cooperate with God in our present
— 78 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
life situations by walking in day-to-day, moment-by-moment sensitivity and obedience to
the promptings of the Holy Spirit that lead us
step-by-step to maturity and godliness; and,
 That certain hope of the future glorification of our
resurrected bodies that will never again be subject to degradations inflicted upon us by our sinful nature.
In the meantime, we do find it likely that homosexual activists
may well be correct when they claim that male-female complementary does not exist in same-sex relationships. But we conservative
Christians claim that this lack of complementary is a consequence of
sin that has infected the human condition.
It may well be true that in the ancient world some believed there
were those disposed by nature to engage in same-sex behavior, and
there may well be some evidence of committed same-sex relationships, but even if these claims are true, we evangelicals contend that
these committed same-sex relationships existed within the confines
of that certain hedonistic, unbelieving, and idolatrous culture that
encompassed the first century A.D. Roman empire and which was
the focus of Paul’s treatment of the causes of sin’s depravity set forth
in Romans 1:24-32. And so their point is moot. Romans 1:24-32 categorically condemns same-sex porneia as one of the consequences of
the abandonment wrath of God.
CONFLICTING STANDARDS OF JURISPRUDENCE:
MODERN VS. BIBLICAL MODELS FOR ADMINISTERING CRIMINAL JUSTICE
For the purposes of this communication, we define the term jurisprudence to mean the philosophy of the administration of law. It is an
admirable goal to attempt to conform a nation’s laws to biblical
truth. But the outworking of those standards runs squarely into this
— 79 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
challenge: the entire presuppositional structure of western jurisprudence stands in conflict with the biblical standard of the administration of law.
Until we come to understand this fundamental conflict, and adjust our application of jurisprudence to a nation’s judicial standards,
those standards will, of necessity, result in continual dichotomy. We
hold the view that until or unless a biblical standard of jurisprudence
is adopted and placed into practice within the American legal system
(an event that we do not think is likely ever to occur), Christian people should be wary of attempting to utilize secular, non-believing
courts to attempt to make non-believers conform to biblical behavioral patterns. Exhortations to change unbiblical behavior should
take place instead within the venue of civil complaints, when appropriate, or more realistically, within the context of rational, cogent
apologetically-based dialogue and one-on-one evangelism.
We hold this view because America’s model of jurisprudence
dictates that criminal trials are adversarial in form and function. There
is a prosecuting attorney who represents the interests of the national,
state, regional, or municipal government. The prosecutor’s function
is to bring an indictment against the accused.
The accused is provided a defense attorney, either at the accused’s own expense or at the expense of the state. The judge in the
proceeding acts as the referee between the adversarial parties. The
jury acts as the adjudicators of the evidence in order to determine
either innocence or guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses to the
crime are called by the prosecutor, using subpoena powers to compel testimony even if the witness is reluctant to testify.
Everything described above with respect to the modern model
is antithetical to the jurisprudence in force in the Jewish community
of the Bible. In Jerusalem at the time of Christ, for example (i.e., ca.
— 80 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
32 A.D.), there was no prosecuting attorney. The witnesses or the aggrieved victim were the prosecutors. If they declined to press
charges, there would be no trial, whether for a criminal or a civil
matter. There was no jury.
The judge represented the interests of the defendant. In cases
where capital punishment was called for as the penalty for a criminal
conviction, the witnesses were responsible for initiating the carrying
out of the death penalty, which in the biblical economy required the
guilty party to be taken to a high place, thrown from there to the
ground (thus stunning the convicted criminal), and then large boulders were to be cast at the individual, killing the criminal.
The first stones were to be cast by the witnesses. The penalty for
perjury in any trial was that the party whose testimony’s validity
was impeached was to suffer the same penalty that fit the crime on
trial. In the case of a capital offense, the penalty for perjury was death
by stoning. The first stone would be cast by the person who had been
falsely accused.
What made the biblical system of jurisprudence so fair and just
was that it provided much room for grace and leniency. The penalty
for theft was not prison time. It was four-fold restitution from the
criminal. The penalty for rape was execution, but only if the victim
testified as the prosecuting witness against the attacker. If the witness decided to forgive the attacker, no case could be brought against
the attacker. If the criminal was repentant, the judge had broad discretionary authority to dismiss the charges.
Under the biblical system of jurisprudence, the penalty for moral
offences against God, against his people, and against his Word remained high, thus reflecting the moral outrage of God at rebellion
and lawlessness. But in actual practice, the Bible records only a couple of instances in its 1,500 year history when the harsh penalties for
— 81 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
disobedience to God’s law were enforced to the limits of ancient jurisprudence.
In the book of Exodus, a man was stoned to death for violating
the Sabbath. In this instance, the act of disrespect was considered to
be a “sin with a high hand,” i.e., disobedience carried out in direct
rebellion against God’s right to insist that people live life according
to his standards. David, despite committing the sins of murder and
adultery, was never prosecuted nor executed because he repented
for his behavior when confronted by the prophet Nathan.
In the New Testament, the only time Jesus himself was confronted with a demand that the biblical standard of jurisprudence be
brought to bear with respect to a criminal matter, it was to enforce a
biblical penalty for the commission of an act of porneia, that is, for an
incident of sexual immorality, where the woman had been caught in
the very act. It is to this famous story that we now must turn in order
to extract some principles by which a suggested set of guidelines for
administering justice with respect to same sex relationships can be
crafted.
THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY: GUIDELINES FOR JURISPRUDENCE FROM
THE EXAMPLE OF JESUS ADJUDICATING A CRIMINAL CASE OF SEXUAL
IMMORALITY
When you add up the sum of all things relating to the Christian
worldview of life, it really doesn’t matter whether your background
is traditional Catholicism, the Protestant Community, Orthodox
Church, or something else: everybody agrees that the standards set
by Jesus of Nazareth are the sine qua non (that is the essential element,
indispensable component, or necessary factor) relating to what defines godly, wise, and just behavior. Frankly speaking, nobody will
ever be rebuked by God the Father because he or she behaved too
— 82 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
much like Jesus. Bearing this principle in mind, the Apostle John records an incident in John 8:2-11 where a woman caught in the very
act of adultery is brought before Jesus:
At daybreak he appeared again in the Temple,
and all the people came to him. So he sat down and
began to teach them. 3But the scribes and the Pharisees
brought a woman who had been caught in adultery.
After setting her before them, 4they told him, “Teacher,
this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery.
5Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such
women to death. What do you say?” 6They said this to
test him, so that they might have a charge against him.
But Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground
with his finger.
7When they persisted in questioning him, he
straightened up and told them, “Let the person among
you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at
her.” 8Then he bent down again and continued writing
on the ground. 9When they heard this, they went away
one by one, beginning with the oldest, and he was left
alone with the woman standing there. 10Then Jesus
stood up and asked her, “Dear lady, where are your
accusers? Hasn’t anyone condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she replied.
Then Jesus said, “I don’t condemn you, either. Go
home, and from now on don’t sin anymore.”
2
We can dismiss from consideration the transparent motives of
the Pharisees in bringing this case to Jesus to begin with. They
weren’t interested in having justice done. Their objective was to
place Jesus squarely on the horns of an impossible dilemma. If Jesus
— 83 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
were to act as trial judge and call for her death by stoning, he would
run afoul of Roman authorities, who had removed from Jewish leaders the authority to execute criminals.
In the case of the woman caught in adultery, the Pharisees intended to bring a charge of sedition against Jesus if he agreed to act
as judge in the case that had been brought before him. If Jesus were
to refuse to prosecute, the Pharisees could being a charge of failing
to enforce the Law of Moses in his role as acting judge of the criminal
proceeding. In short, it was a case of “damned if you do, damned if
you don’t”.
But Jesus called their bluff, so to speak, and took the case. He
fulfilled the requirements of the law perfectly, by reminding the witnesses that as judge of the trial, he would be cross-examining the
witnesses. The witnesses whose testimony could not be refuted, that
is, whose testimony was “without sin,” as the rabbis used the term
in the first century A.D., would be required to cast the first stone.
Of course, the very same law that called for the death of the
woman caught in adultery applied equally well to the woman’s partner,
whom the Pharisees rather conveniently neglected to arrest. Since
the penalty for committing perjury in a capital case was that the false
witness (and the witness whose testimony could be demonstrated to
be incomplete or otherwise inconsistent with truth) would himself
be stoned—by the accused woman!—by accepting the invitation to
act as judge in the case, Jesus was putting the witnesses on notice
that their lives were on the line and subject to forfeit if he were able
to prove on cross-examination that perjury had been committed.
And so the witnesses walked away from the trial. The case
against the woman collapsed due to lack of witnesses, not because
she was innocent of the charges, but because nobody would testify
against her. So Jesus let her go with a warning, even though she was
guilty as charged. The resultant outcome was that all requirements
— 84 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
of God’s justice were met, and a repentant woman was extended saving grace.
PART THREE: EQUIPPING THE LOCAL CHURCH TO TAKE BACK THE
HIGH GROUND
George Weigel, in the op-ed piece cited above from the First
Things Journal of Religion and Public Life, supplies us with one important a clue to how we can begin to equip the local church to take
back the high ground of reaffirming the supremacy of the marriage
covenant. He wrote:
The long-term answer to the New Normal—and to
the dictatorship of relativism the New Normal is trying
to impose on the universities and professions …, on
traditional religious communities …, and on
individuals … is the re-conversion of the United States
to right reason, moral truth, and a biblical way of
43
seeing the world.
Weigel’s observations are not remaining unheeded. On 7 July
2015, only a couple of weeks after release by SCOTUS of its Obergefell
decision, World Net Daily reported on a creative, but still patriotic,
response of conservative Christian churches whose leaders have
43
Op cit. Cited from http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/the-church-and-the-newnormal.
— 85 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
mandated that the flag of the United States of America be displayed
publicly below a flag emblem representing the Christian church:
First it was one church. Then a second joined. Now
there’s an online presence and a campaign for people
of faith across the nation to recognize that God comes
first, ahead of nation, and that means the Stars and
Stripes will be accorded second place, behind the
Christian flag.
According to a report from WBTV in Charlotte,
North Carolina,44 pastor Rit Varriale is placing the
Christian flag at the top, with the American flag below
it, on the flagpole at Elizabeth Baptist Church in the
town of Shelby.
“Our typical flag etiquette is to have the American
flag above the Christian flag. But when you stop and
think about it, it should be our commitment to God
first, then our commitment to country,” he told WBTV.
44
Citing http://www.wbtv.com/story/29472787/shelby-church-to-fly-christian-flag-overamerican-flag.
— 86 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
He admits he got the idea from pastor Walter
Wilson, down to road, at Focus Missionary Baptist
Church.
And Wilson said the idea just came to him.
“As I was changing the rope one day, the Lord just
laid on me that He is first and when He told me that, I
switched the flags around.”
Now Varriale has launched the God Before
Government website,45 through which other pastors
are encouraged to join the movement.
There, he writes, “If there was ever a time when
people need to stand up for traditional values and
beliefs, it is now. On Sunday July 5th, Elizabeth Baptist
Church in Shelby, North Carolina, took its stand with
a flag raising ceremony that displayed the Christian
flag over the American flag. This new approach to flag
etiquette symbolizes that our service and commitment
to God is greater than our service and commitment to
government – especially a government that coerces us
to violate our commitments to God.”
He said churches need to “start flying the flags in
such a manner that it is clear we will serve God before
government. If your church is willing to join ours,
please take a picture of the flag pole at your church,
post it on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter using the
hashtag #GodBeforeGovernment, and join the
conversation about religious freedom and the role of
government in modern society.”
45
Citing http://www.godbeforegovernment.org/.
— 87 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
On the site, he advises readers that silence is “no
longer an option.”
He recalled a prayer offered to the North Carolina
General Assembly, in which he said, “The sad truth
about the church is that it often takes the path of ease,
when instead it should take the path of resistance,
responsibility and reform. … The American church,
like the German church of the 1930s and 1940s, is free
of persecution because it has done little that is worthy
of persecution.”
Both pastors told WBTV they hope to spark a
movement across the land – especially in light of the
U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that created samesex “marriage” in all 50 states.
Varriale acknowledges that some claim the move
is disrespectful. And unpatriotic.
But the former Army Ranger brushes it off.
“I really don’t need a lecture on patriotism. I’m
willing to give my life for my country. When you think
of military mottoes, for example, God and country,
God first and then country,” he told WBTV.
Varriale he said the position of the flag is a symbol
that congregations will serve God first.
One online commenter, Dave Higginson said, it’s
a wake-up call for Americans “that God blessed us
with our country and [Christians] should not, nor ever
will, play ‘second fiddle.”46
46
Christian Churches Urged to Fly U.S. Flag below Another. Cited from http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/church-flies-christian-flag-over-american-flag/.
— 88 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
THE CHURCH’S LARGELY UNHERALDED ROLE IN STABILIZING MARRIAGE
DURING THE ROMAN ERA
Marriage law, traditions, and ceremony were a pluralistic mess
throughout the Roman Empire of the Apostle Paul’s day. All of the
counsel set forth in the New Testament documents were delivered
by Jesus and the early Apostles within the context of a tolerant social
environment in which just about every imaginable form of “marriage” was allowable.
The cultural milieu of the first century A.D. Roman Empire was
surprisingly similar to that of the United States today. It is therefore
not surprising that the early Church, with its conservative, God-honoring, and family-friendly structure built upon Judeo-Christian
standards stood at odds with just about everything Roman when it
came to defining marriage and family responsibilities. Keeping this
fundamental fact in mind will help us significantly as we go about
rethinking the subject of marriage and eligibility for remarriage
within the context of our surprisingly Roman Era-like society and
marital culture.
Not only were there laws for marriages between citizen classes,
but for others within Roman influence as well.47 There was also different marital arrangement for slaves (contuberium) and between
freedmen and slaves (concubinatus).48 As the reader may well imagine, family life—and the definition of marriage—became almost an
incomprehensively complicated matter.
47
A partial catalog of Internet references to aid the reader in undertaking a more detailed study of
Roman Era marriage laws, customs, and traditions includes at least the following: Roman Marriage.
http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php; The Illustrated History of the Roman
Empire on Marriage. http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-marriage.html; Weddings,
Marriages and Divorce. http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/weddings.html. Roman
Weddings. http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-weddings.php. Julian Marriage Laws.
http://www.unrv.com/government/julianmarriage.php.
48
Cited from http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php.
— 89 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
ROMAN ERA MARRIAGE: AN UNWIELDY AND IMPOSSIBLY COMPLEX SET OF
REGULATIONS
Here, for example, is a summary treatment of Roman marriage
customs, laws, and traditions that I’ve been able to locate. Despite its
length, this description is only an executive summary, and we recommend that it be read all the way through so as to communicate a
sense of the phenomenal complexity of the circumstances in which
the early Church found itself entrenched in the mid- to late-first century:
A Roman marriage was called Justae Nuptiae,
Justum Matrimonium, Legitimum Matrimonium, as being
conformable to Jus Civile or to Roman Law. A marriage
was either cum conventione uxoris in manum viri, or it
was without this conventio. In both cases there must be
connubium between the parties, and consent: the male
must also be pubes, and the woman viri potens. The legal
consequences as to the power of the father over his
children were the same in both. Opposed to the
Legitimum Matrimonium was the Matrimonium Juris
Gentium.
A Roman marriage may be viewed, First with
reference to the conditions required for a Justum
Matrimonium; Secondly, with reference to the forms of
the marriage; Thirdly, with reference to its legal
consequences.
Unless there was connubium there could be no
Roman marriage. Connubium is defined by Ulpian
(Frag. V.3) to be “uxoris jure ducendae facultas”, or the
faculty by which a man may make a woman his lawful
wife. But in truth this is no definition at all, nor does it
give any information. Connubium is merely a term
— 90 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
which comprehends all the conditions of a legal
marriage. Accordingly, the term is explained by
particular instances: “Roman men citizens,” says
Ulpian, “have connubium with Roman women citizens
(Romanae cives); but with Latinae and Peregrinae only in
those cases where it has been permitted. With slaves
there is no connubium.”
Sometimes connubium, that is the faculty of
contracting a Roman marriage, is viewed with
reference to one of its most important consequences,
namely, the Patria Potestas: “for,” says Gaius, “since it
is the effect of Connubium that the children follow the
condition of their father, it results that when
Connubium exists, the children are not only Roman
citizens, but are also in the power of their father.”
Generally, it may be stated that there was only
connubium between Roman citizens: the cases in which
it at any time existed between parties, not both Roman
citizens, were exceptions to the general rule.
Originally, or at least at one period of the Republic,
there was no Connubium between the Patricians and
the Plebeians; but this was altered by the Lex Canuleia
which allowed Connubium between persons of those
two classes.
There was no connubium between many persons
with respect to one another, who had severally
connubium with respect to other persons. Thus there
were various degrees of consanguinity within which
there was no connubium. There was no connubium
between parent and child, whether the relation was
natural or by adoption; and a man could not marry an
— 91 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
adopted daughter or granddaughter, even after he had
emancipated her. There was no connubium between
brothers and sisters, whether of the whole or of the
half-blood; but a man might marry a sister by adoption
after her emancipation, or after his own emancipation.
It became legal to marry a brother’s daughter after
Claudius had set the example by marrying Agrippina;
but the rule was not carried further than the example,
and in the time of Gaius it remained unlawful for a
man to marry his sister's daughter (Gaius, I.62; Tacit.
Ann. XII.5; Sueton. Claud. 26).
There was no connubium also between persons
within certain relations of affinity, as between a man
and his socrus, nurus, privigna, and noverca.
Any illegal union of a male and female, though
affecting to be, was not a marriage: the man had no
legal wife, and the children had no legal father;
consequently they were not in the power of their
reputed father. These restrictions as to marriage were
not founded on any enactments; they were a part of
that large mass of Roman law which belongs to Jus
Moribus Constitutum. The marriage of Domitius,
afterwards the emperor Nero, with Octavia the
daughter of Claudius, seems at first sight somewhat
irregular. Nero was adopted by Claudius by a Lex
Curiata (Tacit. Ann. XII.26), but he was already his
son-in-law; at least the sponsalia are mentioned before
the adoption (Tacit. Ann. XII.9). There seems to be no
rule of law which would prevent a man from adopting
his son-in-law; though if the adoption took place
— 92 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
before the marriage, it would be illegal, as stated by
Gaius.
Persons who had certain bodily imperfections, as
eunuchs, and others who from any cause could never
attain to puberty, could not contract marriage; for
though pubertas was in course of time fixed at a positive
age [Impubes], yet as the foundation of the notion of
pubertas was physical capacity for sexual intercourse,
there could be no pubertas if there was a physical
incapacity.
The essence of marriage was consent, and the
consent, says Ulpian, “both of those who come
together, and of those in whose power they are;” and
“marriage is not effected by sexual union, but by
consent.” Those then who were not sui juris, had not,
strictly speaking, connubium, or the “uxoris jure
ducendae facultas”; though in another sense, they had
connubium by virtue of the consent of those in whose
power they were, if there was no other impediment
(Dig. 23 tit. 1 s11-13).
The Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea placed certain
restrictions on marriage as to the parties between
whom it could take place. [Julia et Papia Poppaea;
Infamia.]
A man could only have one lawful wife at a time;
and consequently if he were married, and divorced his
wife, a second marriage would be no marriage, unless
the divorce were effectual.
The marriage Cum conventione in manum differed
from that Sine conventione, in the relationship which it
effected between the husband and the wife; the
— 93 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
marriage Cum conventione was a necessary condition to
make a woman a materfamilias. By the marriage Cum
conventione, the wife passed into the familia of her
husband, and was to him in the relation of a daughter,
or as it was expressed, “in manum convenit” (Cic. Top.
3; filiae loco est, Gaius, II.159). In the marriage Sine
conventione, the wife’s relation to her own familia
remained as before, and she was merely Uxor. “Uxor,”
says Cicero (Top. 3), “is a genus of which there are two
species; one is materfamilias, 'quae in manum convenit’;
the other is uxor only.” Accordingly a materfamilias is a
wife who is in manu, and in the familia of her husband,
and consequently one of his sui heredes; or in the manus
of him in whose power her husband is. A wife not in
manu was not a member of her husband’s familia, and
therefore the term could not apply to her. Gellius
(XVIII.6) also states that this was the old meaning of
materfamilias. Matrona was properly a wife not in manu,
and equivalent to Cicero's “tantummodo uxor”; and she
was called matrona before she had any children. But
these words are not always used in these their original
and proper meanings (see Ulp. Frag. IV).
No forms were requisite in marriage; the best
evidence of marriage was cohabitation matrimonii
causa. The matrimonii causa might be proved by various
kinds of evidence. A marriage Cum conventione might
be effected by Usus, Farreum, and Coemptio.
If a woman lived with a man for a whole year as
his wife, she became in manu viri by virtue of this
matrimonial cohabitation. The consent to live together
as man and wife was the marriage; the usus for a year
— 94 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
had the manus as the result; and this was by analogy to
Usucapion of movables generally, in which usus for
one year gave ownership. The Law of the Twelve
Tables provided that if a woman did not wish to come
into the manus of her husband in this manner, she
should absent herself from him annually for three
nights (trinoctium) and so break the usus of the year
(Gell. III.2; Gaius, I.111). The Twelve Tables probably
did not introduce the usus in the case of a woman
cohabiting with a man matrimonii causa, any more than
they probably did in the case of other things; but as in
the case of other things, they fixed the time within
which the usus should have its full effect, so they
established a positive rule as to what time should be a
sufficient interruption of usus in the case of
matrimonial cohabitation, and such a positive rule was
obviously necessary in order to determine what should
be a legal interpretation of usus.
Farreum was a form of marriage, in which certain
words were used in the presence of ten witnesses, and
were accompanied by certain religious ceremonies in
which panis farreus was employed; and hence this form
of marriage was also called Confarreatio. This form of
marriage must have fallen generally into disuse in the
time of Gaius, who remarks (I.112) that this legal form
of marriage (hoc jus) was in use even in his time for the
marriages of the Flamines Majores and some others.
This passage of Gaius is defective in the MS., but its
general sense may be collected from comparing it with
Tacitus (Ann. IV.16) and Servius (ad Aeneid. IV.104,
374). It appears that certain priestly offices, such as that
— 95 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
of Flamen Dialis, could only be held by those who were
born of parents who had been married by this
ceremony (confarreati parentes). Even in the time of
Tiberius, the ceremony of confarreatio was only
observed by a few. As to divorce between persons
married by confarreatio, see Divortium.
The confarreatio is supposed to have been the mode
of contracting marriage among the patricians, and it
was a religious ceremony which put the wife in manu
viri.
Coemptio was effected by Mancipatio, and
consequently the wife was in mancipio (Gaius, I.118).
A woman who was cohabiting with a man as uxor,
might come into his manus by this ceremony, in which
case the coemptio was said to be matrimonii causa, and
she who was formerly uxor became apud maritum filiae
loco. If the coemptio was effected at the time of the
marriage, it was still a separate act. The other coemptio
which was called fiduciae causa and which was between
a woman and a man not her husband, is considered
under Testamentum and Tutela. If, however, an uxor
made a coemptio with her husband, not matrimonii
causa, but fiduciae causa, the consequence was that she
was in manu, and thereby acquired the rights of a
daughter. It is stated by a modern writer, that the
reason why a woman did not come in mancipium by the
coemptio, but only in manum, is this, that she was not
mancipated, but mancipated herself, under the
authority of her father if she was in his power, and that
of her tutors, if she was not in the power of her father;
the absurdity of which is obvious, if we have regard to
— 96 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
the form of mancipatio as described by Gaius (I.119),
who also speaks (I.118a) of mancipatio as being the form
by which a parent released his daughter from the patria
potestas (e suo jure), which he did when he gave his
daughter in manum viri. The mancipatio must in all cases
have been considered as legally effected by the father
or the tutors.
In the course of time, marriage without the manus
became the usual marriage. The manus by usus fell into
desuetude (Gaius, I.111).
Sponsalia were not an unusual preliminary of
marriage, but they were not necessary. “Sponsalia,”
according to Florentinus (Dig. 23 tit. 1 s.1) “sunt mentio
et repromissio nuptiarum futurarum.” Gellius has
preserved (IV.4) an extract from the work of Servius
Sulpicius Rufus De Dotibus, which, from the authority
of that great jurist, may be considered as
unexceptionable (cf. Varro, de Ling. Lat. VI.70).
Sponsalia, according to Servius, was a contract by
stipulationes and sponsiones, the former on the part of
the future husband, the latter on the part of him who
gave the woman in marriage. The woman who was
promised in marriage was accordingly called Sponsa,
which is equivalent to Promissa; the man who engaged
to marry was called Sponsus. The Sponsalia then were
an agreement to marry, made in such form as to give
each party a right of action in case of non-performance,
and the offending party was condemned in such
damages as to the Judex seemed just. This was the law
(jus) of Sponsalia, adds Servius, to the time when the
— 97 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Lex Julia gave the Civitas to all Latium; whence we may
conclude that alterations were afterwards made in it.
The Sponsalia were of course not binding, if the
parties consented to waive the contract; and either
party could dissolve the contract as either could
dissolve a marriage. If a person was in the relation of
double sponsalia at the same time, he was liable to
Infamia. Sometimes a present was made by the future
husband to the future wife by way of earnest (arrha,
arrha sponsalitia), or as it was called propter nuptias
donatio (Cod. 5 tit. 3). Sponsalia might be contracted by
those who were not under seven years of age. The
regulation of Augustus, which was apparently
comprised in the Lex Julia et Papia, which declared
that no sponsalia should be valid if the marriage did not
follow within two years was not always observed
(Sueton. Aug. c. 34; Dion Cass. LIV.16, and the note of
Reimarus).
The consequences of marriage were —
 The power of the father over the children of
the marriage, which was a completely new
relation, an effect indeed of marriage, but
one which had no influence over the
relation of the husband and wife.
 The liabilities of either of the parties to the
punishments affixed to the violation of the
marriage union.
 The relation of husband and wife with
respect to property, to which head belong
the matters of Dos, Donatio inter virum et
uxorem, Donatio propter nuptias, &c. Many of
— 98 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
these matters, however, are not necessary
consequences of marriage, but the
consequence of certain acts which are
rendered possible by marriage.
In the later Roman history we often read of
marriage contracts which have reference to Dos, and
generally to the relation of husband and wife viewed
with reference to property. A title of the Digest (23 4)
treats De Pactis Dotalibus, which might be made either
before or after marriage.
The Roman notion of marriage was this: — it is the
union of male and female, a consortship for the whole
of life, the inseparable consuetude of life, an
intercommunion of law, sacred and not sacred
(Dig. 23 tit. 2 s.1). But it is not meant that marriage was
to this extent regulated by law, for marriage is a thing
which is, to a great extent, beyond the domain of law.
The definition or description means that there is no
legal separation of the interests of husband and wife in
such matters in which the separation would be
opposed to the notion of marriage. Thus the wife had
the sacra, the domicile, and the rank of the husband.
Marriage was established by consent, and continued
by dissent; for the dissent of either party, when
formally expressed, could dissolve the relation.
Neither in the old Roman law nor in its later
modifications, was a community of property an
essential part of the notion of marriage; unless we
assume that originally all marriages were
accompanied with the conventio in manum, for in that
case, as already observed, the wife became filiae familias
— 99 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
loco, and passed into the familia of her husband; or if
her husband was in the power of his father, she became
to her husband's father in the relation of a
granddaughter. All her property passed to her
husband by a universal succession (Gaius, II.96, 98),
and she could not thenceforward acquire property for
herself. Thus she was entirely removed from her
former family as to her legal status and became as the
sister to her husband's children. In other words, when
a woman came in manum, there was a blending of the
matrimonial and the filial relation. It was a good
marriage without the relation expressed by in manu,
which was a relation of parent and child superadded
to that of husband and wife. The manus was terminated
by death, loss of Civitas, by Difarreatio, and we may
assume by Mancipatio. It is a legitimate consequence
that the wife could not divorce her husband, though
her husband might divorce her, and if we assume that
the marriage accompanied by the cum conventione was
originally the only form of marriage (of which,
however, we believe, there is no proof) the statement
of Plutarch [Divortium] that the husband alone had
originally the power of effecting a divorce, will consist
with this strict legal deduction. It is possible, however,
that, even if the marriage cum conventione was once the
only marriage, there might have been legal means by
which a wife in manu could be released from the manus;
for the will alone would be sufficient to release her
from the marriage. In the time of Gaius (I.137), a
woman, after the repudium was sent, could demand a
remancipatio.
— 100 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
When there was no conventio, the woman
remained a member of her own familia: she was to her
husband in the same relation as any other Roman
citizen, differing only in this that her sex enabled her
to become the mother of children who were the
husband's children and citizens of the state, and that
she owed fidelity to him so long as the matrimonial
cohabitation continued by mutual consent. But her
legal status continued as it was before: if she was not
in the power of her father, she had for all purposes a
legal personal existence independently of her husband,
and consequently her property was distinct from his.
It must have been with respect to such marriages as
these, that a great part at least of the rules of law
relating to Dos were established; and to such marriages
all the rules of law relating to marriage contracts must
have referred, at least so long as the marriage cum
conventione existed and retained its strict character.
When marriage was dissolved, the parties to it
might marry again; but opinion considered it more
decent for a woman not to marry again. A woman was
required by usage (mos) to wait a year before she
contracted a second marriage, on the pain of Infamia.
At Rome, the matrimonium juris civilis was
originally the only marriage. But under the influence
of the Jus Gentium, a cohabitation between Peregrini, or
between Latini, or between Peregrini and Latini and
Romani, which, in its essentials, was a marriage, a
consortium omnis vitae with the affectio maritalis, was
recognised as such; and though such marriage could
not have all the effect of a Roman marriage, it had its
— 101 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
general effect in this, that the children of such a
marriage had a father. Thus was established the notion
of a valid marriage generally, which marriage might be
either Juris Civilis or Juris Gentium. Certain conditions
were requisite for a valid marriage generally, and
particular conditions were necessary for a Roman
marriage. In the system of Justinian, the distinction
ceased, and there remained only the notion of a valid
marriage generally which is the sense of Justae nuptiae
in the Justinian system. This valid or legal marriage is
opposed to all cohabitation which is not marriage; and
the children of such cohabitation have no father
(Puchta, Inst. III § 287).49
Within this complex morass of spiritual darkness the simple,
clear light of the Gospel standard for marriage and family standard
shone forth like the sun. Husbands are to love their wives as a representative example of the Son of God for his Church in how he gave
himself for its existence. A husband is allowed only one wife, with
the bond breakable only by death of the spouse. Inexorably, the
Christian standard of marriage and family life conquered the complex paganism of the Roman Empire, replacing it with the imagery
of what we call today the nuclear family. Accordingly, it is to the
biblical standard for marriage and eligibility for remarriage that we
now turn for analysis.
49
William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, (John Murray,
London, 1875). Cited from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA/home.html.
— 102 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
ON RETHINKING BIBLICAL STANDARDS FOR MARRIAGE AND ELIGIBILITY FOR
REMARRIAGE
For us to outline a methodology by which the conservative evangelical Church in America may be equipped to chart a pathway out
of the weeds of government interference in its educational, family
care, and social responsibility affairs is beyond the scope of this Special Communication. We will confine our thoughts to making some
observations toward correcting the problematic posture taken over
the last several decades by the Christian community with respect to
standards for marriage and eligibility for remarriage.
One of the challenges we face as we examine what the New Testament has to say about this subject is the difficulty we encounter in
contextualizing the principles set forth in the words of Jesus and the
instructions set forth by the Apostle Paul. For example, we noted
earlier in this Special Communication that as a matter of historical and
biblical record, not one single person is recorded either in the Hebrew Scriptures or in the New Testament as having been executed
for commission of any crime of moral turpitude, despite the long
standing legal statutes recorded in the Old Testament Law. David
was not executed after committing the dual sins of adultery and
murder, and no rebellious teenagers were recorded as having been
stoned to death for juvenile delinquency. Hosea never insisted on
having his adulterous wife stoned to death. Instead, he brought her
back from the slave market into his own house, an astonishingly public action which he purposely intended to serve as an evangelistic witness to spiritually adulterous Israel of his day.
With respect to the New Testament records, by the time the first
century A.D. began, the Romans had removed capital punishment
from the control of Jewish authorities. It was illegal for them to execute criminals without approval from Rome, and Roman authorities
— 103 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
were loath to punish sexual misbehavior for any reason. In fact, Roman authorities in the New Testament era (the case of Herod and
John the Baptizer comes to mind as a specific example) had a tendency to exercise their own form of public relations intolerance
against the “First Amendment freedom of speech rights” of the Jewish community to call Herod an adulterer for committing fornication
with his brother Philip’s wife. Herod had John the Baptizer executed
at a state dinner!
As a point of historical fact, the closest we get to observing drastic punishments either carried out or contemplated for sexual sin in
the New Testament consists of a statement in the Gospel of Matthew
regarding Joseph, who, because he was a righteous man, briefly considered divorcing his fiancé Mary when he learned that she had become pregnant out-of-wedlock.
Absent receiving a personal message directly from the throne of
God to inform him that Mary had not been unfaithful to Joseph, the
man could lawfully have insisted on her execution by stoning, had
the penalty been a viable option at that stage of Israel’s existence.
Instead, he decided to divorce her quietly, but then changed his
mind after being assured by an angelic visitation. Under Roman authority, Joseph would not have had the authority to have the woman
executed, even if had been inclined to insist on this punishment. So
he decided to divorce her quietly so as to avoid the attendant public
scandal.
Since the criminal penalty for adultery under the law would
have been death by stoning (regardless of what Rome might have
had to say in objection to this practice or penalty), Joseph would have
been free to remarry another person, since under the law he would
then have been a widower whose wife had died.
— 104 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
We have already noted that, in the case of the woman caught in
adultery, Jesus upheld the righteous standards of the law, but defended the accused woman in the ensuing trial, as judges in Israeli
society were mandated to do.
Then he outed the woman as an adulterer, urged her in a very
public manner not to continue in this behavior, and released her
from custody when the case against her collapsed due to the unwillingness of the witnesses to testify against her! We can also cite the
case of the woman whom Jesus met at a well one sunny afternoon in
Samaria, whom Jesus also “outed” as a serial adulterer and fornicator, without insisting on her execution for committing this sin. The
incident is recorded in John 4:16-18:
He told her, “Go and call your husband, and
come back here.”
17The woman answered him, “I don’t have a
husband.”
Jesus told her, “You are quite right in saying, ‘I
don’t have a husband,’ 18because you have had five
husbands, and the man you have now is not your
husband. What you have said is true.”
16
The confrontation of Jesus had its intended effect:
Then the woman left her water jar and went back
to town. She told people, 29“Come, see a man who told
me everything I’ve ever done! Could he possibly be the
Messiah?” 30The people left the town and started on
their way to him.
28
Jesus used the moral sensitivities inherent in the conversation to
point her to himself as the Messiah. We suggest that the Christian
church should do the same with respect to cases of moral failure, including homosexual temptation and behavior, when they arise
— 105 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
within the local congregation. The practices of the rest of the world outside of the local church do not fall under our authority for taking corrective
action, except to engage in presentation of God’s standards and his
cure for the fallen nature and behavior of sinful human beings that
we call the Gospel.
The Apostle Paul did not insist on the execution of the man in
Corinth who was involved sexually with his father’s new wife. Instead, Paul instructed the local church to deliver the offender over to
Satan so that he could be afflicted physically. In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5,
he writes:
It is actually reported that sexual immorality
exists among you, and of a kind that is not found even
among the gentiles. A man is actually living with his
father’s wife! 2And you are being arrogant instead of
being filled with grief and seeing to it that the man who
did this is removed from among you. 3Even though I
am away from you physically, I am with you in spirit.
I have already passed judgment on the man who did
this, as though I were present with you. 4In the name
of our Lord Jesus, when you are gathered together (and
I am there in spirit), and the power of our Lord Jesus is
there, too, 5turn this man over to Satan for the
destruction of his body, so that his spirit may be saved
on the Day of the Lord.
1
This was done by removing him from fellowship temporarily,
until he repented. It’s abundantly clear from the context of the Apostle Paul’s instructions to Corinth that his instructions were not intended to apply to the non-believing community within which the
— 106 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Christian community was immersed. Just four verses later, in 1 Corinthians 5:9-12, he tells the Corinthians that in a letter written to that
assembly before he wrote 1 Corinthians, that:
I wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with
people who are sexually immoral— 10not at all
meaning the people of this world who are immoral,
greedy, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would
have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you
to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is
sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a
drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with
someone like that. 12After all, is it my business to judge
outsiders? You are to judge those who are in the
community, aren’t you? 13God will judge outsiders.
“Expel that wicked man.”
9
THE ROLE OF THE CHURCH IN JUDGING OUTSIDERS: SPECIFICALLY, WE DO
NOT HAVE ONE
Paul was talking to the Corinthians about a disobedient Christian, not about disobedient unbelievers. “God will judge outsiders”
is his counsel to the Corinthians about the morally disobedient outside the Church. We Christians are instructed to manage our own
affairs. What the world does in manifesting its disobedience will be
dealt with by God in his own time and after his own methods.
Our mission will then be to minister grace and the Gospel to lead
the disciplined to Christ. In the case of the Corinthian adulterer, Paul
instructed the Corinthians to welcome him back into regular attendance at local church functions after his repentance was confirmed by
a change in behavior (2 Corinthians 2:5-11). We are reminded by Jesus the Messiah himself in the book of Revelation that as Lord of his
— 107 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Church, he will discipline the sexually immoral and those who permit or encourage it within the local congregation. In Revelation 2:2023, Jesus warns the pastor of the church at Thyatira that he has one
key objection to the ministerial behavior of that leader:
But I have this against you: You tolerate that
woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and who
teaches and leads my servants to practice immorality
and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21I gave her time to
repent, but she refused to repent of her immorality.
22Look! I am going to strike her with illness. Those who
commit adultery with her will also suffer greatly,
unless they repent from acting like her. 23I will strike
her children dead. Then all the churches will know that
I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will
reward each of you as your actions deserve.
20
PAUL’S COUNSEL REGARDING MORAL INTEGRITY AND MARRIAGE
Our survey about New Testament would be incomplete without
our mentioning Paul’s to the unmarried set forth in 1 Corinthians
7:1-17 and 7:25-40. The Apostle writes:
Now about what you asked: “Is it advisable for a
man not to touch a woman inappropriately?” 2Yes,
and yet because sexual immorality is so rampant,
every man should have his own wife, and every
woman should have her own husband.
3A husband should fulfill his obligation to his wife,
and a wife should do the same for her husband. 4A wife
does not have authority over her own body, but her
husband does. In the same way, a husband doesn’t
have authority over his own body, but his wife does.
5Do not withhold yourselves from each other unless
1
— 108 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
you agree to do so just for a set time, in order to devote
yourselves to prayer. Then you should come together
again so that Satan does not tempt you through your
lack of self-control. 6But I say this as a concession, not
as a command. 7I would like everyone to be unmarried,
like I am. However, each person has a special gift from
God, one this and another that.
8I say to those who are unmarried, especially to
widows: It is good for them to remain like me.
9
However, if they cannot control themselves, they
should get married, for it is better to marry than to
burn with passion. 10To married people I give this
command (not really I, but the Lord): A wife must not
leave her husband. 11But if she does leave him, she
must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her
husband. Likewise, a husband must not abandon his
wife.
12I (not the Lord) say to the rest of you: If a brother
has a wife who is an unbeliever and she is willing to
live with him, he must not abandon her. 13And if a
woman has a husband who is an unbeliever and he is
willing to live with her, she must not abandon him.
14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified
because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been
sanctified because of her husband. Otherwise, your
children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
15But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In
such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation.
God has called you to live in peace. 16Wife, you might
be able to save your husband. Husband, you might be
able to save your wife.
— 109 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Nevertheless, everyone should live the life that
the Lord gave him and to which God called him. This
is my rule in all the churches.
17
More counsel follows in verses 25-40:
Now concerning virgins, although I do not have
any command from the Lord, I will give you my
opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is
trustworthy. 26In view of the present crisis, I think it is
prudent for a man to stay as he is. 27Have you become
committed to a wife? Stop trying to get released from
your commitment. Have you been freed from your
commitment to a wife? Stop looking for one. 28But if
you do get married, you have not sinned. And if a
virgin gets married, she has not sinned. However,
these people will experience trouble in this life, and I
want to spare you from that.
29This is what I mean, brothers: The time is short.
From now on, those who have wives should live as
though they had none, 30and those who mourn as
though they did not mourn, and those who rejoice as
though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as
though they did not own a thing, 31and those who use
the things in the world as though they were not
dependent on them. For the world in its present form
is passing away.
32I want you to be free from concerns. An
unmarried man is concerned about the things of the
Lord, that is, about how he can please the Lord. 33But a
married man is concerned about things of this world,
that is, about how he can please his wife, 34and so his
25
— 110 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
attention is divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is
concerned about the affairs of the Lord, so that she may
be holy in body and spirit. But a married woman is
concerned about the affairs of this world, that is, about
how she can please her husband. 35I’m saying this for
your benefit, not to put a noose around your necks, but
to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the
Lord.
36If a man thinks he is not behaving properly
toward his virgin, and if his passion is so strong that
he feels he ought to marry her, let him do what he
wants; he isn’t sinning. Let them get married.
37However, if a man stands firm in his resolve, feels no
necessity, and has made up his mind to keep her a
virgin, he will be acting appropriately. 38So then the
man who marries the virgin acts appropriately, but the
man who refrains from marriage does even better.
39A wife is bound to her husband as long as he
lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry
anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. 40However, in my
opinion she will be happier if she stays as she is. And
in saying this, I think that I, too, have God’s Spirit.
INSTANCES WHEN DIVORCE IS PROHIBITED BY GOD’S STANDARDS
We suggest that the Christian community in the Unites States of
America has focused over the years so much on the Apostle Paul’s
two valid rationales for divorce (i.e., unrepentant adultery and family abandonment) that they miss the two activities described in the
Law of God which, if committed by a man and woman either antecedent or after marriage, prevent them by biblical mandate from ever
being divorced under any circumstances.
— 111 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
The standards to which we refer may be found in Deuteronomy
22:13-18 and in Deuteronomy 22:25-29. The legal standard set forth
in Deuteronomy 22:13-19 concerns a case in which one of the spouses
(in the biblical narrative, the man is the Plaintiff) commits perjury
against his wife in a public marital dispute before the legal authorities
of Israel:
“Suppose a man marries a wife, but after having
sexual relations with her, he despises her, 14invents
charges against her, and defames her by saying, ‘I have
married this woman, but when I had sexual relations
with her I found that she wasn’t a virgin.’ 15Then the
father of the young lady, along with her mother, is to
bring evidence of the young lady’s virginity to the
elders at the gate. 16The father of the young lady is to
then say to the elders: ‘I have given my daughter to this
man as a wife, but he despises her. 17Now look, he has
invented charges against her by saying, “I haven’t
found your daughter to be a virgin.” But here is the
proof of my daughter’s virginity.’ Then they are to
spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18The
elders of that city will then take the man, punish him,
19fine him 100 shekels of silver, and then give them to
the young lady’s father, because he defamed a virgin
of Israel. She is to remain his wife and he can’t
divorce her as long as he lives.
13
The legal standard described above is one of the only instances
we’ve been able to discover in the Law of God in which the penalty
for perjury in a capital case is not execution of the person bearing the
— 112 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
false testimony. Let us make no mistake here: this passage in Deuteronomy 22:13-19 is clearly a capital case. Note the consequences
that occur if the legal charge is demonstrated to be true:
But if this charge is true, and the evidence of the
young lady’s virginity wasn’t found, 21they are to bring
her to the door of her father’s house. Then the men of
the city are to stone her with boulders until she dies for
doing a detestable thing in Israel—acting like a
prostitute while in her father’s house. By doing this,
you will remove this evil from among you.
20
It becomes apparent when we examine this passage closely, its
standards are intended to include the protective involvement of the
wife’s family in defending the honor of the newly married daughter.
We suggest that there is a high likelihood that the requirement that
the husband as Plaintiff in the case be fined (with the money being
paid to the wife’s family) is a hint that any marriage in which the
husband’s distrust and false accusations against his wife is probably
going to fail eventually. But it will be the wife, not the husband, who
makes that decision, and the financial penalty incurred by the disciplined husband is clearly intended to ameliorate some of the damages caused to the woman’s reputation. There’s nothing like a very
public financial judgment awarded by a legal court to confirm a Defendant’s basic innocence.
The legal standard set forth in Deuteronomy 22:25-29 concerns
cases in which the couple engage in sexual relations antecedent to
the marriage. In Deuteronomy 22:25-27, a case of involuntary, nonconsensual sexual relations is described, the penalty for which is execution of the perpetrator:
“If a man meets a girl in the country who is
engaged to be married and then rapes her, the man
25
— 113 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
alone—the one who had sexual relations with her—
must die. 266As for the young lady, don’t do anything
to her. The young lady did nothing worthy of death.
This case is similar to when a man attacks his
countryman and kills him. 27Since he found her in the
country, the engaged girl may have cried out, but there
was no one to rescue her.
The legal standard set forth in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 concerns a
case in which the couple engage in voluntary, consensual sexual relations antecedent to the marriage, despite being consensual between the perpetrators, is nevertheless defined by God’s standards
as the commission of rape. In our culture today, cases such as these
might be more accurately defined as instances of statutory rape. In
cases of premarital seduction, note that the penalty is not execution
of the perpetrator:
“However, if a man meets a girl who isn’t
engaged to be married, and he seizes her, rapes her,
and is later found out, 29then the man who raped her
must give 50 shekels of silver to the girl’s father.
Furthermore, he must marry her. Because he had
violated her, he is to not divorce her as long as he
lives.
28
Premarital sexual purity is clearly set forth in the Law of God as
being mandated for both parties to a pending marital union. Nevertheless, the legal descriptors set forth in Scripture assume that the
man, as candidate leader of a new family, is to set the example of
moral integrity in the relationship. Any violation of these standards
of behavior is a violation of the assumption of moral integrity.
We suggest that the regulation set down in Deuteronomy 22:2829 contains a reminder that any man who seduces his girlfriend or
— 114 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
fiancé antecedent to marriage has demonstrated such a fundamental
disrespect for the integrity of the relationship that the seeds of its future failure are already present. And so Moses sets down this prohibition: “Because he has violated her, he is not to divorce her as long
as he lives.” Whether or not the occasion will arise in the future in
which the wounded wife will initiate a divorce on biblical grounds
is not addressed by Moses in this passage, but the implication is
clear—if the husband disrespects his wife antecedent to marriage
enough not to honor her moral integrity, it’s not likely that he will
honor her after the marriage takes place.
INSTRUCTIONS BY JESUS ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
We suggest that, since Jesus was familiar with the statutes in
Deuteronomy 22 that we’ve outlined above, his instructions recorded by the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke need to be understood in the context of his incredibly difficult standards. Here are the
main statements recorded in the Synoptic Gospels concerning this
subject (the Gospel of John does not record the instances noted below):
Luke 16:18:
“Any man who divorces his wife and marries
another woman commits adultery, and the man who
marries a woman divorced from her husband commits
adultery.”
Mark 10:2-12:
2Some Pharisees came to test him. They asked, “Is
it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
3“What did Moses command you?” he responded.
4They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a
certificate of divorce and to divorce her.”
— 115 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
But Jesus told them, “It was because of your
hardness of heart that he wrote this command for you.
6
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them
male and female.’ 7That’s why ‘a man will leave his
father and mother and be united with his wife, 8and the
two will become one flesh.’ So they’re no longer two,
but one flesh. 9Therefore, what God has joined
together, man must never separate.”
10Back in the house, the disciples asked him about
this again. 11So he told them, “Whoever divorces his
wife and marries another woman commits adultery
against her. 12And if a woman divorces her husband
and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Matthew 5:31-32:
31“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife
must give her a written notice of divorce.’ 32But I say to
you, any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual
immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and
whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.”
Matthew 19:3-12:
3Some Pharisees came to him in order to test him.
They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife
for any reason?”
4He answered them, “Haven’t you read that the
one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male
and female’ 5and said, ‘That is why a man will leave his
father and mother and be united with his wife, and the
two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two,
but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together,
man must never separate.”
5
— 116 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
They asked him, “Why, then, did Moses order us
‘to give a certificate of divorce and divorce her’?”
8
He told them, “It was because of your hardness of
heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.
But from the beginning it was not this way. 9I tell you
that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
immorality, and marries another woman commits
adultery.”
10His
disciples asked him, “If that is the
relationship of a man with his wife, it’s not worth
getting married!”
11“Not everyone can accept this saying,” he
replied, “except those to whom celibacy has been
granted, 12because some men are celibate from birth,
while some are celibate because they have been made
that way by others. Still others are celibate because
they have made themselves that way for the sake of the
kingdom from heaven. Let anyone accept this who
can.”
7
A SAMPLE STATEMENT OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR MARRIAGE AND
REMARRIAGE
We suggest that for the Church of Jesus Christ in the United
States to make public lamentation in mourning over the release of
Obergefell v. Hodges without cleaning up its own house is hypocritical
at best. 1 Peter 4:17-19 reminds us:
For the time has come for judgment to begin with
the household of God. And if it begins with us, what
will be the outcome for those who refuse to obey the
gospel of God?
18“If it is hard for the righteous person to be saved,
17
— 117 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
what will happen to the ungodly and sinful
person?”
19
So then, those who suffer according to God’s will
should entrust their souls to their faithful Creator and
continue to do what is good.
In light of what the Apostle Peter has to say to us in this passage
just cited, we have cited Dr. John Piper’s50 insightful position paper
in which he sets forth his rationale for the position that he takes with
respect to marriage and divorce.51 We suggest that conservative,
evangelical churches throughout the United States adopt its contents52 (or use it as a starting point to craft their own) Statement of
Policy and Procedures for Marriage and Remarriage that conforms to the
biblical passages that we have set forth herein.
Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage after
Divorce is Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive,
by the Rev. Dr. John Piper
1. Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce
adultery.
Luke 16:18: Everyone who divorces his wife and
marries another commits adultery, and he who marries
a woman divorced from her husband commits
adultery.
50
Dr. John Piper is founder and teacher of www.desiringGod.org and Chancellor of Bethlehem
College and Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
51
A copy of the position paper may be downloaded from http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper. The formal position paper of the Bethlehem Baptist Church
may be downloaded from http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/a-statement-on-divorceremarriage-in-the-life-of-bethlehem-baptist-church.
52
Because this extended quotation is a word-for-word quote from Dr. Piper’s original paper, which
was produced before the Holy Bible: International Standard Version was created, the biblical
citations in this section are not taken from the ISV.
— 118 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
1.1 This verse shows that Jesus does not recognize
divorce as terminating a marriage in God's
sight. The reason a second marriage is called
adultery is because the first one is considered to
still be valid. So Jesus is taking a stand against
the Jewish culture in which all divorce was
considered to carry with it the right of
remarriage.
1.2 The second half of the verse shows that not
merely the divorcing man is guilty of adultery
when he remarries, but also any man who
marries a divorced woman.
1.3 Since there are no exceptions mentioned in the
verse, and since Jesus is clearly rejecting the
common cultural conception of divorce as
including the right of remarriage, the first
readers of this gospel would have been hardput to argue for any exceptions on the basis that
Jesus shared the cultural assumption that
divorce for unfaithfulness or desertion freed a
spouse for remarriage.
2. Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce
adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who
does the divorcing.
Mark 10:11-12: And he said to them, '”Whoever
divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery against her; 12and if she divorces her husband
and marries another, she commits adultery.”
2.1 This text repeats the first half of Luke 16:18 but
goes farther and says that not only the man who
— 119 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
divorces, but also a woman who divorces, and then
remarries is committing adultery.
2.2 As in Luke 16:18, there are no exceptions
mentioned to this rule.
3. Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teach that Jesus
rejected the Pharisees' justification of divorce from
Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted the purpose of God
in creation that no human being separate what God has
joined together.
Mark 10:2-9: And some Pharisees came up to Him,
testing Him, and began to question Him whether it
was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. 3And He
answered and said to them, “What did Moses
command you?” 4And they said, “Moses permitted a
man to write a certificate of divorce and send her
away.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your
hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6But from the beginning of creation, God made them
male and female. 7For this cause a man shall leave his
father and mother, 8and the two shall become one flesh;
consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9What therefore God has joined together, let no man
separate.”
Matthew 19:3-9: And some Pharisees came to Him,
testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for any cause at all?” 4And He
answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who
created them from the beginning made them male and
female, 5and said, “For this cause a man shall leave his
father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the
two shall become one flesh'? 6Consequently they are no
— 120 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined
together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him,
“Why then did Moses command to give her a
certificate and divorce her?” 8He said to them,
“Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted
you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it
has not been this way. 9And I say to you, whoever
divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries
another commits adultery.”
3.1 In both Matthew and Mark the Pharisees come
to Jesus and test him by asking him whether it is lawful
for a man to divorce his wife. They evidently have in
mind the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply
describes divorce as a fact rather than giving any
legislation in favor of it. They wonder how Jesus will
take a position with regard to this passage.
3.2 Jesus’ answer is, “For your hardness of heart
Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Mt. 19:8).
3.3 But then Jesus criticizes the Pharisees' failure to
recognize in the books of Moses God's deepest and
original intention for marriage. So he quotes two
passages from Genesis. “God made them male and
female. ...For this reason a man shall leave his father
and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall
become one flesh” (Genesis 1:27; 2:24).
3.4 From these passages in Genesis Jesus
concludes, “So they are no longer two, but one.” And
then he makes his climaxing statement, “What
therefore God has joined together, let no man put
asunder.”
— 121 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
3.5
The implication is that Jesus rejects the
Pharisees’ use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the
standard of marriage for his disciples to God's original
intention in creation. He says that none of us should
try to undo the “one-flesh” relationship which God has
united.
3.6
Before we jump to the conclusion that
this absolute statement should be qualified in view of
the exception clause (“except for unchastity”)
mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously
entertain the possibility that the exception clause in
Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the
absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, (“let no man put
asunder”) especially since the verses that follow this
conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not
contain any exception when they condemn remarriage.
More on this below.
4. Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is
lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage
after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been
divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his
wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage
unless she had already become an adulteress before the
divorce.
Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who
divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity,
makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery.
4.1 Jesus assumes that in most situations in that
culture a wife who has been put away by a husband
will be drawn into a second marriage. Nevertheless, in
— 122 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage
adultery.
4.2 The remarkable thing about the first half of this
verse is that it plainly says that the remarriage of a wife
who has been innocently put away is nevertheless
adultery: “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on
the ground of unchastity, makes her (the innocent wife
who has not been unchaste) an adulteress.” This is a
clear statement, it seems to me, that remarriage is
wrong not merely when a person is guilty in the
process of divorce, but also when a person is innocent.
In other words, Jesus' opposition to remarriage seems
to be based on the unbreakableness of the marriage
bond by anything but death.
4.3 I will save my explanation of the exception
clause (“Except on the ground of unchastity”) for later
in the paper, but for now, it may suffice to say that on
the traditional interpretation of the clause, it may
simply mean that a man makes his wife an adulteress
except in the case where she has made herself one.
4.4 I would assume that since an innocent wife
who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries,
therefore a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is
all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty
woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman
who has been put away is not, just because the guilty
woman's adultery has broken the “one flesh”
relationship, then one is put in the awkward position
of saying to an innocent divorced woman, “If you now
commit adultery it will be lawful for you to remarry.”
This seems wrong for at least two reasons.
— 123 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
4.4.1
It seems to elevate the physical act of
sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital
union and disunion.
4.4.2
If sexual union with another breaks the
marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say
that an innocently divorced wife can't remarry (as
Jesus does say) assumes that her divorcing husband is
not divorcing to have sexual relations with another.
This is a very unlikely assumption. More likely is that
Jesus does assume some of these divorcing husbands
will have sexual relations with another woman, but
still the wives they have divorced may not remarry.
Therefore, adultery does not nullify the "one-flesh"
relationship of marriage and both the innocent and
guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage in
Matthew 5:32.
5. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is
wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who
divorces should not remarry.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11: To the married I give charge,
not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate
from her husband 11(but if she does, let her remain
single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that
the husband should not divorce his wife.
5.1 When Paul says that this charge is not his but
the Lord’s, I think he means that he is aware of a
specific saying from the historical Jesus which
addressed this issue. As a matter of fact, these verses
look very much like Mark 10:11-12, because both the
wife and the husband are addressed. Also, remarriage
— 124 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
seems to be excluded by verse 11 the same way it is
excluded in Mark 10:11-12.
5.2 Paul seems to be aware that separation will be
inevitable in certain cases. Perhaps he has in mind a
situation of unrepentant adultery, or desertion, or
brutality. But in such a case he says that the person
who feels constrained to separate should not seek
remarriage but remain single. And he reinforces the
authority of this statement by saying he has a word
from the Lord. Thus Paul's interpretation of Jesus’
sayings is that remarriage should not be pursued.
5.3 As in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 and
Matthew 5:32, this text does not explicitly entertain the
possibility of any exceptions to the prohibition of
remarriage.
6. 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that
remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a
spouse.
1 Corinthians 7:39: A wife is bound to her husband
as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be
married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Romans 7:1-3, Do you not know, brethren—for I
am speaking to those who know the law—that the law
is binding on a person only during his life? 2Thus a
married woman is bound by law to her husband as
long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is
discharged from the law concerning her husband.
3Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she
lives with another man while her husband is alive. But
if her husband dies she is free from that law, if she
marries another man she is not an adulteress.
— 125 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
6.1 Both of these passages (1 Corinthians 7:39;
Romans 7:2) say explicitly that a woman is bound to
her husband as long as he lives. No exceptions are
explicitly mentioned that would suggest she could be
free from her husband to remarry on any other basis.
7. Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian
grace is given by God to Christ's disciples to sustain
them in singleness when they renounce remarriage
according to the law of Christ.
Matthew 19:10-12: The disciples said to him, “If
such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not
expedient to marry.” 11But he said to them, “Not all
men can receive this precept, but only those to whom
it is given. 12For there are eunuchs who have been so
from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made
eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have
made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom
of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him
receive it.”
7.1 Just preceding this passage in Matthew 19:9
Jesus prohibited all remarriage after divorce. (I will
deal with the meaning of “except for immorality”
below.) This seemed like an intolerable prohibition to
Jesus’ disciples: If you close off every possibility of
remarriage, then you make marriage so risky that it
would be better not to marry, since you might be
“trapped” to live as a single person to the rest of your
life or you may be “trapped” in a bad marriage.
7.2 Jesus does not deny the tremendous difficulty
of his command. Instead, he says in verse 11, that the
enablement to fulfill the command not to remarry is a
— 126 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
divine gift to his disciples. Verse 12 is an argument that
such a life is indeed possible because there are people
who for the sake of the kingdom, as well as lower
reasons, have dedicated themselves to live a life of
singleness.
7.3 Jesus is not saying that some of his disciples
have the ability to obey his command not to remarry
and some don't. He is saying that the mark of a disciple
is that they receive a gift of continence while nondisciples don’t. The evidence for this is l) the parallel
between Matthew 19:11 and 13:11, 2) the parallel
between Matthew 19:12 and 13:9, 43; 11:15, and 3) the
parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 19:26.
8. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds
for divorce but teaches that the "one-flesh" relationship
established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or
even by remarriage.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man takes a wife and
marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in
his eyes because he has found some indecency in her,
and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in
her hand and sends her out from his house, 2and she
leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s
wife, 3and if the latter husband turns against her and
writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her
hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter
husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4then her
former husband who sent her away is not allowed to
take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled;
for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you
— 127 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your
God gives you as an inheritance.
8.1 The remarkable thing about these four verses is
that, while divorce is taken for granted, nevertheless
the woman who is divorced becomes “defiled” by her
remarriage (verse 4). It may well be that when the
Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was legitimate he
based his negative answer not only on God's intention
expressed in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, but also on the
implication of Deuteronomy 24:4 that remarriage after
divorce defiles a person. In other words, there were
ample clues in the Mosaic law that the divorce
concession was on the basis of the hardness of man's
heart and really did not make divorce and remarriage
legitimate.
8.2 The prohibition of a wife returning to her first
husband even after her second husband dies (because
it is an abomination) suggests very strongly that today
no second marriage should be broken up in order to
restore a first one (for Heth and Wenham’s explanation
of this see Jesus and Divorce, page 110).
9. 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a
Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or
she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not
bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness.
Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner
insists on it.
1 Corinthians 7:15: If the unbelieving partner
desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the
brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to
peace.
— 128 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
9.1 There are several reasons why the phrase “is
not bound” should not be construed to mean “is free to
remarry.”
9.1.1
It seems to elevate the physical act of
sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital
union and disunion.
9.1.2
Marriage is an ordinance of creation
binding on all of God's human creatures, irrespective
of their faith or lack of faith.
9.1.3
The word used for “bound” (douloo) in
verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where
Paul says, “A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as
long as he lives.” Paul consistently uses deo when
speaking of the legal aspect of being bound to one
marriage partner (Romans 7:2; l Corinthians 7:39), or to
one's betrothed (l Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers
to a deserted spouse not being bound in l Corinthians
7:15, he chooses a different word (douloo) which we
would expect him to do if he were not giving a
deserted spouse the same freedom to remarry that he
gives to a spouse whose partner has died (verse 39).
9.1.4
The last phrase of verse 15 (“God has
called us to peace”) supports verse 15 best if Paul is
saying that a deserted partner is not “bound to make
war” on the deserting unbeliever to get him or her to
stay. It seems to me that the peace God has called us to
is the peace of marital harmony. Therefore, if the
unbelieving partner insists on departing, then the
believing partner is not bound to live in perpetual
conflict with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and
innocent in letting him or her go.
— 129 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
9.1.5
This interpretation also preserves a
closer harmony to the intention of verses 10-11, where
an inevitable separation does not result in the right of
remarriage.
10. 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of
divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed
virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness,
but do not sin if they marry.
1 Corinthians 7:27-28: Are you bound to a wife? Do
not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not
seek marriage. 28But if you marry, you do not sin, and
if a virgin marries, she does not sin.
10.1 Recently some people have argued that this
passage deals with divorced people because in verse
27 Paul asks, “Are you free (literally: loosed) from a
wife?” Some have assumed that he means, “Are you
divorced?” Thus he would be saying in verse 28 that it
is not sin when divorced people remarry. There are
several reasons why this interpretation is most
unlikely.
10.1.1
Verse 25 signals that Paul is beginning a
new section and dealing with a new issue. He says,
“Now concerning the virgins (ton parthenon) I have no
command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one
who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.” He has
already dealt with the problem of divorced people in
verses 10-16. Now he takes up a new issue about those
who are not yet married, and he signals this by saying,
“Now concerning the virgins.” Therefore, it is very
unlikely that the people referred to in verses 27 and 28
are divorced.
— 130 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
10.1.2
A flat statement that it is not sin for
divorced people to be remarried (verse 28) would
contradict verse 11, where he said that a woman who
has separated from her husband should remain single.
10.1.3
Verse 36 is surely describing the same
situation in view in verses 27 and 28, but clearly refers
to a couple that is not yet married. “If anyone thinks
that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, if
his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as
he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.” This is the
same as verse 28 where Paul says, “But if you marry,
you do not sin.”
10.1.4
The reference in verse 27 to being bound
to a “wife” may be misleading because it may suggest
that the man is already married. But in Greek the word
for wife is simply “woman” and may refer to a man's
betrothed as well as his spouse. The context dictates
that the reference is to a man's betrothed virgin, not to
his spouse. So “being bound” and “being loosed” have
reference to whether a person is betrothed or not.
10.1.5
It is significant that the verb Paul uses for
“loosed” (luo) or “free” is not a word that he uses for
divorce. Paul's words for divorce are chorizo (verses
10, 11, 15; cf. Matthew 19:6) and aphelia (verses
11,12,13).
11. The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not
imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a
person to be remarried.
All the weight of the New Testament evidence
given in the preceding ten points is against this view,
and there are several ways to make good sense out of
— 131 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad
teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after
divorce is prohibited.
Matthew 19:9: And I say to you: whoever divorces
his wife, except for immorality, and marries another,
commits adultery.
11.1
Several years ago I taught our
congregation in two evening services concerning my
understanding of this verse and argued that “except
for immorality”" did not refer to adultery but to
premarital sexual fornication which a man or a woman
discovers in the betrothed partner. Since that time I
have discovered other people who hold this view and
who have given it a much more scholarly exposition
than I did. I have also discovered numerous other
ways of understanding this verse which also exclude
the legitimacy of remarriage. Several of these are
summed up in William Heth and Gordon J. Wenham,
Jesus and Divorce (Nelson: 1984).
11.2
Here I will simply give a brief summary
of my own view of Matthew 19:9 and how I came to it.
I began, first of all, by being troubled that the
absolute form of Jesus’ denunciation of divorce and
remarriage in Mark 10:11, 12 and Luke 16:18 is not
preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is
a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered
by the simple assumption that so many writers make
that Matthew is simply making explicit something that
would have been implicitly understood by the hearers
of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.
— 132 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Would they really have assumed that the absolute
statements included exceptions? I have very strong
doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire
whether or not in fact Matthew’s exception clause
conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.
The second thing that began to disturb me was the
question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia
(“except for immorality”) instead of the word moicheia
which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem
to make the simple assumption again that porneia
means adultery in this context. The question nags at
me why Matthew would not use the word for adultery,
if that is in fact what he meant.
Then I noticed something very interesting. The
only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where
Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is
used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary
contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he
conceives of porneia as something different than
adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew
conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication
or incest (l Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?
A. Isaksson agrees with this view of porneia and
sums up his research much like this on pages 134-5 of
Marriage and Ministry:
Thus we cannot get away from the fact that the
distinction between what was to be regarded as
porneia and what was to be regarded as moicheia was
very strictly maintained in pre-Christian Jewish
literature and in the N.T. Porneia may, of course,
denote different forms of forbidden sexual relations,
— 133 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
but we can find no unequivocal examples of the use of
this word to denote a wife's adultery. Under these
circumstances we can hardly assume that this word
means adultery in the clauses in Matthew. The logia on
divorce are worded as a paragraph of the law,
intended to be obeyed by the members of the Church.
Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that in a
text of this nature the writer would not have
maintained a clear distinction between what was
unchastity and what was adultery: moicheia and not
porneia was used to describe the wife’s adultery. From
the philological point of view there are accordingly
very strong arguments against this interpretation of
the clauses as permitting divorce in the case in which
the wife was guilty of adultery.
The next clue in my search for an explanation came
when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41
where Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being
born of porneia. In other words, since they don’t accept
the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed
fornication and Jesus was the result of this act. On the
basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew's record
of Jesus’ birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely
enlightening.
In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to as
husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are
described as only being betrothed to each other. This is
probably owing to the fact that the words for husband
and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact
that betrothal was a much more significant
commitment then than engagement is today. In verse
— 134 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
19 Joseph resolves “to divorce” Mary. The word for
divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and
19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that
Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce
Mary, presumably on account of her porneia,
fornication.
Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the
narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5
and then later in chapter 19 needing to prohibit all
remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to
allow for “divorces” like the one Joseph contemplated
toward his betrothed whom he thought guilty of
fornication (porneia). Therefore, Matthew includes the
exception clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but
also in general to show that the kind of “divorce” that
one might pursue during a betrothal on account of
fornication is not included in Jesus’ absolute
prohibition.
A common objection to this interpretation is that
both in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the
issue Jesus is responding to is marriage not betrothal.
The point is pressed that “except for fornication” is
irrelevant to the context of marriage.
My answer is that this irrelevancy is just the point
Matthew wants to make. We may take it for granted
that the breakup of an engaged couple over fornication
is not an evil “divorce” and does not prohibit
remarriage. But we cannot assume that Matthew’s
readers would take this for granted.
Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for
us to exclude “the case of fornication” (since we can’t
— 135 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
see how a betrothed virgin could be “made an
adulteress” in any case), it may not be pointless for
Matthew’s readers. For that matter, it may not be
pointless for any readers: if Jesus had said, “Every man
who divorces his woman makes her an adulteress,” a
reader could legitimately ask: “Then was Joseph about
to make Mary an adulteress?” We may say this
question is not reasonable since we think you can’t
make unmarried women adulteresses. But it certainly
is not meaningless or, perhaps for some readers,
pointless, for Matthew to make explicit the obvious
exclusion of the case of fornication during betrothal.
This interpretation of the exception clause has
several advantages:
 It does not force Matthew to contradict
the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and
Luke and the whole range of New
Testament teaching set forth above in
sections 1-10, including Matthew’s own
absolute teaching in 19:3-8
 It provides an explanation for why the
word porneia is used in Matthew’s
exception clause instead of moicheia
 It squares with Matthew’s own use of
porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19
 It fits the demands of Matthew’s wider
context
concerning
Joseph's
contemplated divorce.
Conclusions and Applications
In the New Testament the question about
remarriage after divorce is not determined by:
— 136 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
 The guilt or innocence of either spouse,
 Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or
not,
 Nor by whether the divorce happened before or
after either spouse's conversion,
 Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single
parent for the rest of life on earth,
 Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion
involved,
 Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of
the human heart,
 Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the
surrounding society.
Rather it is determined by the fact that:
 Marriage is a “one-flesh” relationship of divine
establishment and extraordinary significance in
the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5;
Mark 10:8),
 Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh
relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is
why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he
assumes that the first marriage is still binding,
Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
 God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage
only through the death of one of the spouses
(Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
 The grace and power of God are promised and
sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced
Christian to be single all this earthly life if
necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians
10:13),
— 137 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
 Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are
much to be preferred over the disobedience of
remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy
both in this life and the life to come (Matthew
5:29-30).
Those who are already remarried:
 Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry
and the act of entering a second marriage was
sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness
 Should not attempt to return to the first partner
after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
 Should not separate and live as single people
thinking that this would result in less sin
because all their sexual relations are acts of
adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions
for this particular case, but it does treat second
marriages as having significant standing in
God's eyes. That is, there were promises made
and there has been a union formed. It should
not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be
taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the
union is to be sanctified to God. While not the
ideal state, staying in a second marriage is
God’s will for a couple and their ongoing
relations should not be looked on as adulterous.
THE WAY OUT OF THE WEEDS
There is a way out of the weeds. This side of
eternity, God always provides a way to fix even the
most grievous of situations. Jesus of Nazareth has been
quoted for centuries now as reminding his followers
— 138 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
that “The truth will set you free.” That statement is
both true and reliable. But it’s not complete: that’s
because before the truth sets you free, it’s going to
make you miserable. After we have committed to
believe and act on the truth, God’s divinely provided
freedom releases us from the nightmare that has come
about due to our own negligence or willful behavior.
If we were to summarize all of the various messages that have
come from God to his people over the centuries of his dealings with
mankind, we can describe the essential nature of those message in a
single Hebrew language word.
It’s the noun “repentance” and the verb “to repent” (Hebrew:
‫שוב‬, shuv). In the original language of the Old Testament, as a verb
form shuv is a directional verb that includes within itself the concept
of changing the direction of one’s movement from one objective to
another. Perhaps the best equivalent we can craft in modern English
to describe this verb shuv is to use an analogy extracted from the aerospace industry: it’s the idea of a mid-course correction. When used
with this nuance, the basic trajectory of the spacecraft is correct, but
a few commands occasionally have to be sent to the satellite in order
to confirm and correct any deviations from course that are observed.
Think of the Hebrew verb ‫ שוב‬in that manner and you won’t be far
off the mark.
WHAT’S INVOLVED IN REPENTANCE?
The Hebrew word shuv includes a number of very complex nuances that add much richness and depth to the meaning of the basic
concept of turning. For example, the verb shuv can mean:
1. Turning back. In the case of a person who goes
down the wrong road, the only proper way to recover from the error is to return to where the wrong
— 139 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
choice was made. See Genesis 8:9 for an example of
this usage of the verb in the Hebrew qal form meaning to make a linear motion back to a point previously departed. The Hebrew verb can also occur in
the qal passive (Micah 2:8), in the polel form (Jeremiah 50:19; Ezekiel 39:27) in the case of movement
intending to result in restoration, or in the passive
hof form, where it means “to be returned” (Exodus
10:8)
2. Bringing back. See Genesis 28:15 for an example of
this usage of the verb in the Hebrew hifil form.
3. Turning around. In the case of a person whose for-
ward motion is about to send him over a cliff, the
only proper way to recover from this error is to
make an immediate turn 180° and go back the way
you came. Joshua 8:21 records an incident of this
Hebrew qal form of the verb, implying a change or
pivoting with respect to one’s direction of movement, either in literal travel or life pathway. See
Psalm 89:44 for an example of the hifil usage of this
verb form. In Ezekiel 38:4 and 39:2, the verb is used
in the polel form to connote a sense of pivoting, but
the verb can also refer negatively to a return to captivity.
4. Repeating what one knew to be right. In the case of
someone who has received misinformation and
made poor decisions as a result of that information,
the verb ‫ שוב‬can connote the concept of bringing
one’s state of knowledge back to what it should
— 140 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
have been before the misinformation was acted
upon.
5. Changing position. Leviticus 13:16 employs a qal
form of this verb to communicate a change to a previous, preferable state.
6. Restoring what has been lost. Psalm 51:14 uses the
hifil form of the verb to connote this. Psalm 23:3
uses the polel form of the verb to communicate David’s gratitude to God for restoring his soul in the
days following the turmoil that surrounded him.
7. Recovering lost opportunities or repairing what
has been damaged to its former state. Psalm 51:14
uses the hifil form of this verb to communicate how
what has been lost can be restored, as does the polel
form of the verb in Psalm 23:3, 60:3, Isaiah 49:5, and
58:12. The polal passive form is used in Ezekiel 38:8
to speak of God’s people having been recovered or
repaired from their sorry situation.
8. Repeating previous works. The qal form of the verb
in Joshua 5:2 speaks of an activity previously accomplished being done again, as does the hifil form
in Jeremiah 6:9.
9. Changing behavior. The qal form of the verb means
to return to a manner of life and actions consistent
with the moral will of God in Judges 2:19.
10. Turning toward. In 2 Chronicles 6:37, the qal form
of the verb means to change one’s opinion concerning a belief or truth, with the intended focus of returning to a proper, prior belief.
— 141 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
11. Believing correctly. The hifil form of the verb in
Deuteronomy 4:39 connotes the idea of taking
something to heart, with a resultant change in life
behavior coming about as a result of the correct belief.
12. Misleading oneself or another, or believing incor-
rectly. Negatively, the qal form of the form can communicate a sense of misinformation, misdirection,
or deliberate deception (Isaiah 47:10).
13. Rejecting the truth. Negatively, the qal form can ap-
ply to those who reject or disconnect their previous
association and go back to a previous state of rebellion. You’ll see that usage in Numbers 14:43.
14. Turning away. Negatively, in Ezekiel 14:6, the hifil
form of the verb is used to describe those who abandon God and his standards.
15. Committing apostasy.
Jeremiah 8:5 connotes
clearly the concept of apostasy by its utilization of
the comparatively rare use of the active polal form of
the verb.
16. Repenting. Jeremiah 4:2 employs the qal form to
communicate genuine repentance by which one
changes back to a former association that had previously been abandoned.
17. Restoring. Nehemiah 9:29 employs the hif form of
the verb to connote restoration that has occurred after the turning back.
18. Putting back in place what has been removed. The
hif form of the form refers to putting back in place
— 142 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
what has been removed in Genesis 29:3. The hof
form of the verb is used in Genesis 42:28; 43:12; and
Jeremiah 27:16).
19. Recovering lost funds. Various kinds of financial
ruin are described with the qal form of the verb in
Ezekiel 7:13 as being given back, whether referring
to money, goods, land, or other financial compensation resulting from various kinds of transactions.
20. Making restitution. It’s also used in Exodus 21:34
in the hif form and in Numbers 5:8 in the hof form
to describe restitution being made.
21. Restoring one’s spirit. When used with the Hebrew
noun spirit, the verb is used in 1 Samuel 30:12 to refer to physical or spiritual refreshment.53
WHAT THE CHURCH NEEDS TO DO
The way out of the weeds of government interference with the
Church’s right to manage its own affairs begins with repentance. The
Church needs to repent from at least the following public apostasies
committed over the last several decades and by which Christians
have slowly and unwittingly allowed intrusion by local, state, and
federal government in their internal affairs:
 The Church’s political apostasy is the willful
and deliberate decision by the residents of the
fifty states of America and its territories to ignore the provisions of the tenth amendment to
the United States Constitution, which specifi-
53
Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc. Entry under ‫( שוב‬šûb).
— 143 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
cally reserves all governmental powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the member
states themselves. If marriage is to be regulated
at all (a premise which we have denied throughout this material), regulation is reserved for
state processes, not those of the federal government. On a state level and local level, the
Church has no right to delegate or surrender its
operational policies and procedures to those
outside the local church.
 The Church’s theological apostasy includes its
slow, inexorable surrender of divinely mandated requirements set forth in Scripture to educate our children.
 The Church’s theological apostasy includes its
slow, inexorable surrender of divinely mandated requirements set forth in Scripture to care
for our own families.
 The Church’s theological apostasy includes its
slow, inexorable surrender of divinely mandated requirements set forth in Scripture to support the poor and needy.
 The Church’s theological apostasy includes its
slow, inexorable surrender of divinely mandated requirements set forth in Scripture to define and enforce God’s standard of marriage
within our Christian congregations on a local
church level—
— 144 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
all without government regulation or interference. As noted above,
each of these forms of apostasy occurred gradually, following a slippery-slope pattern of fulfillment by which each of these mandated
responsibilities have been surrendered to the hegemony of the state
and federal governments.
DANIEL’S PRAYER: A DO-IT-YOURSELF GUIDE TO CORPORATE REPENTANCE
FOR THE BODY OF CHRIST
Ancient Israel faced the challenges of national renewal following
a period of government domination by three successive authoritarian
regimes. The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians, followed later by the Southern Kingdoms, who were conquered by the Babylonian Empire and then ruled for a season under
the Medes and the Persians. As described in the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah, Israel faced a number of challenges to their national identity as followers of the true and living God as they sought to rebuilt
their spiritual and corporate identity as a restored people of God following the restoration of the people to their land in light of Daniel’s
eloquent prayer of repentance set forth in the ninth chapter of his
book.
DANIEL’S EXAMPLE: HOW TO REPENT WHEN YOU’RE NOT GUILTY
Maybe as a reader of this material you claim that you’re not
guilty of the political and theological apostasy that has led to encroachment of the Church’s hegemony over our own affairs.
 Perhaps you disagree with the SCOTUS decision regarding Obergefell v. Hodges.
 Maybe you voted against same-sex marriage
when it came on the ballot in your state.
— 145 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
 Maybe you home school your kids, outside of
the reach of the moral relativism of the government school system and its growing commitment to Common Core.
 Maybe you take care of the widows and orphans in your church by a biblically-based giving program with clearly defined criteria for
participation that corresponds with the requirements of Scripture.
 Maybe your church cares for its own poor,
needy, and elderly with a carefully administered program that encourages people who
don’t know Christ to come and learn about him
at your Church, and then be ministered to with
their housing, food, and medical needs.
 If you’re married, perhaps you haven’t succumbed to the ways of the world as applied to
that certain form of multiple serial adulteries we
call in California no-fault divorce.
 Maybe your behavior with your spouse before
you were joined in marriage was not characterized by pre-marital seduction.
 Maybe you’ve never slandered your spouse in a
divorce proceeding or in post-marital divorce
court with false accusations intended to posture
yourself as the prevailing party in Family Court.
Let’s say all of this is true about you, your family life, your local
church, and your personal ministry. Nevertheless, perhaps you’ve
been affected—and infected—by the growing hatred and animosity
— 146 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
being displayed of late against a conservative, evangelical approach
to courtship, marriage, and marital standards relating to divorce and
remarriage. In short, you think you have nothing from which to repent. “It’s the fault of all those unbelievers and those liberal Christians who don’t really believe or obey the Bible.”
The prophet Daniel found himself in a situation throughout his
entire lifetime not unlike what you’re going through today. He was
taken captive to Babylon from Israel due to the invasion of his homeland by Nebuchadnezzar’s army. While still a young boy, he and his
three friends were enrolled—involuntarily—into the undergraduate
and graduate government-sponsored schooling system of Nebuchadnezzar’s oppressive, tyrannical regime. Daniel was force-fed the
propagandistic ways of Babylon, including education in astrology
practices that are forbidden in the Hebrew Scriptures to be practiced
by God’s people.
Everything Daniel studied and did was orchestrated by an oppressive, controlling dictatorship wrapped around national policy
intended to make their students competent to serve Nebuchadnezzar’s domineering national and foreign policy interests. Daniel and
his friends were even forced to participate in Nebuchadnezzar’s government-sponsored school lunch program!
The incident recorded in the first chapter of Daniel bears a striking resemblance to President Barack Obama’s wife’s federally-mandated school lunch program on steroids. It took a remarkable incident of direct divine intervention to exempt Daniel and his three
friends from having to participate in that Obama-esque meal program.
Despite all the animosity directed against them, Daniel and his
three friends lived their entire lives in a non-compromise witness
and testimony to the reality of God and his standards right in the
exact center of that oppressive environment. And God protected
— 147 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
them supernaturally throughout their lives, as we read in the book
of Daniel.
But toward the end of his life, after the 70 years of captivity were
coming to an end, Daniel compiled the following record of what he
did about the situation. We’ve added our observations by way of application of this incident so those of us in 21st century America can
gain a few practical insights regarding how we should respond to
Obergefell v. Hodges for those of us who maintain a clear conscience
about what has happened to the United States:
“So I turned my attention to the Lord God,
seeking him in prayer and supplication, accompanied
with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes.
3
Daniel recognized the seriousness of the situation, and decided
to focus on God himself as the only savior for his personal and national needs after the Babylonian Empire collapsed and Ahasuerus
came into power over the combined kingdom of the Medes and the
Persians.
His wasn’t just a quick prayer. It included serious fasting and
supplication. The man was in mourning throughout the prayer and
supplication time that he describes in chapter nine of the book of
Daniel. We learn later in the book of Daniel that he was praying for
a solid three weeks until God arrived to answer him.
There’s a good possibility that Daniel’s decision to set aside a
time of prayer and fasting resulted in him being tossed into the
Lion’s Den, an incident that is recorded in chapter six of his book. If
we’re right about this theory, it means that Daniel received the vision
described in Daniel 9 about the Seventy Weeks of Years while he was
surrounded by a bunch of starving lions who were supernaturally
kept from killing God’s servant.
— 148 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
I prayed to the LORD my God, confessing and
saying: “LORD! Great and awesome God, who keeps
his covenant and gracious love for those who love him
and obey his commandments,…”
4
Daniel starts with a confession of the greatness of God and his
faithfulness to himself, his character, his nature, and his promises
toward those who love him and obey his commandments. For those
of our readers who need a little education in Systematic Theology,
Daniel’s reference to those who love God and obey his commandments is to God’s Elect, the people for whom Jesus of Nazareth
would one day in the future die. Daniel is praying for God’s people,
not for the unbelieving community of ancient Medo-Persia.
“…we’ve sinned, we’ve practiced evil, we’ve
acted wickedly, and we’ve rebelled, turning away
from your commands and from your regulations.
6Furthermore, we haven’t listened to your servants, the
prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, to our
officials, to our ancestors, and to all of the people of the
land.”
5
Let’s take a minute here to pause and examine very carefully the
list of sins to which Daniel is confessing. He hasn’t been guilty of
committing a single one of them! They were all committed by disobedient, idolatrous Israelis whose lifestyle resulted in the abandonment wrath of God being poured out onto national Israel. It wasn’t
Daniel who sinned, but he confessed the sins of those whose disobedience to God and his standards had led to the Babylonian captivity.
The unbelieving Jews of his day were the ones who had practiced
evil, who had acted wickedly, who had rebelled, and who had
turned away from God’s commands and regulations. Daniel was in-
— 149 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
nocent of all of these things. Furthermore, it wasn’t Daniel who ignored God’s prophets. It was the rest of ancient Israel’s society who
had done all of that!
‘To you, LORD, belongs righteousness, but to us,
open humiliation—even to this day, to the men of
Judah, the residents of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, both
those who are nearby and those who are far away in all
the lands to which you drove them because of their
unfaithful acts that they committed against you. 8Open
humiliation belongs to us, LORD, to our kings, our
officials, and our ancestors, because we’ve sinned
against you.”
7
Do note, if you would, how Daniel’s prayer of confession does
not blame God for the circumstances that had come upon his nation.
Quite the opposite, he commends God for his righteousness and holiness, and acknowledges that public humiliation has been part of
the consequences that have come from abandoning God’s standards.
As a result, God’s people throughout the inhabited world of
Daniel’s day—“the men of Judah, the residents of Jerusalem, and to
all Israel, both those who are nearby and those who are far away in
all the lands” to which they had been scattered—had been driven
away from God’s land. Daniel took personal responsibility for all of
this behavior, even though he wasn’t guilty of any of it. As you’ll
note in verse 8, above, Daniel includes himself in the public humiliation that had affected his people.
But to the LORD our God belong mercy and
forgiveness, though we’ve rebelled against him 10and
have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God by
walking in his laws that he gave us through his
servants the prophets. 11And all Israel flouted your
9
— 150 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Law, turning aside from it and not obeying your voice.
Because we’ve sinned against him, the curse has been
poured upon us, along with the oath written in the
Law of Moses the servant of God.”
The essence of Daniel’s prayer confession is centered in verses 911 that we’ve cited above. Notice how the hinge point of Daniel’s
confession is the mercy and forgiveness of God, and not his judgmental righteousness. He contrasts God’s mercy with the rebelliousness in which Daniel includes himself as part of his corporate confession, even though he wasn’t guilty of that rebellion on any level.
He includes the entire nation of Israel in the confession that he makes,
saying “all Israel flouted your Law.” As a result, God’s abandonment wrath resulted in the curses coming to pass that God had recorded through Moses in the latter pages of the book of Deuteronomy.
‘He has confirmed his accusation that he spoke
against us and against our rulers who governed us by
bringing upon us great calamity, because nowhere in
the universe has anything been done like what has
been done to Jerusalem. 13As it’s written in the Law of
Moses, all this calamity has befallen us, but we still
haven’t sought the LORD our God by turning from our
lawlessness to pay attention to your truth. 14So the
LORD watched for the right time to bring the calamity
upon us, because the LORD our God is righteous
regarding everything he does, but we have not obeyed
his voice.
12
As you peruse verses 12-14, above, we invite you to note how
Daniel describes the resultant circumstances that had come upon his
— 151 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
nation as having been orchestrated by God, uniquely planned specifically for Israel. Perhaps the believing community of God’s people
in the United States of America could take a similar posture when
they approach the throne of grace to ask God about what he intends
to do with the United States of America in light of Obergefell v.
Hodges. To use Daniel’s own words, “the LORD watched for the right
time to bring the calamity upon us, because the LORD our God is
righteous regarding everything he does, but we have not obeyed his
voice.”
‘And now, LORD our God, who brought your
people from the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and
who made a name for yourself that remains to this
day—we’ve sinned. We’ve acted wickedly. 16 LORD, in
view of all your righteous acts, please turn your anger
and wrath away from your city Jerusalem, your holy
mountain. Because of our sins and the iniquities of our
ancestors, Jerusalem and your people have become an
embarrassment to all of those around us.
15
If the focus of Daniel’s prayer of confession and supplication is
the mercy of God, the basic content of the resulting petition that Daniel presents is centered on the honor, glory, and reputation of God in
the world. God has established his work (in the case of Israel it was
by bringing Israel from the land of Egypt) “to make a name” for himself that would last for generations and centuries to come.
But the Church has sinned. As a result of the sins of God’s people
who are living today (and as a result of the sin of past generations
who have already died), Daniel tells us in verse 16, God’s “people
have become an embarrassment to all of those around us.” If that
description doesn’t describe the plight of the Church in America today, I don’t know how else to describe the situation more accurately.
— 152 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
‘So now, O God, listen to the prayer of your
servant and to his requests, and look with favor on
your desolate sanctuary, for the sake of the LORD.
18
Turn your ear and listen, O God. Open your eyes and
look at our desolation and at the city that is called by
your name. We’re not presenting our requests before
you because of our righteousness, but because of your
great compassion.
19”LORD, listen!
“LORD, forgive!
“LORD, take note and take action!
“For your own sake, don’t delay, my God, because
your city and your people are called by your name.”
17
Notice in conclusion, if you would, how Daniel specifically addresses the higher and best plans and purposes as the motivation for
God to have mercy on dispersed Israel. It’s “for the sake of the LORD”
(verse 17). Forsaking any pretense of righteousness, he relies on
God’s great compassion. We must do the same, summarizing our
prayer by a request for our grace-bestowing Lord to listen, to forgive,
— 153 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Congress of the United States
to take note, and to take action. And to act quickly, since “your people are called by your name”.
A CALL FOR A DIVESTITURE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY OVER THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Bluntly and plainly spoken, the Church needs to repent from allowing the camel of government interference in the things of Jesus
the Messiah to enter into the tent of the local church and take up residence there. Nothing less than an old-fashioned revival and recommitment to God’s holiness is needed.
One starting point for demonstrating the sincerity of our recommitment to God’s holiness can be made publicly visible when, on
both a congregational and on an individual level, Christian believers
disconnect themselves and their local churches from local, state, and
federal intrusion on their faith and practice. Toward that end, we
have enlisted the aid and counsel of a group of conservative, evangelical pastors and local church leaders to assist us crafting a Covenant of Divestiture that is intended to be entered into by and between
— 154 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
local church members of congregations and their families. A suggested wording of the Covenant of Divestiture is attached to this Special Communication as Appendix Two. Included in the wording of the
Covenant of Divestiture are the following:
 A public statement of repentance and disavowal by which federal, state, and local intrusion on local church faith, worship, ministry,
and practice is to be refuted and the independent autonomy and hegemony of the local church
is to be reconfirmed.
 Included specifically in the Covenant of Divesture
is the naming of the Congress of the United
States and the court system of the federal government with specific identifiers.
 Also included in the Covenant of Divestiture is a
public commitment not to report family marital
status of local church members to local, state,
and federal authorities.
 Also included is a public commitment on the
part of congregation members not to provide
federal or local census information or tax return
information on marital status on the grounds of
separation of church and state.
 The Covenant of Divestiture also includes a biblically based statement of marriage and remarriage that includes removal of any reference to
state authority from marital pronouncements
by clergy.
We’re inviting local congregations to post the corporate Covenant
of Divestiture in the lobby of the local church auditorium (or in the
— 155 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
narthex of the local church sanctuary for congregations that practice
a more formal, liturgical worship format). This public posting is intended to create and disseminate a very obvious commitment on the
part of the signing congregation to take back the high ground of
Christian faith and practice from local, state, and federal government
intrusion.
We are working with Koechel-Peterson, a nationally known
Christ-centered publications design house, to design and produce a
presentation version of the Covenant of Divestiture that can be signed
by local church leaders and then mounted in a display frame for
placement in a prominent location within the local church assembly.
We’ve also working on a version of the Covenant of Divestiture designed to be printed on an 8.5x11” sheet of paper for inclusion as a
hand-out to visitors who are thinking about joining the local congregation so that they can be notified of the commitment made by the
congregation to disconnect itself from government intrusion on
Christian faith and practice in the areas of education, family welfare,
social care for the poor and infirm, and the laws, practices, and tradition of Christian marriage.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS WITH A VIEW TO ADMINISTERING BOTH JUSTICE
AND GRACE
I should like to conclude this communication by suggesting that
we learn some lessons from how Jesus administered justice in a case
of sexual immorality. Granted, the case he tried was not for a charge
of homosexually immoral behavior. It was for regular, run-of-themill adultery. But the same principles of biblical jurisprudence that
informed the case of the woman caught in adultery can be brought
to bear today by Christians because under biblical law, pre-marital
sexual activity or extra-marital sexual activity (whether homosexually based or not) is still defined as a form of porneia, or sexual immorality.
— 156 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
We find it disturbing that much of today’s controversy surrounding same sex relationships addresses only one form of moral
turpitude. Only homosexual misbehavior is targeted by legislation.
But we’re not suggesting that existing moral legislation be amended
to include other immoral acts besides those springing from homosexual activity, such as “run-of-the-mill” adultery or pre-marital sex.
We are suggesting that a few recommendations be adopted for implementing a biblical structure of jurisprudence with respect to
crimes of moral turpitude affecting the people of God. In a representative republic such as the United States of America, Christian
citizens have a right to draft and pass legislation that accomplishes
the following objectives:
 First, we recommend that a policy of restitution
to the victim in lieu of incarceration be crafted
and implemented for theft, crimes of defrauding, and other minor crimes. We are aware that
this recommendation does not, strictly speaking, involve homosexual activity. But for the
sake of adopting a consistent and biblically
based jurisprudence, this recommendation
should be implemented. Implementing such a
policy across the board for municipal, state, or
federal crimes could save millions of dollars in
incarceration costs.
 Second, for those who do not have the means to
pay restitution, we further recommended that
the laws to be redrafted to require that perpetrators work to repay their victims, unless the victim waives right of restitution.
— 157 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
 Third, we recommend empaneling a special independent commission to investigate current
cases of incarceration with a view to converting
those incarcerations to restitution in lieu of imprisonment.
 Fourth, we recommend that a policy be instituted by which the courts decline to prosecute
crimes of moral turpitude in which the victim is
willing to go on record with public testimony
before the Court as having forgiven the perpetrator.
 Fifth, we recommend that a policy be instituted
whereby the perpetrator of a moral crime for
which the victim forgives the criminal but
where the perpetrator expresses no remorse or
repentance is publicly identified as such, and released from custody to live in public shame for
having disgraced the victim, for having dishonored the standards of God, and for having willfully failed to live up to the moral standards of
the people of God. Cases of violent sexual attack
should result in permanent, life-long imprisonment without possibility of parole. Repentant
individuals can be encouraged to undergo ministry training so as to minister to other incarcerated individuals.
 Sixth, let retributive justice beyond the above be
left in the hands of God, perhaps with a public
statement that says precisely that.
— 158 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
 Seventh, we recommend that the leaders of
God’s people declare a special one day holiday
of prayer and fasting, during which time personal past failures to live up to God’s standards
are admitted, with forgiveness from God be implored and forgiveness from the victims be
asked, and during which a public commitment
is made to honor God and his standards in all of
your ways for the future.
 Eighth, we recommend that a public declaration
that the evening of this day of fasting and repentance be ended with a publicly declared occasion of feasting and joy, during which God is
thanked publicly for his grace in having granted
new life and hope to the hurting.
 Lastly, we recommend that the day of fasting
(and ending it with feasting) be an annual event.
Perhaps the appropriate day to do this in future
years might be set to coincide with 26 June, the
anniversary of Obergefell.
Having done all of the above, perhaps we’ll be equipped to
watch God place his hand of blessing on the people of God, on our
country, on our society, on our economy, and on the work of those
who chose to live life to the glory of God, as befits a Christian nation.
— 159 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
— 160 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Appendix One: A
Response to Sarah
Harris’ The New
Testament and SameSex Relationships
— 161 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
— 162 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Special Communication
A Response to Dr. Sarah Harris’
Presentation The NT and Same-Sex
Relationships
by William P. Welty, Ph.D.
This Special Communication is responsive to an invitation received by us
to review and critique a presentation made on Thursday evening, 12 September 2012 at the Greenlane Christian Centre affiliated with Carey Baptist College of Auckland. The presentation was made by that institution’s
New Testament Studies lecturer Dr. Sarah Harris concerning the subject
The NT and Same-Sex Relationships. The three-page document that
we reviewed (and to which this correspondence is intended to be responsive) appears to be a transcript of an oral summary of a prepared presentation that was part of a ninety-minute public event. The Harris Presentation addresses a number of statements made by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27, but Dr. Harris reaches problematic conclusions therefrom
based on flawed thinking and a number of presuppositional errors that
betray either a misunderstanding or a deliberate ignoring of the Jewish
and Roman cultural and theological milieu of the New Testament era in
which the Apostle Paul wrote the longer section of Romans 1:24-32, of
which Romans 1:26-27 is only a small portion. Along the way, the classic
tautological mistake by Dr. Harris of assuming as true what one is attempting to prove results in an endorsement of same-sex relationships
that cannot be supported by a cogent syntactical analysis of the Pauline
triune “slippery slope” doctrine of divine abandonment wrath that is the
true focus of Romans 1:24-32.
— 163 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION: A CALL TO NORMATIVE DIALOGUE,
NOT TO EMOTIONAL POSTURING
Within hours of the initial delivery of version 1.0 of this Special
Communication, copies of it had been disseminated to more than two
hundred people affiliated to one degree or another with the Christian community of New Zealand. At least one of the copies was accompanied by an out-of-context inflammatory statement about our
assessment of Dr. Harris’ position with respect to how she views the
theology of Romans 1:26-27. A copy of version 1.0 of this Special Communication was sent to Dr. Sarah Harris, and I was sent a copy of her
initial response, which read as follows:
Thanks…! This has surprised even me! The guy does not
even have a PhD in biblical studies but communication!
Thanks for forwarding it. I hadn't seen it.
Perhaps a minor correction is in order here. Dr. Harris is correct
when she observes that my Ph.D. is not in biblical studies. It’s in
Christian Communications from an American-based Baptist postgraduate school. My Ph.D. dissertation related to my attempts to
bring a biblical world view to the professional arena of international
telecommunications.54 But my Master’s degree was earned from
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School one of the most respected conservative seminaries in the United States. I studied under Dr.
Gleason Archer, one of the foremost authorities in biblical languages
in the world, and learned from Dr. Walter Kaiser, the now-retired
President of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, which was
founded by Dr. Billy Graham. I maintained regular communication
with Dr. Archer until his death, and remain in contact with Dr. Kaiser to this day.
54
A copy of that dissertation may be downloaded from http://williamwelty.com/william/docs/general/dissertation.pdf.
— 164 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
I taught New Testament Greek for ten years at Simon Greenleaf
University of Anaheim, California, which was founded by internationally renowned evangelical Christian apologists Dr. John Warwick Montgomery and the late Dr. Walter Martin, both of whom I
knew well. (Trinity International University, parent of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, owned and operated by the Evangelical Free
Church of America, acquired Simon Greenleaf University in the late
1990’s and now operates it as Trinity Law School.) I sat for a season
on the board of advisors of the law school.
As to my affinity for biblical languages, I am a professional Bible
translator by full-time occupation. Some of my public contributions
to the field of evangelical Christian scholarship are documented to
some extent on my personal web site. They include at least the following:
 Production of a Harmony of the Gospels from the text of the
Greek New Testament and the Holy Bible: International Standard Version; and,
 A study entitled On the Jewish Community's Rendering of EtAsher Formulae in the Tanakh (JPS 1917, et al.), a Hebrew language analysis and defense of the NT claim that Zechariah
12:10 contains a prediction that the God of Israel incarnate
would one day be impaled by a weapon of war; and,
 A study of principles of biblically-based charitable giving entitled Emigration to the High Countries: On Converting Wealth to
the Coin of the Future Kingdom; and,
 A study in Marital Dysfunction in Jacob’s Family, a Hebrew language analysis of certain aspects of interspousal conflict evident between Jacob and his multiple marriage partners; and,
 Rethinking the Veil: On First Corinthians 11:2-16, an essay that
addresses a commonly misunderstood passage in the Apostle
— 165 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Paul's first letter to Corinth regarding the veiling of women;
and,
 Production by me of the base translation of about one third of
the text of the Hebrew Old Testament for the Holy Bible: International Standard Version; and,
 Serving as Old Testament editor of the ISV from the late
1990’s until the present.
I also contributed to a defense of the West in general and of the Christian faith in particular from attacks against it by conservative, Wahhabi-like, radical Islam, such as:
 A defense of Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an,
 Contributor to Between Christ and Mohammed, a book-length
analysis of the differences between Christianity and Islam.
I also contributed to an analysis of the complex claims of the NT that
the very same God who, as the Creator of the Universe, had appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob—and all of Old Testament Israel—
also revealed Himself in the fullness of time as the Covenant Godincarnate, fully divine and fully human Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah.
In November 2005, I was appointed Senior Research Analyst in
Advanced Communication Technologies and Adjunct Professor of
Middle Eastern Studies on the faculty of Koinonia Institute, where I
serve pro bono. Koinonia Institute is a conservative, evangelical
think tank founded by Dr. Charles Missler and now located in New
Zealand. It serves the Christian and international business community and is a division of Koinonia House, which creates, develops, and
distributes materials to stimulate, encourage, and facilitate serious
study of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
— 166 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
In sum, I possess the academic qualifications to speak on the subject matter of the Greek grammar, syntax, and historical context of
Paul’s letter to the Romans. Accordingly, the scholarship contained
within this Special Communication speaks for itself. So we invite our
critics to focus their attention on the content of the debate, not on
questions concerning the academic background of the debate participants. Observe, if you would please, that at no time have I questioned the theological training of Dr. Harris. I have questioned only
her theological positions relating to homosexual behavior and her
misunderstanding of Romans 1:24-32, not her academic training. The
two items are two separate subjects.
One more thing needs to be said. Dr. Harris also noted that:
There is one lawyer in town who was really upset by what I
said and try as I did to talk with him, he just [sic] think gays are
an abomination to God and the scriptures talk about orientation
not behaviour. He's wrong! They talk about behaviour.
I cannot speak to this attorney’s motivations and/or heart attitudes. I also suspect that an inadvertent typographical error caused
her to write “he just think” instead of “he must think” gays are an
abomination to God. With all due respect to Dr. Harris and her unnamed attorney critic, both of them are in the wrong here. The attorney is wrong to say “the scriptures talk about orientation not behaviour.” Dr. Harris is correct. To use her own words, “They talk about
behaviour.”
But the attorney is also incorrect if he actually claims that “gays
are an abomination to God.” Strictly speaking, the scriptures say all
human sin, springing as it does from what Paul describes in Romans
1:24-32 as an abandonment wrath of God, is an abomination to God.
As we note herein, what Dr. Harris calls “being gay” is from a biblical perspective the temptation (and not necessarily the act) of practicing πορνεία, the NT term for general sexual immorality, of which
— 167 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
homosexual behavior is but a subset of a larger reality. The NT view
of what we call “being gay” is just as serious in God’s sight as any
other kind of sexual temptation: it is to be resisted by the power of
God.
We are not inexperienced with respect to dialogue with the
Christian community about what Paul says regarding homosexual
activity. There is much confusion and willful stubbornness being
manifested on both sides of the debate. For example, the ISV Foundation received a communication from a Christian pastor about Romans 1:31 a number of years ago, and for the sake of calling all sides
of this debate to drop their theological anger and engage in prayerful
life examination, we reproduce the entire email thread here. A reader
wrote to us as follows:
I am very disturbed that you translated the Greek
word in Romans 1:31, astorge as “heartless.” The reason
I am very disturbed over this is: The last half of chapter
one, the entire context is describing how far the human
race has departed from the natural use of men for
women, and vice versa. Paul then describes this
practice as an “abomination unto God”.
We responded:
You are partially correct. Actually, every act
described in Romans 1:29-31 is an abomination to God,
i.e., every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, depravity,
envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, viciousness, gossips,
slanderers, God-haters, haughty, arrogant, boastful,
inventors of evil, disobedient to their parents, foolish,
faithless, heartless, ruthless. Each of these is
abominable. And you're only going to focus, as noted
below, on homosexuality? Please, don't focus on just
— 168 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
one abomination in Romans 1. Paul certainly doesn't.
Meanwhile, more on your misunderstanding of
astorge, below...
The reader responded (incorrectly, as we’ll point out, below):
He is not saying in verse 31, “heartless” = ISV, nor
other modern versions “unloving”. The context rules
out the use of a basic translation such as this, and Paul
is very explicit in using this Greek word astorge
because what he is discussing is UNNATURAL
AFFECTION, he is not saying “unloving”, because the
misdirected love of lesbians and homosexuals is very
strong, indeed.
We attempted to correct this error. We wrote:
Your ignorance of basic Greek (astorge as the only
use of the root word storge, which means natural
affection coupled with the alpha privative that turns it
into “without natural affection”) is appalling. The
“unnatural affection” about which Paul is talking isn't
homosexual behavior. That’s because his discussion on
sexual behavior ends at the conclusion of verse 27 and
a new subject begins in verse 28.
For Paul to say they lacked natural sexual affection
would require him to add the alpha privative to eros;
i.e., to invent a Greek word such as aneros (or the like,
meaning “without sexual affection”). Instead, the
“natural affection” spoken of by Paul in Romans 1:31
as being lacking refers, strictly speaking to being
“without parental affection”. Think of today's “prochoice” movement that induces women to kill their
unborn children and you won't be far from the mark.
— 169 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
But astorge as homosexual behavior? Not hardly, sir.
That's described in verse 26-27.
As I just mentioned, by the time you get to verse
28, Paul has passed beyond the sins of homosexual
behavior and is now discussing “degraded minds that
perform acts that should not be done.” Paul's
statement of the landslide of degradation does not end
in homosexual behavior in verse 27. Instead, it
continues beyond that sin to other things. Reread
Romans 1:26-32 again. Disobedience to parents (verse
30) and ruthlessness (verse 31) are farther down the
scale of depravity than is homosexual behavior. Do
keep that in mind next time you address your church's
youth group, won't you? The meanness with which
young people can mock others their age relentlessly,
picking on those who are different in dress, mental
capacity (above or below theirs, attacking “geeks” or
the mentally challenged) or their disrespect and/or
rebellion to their parents is listed by Paul in Romans
1:28-32 as worse on the list of debauchery than is
homosexual behavior—even though homosexual
behavior is clearly the result of “degrading passions”
(Romans 1:26). Next time you're tempted to rail against
homosexual behavior, do remember, won't you, to
conclude by pointing out that the sins in verses 29-31
are worse than homosexual behavior.
But the reader responded:
I, as a retired minister, have counseled with this
type of person, and they do have great (but entirely
“misdirected”) love for each other! “Unloving”?— NO!
— 170 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
So we replied:
This comment misunderstands Romans 1:31. As
noted above, these sins are on the list farther down
than homosexual behavior. Paul changed his subject
matter from homosexual behavior when he began
verse 28. That's why we begin it with the words,
“Furthermore, because...”
To all of this the reader responded with remarkable stubbornness:
Paul is describing in this passage what an
abomination lesbians and homosexuals are to God
because the entire context is about UNNATURAL
LOVE, men to men, and women to women.
So we replied:
No. Again, the discussion of homosexual behavior
ended at the conclusion of verse 27. Verse 28 is a whole
new list of “acts that should not be done”; i.e., sins that
spring from the behavior of not thinking “it
worthwhile to retain the full knowledge of God”. Not
the full knowledge of straight sexuality, by the way.
But this reader continued to maintain his view that….
Your translation of this Greek word to “heartless”
is totally incorrect,...
So we reminded him:
No. It's totally correct for the context, since by the
time verse 31 comes along, Paul has left homosexual
behavior and gone on to the next level of depravity
noted in verse 28.
And he continued to respond:
— 171 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
...it misses the point (the teaching of the context)
altogether.
So in our final response, we wrote:
You missed the context. The context of
homosexual behavior was concluded at verse 27. Verse
28 starts a new, more grievous list of sins to which
people have been given over by God through mental
deficiencies of some kind (verse 28). By the way, Jesus
noted that there was a sin greater than homosexual
behavior. He said that Capernaum would see the
judged sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah rise at the
resurrection and condemn them, because if the mighty
works that had been done in that town had been done
for Sodom and Gomorrah, those two cities would have
remained until Christ's day.
So Jesus himself said that to reject his message is
worse than is homosexual behavior. That's a better
message for evangelism, wouldn't you think, than
discussing homosexual behavior? After all, those folks
are so blind to their sexual sin that they can't tell good
from evil. But they can and do know that they've
rejected Jesus' command to repent! They'll be blind to
your condemnation of their sexual activity, so why not
tell them that your own sin before you met Christ was
worse than theirs?
You had rejected the message of Jesus, and one day
the homosexual practitioners of Sodom and Gomorrah
might have risen to condemn you, but for the grace of
God. And then tell them to go and do likewise. Tell
them to repent of not believing the gospel, and the
— 172 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
forsaking of homosexual behavior will follow on
naturally as the Holy Spirit grants them repentance.55
We invite our critics to remember that we have not attacked all
of Dr. Harris’ views about the Bible, Christian life, or sin in general—
only her conclusions regarding what the homosexual and lesbian
community and its adherents call a “gay lifestyle”. To make things
abundantly clear in regards to this, we’ve taken the liberty of marking in yellow highlighter that portion of the Harris Presentation with
which we have no fundamental objection.
An observant reader will note that only a small portion of the
Harris Presentation causes us concern. You’ll see them not marked
in yellow highlight. But then again, it’s the nature of poisons that
only small amounts can be fatal. A little arsenic permeates throughout the entire drink, and as a result, a single sip can kill. Christ’s
comments about how a small amount of leaven can penetrate an entire batch of bread dough come to mind here, I do believe. To sum
up, we request that both sides of this discussion engage in calm, orderly, and normative debate, and refrain from ad hominem arguments
and emotional diatribes. But now it’s time to begin our analysis.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER CONTEXT: TOWARD A COGENT
HERMENEUTIC OF ROMANS 1:26-27
The larger context of Romans 1:24-32 must be studied as a matter
of first principle before we proceed to analyze the claims regarding
same-sex relationships advocated in the Harris Presentation. 56 The
This thread was originally posted as part of the ISV Foundation’s Catacombs blog web site.
See, for example, Dr. John Piper’s excellent exegetical analysis of Romans 1:24-32 (Part One
and Part Two), and a sermon entitled Discerning the Will of God Concerning Homosexuality and
Marriage. Dr. Piper’s Position Paper on Homosexuality has been published as a guide for church
polity and practice by Bethlehem Baptist Church, from which Dr. Piper is retired as Teaching Pastor.
Dr. Piper’s presentations includes practical pastoral counsel from a conservative, evangelical,
reformed, Calvinist, Baptist perspective for individuals who are concerned about homosexual
tendencies, either within themselves or within their relatives.
55
56
— 173 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
complete passage reads as follows in the Holy Bible: International
Standard Version (and in the indented Greek text set forth below):
For this reason, God delivered them to sexual
impurity as they followed the lusts of their hearts and
dishonored their bodies with one another. 25They
exchanged God’s truth for a lie and worshipped and
served the creation rather than the Creator, who is
blessed forever. Amen.
24 Διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς ἐν ταῖς
ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ
ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς· 25 οἵτινες
μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει καὶ
ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν
κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
26For this reason, God delivered them to degrading
passions as their females exchanged their natural
sexual function for one that is unnatural. 27In the same
way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual
function toward females and burned with lust toward
one another. Males committed indecent acts with
males, and received within themselves the appropriate
penalty for their perversion.
26 Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη
ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν
φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, 27 ὁμοίως τε καὶ
οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας
ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους,
ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργα–
ζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης
αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.
24
— 174 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
28Furthermore,
because they did not think it
worthwhile to keep knowing God fully, God delivered
them to degraded minds to perform acts that should
not be done. 29They have become filled with every kind
of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full
of envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, and viciousness.
They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, haughty,
arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to
their parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, and
ruthless. 32Although they know God’s just
requirement—that those who practice such things
deserve to die—they not only do these things but even
applaud others who practice them.
28 Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν
ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον
νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα, 29 πεπληρωμένους
πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς
φθόνου
φόνου
ἔριδος
δόλου
κακοηθείας,
ψιθυριστὰς 30 κατα–λάλους θεοστυγεῖς ὑβριστὰς
ὑπερ–ηφάνους ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν,
γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, 31 ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους
ἀστόργους ἀνελεήμονας· 32 οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ
θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι
θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ
συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν.57
Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wigner, A. (1993). The
Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (410–411). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.
57
— 175 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
A marked unfamiliarity with and/or a deliberate overlooking of
Koiné Greek language grammar, syntax, and historical context of the
text of this NT passage is also discernible in the Harris Presentation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A PLETHORA OF TRUTHFUL STATEMENTS
MIXED WITH AN ABUNDANCE OF PRESUPPOSITIONAL ERRORS
The focus of the Harris Presentation is on the Apostle Paul’s
statements in Romans 1:26-27.58 The Harris Presentation is characterized by a large number of accurate and biblically true statements that
have been interspersed with many destructive and deceptive assumptions that spring from flawed and erroneous thinking. Dr. Harris is correct when she asserts that “what makes us distinct as evangelicals is the way we look to the authority of scripture”, 59 refusing
to “hide from its message”60 or taking “away the parts of it that do
not fit comfortably with ourselves or our culture,”61 but she reaches
problematic conclusions from Romans 1:26-27 because of a number
of presuppositional errors that reveal a basic misunderstanding of
the NT milieu in which the Apostle Paul wrote the larger context of
Romans 1:24-32.
Therefore, the presuppositional errors that inform her theology
cause Dr. Harris to depart from the tenets of historical, orthodox
Judeo-Christian doctrine and practice, thus leading to endorsement
of same-sex relationships as her recommended new normative posture with respect to homosexual behavior. The result is that Dr. Harris has embraced a social posture for the Christian church that stands
irredeemably opposed to the faith “that was passed down to the
saints once and for all” (Jude 3) in the Scriptures.
58
Op. cit., Page 1, ¶1.
Ibid., ¶2.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
59
— 176 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
The effect of this departure from the faith is that in her presentation, Dr. Harris denies the authority of scripture that she claims to
believe. She hides from its message, and avoids the parts of Romans
1:26-27 that—to use her own words—“do not fit comfortably” with
her or with her adopted, non-evangelical culture. Romans 1:26-27,
she claims, is “at odds with trends in our society where we have a
guiding paradigm of inclusion”62 because “Paul’s view on homosexual and lesbian sex is clear—it is sinful.”63 Nevertheless, she affirms
outwardly that “the NT speaks repeatedly about what a transformed
life looks like—and sexual sin…often leads the list”64 of what has
been eliminated from a transformed life.
As Harris rightly observes, “What we do with our bodies matters to God. Theology and ethics work together; that is, what we believe about God has inherently practical application with how we
act.”65 For Dr. Harris, the real problem that vexes her understanding
of Paul’s statements in Romans 1:26-27 is that what the Apostle actually wrote does, in fact, stand “at odds with trends in our society”66
in the twenty-first century.
And so Dr. Harris chooses to apply a flawed hermeneutic to Romans 1:26-27 in order to conclude that same-sex relationships are not
so sinful in God’s sight as the plain grammar, syntax, and historical
context say that they are.
The first four paragraphs of the Harris Presentation contain
what appears at first to be evangelical orthodoxy, but then her descent into unorthodoxy begins in the middle of paragraph five on
62
Ibid. ¶4.
Ibid.
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid. ¶4.
63
64
— 177 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
page one. Dr. Harris correctly observes that “immoral behaviour follows on from idolatry which began when humans rejected God as
Creator in the fall, and this led to a downward spiral of sinful behaviour,”67 but then claims that in Paul’s wider list of sins, the Apostle
“is not isolating same-sex relationships as worse than gossips, slanderers, or people who are rebellious to their parents.”68
But surely this claim by Dr. Harris cannot be relied upon. Quite
the opposite, the Apostle documents a three-fold abandonment by
God of the unrepentant and rebellious sinner into His wrath:
 First, Paul states in Romans 1:24 that “for this reason (a refusal
to retain a knowledge of God on the part of sinners), God delivered them” (Gr. Διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς) to sexual impurity (Gr. ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις). This resultant dishonoring (Gr. τοῦ
ἀτιμάζεσθαι) of their bodies resulted in further degradation of
the human condition as they exchanged God’s truth for a lie
(Gr. μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει) and focused
their worship and spiritual service on God’s creation rather
than on God Himself (Gr. καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ
κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα,), which is the very essence of idolatry.
 Second, Paul claims that a non-repentant response to God’s first
stage of abandonment wrath causes God to deliver them “for
this reason” (Gr. Διὰ τοῦτο) to degrading passions as their females exchanged their natural function for one that is unnatural” (Gr. εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν), while males burned with lust (Gr.
ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει) toward one another, committing indecent acts (Gr. ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν) with males and receiving
within themselves a penalty suitable for their behavior that had
67
68
Ibid. ¶5.
Ibid.
— 178 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
been deviating (Gr. ἀπολαμβάνοντες) from God’s standard of
holy sexual behavior.
 Third and finally, Paul claims that “Furthermore” (Gr. Καὶ
καθὼς)—i.e., as a consequence of their non-repentant response
to God’s second stage of abandonment wrath, God delivered
them (Gr. παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς) to a “degraded mind” (Gr.
εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν), a Pauline term that connotes a warped
worldview of life in general, so that all sorts of “acts that should
not be done” (Gr. ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα,) are performed.
The end result of living under Paul’s third stage of God’s abandonment wrath is precisely the situation in which Dr. Harris finds herself
at the present time. Specifically, Dr. Harris knows “God’s just requirement—that those who practice such things deserve to die” (Gr.
τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι
θανάτου εἰσίν), but the posture of the Harris Presentation is that she
is applauding others who practice” (Gr. καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς
πράσσουσιν) these kinds of activity.
ON PAUL’S SO-CALLED “SILENCE” IN NOT DISCUSSING “SEXUAL
ORIENTATION”
Dr. Harris claims that the Apostle Paul “does not say anything
about sexual orientation.” Technically speaking, Dr. Harris is correct
about this claim because the term “sexual orientation” is not used in
the Bible. However, this claim is irrelevant to the context of Romans
1:24-32 because her argument is from silence. “Sexual orientation” is
a modern term of theological use or cultural discussion. Its use was
foreign to the thinking and theological vocabulary of the first century of the Christian era in which the Apostle wrote, even though
homosexual behavior by both men and women is a well-docu-
— 179 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
mented phenomenon. Its existence in the human condition is a consequence, Paul writes in Romans 1:26-27, of God’s abandonment
wrath. But then again, we must constantly be reminded that biblical
writers do not make much of a distinction between the temptation to
sin and committing the sin itself.
Accordingly, if NT writers were to be asked about “sexual orientation,” they would suggest that what our culture today calls “being gay” should more accurately be called “temptation to engage in
homosexual behavior”. Biblical writers would tell us that it should
be resisted after the same manner of Christ’s warning that to lust after someone with the intention of committing sexual immorality carries the same guilt before God as does committing the act in real
time. And they would say that the Christian church should deal with
homosexual behavior after the same manner as it has been instructed
to deal with the unrepentantly immoral: they are to expel the unrepentant Christian from the fellowship of believers if the disobedient
person rejects admonitions to turn from the sinful behavior.
Dr. Harris is on shaky, untrustworthy exegetical grounds when
she says “being gay is not a sin. Neither Paul here, nor any writer of
scripture, addresses sexual orientation; being gay is not a sin.”69 The
truth is that “being gay,” which must be defined biblically as “being
tempted to homosexual behavior,” is to be resisted by all who wish
to become godly believers. Dr. Harris is not on shaky grounds when
she says:
the heart of what Paul is saying to the church in
Rome when he says you deserve to die, Paul
understands that all sin separates us from God and
brings death, but that salvation brings life in the Spirit
69
Ibid. ¶6.
— 180 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
and transformed lives to all, on condition of faith. [He]
wants people to choose life.70
But she cannot get from that true statement to her conclusion that
71
“…it is not a sin to be gay.” The only conclusion that can be exegeted
properly from the Greek grammatical syntax, the historical context,
and the cultural milieu of Romans 1:26-27 is that “being gay” is a
temptation from which all Christians should flee because, as Dr.
Harris admits, all of us are “sinners in need of salvation.”72
To sum up, the Harris Presentation’s claim is essentially accurate
in so far as Paul’s aim in Romans 1 is not to prove the inherent evil
of homosexual acts, because “his aim is to explain how such behaviour is an expression of God’s wrath,”73 As Dr. Harris puts it succinctly, “The language sound harsh; it is—he is making a strong
statement about the power of sin.”74 But Dr. Harris goes astray in her
failure to distinguish between temptation and behavior.
The Apostle Paul’s instructions concerning sexual behavior are
clear and unequivocal. In 1 Thessalonians 4:3, he writes:
1Now then, brothers, you learned from us how you
ought to live and to please God, as in fact you are
doing. We ask and encourage you in the Lord to do so
even more. 2You know what instructions we gave you
through the Lord Jesus. 3For it is God’s will that you be
sanctified: You must abstain from sexual immorality.
4Each of you must know how to control his own body
in a holy and honorable manner, 5not with passion and
lust like the gentiles who do not know God.
70
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
73
Ibid., Page 2, ¶3.
74
Ibid.
71
72
— 181 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
6Furthermore,
you must never take advantage of or
exploit a brother in this regard, because the Lord
avenges all these things, just as we already told you
and warned you. 7For God did not call us to be impure,
but to be holy. 8Therefore, whoever rejects this
instruction is not rejecting human authority but God,
who gives you his Holy Spirit.
Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ
παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα καθὼς
παρελάβετε παρʼ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν
καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε, ἵνα
περισσεύητε μᾶλλον. 2 οἴδατε γὰρ τίνας παραγ–
γελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ.
3 Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς
ὑμῶν, ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, 4 εἰδέναι
ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν
ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ, 5 μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ
καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, 6 τὸ μὴ
ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεο–νεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν
ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότι ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων
τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ
διεμαρτυράμεθα. 7 οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ
ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλʼ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ. 8 τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν
οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν τὸν [καὶ]
διδόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑμᾶς.
Note the Apostle Paul’s use of the special term of theological art that
the ISV translates as “sexual immorality” (Gr. πορνείας). Christians
are not merely commanded, they are admonished to abstain from
this behavior (Gr. ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας).
— 182 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
The general word πορνεία used by the Apostle in 1 Thessalonians
4:3 connotes a plethora of sexual behavior. This all-encompassing
word contains within its meaning concepts of forbidden sexual behavior, including (but not merely limited to) sexual relationships
with animals, children, or individuals other than the spouse, rape,
prostitution, participation in sex slave and sex trade industries, premarital seduction, and even some forms of physical abuse of the
spouse when that abuse is motivated by aberrant attitudes of sexual
domination.
In short, all forms of those “variegated patterns of sexual behav75
ior” that Dr. Harris admits are mostly rejected by modern culture
are included in the Pauline definition of πορνεία. Paul’s warning is
severe: “the Lord avenges all these things” (1 Thessalonians 4:6b).
Finally, we must remember that pre-marital sexual activity is
also a subset of πορνεία. Homosexual activity before marriage is just
as forbidden as is heterosexual sexual activity. We’ll have more to
say about this, below.
ON PEDERASTY, “COMMITTED SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS,” AND DR.
HARRIS’S ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE REGARDING THE HISTORICAL
WORLD OF ROMANS
Basing an argument from silence is like building a house on
sand: the building is subject to collapse at any moment. The Harris
Presentation maintains that “it is often suggested that when Paul
writes to the Romans he is addressing pederasty [i.e., homosexual
76
sex with a minor] and not committed same-sex relationships”.
Meanwhile, she concedes that “it was considered shameful to be the
75
76
Ibid., Page 2, ¶5.
Ibid.
— 183 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
passive partner.”77 It would have been more enlightening, we suggest, for Dr. Harris to have written more accurately about pederasty
that in first century Roman culture “it was considered shameful to
be victim of child rape.”
Paul does not employ the Greek word for pederasty in Romans
1:24-32 because he doesn’t need to do so, since prohibitions against
pederasty are included in biblical injunctions against sexual behavior with any individual other than the spouse. As noted above, the
Greek term πορνεία includes pederasty as a subset of general immorality. Furthermore, strictly speaking, the Apostle Paul does not refer
to “lesbianism” or “homosexuality” per se in any of his writings,
since these terms were foreign to him and to the cultural milieu of
NT faith and practice. Instead, what is now referred to in our twentyfirst century culture as “lesbianism,” “homosexuality,” and “sexual
orientation” are called in the NT temptation—that is, to the more
general, all-encompassing sexual sin of πορνεία. Dr. Harris is incorrect when she states that
Paul describes two equals who “exchange natural
intercourse” and we find that “men” commit acts with
“men” and not with “boys”. This points to reciprocity
rather than abuse.78
Dr. Harris is just plain wrong here. The Greek word ἄρσην used
in Romans 1:27 does not mean merely an adult male. It means a male
of any age. Juvenile males of any age are included in Paul’s use of
the word ἄρσην by definition, and therefore sexual relations with
children are included within the condemnation set forth by the
Apostle as being a consequence of God’s abandonment wrath that
comes upon humanity as a result of their disobedience and idolatry.
77
78
Ibid.
Ibid.
— 184 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
As Louw and Nida explain in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament:
ἄρσην, εν, gen. ενος: the male of any living
creature—‘male, man.’ ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν
αὐτούς ‘he made them male and female’ Mt 19:4; οἱ
ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας
‘males giving up natural sexual relations with females’
Ro 1:27.79
Spiro Zodhiates also concurs:
ἄρσην ársēn; gen. ársenos, neut. ársen, an older
form of árrēn., masc. adj. Male (Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6;
Luke 2:23; Rom. 1:27; Gal. 3:28; Rev. 12:5, 13; Sept.: Gen.
1:27; Lev. 1:3; 3:1; 27:7).
Deriv.: arsenokoítēs (733), a homosexual.
Syn.: anēr (435), male, husband.
Ant.: thēlus (2338), female.80
as do Swanson’s observations concerning ἄρσην:
ἄρσην (arsēn), εν (en): adj. ≡ DBLHebr 2351; Str
730—1. LN 79.102 human male (Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6; Ro
1:27(3x); Gal 3:28; Rev 12:5, 13+); 2. LN 10.45 ἄρσην
διανοίγων μήτραν (arsēn dianoigōn mētran), firstborn
son, formally, male opening the womb (Lk 2:23+)81
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
semantic domains (2nd edition.) (703). New York: United Bible Societies.
79
Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament. Chattanooga, TN:
AMG Publishers.
80
Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament).
81
— 185 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
It is irrelevant to the grammar of Romans 1:24-32 that “while
pederasty was well known, so also were the union of two adults
which Paul’s description implies”82 because pederasty and homosexual unions are both included in the results of the abandonment
wrath of God in effect within the behavior of rebellious, but “consenting” adults.
ON “NATURE” AND “NATURAL”: THE “MYSTERY OF INIQUITY” AT
WORK IN HUMANITY’S FALLEN NATURE
Dr. Harris correctly observes that for Paul, “‘nature’ is firmly
centered in God’s creation.”83 But she descends into a humanistic,
relativistic worldview when she wrongly concludes that “‘against
nature’ or ‘contrary to nature’ never means ‘what is natural to me.’”84
To adopt such a relativistic world view would have been foreign to
Pauline thinking within the context of Jewish and Roman culture of
the first century A.D. We concede that certain pro-gay commentators
“almost universally agree that Paul does not use the language of ‘nature’ to describe one’s inborn sexual disposition.”85
But surely this “agreement” by the pro-gay community of theological commentators merely demonstrates that they, too, are subject
to the same abandonment wrath that informs the text of Romans
1:24-32. Conservative evangelicals claim that these pro-gay theologians are subject to having been given up as a consequence of their
non-repentant response to God’s second stage of abandonment
wrath—i.e., God delivered them (Gr. παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς) to a
“degraded mind” (Gr. εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν), a Pauline term that connotes a warped worldview of life in general, so that all sorts of “acts
82
83
The Harris Presentation, Page 2, ¶5.
Ibid., ¶7.
Ibid.
85
Ibid.
84
— 186 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
that should not be done” (Gr. ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα,) are performed.
We suggest that sloppy exegetical practices with respect to Romans
1:24-32 are included in the acts that should not be done by those who
have been abandoned to divine wrath.
Dr. Harris would do well to rethink the concept of Paul’s use of
the Greek word “nature” in the NT in general, and in Romans 1:2432 in particular. In other passages of the NT (which we won’t take
the time here to discuss), the Apostle hints at the profound complexity of sin: he calls it a “mystery of iniquity” (to use that old, quaint,
King James term) that is at work within the lives of the disobedient.
How far this mystery of iniquity has penetrated the human condition is never spelled out completely in Scripture—we’re only told
that the condition is eternally fatal and that the one and only cure for
the affliction is for us to confess with our mouth and believe in our
hearts that Christ has taken our place in punishment so that we can
be saved from this condition.
Meanwhile, has the mystery of iniquity penetrated not merely
into the human spirit and soul? Could it be that the mystery of iniquity has infected the very DNA of the human genetic code itself? If
sin has infected the human genome, the homosexual community
may well be correct when some of their adherents claim that they
cannot help being predisposed to homosexual behavior. If so, it’s going to take the resurrection body at the Last Day to remove the problem once and for all.
But then again, all humans are predisposed to sin. That’s what sin
does to fallen human beings. And, as we’ll note in our closing comments about sins that are more grievous to God than homosexual
activity, all post-fall sin comes about as a consequence of the abandonment wrath of God working within the human condition. And
all of it, homosexual temptation included, can be resisted by the omnipotent power of the indwelling Spirit of God Himself. And so there
— 187 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
is a way of escape from the penalty, the power, and one day the presence of the mystery of iniquity that the Bible calls “sin”. That way of
escape is called the “Good News”. The process of salvation from the
mystery of iniquity includes:
 The past action of God in Christ reconciling Himself
to the world through the death and subsequent resurrection of His Son; and,
 The present act of sanctification by which we are instructed to cooperate with God in our present life situations by walking in day-to-day, moment-by-moment
sensitivity and obedience to the promptings of the
Holy Spirit that lead us step-by-step to maturity and
godliness; and,
 That certain hope of the future glorification of our resurrected bodies that will never again be subject to degradations inflicted upon us by our sinful nature.
In the meantime, we do find it likely that the homosexual activists may well be correct when they claim that male-female “complimentary does not exist in same-sex relationships.”86 But we claim
that this lack of “complimentary” is a consequence of sin that has
infected the human condition. As Dr. Harris concedes:
Greek and Roman authors regarded all
homosexual acts with disdain. Most importantly, the
Old Testament rejects homosexual practice (Lev 18:22;
20:13) as does post-biblical Jewish literature and the
church fathers. Paul’s condemnation of same-sex
behaviour is consistent with the Old and New
86
Ibid.
— 188 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Testaments, all Jewish and early Christian traditions
and many Graeco-Roman traditions.87
It may well be true that, as Dr. Harris contends, “In the ancient
world there is also evidence that some believed there were those disposed ‘by nature’ to be gay,”88 and there may well be “some evidence
of committed same-sex relationships.”89
But even if Dr. Harris is correct about these unsupported allegations, we contend that these “committed same-sex relationships” existed within the confines of that certain hedonistic, unbelieving, and
idolatrous culture that encompassed the first century A.D. Roman
empire and which was the focus of his treatment of the causes of sin’s
depravity set forth in Romans 1:24-32.
This is why the observation by Dr. Harris is most assuredly correct that “when Paul wrote Romans it is almost certain that he would
have been aware of committed homosexual relationships and his rejection of homosexual behaviour addresses all the forms of same-sex
practice we know today.”90
But the point is moot. Romans 1:24-32 categorically condemns
same-sex πορνεία as one of the consequences of the abandonment
wrath of God.
ON THE “SILENCE” OF JESUS IN NOT ENDORSING SAME-SEX
RELATIONSHIPS: A PROBLEMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CHOICE TO
BE A EUNUCH FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Dr. Harris leaves unaddressed (but not unmentioned) what she
91
calls “the question of Jesus’ silence on same-sex relationships.” Before concluding our response to the Harris Presentation, we’ll briefly
87
Ibid., Page 3, ¶1.
Ibid., ¶2.
Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid., ¶4.
88
89
— 189 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
examine this statement. The Gospels record a discussion held by Jesus with His disciples concerning the subject of marriage and divorce. Matthew 19:8-12 reads (ISV):
8He
told them, “It was because of your hardness of
heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives.
But from the beginning it was not this way. 9I tell you
that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
immorality, and marries another woman commits
adultery.”
10
His disciples asked him, “If that is the
relationship of a man with his wife, it’s not worth
getting married!”
11“Not everyone can accept this saying,” he
replied, “except those to whom celibacy has been
granted, 12because some men are celibate from birth,
while some are celibate because they have been made
that way by others. Still others are celibate because
they have made themselves that way for the sake of the
kingdom from heaven. Let anyone accept this who
can.”
8 λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι Μωϋσῆς πρὸς τὴν
σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ὑμῖν ἀπολῦσαι τὰς
γυναῖκας ὑμῶν, ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς δὲ οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως. 9
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ
μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.
10 Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ [αὐτοῦ]· εἰ οὕτως
ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, οὐ
συμφέρει γαμῆσαι. 11 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐ πάντες
χωροῦσιν τὸν λόγον [τοῦτον] ἀλλʼ οἷς δέδοται. 12
εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς
ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως, καὶ εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες
— 190 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ εἰσὶν
εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν
βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. ὁ δυνάμενος χωρεῖν
χωρείτω.
This passage in Matthew is the only portion of the Gospels that
records comments by Jesus regarding what it means “to become a
eunuch” with respect to the Kingdom of God. But the Greek word
εὐνοῦχος is not a reference to sex change, cross-dressing, or transgenderism of any kind. The ISV has rightly translated the word for “eunuch” as “celibate”. The term refers to forsaking the sexual unions
of marriage between a man and a woman, as Louw and Nida affirm:
εὐνοῦχοςb, ου m: a human male who without
being castrated is by nature incapable of sexual
intercourse—‘impotent male.’ εἰσὶν γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι
οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτως ‘for
there are impotent males who have been so from birth’
Mt 19:12a.
εὐνοῦχοςc, ου m: a male person who abstains from marriage without being necessarily impotent—‘celibate.’ εἰσὶν
εὐνοῦχοι οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν
οὐρανῶν ‘there are men who are celibate who do not marry
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven’ Mt 19:12c.92
Succinctly stated, the reason why Jesus appears to remain silent
regarding the issue of same-sex relationships is because there is no
place in his discourses for a theology of allowable sexual immorality,
of which homosexual activity is a subset.
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 1: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on
semantic domains (2nd edition.) (106–107). New York: United Bible Societies.
92
— 191 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Christ’s comments regarding celibacy are made in light of the
sobering reality of the seriousness of marital commitment. Even Jesus’ disciples, as dense as were in so many other things, were able to
grasp the significance of Christ’s standards for marital union: given
the seriousness of the commitment, it might be better not to marry at
all!
And Jesus never rebuked them for making this conclusion!
It can be a wiser choice, Jesus commented, to remain celibate rather than to place oneself in a situation where multiple “commitments” or “committed relationships” are entered into by men and
women. The One who made Man and Woman from the Beginning
never intended otherwise. Only hardness of heart—and that hardness came from the abandonment wrath of God, Paul claims in Romans 1:24-32—kept the one husband-one wife relationship from becoming the norm of human existence.
Accordingly, the concept of a “committed relationship” outside
of marriage is foreign to the thinking of Jesus, the Law, the Prophets,
and all NT writers follows as a matter of course, and so Jesus and all
OT and NT writers are silent on the concept of “committed relationships” outside of marriage.
THE COUNSEL OF JESUS: IS THERE A SIN MORE GRIEVOUS THAN
HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR?
We have no greater authority than Jesus Himself toward whom
we may turn for counsel regarding sin. And when it comes to homosexual activity, Jesus reminds His followers that there is a sin more
grievous to God than homosexual behavior. That more grievous sin
is rejecting Him and His claims. In Matthew 11:23-24, Jesus said:
23“And you, Capernaum! You won’t be lifted up to
heaven, will you? You’ll go down to Hell! Because if
the miracles that happened in you had taken place in
— 192 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24Indeed I
tell you, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom
on Judgment Day than for you!”
23 καὶ σύ, Καφαρναούμ, μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ
ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως ᾅδου καταβήσῃ· ὅτι εἰ ἐν Σοδόμοις
ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι ἐν σοί,
ἔμεινεν ἂν μέχρι τῆς σήμερον. 24 πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι
γῇ Σοδόμων ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως ἢ
σοί.93
God incarnate walked the streets of Capernaum, presenting
Himself as the Messiah of Israel who would become the Passover
Lamb slain to redeem His people from their sin. And the residents
of Capernaum rejected Him, His claims as Messiah, and His right to
rule over them. And by doing so, they earned the wages of sin, which
to them was that it would be more bearable for the land of Sodom
than for them.
Those individuals who find themselves immersed in dialogue or
debate with representatives or advocates of the homosexual community would do well to remember that for the Apostle Paul in Romans
1:24-32, homosexual behavior is only one stopping point along a
tragic downward slide to degradation and eternal reprobation.
There are other sins that follow on after this. Paul writes in Romans 1:29-31 of the effects of not retaining a right view of God:
They have become filled with every kind of
wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of
envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, and viciousness.
They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, haughty,
arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to
Aland, B., Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., & Wikgren, A. (1993). The
Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (28). Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies.
93
— 193 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
their parents,
ruthless.
31foolish,
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
faithless, heartless, and
The grocery list of wicked behavior listed by the Apostle Paul in
these verses should serve as a constant reminder that anyone can
stray into the shadows of idolatry. Even continual disobedience to
parents is a symptom suggesting rather subtly that a further descent
into the abandonment wrath of God has occurred or is about to occur.
ON THE ERROR OF ASSUMING GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DICTATING
THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
Before concluding our critique, we think it advisable to address
an assumption that seems to have infected the so-called “straight vs.
same-sex” debate here in the United States. As we note in our final
section below, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently ruled against the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage
Act and overruled an appeal by opponents of a same-sex marriage
law that sought to overturn a California state court ruling that declared unconstitutional a voter-approved law forbidding same-sex
marriage.
In the midst of this debate, has anyone other than this writer
bothered to question the wisdom of assuming that any federal, state,
regional, or municipal government should be involved in defining
what marriage is? Marriage is biblically defined as a trans-cultural
institution crafted by God during humanity’s brief, unfallen state at
the beginning of human history. Its specificity isn’t spelled out in exact details as to its parameters, except that it’s to be entered into between one man and one woman. Man-with-man or woman-withwoman relations are excluded in the parameters. And death of the
— 194 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
spouse alone is supposed to be the final separator of the married couple. Divorce was allowed by Moses, Jesus reminds us, due to the
hardness of human hearts.
It has been well-documented by historians that the cultural milieu of first century Rome included about a dozen different types of
marriage ranging from the cohabitation of slaves on one extreme to
the exalted wedding ceremonies of the Emperor himself on the other.
Christianity became the great leveler, eventually eliminating all pagan forms of marriage as the societal norm except for adopting the
marriage ceremony of the Emperor and his bride as a heavenly type
and role model for the bride and groom.
Human governments should have no say in what constitutes
Christian marriage. That debate should be embraced by the Christian community itself, and if divisions come because of this debate,
they should be settled “in house,” so to speak. As noted herein, the
historic position of the Christian church and of the Jewish community has always been that marriage is to be between one man and
one woman with the warning cited in Deuteronomy 22 that if premarital seduction occurs, this activity can be grounds to prohibit divorce in the future. Human government should not interfere with
Judeo-Christian freedom of religious expression in defining the parameters of marriage. If human governments wish to legalize nonChristian civil unions as an inclusivist gesture relating to taxation,
government-supplied benefits, and other social activist motivations,
that’s the prerogative of a majority of the electorate in a representative democracy. But let us make no mistake—in such a representative republic a Christian majority has just as much a prerogative to
lobby that their view be adopted as the societal norm for our twentyfirst century culture as do neo-evangelical liberals such as Dr. Harris.
And in all things, we urge the calmness of spirit that should characterize thoughtful conversation.
— 195 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT—IS POLYGAMY NEXT?
In an insightful essay that addresses the inevitable slippery slope
argument by asking the question Is Polygamy Next?94 Koinonia House
of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho discusses the dangers inherent in social activism engendered by the same-sex doctrinal views advocated in the
Harris Presentation. In commenting on the United States Supreme
Court’s recent ruling apparently striking down America’s Defense of
Marriage Act, the July 2, 2013 newsletter observed that prior to the
SCOTUS ruling,
[m]any homosexual activists claimed that
Christians were promoting a “slippery slope”
argument that did not exist, that legalizing
homosexual marriage would lead to legalizing other
forms of marital unions which, today, are outside of
the mainstream. They contend that just because
homosexuals would be able to marry, that does not
mean that polygamous (same-sex) or polyamorous
(many mixed-sex partners) unions would eventually
become legal.
They are sadly mistaken. Both polygamists and
polyamorous activists celebrated the Supreme Court’s
decision to strike down DOMA (the Defense of
Marriage Act), claiming the move to promote same-sex
marriage in the U.S. promotes polygamy as well.
The Supreme Court voted to declare The Defense
of Marriage Act unconstitutional and not hear further
arguments regarding Proposition 8 in California,
which sought to ban any redefinition of marriage.
94
Accessible at http://www.khouse.org/enews/2013-07-02/ print/#2.
— 196 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Many have suggested that the move heavily favors
same-sex marriage prospects for the rest of the U.S.,
and now polygamy advocates have said the idea of
traditional “family values” is dying. “I was very glad…
The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or
three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Anne
Wilde a polygamy activist. “Now it’s grandparents
taking care of kids, single parents, and gay parents. I
think people are more and more understanding that as
consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family
however we choose.”
Gay rights advocates have long sought to distance
themselves from polygamists in order to undermine
social conservatives’ slippery-slope argument, but
their arguments have become hollow as more people
realize the ramifications of defining marriage and the
traditional family.
As talk radio host Bryan Fischer tweeted on
Twitter: “The DOMA ruling has now made the
normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and
bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.”
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor seems to
agree. During the hearing for the case, Justice
Sotomayor asked, “If you say that marriage is a
fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever
exist, meaning, what’s the restriction with respect to
the number of people that could get married, the incest
laws—mother and child. What’s left?”
What is left indeed? Polygamists in the United
States have taken cues from the homosexual rights
movement, and have tried to position themselves as
— 197 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
freedom-minded advocates trying to ally themselves
with conservatives. The media—both news programs
and entertainment venues such as the T[he]L[earning]
C[hannel] reality show Sister Wives—have tried to
convince the American public that their lifestyle can be
wholesome and normal.
While some same-sex marriage advocates have
attempted to distance themselves from polygamists by
saying the “slippery slope” argument is a myth, others
have abandoned all pretense. Slate writer Jillian
Keenan argued in her article “Legalize Polygamy!”
that the practice is “no better or worse than
homosexual marriage.”
“Legalized polygamy in the United States is the
constitutional, feminist and sex-positive choice,” she
wrote. A number of Christian advocates have been
pointing out for years the link between the unbiblical
redefinition of marriage and the harder-to-defend
practices such as polygamy, self-marriage, and the end
of marriage altogether.
“Redefinition has no logical stopping point. Its
logic leads to the effective elimination of marriage as a
legal institution. This will harm women, children and
society as a whole,” Ryan T. Anderson, a William E.
Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The
Heritage Foundation, wrote for The Christian Post.
Though DOMA has been repealed and calls for samesex marriage and polygamy may increase, Christians
are continuing to try to stem the assault on God’s
institution.
— 198 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
“Marriage has been defined between one man and
one woman for over a millennium, and it is our view
that the courts should not get involved at this point in
time and fundamentally change the institution of
marriage,” said David N. Bossie, President of Citizens
United whose National Committee for Family, Faith
and Prayer filed a brief in the DOMA case.
Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family
Association, says that striking down the traditional
definition of marriage as between a man and a woman
delegitimizes the moral argument against polygamy.
“It opens up Pandora’s Box in how you define
marriage in this country,” he says. “Why not have
three men and two women marry if they love each
other? Why limit it to two people?”
Mark Goldfeder, a law professor at Emory
University, believes that DOMA had a significant
impact on the future of polygamy in the United States.
Goldfeder, who specializes in the intersection of law
and religion, says that the courts will need to find other
justifications to keep anti-polygamy statutes in place.
“It’s one hundred percent likely that these
polygamist cases will come, but they will no longer
turn on whether a relationship is immoral,” Goldfeder
says. “The court will look at whether these
relationships cause third party harm.” But others
believe that time and society is on their side. According
to Wilde, “I’m not a fortune-teller, but it seems like if
more people are accepting of gay marriage, it would
follow that polygamist marriage wouldn’t be criticized
quite so much. … Let’s not pop the corks just yet.”
— 199 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
We need to work to keep the champagne in
the bottle.
July, 2013
— 200 —
Appendix Two: A
Suggested Covenant
of Divestiture and
Ceremony of
Divestiture for Use by
the Local Church
— 201 —
— 202 —
A Public Ceremony for
Celebrating the Covenant of
Divestiture
BY WILLIAM P. WELTY, PH.D.
a
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ISV FOUNDATION
BELLFLOWER, CALIFORNIA USA
[The congregation is to gather together in its usual place of assembly, preferably in the evening and following an afternoon of private, quiet preparatory prayer and fasting antecedent to the start of
the following solemn assembly.]
Congregational Leader:
[The congregation may elect to begin the ceremony with appropriate hymns that celebrate the holiness of God and the richness of
his grace. We suggest the revered, traditional, and timelessly classic
hymns “Holy! Holy! Holy!”, “O God, Our Help in Ages Past,” and
“Amazing Grace” be utilized for this, if the congregation elects to
include music in the celebration and ceremony.]
Congregational Leader:
The United States Supreme Court, acting for and upon the people of this nation, has chosen in recent weeks to interpret interstate
a
With contributions by The Rev. Dr. Garry Ansdell, Senior Pastor, Hosanna Christian Fellowship of
Bellflower, CA (http://hosannachapel.org, affiliated with the Calvary Chapel churches), and by
an interdenominational committee of evangelical church pastors located in the Minot, ND area,
chaired by the Rev. Mark Frueh, Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church of Minot, ND
(http://www.ecominot.org/).
— 203 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
and intrastate marriage and family law to allow what is in direct opposition to God’s laws. We gather today in this solemn assembly to
respond, in a public way, to repent of our corporate and individual
wickedness, and the wickedness of our nation.
Let us begin our solemn assembly in prayer. We invite you to
read along with us from the copies we have provided to you of tonight’s ceremony celebrating our Covenant of Divestiture. Please participate with us individually by repeating aloud with sincere devotion and humble compliance the words set forth below in BOLD
ITALIC ALL CAPITAL LETTER type.
[The congregational leader will then pray as follows:]
Our gracious heavenly Father, we come to you
tonight in the name of your precious Son, the Lord
Jesus Christ, whom you sent to redeem us, your
people, from our sin, and to make for yourself a people
for your Name’s sake, and to endow them with the
power of your Holy Spirit so that we can be a
testimony to you throughout your created world, and
so that your Son might be glorified in all our ways, all
of our deeds, all of our words, all of our beliefs about
you, all of our thoughts, and all of our attitudes.
The Congregation:
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR GIFTS AND
GRACE TO US.
Congregational Leader:
For your great glory, and for your having instructed us to address you, not as we think you are, but as you know yourself to be:
rich in mercy, exalted in holiness, abundant in the purity of right-
— 204 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
eousness, willing to receive all who forsake their rebellion to embrace you, and showing grace to thousands of generations of those
who put their trust in you, while you by no means exonerate the
guilty who do not turn from their sin…
The Congregation:
WE THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS,
WHICH ARE YOUR GIFTS AND GRACE TO US,
YOUR PEOPLE.
Congregational Leader:
We have prepared ourselves to come to meet with you as a congregation tonight, turning our attention to you, our Lord and God,
seeking you in prayer and supplication, that you might hear us as
we address you in the name of your matchless and precious Son, our
Lord Jesus Christ.
The Congregation:
HEAR US AS WE GATHER TOGETHER IN
YOUR NAME, O LORD OUR GOD, WE ASK YOU, IN
THE NAME OF YOUR GREAT SON.
Congregational Leader:
You, O Lord, are our great and awesome God. You keep your
covenant and gracious love for those who love you and keep your
commandments to believe in the Name of your Son, as we have committed to obey all things that he taught us during the days of his
mortality.
The Congregation:
HEAR US AS WE GATHER TOGETHER IN
YOUR NAME, O LORD OUR GOD, WE ASK YOU, IN
THE NAME OF YOUR SON.
— 205 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Congregational Leader:
And yet, O Lord, we have sinned. We have practiced evil, and
we’ve rebelled against you by turning away from your commands
and from your regulations.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AS WE TURN BACK FROM
TRAVELING THIS WRONG ROAD.
Congregational Leader:
O Lord, we have failed to listen to your servants, the prophets
and apostles who spoke in your name to us, to our leaders, to our
ancestors, and to all of those who claim allegiance to you.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND BRING US BACK TO
YOU. TURN OUR HEARTS TOWARD YOU AND TO
YOUR SON.
Congregational Leader:
To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness. But to us belongs open
humiliation, because we have departed from your sovereign authority over our families and over the education of our children. We have
looked to our local, state, and federal government authorities instead
of to you and to the fruit of our own labor, and by looking away from
you, we have committed the most heinous form of idolatry.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AS WE RETURN TO YOU.
Congregational Leader:
We have sinned against you by surrendering our responsibilities
to care for the widows and orphans who live and worship among us
— 206 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
to the care of state and federal welfare, thus neglecting to care for
our own.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND BRING US BACK TO
YOU.
Congregational Leader:
To you, O Lord our God, belong mercy and forgiveness, though
we’ve rebelled against you by surrendering our obligation to the
state and federal welfare authorities our responsibilities to care for
the poor, needy, and elderly who live and worship among us, thus
neglecting to care for our own.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND TURN US AROUND.
BRING US BACK TO YOU.
Congregational Leader:
O Lord our God, we rebelled against you by not obeying your
Word in all of these things. We have flouted your laws, turning aside
from them to trust in the provision of human beings and in the authority to govern our marriage and family practices.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND CAUSE US TO REPEAT
OUR FIRST WORKS, WHEN WE USED TO DO
WHAT WE KNEW FROM YOUR WORD IS RIGHT.
Congregational Leader:
And now, O Lord our God, the things that we have feared have
begun to come upon us. Our own standard of justice, our own courts
— 207 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
on a federal level, have departed from your truth, and have determined by their own arrogant self-righteous authority not to honor
your standards of marital integrity between man and woman, whom
you have created in your image and whom you fashioned to live to
the glory of your Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and whose union as
husband and wife has been intended from the days of our first parents to serve as a symbol and picture of your Son’s love for his Bride,
your Church.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND BRING US BACK TO
OUR PREVIOUS STATE BEFORE YOU, RESTORING
WHAT HAS BEEN LOST TO US.
Congregational Leader:
O Lord our God, great calamity has come to visit our nation, and
we take full responsibility for our neglect to be watchmen of liberty
and righteousness, as should characterize the people of your Covenant.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND RESTORE TO US THE
OPPORTUNITIES LOST TO US BY OUR
ABANDONMENT OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES.
Congregational Leader:
In the midst of the severe mercies that you have shown to us in
your righteousness and truth, O Lord, we have not sought your face
by turning from our lawlessness to pay attention to your truth.
— 208 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND CAUSE US TO
RETURN TO OUR PREVIOUS WORKS AS YOU
CHANGE OUR HEART ATTITUDES WITHIN.
Congregational Leader:
O Lord, we know that you have brought upon us the decision of
our Supreme Court to reprove us and remind us that you are righteous in everything you do, just in all your ways, and wise in all of
your plans and purposes that you have ordained for your creation.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND TURN OUR HEARTS
TOWARD YOU. BRING US BACK HOME AGAIN TO
THE CENTER OF YOUR WILL AND PLANS FOR US.
Congregational Leader:
And now, O Lord, we remember how your hand rested upon
our nation for good, in the early years and generations now past, as
we stood firm in your truth. But we have departed from living that
truth, gradually and inexorably, as a traveler might slowly, steadily,
and imperceptively descend into a dark valley. And now we are in
darkness, because we often have rendered lip service only to your
Word, claiming with our mouths that we have believed your Word,
but denying that same Word by our dependence on anything or anyone other than you for the care of our own and the fulfillment of
our ministerial care responsibilities before your sight.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND CONVERT OUR
BELIEFS FROM THE THEORETICAL TO THE REAL,
THAT WE MIGHT BOTH SPEAK AND LIVE YOUR
— 209 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
TRUTH, AND SO THAT OUR DEEDS AND WORDS
MAY BE ONE.
Congregational Leader:
We’ve acted wickedly. We have done what we ought not to have
done.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND CAUSE US TO
REJOICE IN YOUR TRUTH, NOT IN OUR OWN
CONFIDENCES
OR
IN
OUR
OWN
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.
Congregational Leader:
We have not done what we ought to have done.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND CAUSE US TO REJECT
THE WAYS OF THE WORLD, AND REJOICE IN
YOUR TRUTH BY CEASING TO LOOK TO OUR
OWN GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES INSTEAD
OF TO YOU.
Congregational Leader:
We’ve acted wickedly. We have committed apostasy by neglecting the love for you that we had at first, as you have reminded us in
your Son’s letter of exhortation to the church at Ephesus.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND CAUSE US TO
RETURN TO THE LOVE FOR YOU THAT WE HAD
AT FIRST.
— 210 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Congregational Leader:
We have behaved like the leader of your church at Thyatira, to
whom your Son wrote a letter of rebuke. We have tolerated those
who flout your laws of moral purity, thus incurring the threat of
your discipline against those whom you love. So we ask you, our
heavenly Father, in view of all of your righteous acts, to turn your
disciplinary hand away from us, your people, and away from our
nation, which our ancestors formed, so that we might be free to worship you in Spirit and in truth, and so that we might proclaim your
Gospel’s truth to a people yet unborn, that you have accomplished
great things among us.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AS WE REPENT AND TURN
BACK TO YOU AND TO YOUR PERFECT
STANDARDS FOR MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY,
WHICH WE AND OUR CULTURE HAVE
ABANDONED.
Congregational Leader:
Restore us, O Lord. Return to us what has been lost by our neglect and because you have caused us to reap the bitter harvest that
springs from the seeds of trusting in men who govern us, rather than
in your Son, who alone is Lord of his Church.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND RESTORE WHAT HAS
BEEN REMOVED BY YOU FROM US IN YOUR
RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Congregational Leader:
— 211 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Restore to us, O Lord, the harvest of the years that have been
eaten away by our neglect. Wash away the burden of our failures,
including our failures to end the plague of the murder of nearly 60
million unborn children, whom in your mercy you have called to
yourself, all the while detesting as the deepest of abominations the
slaying of the innocent baby girls and boys through abortions of convenience.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AS WE COMMIT TO REPAIR
THE BREACHES OF OUR FAITH AND WORSHIP.
Congregational Leader:
We’ve acted wickedly. And so we renounce, as a congregation
gathered today in your name, and as individual believers in your
Son, before whom we shall one day stand in judgment at the Last
Day, all authority vested in or claimed to be vested in city, state, or
federal authorities by which these authorities have falsely and
wrongly claimed authority to dictate our sincerely held beliefs, our
day-to-day practices, and the keeping of the moral standards for
family, marriage, and divorce that you have proscribed for us, for
our children, and for our community.
The Congregation:
HEAR US, O LORD, AND RESTORE OUR
SPIRITS AS WE REFUSE, FROM THIS DAY FORTH,
TO LOOK TO LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF OUR
RESPONSIBILITIES BEFORE YOU.
— 212 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Congregational Leader:
Accordingly, by the authority vested in your great Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ, we hereby renounce and divest ourselves of all regulatory authority alleged to be held by local, state, and federal authorities concerning our families, our educational responsibilities for
them, our care for widows and their fatherless children, and for the
poor, needy, and elderly who live among us.
We specifically renounce all authority held or alleged to be held
by our local, state, and federal authorities to regulate any aspects of
our marriages and our establishment of marriages pertaining to eligibility to participate in the marriage celebrations conducted by this
local congregation, from this day forth and forever. We ask you, O
Lord, to do all of these things in the name of your great Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ.
The Congregation:
AMEN, O LORD. HEAR US, OUR HEAVENLY
FATHER. LET THESE THINGS WE HAVE BROUGHT
TO YOU BE DONE BY YOU FOR YOUR GREAT
GLORY, AND FOR THE SAKE OF THE NAME OF
YOUR GREAT SON IN WHOSE NAME WE HAVE
APPROACHED YOU THIS DAY.
Congregational Leader:
Revive us, O Lord. In the midst of our years, and in the light of
eternity to come, bring your people to yourself, preserving us as
your own and completing in us as individuals and in us as members
of the Body of Christ the great work that you have purposed to complete in us, even to the day of Jesus the Messiah. And in corporate
assembly this [insert day of month here] of [insert month here], in
— 213 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
this the year of our Lord Jesus Christ the TWO THOUSAND AND
FIFTEENTH, we all say “Amen”.
The Congregation:
AMEN.
Congregational Leader:
And lastly, O Lord our God and Heavenly Father, as we close
this time of corporate and individual prayer and supplication for
ourselves, our families, our widows and orphans, for our elderly, infirm, and poor among us, we invite you to impart to us your joy as
we celebrate by faith our sure and certain knowledge that you have
heard our confession and resolution to depend on you or all things,
from this day forth.
We pray all of these things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
your unique son, who taught us during the days of his mortal ministry, to seek your face by saying…
The Congregation:
OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN,
MAY YOUR NAME BE KEPT HOLY.
MAY YOUR KINGDOM COME.
MAY YOUR WILL BE DONE,
ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.
GIVE US TODAY OUR DAILY BREAD,
AND FORGIVE US OUR SINS,
AS WE HAVE FORGIVEN THOSE WHO HAVE SINNED
AGAINST US.
AND NEVER BRING US INTO TEMPTATION,
BUT DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.
FOR YOURS IS THE KINGDOM AND THE POWER AND
THE GLORY FOREVER. AMEN.
— 214 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Congregational Leader:
Hear the Word of the Lord, you people who fear God and who
are called by his name. Our God tells us in Hebrews 4:12-16…:
12
…The word of God is living and active, sharper
than any double-edged sword, piercing until it divides
soul and spirit, joints and marrow, as it judges the
thoughts and purposes of the heart. 13 No creature can
hide from him, but everyone is exposed and helpless
before the eyes of the one to whom we must give a
word of explanation.
14
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who
has gone to heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us live our
lives consistent with[a] our confession of faith.]15For we
do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize
with our weaknesses. Instead, we have one who in
every respect has been tempted as we are, yet he never
sinned. 16So let us keep on coming boldly to the throne
of grace, so that we may obtain mercy and find grace
to help us in our time of need.
2 Chronicles 7:14-15 reminds us…:
14“When my people humble themselves—the ones
who are called by my name—and pray, seek me, and
turn away from their evil practices, I myself will listen
from heaven, I will pardon their sins, and I will restore
their land. 15Now therefore my eyes will remain open
and my ears will remain listening to the prayers that
are offered in this place.”
And the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus kept on loving,
reminds us in 1 John 1:9…:
— 215 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
If we make it our habit to confess our sins, in his
faithful righteousness he forgives us for those sins and
cleanses us from all unrighteousness.”
“
[The solemn assembly may be closed with a suitable hymn of
thanksgiving, such as “Great is Thy Faithfulness”. Afterwards, the
congregation may be dismissed to a room suitably prepared and
equipped for a time of feasting and joy, with gratitude to be displayed for these petitions having been heard by our gracious God.]
— 216 —
Some Thoughts on
Repenting
THE ABC’S OF PERSONAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE
he fine spiritual art of repentance involves nothing more
complicated—or more difficult—than becoming like Jesus of
Nazareth. Nobody will ever be condemned at the end of
days for being too much like him. If you’re ready to become more like
the most amazing man who ever walked the face of the earth, it’s
best to go back to the basics. In Matthew 5:3-11, you’ll find the basic
instructions you need to meet him set forth in remarkable simplicity
and succinctness within the opening phrases of the first public
statement that Jesus the Messiah made before a large group of
people.
STEP 1: ADMIT YOUR SPIRITUAL POVERTY
This is what he told the crowd that had assembled to listen to
him:
“How blessed are those who are destitute in spirit,
because the kingdom from heaven belongs to
them!
3
In making this statement, Jesus of Nazareth informs us that the
riches of God’s kingdom belong only to the bankrupt in spirit. The
first step to becoming like Jesus the Messiah is to admit that your
own personal positive characteristics have no value when it comes
— 217 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
to meeting God’s requirements. Human beauty, wealth, wisdom,
intellect, abilities, cleverness, and anything else that qualifies us to
be a part of the merely human condition are useless criteria by which
to define our eligibility to enter the Kingdom of God.
STEP 2: BEGIN TO MOURN
If coming to God in the midst of spiritual poverty and bankruptcy is your first step to spiritual redemption, please be advised
that taking this first step will immediately take you to your second
step: you will begin to experience deep grief.
“How blessed are those who mourn,
because it is they who will be comforted!
4
“The truth will set you free,” Jesus once promised his followers,
but before it does that, it’s going to make you miserable for a short
season. God will use your personal poverty of spirit to draw you to
himself, and the clearest proof that this drawing process is underway
will be that you begin to mourn. You’ll grieve over how your
behavior and attitudes toward life have offended God and have
resulted in endless lost opportunities to enjoy what could have been.
Maybe you’ll also grieve about those whom you have hurt, betrayed,
defrauded, or sinned against.
STEP 3: BE BROUGHT TO A STATE OF HUMILITY
One of the most immediate results of this mourning will be that
it causes you to see your true state before him.
“How blessed are those who are humble,
because it is they who will inherit the earth!
5
You will be made humble, which comes about by beginning to
know Jesus the Messiah well enough that you see yourself in
perspective. In taking this third step toward salvation you will be
— 218 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
made qualified to inherit your place that God made you to enjoy for
the rest of eternity.
STEP 4: BEGIN TO HUNGER TO KNOW HIM
After you’ve realized your own poverty of spirit, after you’ve
begun to mourn because of what has been lost, and after you’ve
begun to see yourself in perspective, compared to his pristine purity
and holiness, you will begin to hunger to be like him with respect to
righteousness:
“How blessed are those who are hungry and
thirsty for righteousness,
because it is they who will be satisfied!
6
You will begin to want to spend time getting acquainted with
God’s word, the Bible, because within that book you’ll find a road
map to personal maturity. You’ll seek out the company of likeminded Christian believers, and you’ll look for a local church that
can encourage you in your new Christian life.
STEP 5: TREAT OTHERS THE WAY JESUS HAS TREATED YOU
God will begin to work deep within you, creating a righteous
state before him in which you will take your seat as God continues
his work of directing every detail of your life to come. That ongoing
process of personal growth will express itself in how you treat
others:
“How blessed are those who are merciful,
because it is they who will receive mercy!
7
You will have been shown mercy, and as a result, you’ll begin to
show mercy to others after you’ve realized your own poverty of
spirit, after you’ve begun to mourn because of what has been lost,
and after you’ve begun to see yourself in perspective, compared to
— 219 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
his pristine purity and holiness. You will begin to hunger to be like
him with respect to righteousness.
STEP 6: LET YOUR HEART BE TRANSFORMED FROM THE INSIDE OUT
As God continues his work deep within you to conform your
heart and mind to the image of his son, the Lord Jesus the Messiah,
others around you will begin to notice the change you’ll have been
going through. Some of your friends and acquaintances might even
tell you that there’s something new about you. Maybe they won’t
exactly have the words to describe what they see, but see it they will.
The truth is, they’ll be seeing your purity of heart that has been
rooted deep within you:
“How blessed are those who are pure in heart,
because it is they who will see God!
8
And you’ll begin to see God at work, using you to bring a
testimony of how God can change the lives of anyone who comes to
him, bringing salvation from sin, deliverance from all sorts of
bondage, and hope to the hopeless. Jesus the Messiah will have
transformed your life, and now you’ll see him at work changing
others.
STEP 7: LET YOUR LIFE BEGIN TO BE PRODUCTIVE FOR GOD’S GLORY
You will become a peace maker. That is, you’ll begin to be
known as one who brings peace and security to the lives of those
who have neither of these valuable qualities. You’ll be given
wisdom, whenever you ask for it, to fashion peace out of conflict,
serenity out of confrontation, and tranquility out of disruptive
relationships.
“How blessed are those who make peace,
because it is they who will be called God’s
children!
9
— 220 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
Some of those to whom you minister will begin to tell you that
they’ve finally met one of God’s genuine children. “Finally, a true
Christian!” could well be what they say about you.
STEP 8: WATCH SOME PEOPLE HATE YOU FOR YOUR NEW LIFE
Be prepared, though, and forewarned: some people will react
with animosity, anger, and hatred. The reason for this is that most
people are opposed, not only to their own salvation, but to the
salvation of others. Not wanting to know God, they won’t want you
to know him, either, and so you’ll find yourself being opposed.
“How blessed are those who are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake,
because the kingdom from heaven belongs to
them!
10
Be prepared for it, because people like this will surely come into
your life, and you’ll need to learn how to give an answer to these
people whom you will find opposing you.
STEP 9: VIEW YOURSELF IN LIGHT OF ETERNITY, NOT PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES
Keep in mind as you continue being transformed into the image
of Jesus that you aren’t the first person who chooses to follow Jesus
of Nazareth and then comes into a world of trouble:
“How blessed are you whenever people insult
you, persecute you, and say all sorts of evil things
against you falsely because of me! 12Rejoice and be
extremely glad, because your reward in heaven is
great! That’s how they persecuted the prophets who
came before you.”
11
— 221 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
— 222 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
Index of Scripture Quotations
Matthew 5:10 ................................. 133
Matthew 5:11 ................................. 133
Matthew 5:3 ................................... 129
Matthew 5:3-11 .............................. 129
Matthew 5:4 ................................... 130
Matthew 5:5 ....................................130
Matthew 5:6 ....................................131
Matthew 5:7 ....................................131
Matthew 5:8 ....................................132
Matthew 5:9 ....................................132
— 223 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
— 224 —
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
An Introduction to
the Koinonia Institute
BY CHARLES W. MISSLER, PH.D., CHAIRMAN AND FOUNDER
ou are invited to undertake a lifelong adventure, exploring
the Word of God among an international fellowship without
borders—neither intellectual nor geographic. This is an
opportunity to “bloom where you are planted” by studying the
Bible—and related topics—in virtual classrooms on the Internet,
while discovering the unique calling on your own life and preparing
for the challenges which will inevitably emerge on your personal
horizon.
This is not for everyone. It is designed for those who are truly
committed to becoming an Ambassador for the Coming King. Here
you will find flexible paths of achievement without any
straightjackets of presumption or tradition. We are nondenominational, but decidedly from a conservative, traditional,
evangelical perspective.
We believe that the world is heading into extremely turbulent
times that will test all of our presumptions and beliefs. It is our
objective to identify, encourage, and equip leadership for the
challenges ahead.
Koinonia Institute is not just about academic achievement. Your
membership gives you access to numerous other materials and
resources, including weekly downloadable studies, weekly
intelligence updates, discussion forums, audio and video interviews
— 225 —
Reaffirming the Marriage Covenant
William P. Welty, Ph.D.
from around the world, and privileged surveillance of the strategic
trends monitored by the Institute; proprietary archives of relevant
research; private forums with nationally known personalities; and,
other involvements with distinguished members of the Fellowship.
After reviewing the emerging programs, pray seriously about
joining us and assisting us in developing this unique Fellowship.
Mission Statement
Koinonia Institute is dedicated to training and
equipping the serious Christian to sojourn in today’s
world.
For several decades the ministry of Koinonia House has been to
create, develop, and distribute educational materials for those who
take the Bible seriously as the inerrant Word of God. As an affiliated
ministry, the Koinonia Institute is focused on three supporting areas:
1. To provide instructional programs to facilitate serious
study of the Bible among thinking Christians;
2. To encourage and facilitate both individual and small
group weekly study programs for personal growth; and
3. To research, monitor and publish information to stimulate
awareness of the strategic trends which impact our times
and our personal ministries and stewardships.
The Institute is committed to accomplishing these goals through
a program of lifelong learning, utilizing Internet resources as a
means to do this and creating and developing an intelligence
network among its members. Koinonia Institute is formed around
three tracks — The Berean, The Issachar, and The Koinonos, which
can lead to a two and four year degree in Biblical Studies. For
information about each track, please see the Student Handbook.
Visit our web site at https://koinoniainstitute.org.
— 226 —