WHY A BAPTIST PREACHER CANNOT GRANT A DIVORCE Curtis Pugh Poteau, Oklahoma There are diverse beliefs among

Baptists as to marriage and divorce. This Baptist preacher knows that he could not in a lifetime of two hundred years answer the questions that pertain to these two sub ects. !e does not claim to have even most of the answers that arise about marriage and divorce, let alone all of them. "ny honest Bible believer will, he thinks, say the same. But let us look, profitably, we hope, at some things concerning marriage and divorce. #ivorce was well known among the ancient $sraelites. %o well known was it that &od used divorce as an analogy as to !is dealing with the northern ten tribes and as a warning to the southern two tribes. 'eremiah records &od(s )ords regarding this* And I saw, when for all he !a"ses where#$ #a!%sl&d&n' Israel !o((& ed ad"l er$ I had )" her awa$, and '&*en her a #&ll of d&*or!e+ $e her rea!hero"s s&s er ,"dah feared no , #" wen and )la$ed he harlo also,- +'eremiah ,*-.. One of the sins of ancient $srael that related to marriage was that 'ewish men were putting away their wives without giving them a bill of divorcement which would allow them to remarry. &od remedied that by commanding that a woman thus sent put away should receive proof that she was no longer married. This is clear from #euteronomy /0*1 where the following words are found* When a (an ha h a%en a w&fe, and (arr&ed her, and & !o(e o )ass ha she f&nd no fa*o"r &n h&s e$es, #e!a"se he ha h fo"nd so(e "n!leanness &n her. hen le h&( wr& e her a #&ll of d&*or!e(en , and '&*e & &n her hand, and send her o" of h&s ho"se/- $n an e2change of words with the Pharisees, the 3ord 'esus dealt somewhat with the complicated matter of marriage and divorce. The$ sa$ "n o h&(, Wh$ d&d 0oses hen !o((and o '&*e a wr& &n' of d&*or!e(en , and o )" her awa$1 He sa& h "n o he(, 0oses #e!a"se of he hardness of $o"r hear s s"ffered $o" o )" awa$ $o"r w&*es. #" fro( he #e'&nn&n' & was no so/ And I sa$ "n o $o", Whosoe*er shall )" awa$ h&s w&fe, e2!e) & #e for forn&!a &on, and shall (arr$ ano her, !o((& e h ad"l er$. and whoso (arr&e h her wh&!h &s )" awa$ do h !o((& ad"l er$,- +4atthew 15*675.. "nciently the act of marriage was a simple matter. Perhaps it can best be understood if we remember first that most often families were involved in selecting marriage partners for their children. This is illustrated in the story of %ampson. $n 'udges 10*/ we read, And he !a(e "), and old h&s fa her and h&s (o her, and sa&d, I ha*e seen a wo(an &n T&(na h of he da"'h ers of he Ph&l&s &nes. now herefore 'e her for (e o w&fe/- %ampson(s motive in all this is beside our point. The custom of $srael was that marriages were civil contracts between willing couples with families making the agreements. 8arlier in those long ago days we read about $saac lacking a bride and the story of "braham sending his steward to obtain a wife for him. "bout $saac(s and 9ebekah(s wedding we read these words* And Isaa! #ro"'h her &n o h&s (o her Sarah3s en , and oo% Re#e%ah, and she #e!a(e h&s w&fe+ and he lo*ed her. and Isaa! was !o(for ed af er h&s (o her3s death,- +&enesis /0*:6.. One commentary put it well* ;"nd $saac brought her into his mother<s tent = thus establishing her at once in the rights and honors of a wife before he had seen her features. #isappointments often take place, but when $saac saw his wife, (he loved her,(> +ad loc, 'amieson, ?ausett @ Brown.. This is, by the way, the first mention in the Bible of affection between a man and a woman. "nd it took place after they were married. $n this marriage we see the public acceptance of 9ebekah by $saac, the willingness not only of the young woman, but also of both her family and that of $saac, and the intent of the couple to be man and wife A all publicly known A all this, along with the consummation of the marriage, constituted their wedding. 8veryone knew this was not a ;one night stand> nor a mere concubinage. 9ebekah

was recogniBed publicly to be the wife of $saac. There was no ;man of &od> to solemniBe the wedding, no license, no banns published A ust a contract A a verbal agreement stated A between the couple(s families and a willingness on the part of the couple. )e know from the life of Christ that !e attended at least one wedding while here upon earth. The wedding !e attended was not a ceremony performed by a priest or rabbi for that was unknown. "s was the custom then, no doubt the couple had been ;espoused> by their parents sometime before A perhaps from childhood. The word ;espouse> does not men engaged. $t means married. The couple was married by agreement of the families A a verbal contract. Cou will remember that this was the case with 'oseph and 4ary. They were espoused A married A not engaged. The fact that they were already married is proved in that when 4ary was found to be with child, 'oseph was (&nded o )" her awa$ )r&*&l$,+4atthew 1*15.. !e did not think to break his engagement to 4ary for no such thing as engagement e2isted in those days. 'oseph thought to divorce 4ary A privately out of kindness to her, no doubt. $n the wedding that 'esus attended there had been, no doubt, a public procession in which the groom took his bride from her home to the place of the wedding feast. Perhaps the 3ord took part in this procession* we are not told. Dery likely the bride had young women friends to accompany her as her maids in this procession. 8veryone in their neighborhood knew of the intent of the couple and their families. The feast with its many invited guests served as witnesses to the union of these two people in marriage. )ith the consummation of the wedding all was completed. 'ewish men could take additional wives and could put away their wives by law, but the 3ord 'esus said #" fro( he #e'&nn&n' & was no so/- 4alachi argues for once7for7all marriages between one man and one woman by saying, And d&d no he (a%e one1 Ye had he he res&d"e of he s)&r& / And wherefore one1 Tha he (&'h see% a 'odl$ seed/ Therefore a%e heed o $o"r s)&r& , and le none deal rea!hero"sl$ a'a&ns he w&fe of h&s $o" h- +4alachi /*1E.. &od could have made more than one woman for "dam, 4alachi says, but because !e wanted godliness in the offspring, &od only made one woman for one man. $t seems to have been the 9omans who introduced religion and ceremonies into marriages in a big way. They often offered sacrifices, an iron ring was usually given by the groom to the bride, both the fathers( approvals were necessary and marriages were often arranged for financial gain, especially among the more affluent classes. )ith the 9omans, the wedding feast was usually held the day after the couple had consummated the marriage. $t is easy to see how that pagan 9ome influenced the Catholics and brought about the ;sacrament of marriage,> as enforced by that Popish religious organiBation. !owever, nothing about marriage ceremonies being performed by either the 3ord(s preachers or the 3ord(s congregations is found in the Few Testament. !istorically, Baptists of bygone days did not seek out their preachers to perform marriage ceremonies. !aving neither #ivine nor civil authority to perform marriages, Baptist preachers were not involved in weddings. Our title raises this question* ()hy Cannot " Baptist Preacher &rant a #ivorceG( )hy, because the government will not allow him to do so, of course A unless, of course, he is a divorce udge. This ought to prove once and for all to every reader that marriages are civil unions regulated by the state. Hntil the fairly recent attainment of ;respectability,> +since colonial days in Forth "merica. Baptists were, like the apostles, considered he offs!o"r&n' of all h&n's,- +1 Corinthians 0*1,.. That being the case, Baptist preachers were not recogniBed by the established governments or churches. $t was then the domain of priestcraft to unite ;church and state> and ;solemniBe> the marriages of those given permission to marry by the government. !aving no mandate in the %criptures to conduct marriage ceremonies, Baptists were not bothered with the matter back then. !istorically, when Baptists were forbidden to preach or to baptiBe, they continued the practices ;underground> because they

were commanded by &od to do so. But in those bygone days of persecution, Baptists never went against civil governments by performing marriages. )ere all those old7time Baptists and anabaptists married in &od(s eyes A without a true preacher officiating in a non7e2isting Baptist meeting houseG )ere people who were married by state7church ceremonies married ;in &od(s eyesG> $f a Catholic couple are married by a priest, are they ;married in &od(s eyesG> )ere slaves married in &od(s eyes who were instructed by their masters to marry by ; umping over the broomstickG> )ere ;&ypsies> married by doing the same thing in &reat BritainG )ere "merican pioneers ;married in &od(s eyes> when they promised fidelity to each other and cohabited publicly on that basisG Often in those frontier situations there were no governments to issue licenses and no preachers to marry them. $f they solemnly promised each other to live as husband and wife and were recogniBed as married by their relatives and neighbors in the western wilderness were they ;married in &od(s eyesG> "nd were those pagans whose intent was to live together as husband and wife ;married in &od(s eyesG> "re Buddhists, !indus, and 4ormons ;married in &od(s eyes> when they observe their customsG )ere $saac and 9ebekah and the couple whose wedding feast was attended by our 3ord A were those marriages real and genuine and were those marriages recogniBed by &odG $t is priestcraft pure and simple to think that a religious ceremony is required in order for a couple to be married. Technically it is called sacerdotalism* the idea that a special class or religious order is required to officiate at a ceremony of any kind. 4arriage is in modern societies a civil matter, regulated by civil governments. 4ust there be a civil government in place in order for people to get marriedG There was no organiBed, elected or appointed civil government in the days of "dam and 8ve or $saac and 9ebekah. )ere they married or notG There is no instruction or authoriBation or even a hint that &od(s preachers are to perform marriages. Feither is there any warrant or hint that Baptist folk ought to be married in Baptist meeting houses. $mmediately someone will ask, ;"re these things then prohibited.> 3egally and logically they are. ;82pressio unius est e2clusio alterius> means ;the specification of one thing is the e2clusion of a different thing.> That is a legal principle. ?or instance* if a loan contract requires monthly payments, the lender cannot suddenly demand two payments each month. The contract does not specifically state that they cannot demand two per month, but the specification of one payment per month e2cludes them demanding two. $t is also a logical conclusion. #id &od specify what !is preachers and !is congregations were to concern themselves withG #id !e tell us what !e wanted doneG #id Christ leave !is Baptist congregations with a commission to preach the gospel, baptiBe converts and teach them to obey the commandments of ChristG "re these things specificG $f so their very nature prohibits preachers and congregations from performing either marriages or divorce ceremonies. The Catholic Church claims the e2clusive right to marry her members and the right to annul marriages through their #iocesan Tribunals. Baptists have never dared, thus far, to claim the right of annulment, but why notG $f it is right for Baptist preachers to perform marriages, then they or their churches ought to have power to annul marriages too, shouldn(t theyG. #o the things specified by Christ in !is commission leave room for preachers and congregations to engage in entertaining goatsG Or bringing Popish traditions and ideas into the thinking and practice of BaptistsG Or bringing in the 4ormon and pagan ideas of polygamous marriagesG Can an apostate preacher ordained by a false church that preaches a false gospel marry a couple ;in &od(s eyesG> $f not, then all who were not married by the ;right kind> of Baptist preachers are living in sin A is that what you believeG %hould Baptists require their converts who were not married by Baptist preachers to be remarriedG Can a couple be ;more married> by having been married by a Baptist preacher in a Baptist meeting house than any other marriage recogniBed by the civil government under which they liveG

)e have asked a lot of foolish questions, some will say, and we grant it. But our point is to show that many marriage customs which differ from today(s do not make a couple unmarried. "fter &od created 8ve, !e ///#ro"'h her "n o he (an/ And Ada( sa&d, Th&s &s now #one of ($ #ones, and flesh of ($ flesh. she shall #e !alled Wo(an, #e!a"se she was a%en o" of 0an/- +&enesis /*//7/,.. &od did nothing more than create a help meet for "dam and bring her to him. &od did not say (#o you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wifeG( nor did !e ask a similar question of 8ve. "dam e2pressed his intent publicly* angels, demons, %atan and &od heard him if they were listening. Fo prayers were prayed. Fobody sang. Fo blessings were pronounced. Fo rings were e2changed. 8ve did not wear a white dress. Fo vows were spoken. The pagan custom of throwing rice on the newly married couple did not take place. But the intentions of "dam and 8ve were to live together as husband and wife and this was publicly stated. "nd so they became ;one flesh.> )ith the consummation of the marriage they were oined in wedlock. The word wedlock, by the way, comes ;from the 4iddle 8nglish wedlok, from Old 8nglish wedlc, marriage bond, from wedd pledge I -lc, suffi2 denoting activity.> Oh, it was anciently the activity of making a pledge that made the marriage binding A according to 4erriam )ebster(s online definition. %o then, in summation, we think, along with 'ohn &ill and others, that Baptist preachers have no business being in the marrying business. 4arriage is a civil matter governed by civil laws. Couples are not ;more married> by being in a ceremony in a Baptist meeting house than if at the city hall, registry office, office of a ustice of the peace or a ;wedding chapel> in 3as Degas. 4an7made wedding ceremonies do not and cannot bring &od into a marriage any more than the man7made sprinkling of infants can bring &od into the heart of the unbelieving infant. #oing what &od has not commanded a Baptist preacher to do cannot be viewed as obedience to &odJ 8ssentially, we think three things are required for a marriage to be valid* first, the intent of the man and womanK second, the public nature of the oining together of the man and womanK and third, compliance with whatever civil requirements e2ist as legislated by the government under which the man and woman live. Baptist preachers cannot grant a divorce unless they are also a civil udge. )hyG Because the civil government did not give them that authority. Baptist preachers cannot marry people in obedience to &od because !e never instructed them to do so. Only if given that right and authority by a civil government can Baptist preachers become servants of the government and act upon the permission +license. given by the government for a couple to marry. "nd so, to clarify the matter, we ask one more question* whose servant does a Baptist preacher become when he solemniBes a marriageG )e think it obvious* he is doing what the state requires. Paul reasoned thus in 9omans :*1:* 4now $e no , ha o who( $e $&eld $o"rsel*es ser*an s o o#e$, h&s ser*an s $e are o who( $e o#e$///- )hen any preacher obeys the state in performing marriages as prescribed by that government he is in that sense and at that time a servant of the state. !e cannot truthfully say in a marriage ceremony, ;by the power vested in me by &od> of ;by the power vested in me by the Bible.> !e can only say, ;by the power vested in me by the state of Te2as, or 4ichigan or Lentucky, etc.> !e cannot be said to be a servant of Christ in that matter for Christ neither authoriBed him to do such a thing nor told him how to do it. %elah.