Sunday Sermons
Seeking a Godly Offspring
“But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth” (Malachi 2:15).
In this chapter Jewish men were rebuked for divorcing their Jewish wives and marrying pagan women (2:11,14-16). Yet God says that no man who is truly spiritual would ever consider doing such. An unscriptural divorce is not an accident, rather only someone hard-hearted, defiant, and unspiritual could ever do such a thing. To this Jesus agreed (Matthew 19:7-8). “And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring?: “Anyone desiring to have a godly or holy posterity, which God desires, would not have put away his Hebrew wife and married a heathen woman” (Hailey p. 417). This is something that people forget about today as well. When you marry someone, remember, this person will have a tremendous influence upon your children and descendants. In addition, in view of how sinful divorces destroy the lives of children, anyone who really loves the souls of their children will never put away their mate for an unscriptural cause. Some say that the expression, “that one”applies to Abraham, and that the Jews here were trying to argue that since Abraham married a foreign woman (Hagar), that they had the right to do the same, but God rejected Hagar and her son as the “godly offspring”.
What are we seeking today?
Men and women of character in the past desired to have godly children, and thus married someone spiritually strong and then invested plenty of time, training, and discipline in raising their children (Genesis 18:20; Joshua 24:15; Ephesians 6:4). Yet even back then God had to continually admonish even parents who were believers to train their children (Deuteronomy 6:7), and warned them of the dangers of becoming lax, fearful, or apathetic in parenting (Proverbs 22:6; 29:15,17). It seems that God has always had to remind parents, even believing parents, that they are the authority in the relationship! Sadly, not only are many families no longer “seeking” a godly offspring, but what the United States Census Bureau now calls “unmarried partner households” have climbed in number from 523,000 couples living together in 1970 to almost five million couples in the year 2000. Viewed proportionately, married couple families formed 76 percent of all households in 1960 but only 53 percent in 2000. It seems that in our culture, no longer are some parents wanting to avoid the hard choices in parenting, but fewer people want the obligations of marriage as well.
The language of Ashdod
“In those days I also saw that the Jews married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. As for their children, half spoke in the language of Ashdod, and none of them was able to speak the language of Judah, but the language of his own people” (Nehemiah 13:23-24). Nehemiah saw clearly that such marriages were corrupting the second generation as well as the first. The confusion of language in the children signaled for these families the erosion of their Israelite identity—hence for all practical purposes their relationship with God. Remember, the Scriptures were written in the Jews language (Hebrew) and if these children did not know that language then they could not understand the Scriptures! In addition, the heathen mothers in such marriages were not converting to Judaism; rather they were leading their children into their pagan ways and practices. It is so tempting to justify worldly associations by saying, “Well, I am trying to have an influence on them”. But the true reality is often reflected in the verse. When we compromise with evil—evil always has more of an influence on us than we have on it. Notice how a marriage will affect for good or ill the children of the future. The Jewish fathers in such homes were so shortsighted, for they actually were becoming a very minor influence and a non-factor in the behavior and choices of their children. The time would come when they would find themselves virtually an isolated island in their own home. The reason we want to marry someone spiritually strong and place an emphasis on raising our children is because we do not want to find ourselves surrounded by strangers and unbelievers when we are relaxing in our own homes! Back in 1926 the new Communist rulers of Soviet Russia shocked the world with a plan to abolish the legal registration of marriage. One of the measure’s most passionate advocates explained, “free love is the ultimate aim of a socialist state; in that State marriage will be free from any kind of obligation”. Yet Communism failed horribly and violently politically, economically, and morally.
The foundation of civilization
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in the middle of the nineteenth century he wrote, “There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs” (Carson p. 4). The reason why civil governments have traditionally regulated marriages between men and women and yet have just as typically left unregulated all other friendships is very simple. Why do governments leave most friendships free and unregulated and yet continue to place regulations and obligations upon heterosexual unions? “Everyone knows the answer: Sexual relationships between women and men may generate children, beings at once highly vulnerable and essential for the future of every community. Heterosexual unions can create a child at any moment, so the public has a deep interest in their stabilization from the very beginning. In contrast, same-sex unions are ‘absolutely infertile’ (even if they adopt they still need a heterosexual couple to produce the child!)” (Carson p. 6). Truly, the greatest asset that any civilization has is its children, for they are the future! Carson notes that marriage is in a sense very political. “This is true in a narrow sense, such as the finding recently reported inBusinessWeek that women are more likely to vote Democratic after a divorce and more likely to vote Republican after a marriage. But I am more interested in marriage as ‘political’ in the broad sense, as explained by the English journalist G. K. Chesterton. He understands the family to be a ‘triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child’, and ‘ancient’ institution that pre-exists the state and one that ‘cannot be destroyed' it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it” (p. 8). We see this played out in various Bible passages, that when the family unit crumbles, when people do not marry someone who is spiritual compatible, or when the children are not taught about God, disaster strikes (Genesis 6:1ff; Judges 2:9ff). Even the wisdom of Solomon could not compensate when he failed to take heed to God’s clear instructions concerning marriage (Nehemiah 13:26 “Did not Solomon king of Israel sin in regarding these things? Yet among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless the foreign women caused even him to sin”). Yes God loved Solomon and gave him many blessings; yet such love could not deliver Solomon from far reaching consequences when he ignored God’s clear instructions.
The forgotten benefits of marriage
“Although the decision to marry someone is private, marriage itself is not a private act. Marriage is, in fact, the most important social act, one that involves more than just the married couple. Extended families are merged and renewed (or weakened) through a wedding. It is also through marriage that the community and the nation are renewed (or weakened). A new home is formed when a couple marries, one open to the creation of new life. These children are the future. Marriage also has beneficial social and health effects for both adults and children, and these gifts benefit the community and the whole society. Conversely, it is through the breakdown of marriage that society is gravely harmed. Common sense and an overwhelming amount of social science data shows that children raised by married parents have the best chance of becoming happy, healthy, responsible, morally upright citizens. Children with married parents are:
· Much safer than children living in single-parent homes.
· Are less likely to be aborted and less likely to be abused or neglected.
· Children in intact families also have better emotional health, engage in fewer risky behaviors, including substance abuse and delinquency.
· Premarital sex and having children out of wedlock are also less common among children in intact families.
Thus the benefits of a society of intact families is less abortion, safer homes, safer communities, less crime, less poverty and welfare, less fornication and unwed childbearing, more marriage and less divorce, lower rates of depression and anxiety, less physical health, longer life-spans, lower suicide rates, and economically more revenue and a broader tax base. For all practical purposes strong marriages can save this country billions if not trillions of dollars. For example, drug abuse costs alone in the year 2000 were 160.7 billion dollars. Annual government costs for the criminal justice system total about 292 billion. In 2002 the federal government spent an estimated 5.1 billion on foster care alone. Annual medical costs for abused women are about 1.8 billion, which does not include costs for shelters, lost wages, productivity, and other non-medical costs. Kentuckian Wendell Berry underscores the importance of strong marriages to a culture when he said that marriage exists to bind parents to children, families and to the community. “The new bride and groom say their vows to the community as much as to one another. The very health and future of the community depends on the successful endurance of these vows. They bind the lovers to each other, to forebears, to descendants, to heaven and earth. Marriage is the fundamental connection without which nothing holds” (Carlson p. 7). In Genesis chapter 6 we see these truths vividly demonstrated when the godly line of Seth intermarries with the ungodly line of Cain, and result is that the human race almost ends. A popular theory is the “sons of God” in this chapter are fallen angels who assumed human form and then married women, but Jesus indicated that angels do not marry (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25). The offspring of the union in this chapter was human, not angelic, and the judgment came upon humans. The entire blame for the resulting evil is placed solely on the shoulders of men (6:3,5,6). From the context, it makes better sense to regard the “sons of God” as the descendants of Seth and the daughters of men as the descendants of Cain. These two lines, one godly and the other ungodly intermarry and the consequences are fatal. “Whomever they chose”: Which indicates the over-riding factor in selecting these wives was momentary attraction, rather than sound judgment that would have weighed the character. This would not be the last time that spiritual incompatibility is completely overlooked when a mate is selected (Deut. 7:1-4; Nehemiah 13:23-27; 1 Kings 11:1ff).
The tragedy of non-fault divorce
“This community-building task of marriage underscores the special tragedy of the ‘no-fault divorce’ revolution. Until the late 1960’s, all American states required a finding of fault—such as adultery, cruelty, or desertion—before a divorce could occur. Designed to reduce the acrimony in divorce, the introduction of ‘no-fault’ provisions among the states over the last four decades actually saw acrimony merely shift to other issues, such as child custody. Most importantly, the loss of the concept of fault in divorce cases meant abandoning the shared understanding that the breaking apart of a marriage was also a kind of crimeagainst the community. Children, neighbors, friends, and the local community itself would all be affected—almost always negatively—by the divorce decree. It is still important that someone be held accountable, or ‘at fault’ for this unique kind of blow against the community. But in this, we now fail” (p. 7).
