The State's Interest in Marriage Briefly Explained

Why does the state have any interest in recognizing marriages at all? I believe that many people–even many Christians who greatly value marriage–would be hard pressed to offer an answer to this question; marriage is currently seen as a mere personal choice, with little thought given to the broader societal impact of marriage.

At a "Next Generation Event" during the 2013 annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Russell Moore, who was then President of the Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, helpfully gave one main reason for the state's interest in marriage:

The reason why the state [traditionally] recognizes male/female one-flesh unions: there's a reason for that. There are all kinds of things the state doesn't recognize that are important things: lots of us in this room are friends, [but] we didn't go to the courthouse and register our friendship, and, if we ever get mad at one another and decide we're not going to speak to one another, we don't go to the courthouse and deal with it that way; the state doesn't care who you're friends with, [so] why does the state care who you're married to? The state cares who you're married to because (the state has an interest in that because) a male/female union–at least potentially–has some implications that society has to deal with, and those "implications" are called children. And so the state has to recognize, in some way, marriage, unless you're going to have the kind of society where children are just abandoned on the side of the road and no one is taking care of them. I mean, really, when you think about the state's interest in marriage, it boils down to, at the most basic level, issues of child support: 'who's responsible for this baby?' The state is interested in that.

Later in 2013, in an interview with National Review Online, Dr. Moore again gave a succinct answer concerning the state's interest in marriage, this time explicitly mentioning the state's interest in promoting situations in which children have the benefit of both a father and a mother:

The government has recognized marriage for one reason. The union of a man and a woman has implications for all of society in a way other relationships don’t. Male/female sexuality brings with it the possibility of children. Very few of us want the sort of “lord of the flies” laissez-faire kind of society which doesn’t care what happens to children. Encouraging the sort of fidelity that maintains, wherever possible, the right of a child to both a mother and a father is a state interest.

A Biblical View of Government

From the book Understanding the Times by David A. Noebel:

The Bible portrays the proper rule of good government as one of administering justice (Jeremiah 23:5; Amos 5:15), protecting the weak from the bully, the poor from the rich and powerful (Isaiah 3:13-14; Amos 2:6; 5:12), the innocent from the guilty (Romans 13:3); promoting equality before the law (Acts 10:34; Exodus 23:6); working diligently to restrain evil; protecting the body politic from hostile invasion (2 Chronicles 26:9-15)... human government was instituted by God to protect man's unalienable rights from mankind's sinful tendencies (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7). Human nature being what it is, man will attempt to infringe on his fellow man's rights in an effort to improve his own life, therefore a political system must exist to protect rights and keep these evil tendencies at bay... Most everyone believes that furthering justice is an important task of the state, but the Christian sees justice as the principal reason for the state's very existence.

Calvin on Oaths

This coming Lord's Day at Kosmosdale Baptist Church, I am teaching through Chapter 23 of the Second London Baptist Confession, focusing on "Lawful Oaths and Vows". Studying to teach this chapter, I was reminded how years ago, while teaching middle grades students in a Christian school environment, I taught through the Sermon on the Mount and came across the following words from Christ:

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.’ 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5:33-37 NIV 1984)

In our discussion of these verses, several students had some excellent questions about whether the Lord Jesus intended to forbid all oaths, including swearing to testimony in court, politicians taking oaths of office, wedding vows, etc.

In this regard, I found the following thoughts from John Calvin [from Institutes on the Christian Religion 2.8.26-27] to be extremely helpful.

Calvin mentions God Himself swearing an oath, as taught in Hebrews 6:13, then he writes:

[Some], not content with this moderate use of oaths, condemn all, without exception, on the ground of our Saviour's general prohibition, "I say unto you, Swear not at all:" "Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil," (Matth. 5: 34; James 5: 12.)

Calvin goes on to note that, in the Old Testament, God commands His people to take oaths. (Calvin gives the example of Exodus 22:11, but also observe Deuteronomy 6:13 in this connection: “Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name.”) Rhetorically, Calvin asks: “What then? Will they make God contradict himself, by approving and commanding at one time, what he afterwards prohibits and condemns?” Calvin assumes that no Christian would wish to suggest that God contradicts Himself.

Why, then, does it seem that Christ forbids all oaths? Calvin explains:

[Christ’s] purpose was, neither to relax nor to curtail the Law, but to restore the true and genuine meaning, which had been greatly corrupted by the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees. If we attend to this we shall not suppose that Christ condemned all oaths but those only which transgressed the rule of the Law. It is evident, from the oaths themselves, that the people were accustomed to think it enough if they avoided perjury, whereas the Law prohibits not perjury merely, but also vain and superfluous oaths. Therefore our Lord, who is the best interpreter of the Law, reminds them that there is a sin not only in perjury, but in swearing. How in swearing? Namely, by swearing vainly. Those oaths, however, which are authorised by the Law, he leaves safe and free. Those who [absolutely] condemn oaths think their argument invincible when they fasten on the expression, "not at all". The expression applies not to the word swear, but to the subjoined forms of oaths. For part of the error consisted in their supposing, that when they swore by the heaven and the earth, they did not touch the name of God. The Lord, therefore, after cutting off the principal source of prevarication, deprives them of all subterfuges, warning them against supposing that they escape guilt by suppressing the name of God, and appealing to heaven and earth.

Calvin’s explanation fits with Deuteronomy 6:13, mentioned above. The activity prohibited by Jesus is swearing falsely, and then trying to assuage one’s conscience concerning false swearing through another direct violation of the Law! This explanation of Matthew 5:33-37 is in keeping with Jesus’ words recorded later in Matthew:

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it. (Matthew 23:16-22 NIV 1984)

In guiding my students concerning how to think about Scripture, it is my hope that they will neither ignore the commands of our Lord, nor take His commands out of context and thereby make them contradict the rest of Scripture.

IS THE TEACHING OF ROMANS 14:5 INIMICAL TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LORD’S DAY IS THE PROPER DAY FOR REGULAR CHRISTIAN CORPORATE WORSHIP?

[This was originally published on this blog in 2011.]

The Question Raised

In Appendix D of his commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, John Murray addresses the question of whether Romans 14:5 eliminates the idea that the first day of the week has any special religious significance prescribed to it by the New Testament.[1] This question takes on particular significance today, as a number of congregations have begun to offer services on Saturday night or Friday night as an alternative to Sunday morning worship.[2] Some would seek to justify this practice from the Bible, denying the significance of Revelation 1:10 to a certain day of ongoing corporate worship for Christians, citing Romans 14:5 as proof that Christians can choose another day of the week on which to meet together for worship; for example, Jon Zens writes:

Many regard Sunday as the "Lord's Day" of Rev. 1:10, or isolate Sunday as a special day in the new covenant [era]... However, the key texts employed to substantiate Sunday worship (Rev. 1:10; Acts 20:7-11; I Cor. 16:1-3) do not provide an exegetical basis for dogmatism, and the identification of Sunday with the "Lord's Day" in Rev. 1:10 does not rest on evidence in the text itself.

The New Testament teaches that there are no "holy days" in the new age. Thus, a Christian can view every day as the same, or observe a day to the Lord (Rom. 14:5-6).[3]

The question of whether Romans 14:5 eliminates the necessity of the Lord’s Day as the proper day for Christian corporate worship gives rise to a host of interrelated questions, such as: Do the apostles distinguish the Lord’s Day from any other day as a particular memorial of the Lord’s resurrection? Is the first day of the week properly distinguished as the Lord’s Day in distinction from the way in which every day is to be lived in devotion to and service of the Lord Christ? In light of Romans 14:5, can any day at all be properly regarded as set apart with religious significance? Is weekly observance of a day commemorating our Lord’s resurrection a feature of one who is weak in faith? Should the person who regards the Lord’s Day as significant strive to attain the understanding that in the Christian institution all days are in the same category?[4]

The Sabbath?

Another question involves the relationship of the Lord’s Day to the Sabbath command found in the Decalogue (Exod 20:8-11; Deut 5:12-15). While application of the Sabbath command to Christians today is an important topic for theological reflection, for the sake of space, discussion of the Sabbath will be bracketed in this series of blogposts. This series seeks to explore a question of what Christians are to do in regards to weekly worship, but not to fully explore why Christians are to worship (as will be argued) on one particular day in seven; if Lord’s Day worship can be established as normative for Christians on the basis of Revelation 1:10 and related texts, then further discussion may take place regarding whether Lord’s Day worship is established only on the basis of Christ’s work of redemption (specifically in His resurrection on the first day of the week and in His sending the Holy Spirit on the first day of the week), or whether Lord’s Day worship is also connected to older Sabbath patterns.

Thesis and Enumeration

The Lord's Day is the proper day for regular Christian corporate worship, and commitment to Lord's Day worship in NOT inimical to the teaching of Romans 14:5, for at least three reasons: 1. the regulative principle; 2. the historical evidence; 3. the biblical evidence.

The Regulative Principle

An argument for the Lord's Day as the proper day for regular Christian corporate worship is based upon a commitment to the regulative principle of worship. The regulative principle, an argument for which cannot be developed in this limited format, is itself based upon a particular theological understanding, as expressed by the elders of Grace Heritage Church in Auburn, Alabama:

Because the distance between God and His creatures is so great, the only acceptable way of approaching God in worship must be revealed to us by God Himself. Therefore, He may not be worshiped in ways invented by us. This principle protects us from idolatrous worship and focuses our energies on those activities through which God has called us to draw near.[5]

In the words of J. Ligon Duncan III, the regulative principle teaches that:

[T]here must be scriptural warrant for all we do. That warrant may come in the form of explicit directives, implicit requirements, the general principles of Scripture, positive commands, examples, and the things derived from good and necessary consequences.[6]

From the above quote, it is obvious that not all aspects of worship are regulated in the same way. As the Westminster Confession of Faith declares:

[T]here are some circumstances concerning the worship of God… which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the world. (1.6)

Now it is theoretically possible that setting aside a certain day (or days) for worship would be an issue left entirely to “Christian prudence.” But if there are examples from the New Testament regarding a particular day of worship and if there are compelling reasons found to understand a particular day of corporate worship being prescribed to the Christian community through “good and necessary consequences,” then—according to the regulative principle—we do not have the authority to change the day of worship based on matters of convenience.

Historical Evidence

The use of historical evidence. In identifying “the Lord’s Day” of Revelation 1:10, we must first turn to the historical evidence in order to do grammatical-historical exegesis of the portion of the text in question. The phrase “the Lord's Day” is a hapax legomenon. And while, in general, Christian doctrine cannot be established, and ought not to be established, on the basis of the evidence of Church History, at the same time, it is also true that when we define the hapax legomena in Scripture, it is common to go to the usage of those words and phrases found in the surrounding literature of the period. Below, it will be argued that within the surrounding literature of the period in which the book of Revelation was written, the term “the Lord's Day” has a clear and well-understood meaning. This argument is not building doctrine upon Church History, but is an attempt to define a word in its historical context in the way that is done with the 686 hapax legomena that occur in the New Testament[7] and the approximately 1300 that occur in the Old Testament.[8] Clearly, John the apostle in writing the book of Revelation and referring to “the Lord's Day” assumed both that the people to whom he was writing knew what it was. So in Revelation 1:10 we have the Lord's Day—widely understood, and not in need of even any explanation—that has significance for early Christians.[9]

The Didache. Steve Gregg notes that, “The majority of expositors… take ‘in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day’ to be a reference to John’s state of mind on the first day of the week— our Sunday.”[10] Gregg references the Didache 14:1, which states, “On every Lord's Day— his special day— come together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”[11] By this, we know that “the Lord’s Day” was viewed as a day set apart for corporate worship. The Didache is a manual for church order that had been “widely disseminated” by A.D. 100,[12] and thus it must have been written near the time that John composed the book of Revelation.

Ignatius. Ignatius in Chapter 9 of the Epistle to the Magnesians wrote of the Christian observance of “the Lord's Day,” referring to “the Lord's Day” as "the eighth day" [coming after the seventh day], and specifically tying Lord's Day worship to the resurrection of Christ.[13] Ignatius lived from A.D. 30-A.D. 107, and thus was writing within about 40 years of the completion of the book of Revelation.

Barnabas. Beale notes of “the Lord’s Day” in Revelation 1:10, “The phrase is clearly and consistently used of Sunday from the second half of the second century on.”[14] Beale references Barnabas 15:9, which states, “Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.”[15]

Justin Martyr. Another important witness from the early-to-mid-second century is Justin Martyr (A.D. 103-A.D. 165). In Chapter 67 of his First Apology, Justin did not use the term "Lord's Day," but he wrote of regular Christian worship on Sunday (in distinction from the other days), again tying this worship to the resurrection of Christ.[16]

Tertullian. A final witness, from the late second century, is Tertullian (c.160 A.D.-c.220 A.D.). In To the Nations Chapter 13 Tertullian makes passing reference to the Christian practice of holding Sunday as a special day of festivity.[17]

Conclusion of the Historical Evidence. In Christian literature written in close temporal proximity to the book of Revelation, the Lord’s Day is known as a special day of corporate worship, taking place on the first day of the week [sometimes referred to as the eighth day, or Sunday], and the Christian practice of worshiping together on the Lord’s Day is specifically related to the resurrection of Christ on the first day. No alternative explanation of the phrase “the Lord’s Day” exists in early Christian literature. This is the common understanding of “the Lord’s Day” that would have been shared by the original readers of the book of Revelation.

Biblical Evidence

The use of biblical evidence. Though the phrase “the Lord’s Day” is a hapax legomenon, making the use of historical evidence necessary, the New Testament provides both linguistic and thematic evidence that assists the readers in identifying “the Lord’s Day.”

The Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper. The particular word for “Lord” used in Revelation 1:10 is not the general root of “Lord” that is the common way of referring to Jesus Christ in the New Testament;[18] the term for “Lord” here, while it's not the general word κύριος, is the derivative possessive κυριακῇ, and it is not a hapax legomenon in the New Testament: it's the whole phrase that's a hapax. Therefore, as a phrase, “the Lord’s Day” must be examined as a hapax legomenon, but the root for the word κυριακῇ (i.e., kuriakos) is used in one other place in the New Testament: in reference to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20). Now this parallel usage of terminology regarding “the Lord's Supper” and “the Lord's Day” suggests that, like the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day is a Christian ordinance of some kind; as Christians partake in a particular Supper that belongs to the Lord in a special way, so Christians recognize a particular day that belongs to the Lord in a special way.[19] This line of reasoning leads John Murray to conclude:

The two pivotal events in this accomplishment [of redemption] are the death and resurrection of Christ and the two memorial ordinances of the New Testament institution are the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s Day, the one memorializing Jesus’ death and the other his resurrection.[20]

The first day of the week. Sam Waldron notes: “The only day of the week mentioned by its number in the New Testament is the first day of the week. It’s mentioned seven or eight times.”[21]

It’s clear that Christ was raised from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20: 1, 19). We know, on the basis of the New Testament, that the lordship of Jesus Christ is particularly associated both with the Day of Resurrection: the day upon which He was declared to be the Son of God with power (Rom 1:3-4), and made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).[22] We are told that “eight days later”—which in the Jewish, inclusive manner of reckoning time was the next first day of the week—he appeared to His gathered disciples again (John 20:26). And so there were two significant, unique, and distinct kinds of appearances to His disciples: on the first day—the resurrection day—and eight days later (the next first day of the week).

The Day of Pentecost, we know for certain due to Leviticus 23:15-16, took place on the first day of the week (the day after the seventh Sabbath). And so the first day of the week is also associated with Pentecost: when Jesus, with the exercise of His lordship, poured out the Spirit (Acts 2:1-4, 32-33).

And so Jesus’ resurrection on the first day of the week and His appearance eight days later on the next first day of the week (when Thomas declares Him as, “my Lord and my God!”) are associated with His lordship. And the Day of Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit on that first day of the week—was the open display of the power and glory of His resurrection. When we add to these historical facts the information of Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, which demonstrate that the first day of the week was the day upon which the early churches met, then we see that there is a great deal of 'naturalness' to the identification of the Lord’s Day as the first day of the week.[23]

Conclusion of the Biblical Evidence. The New Testament linguistic evidence concerning “the Lord’s Day” indicates that the Day is to be understood within the Church as a kind of ordinance: a day regularly commemorated as having a special relationship to the work of the Lord Jesus. The New Testament thematic evidence concerning “the Lord’s Day” indicates a relationship between “the Lord’s Day” and the first day of the week: the only day of the week mentioned by its number in the New Testament; the day of the week specifically related to the lordship of Christ through His resurrection, His post-resurrection appearance to the disciples eight days later, and His sending of the Spirit at Pentecost.

Conclusion

Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 identify the first day of the week as the day upon which the early churches met. The regulative principle would indicate that we should follow the commands and examples of the New Testament in establishing patterns of worship. The historical evidence immediately following the close of the New Testament also points to the churches meeting on the first day of the week: meeting regularly for worship on a day that they called “the Lord’s Day”—a term found in Revelation 1:10—due to its association with the lordship of Christ, specifically in regards to His resurrection on the first day. It is unthinkable that the early Christian community— including, it seems, the apostle John, as the author of Revelation— was entirely composed of those who were “weak in faith” (to use Paul’s phrase from Romans 14), with no one raising an objection to this prevailing understanding of “the Lord’s Day.” Therefore, John Murray’s conclusion seems inevitable:

The evidence supporting the memorial character of the first day is not to be controverted and, consequently, in this respect also the assumption in question cannot be entertained, namely, that all religious distinction of days is completely abrogated in the Christian economy.[24]

---

[1]John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 257-259.

[2]For example, a quick Internet search revealed at least three congregations- Highview Baptist Church, Fegenbush Campus (http://www.highviewbaptist.org/newto/compare.asp), Southeast Christian Church (http://www.southeastchristian.org/worship/), and Highland Baptist Church (http://www.hbclouisville.org/HBC/content/worship-services)- that offer services earlier in the weekend as an alternative to Sunday services.

[3]Jon Zens, “Some Practical Implications of Christ as our Ethical Starting Point,” As I Have Loved You, accessed 22 July 2010; available from http://solochristo.com/_SC/SoloChristo.htm; Internet. Tom Wells writes of Revelation 1:10 and Romans 14:5 in the same way, arguing that the reference to “the Lord’s Day” is ambiguous and that the day of worship may be changed according to “convenience.” Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, New Covenant Theology (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002), 251-257.

[4]Murray, 257.

[5]“What is the Philosophy of Worship that Unites Us?” accessed 29 July 2010; available from http://www.graceheritage.org/music.html; Internet.

[6]J. Ligon Duncan III, “Does God Care How We Worship?” Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 23.

[7] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck,eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament Edition (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1983), 860.

[8]Sam Waldron, “’Saturday or Sunday: Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?’ A Debate Between Baptists (Part 4)” [on-line]; accessed 14 July 2010; available from http://sharpens.blogspot.com/2010/05/saturday-or-sunday-which-day-is_14.html; MP3.

[9]G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 4, 27.

[10]Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 59.

[11]Didache [on-line]; accessed 14 July 2010; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html; Internet.

[12]Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2005), 26.

[13]Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 9 [on-line]; accessed 15 July 2010; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.iii.ix.html#v.iii.ix-p1.1; Internet.

[14]Beale, The Book of Revelation, 203.

[15]Barnabas [on-line]; accessed 14 July 2010; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.xv.html; Internet.

[16]Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67 [on-line]; accessed 15 July 2010; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxvii.html#viii.ii.lxvii-p1.4; Internet.

[17]Tertullian, To The Nations, 13 [on-line]; accessed 15 July 2010; available from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.viii.i.xiii.html; Internet.

[18] It's clear in the context that “Lord” refers to Jesus Christ.

[19]Waldron, “’Saturday or Sunday (Part 4).”

[20] Murray, Romans, 258. Concerning the phrase κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ [in Rev 1:10] BDAG 576 s.v. κυριακός states: “pert. to belonging to the Lord, the Lord’s… κ. ἡμέρᾳ the Lord’s Day (Kephal. I 192, 1; 193, 31…) i.e., certainly Sunday (so in Mod. Gk…) Rv 1:10 (WStott, NTS 12, ’65, 70-75).” Cited from The NET Bible [on-line]; accessed 14 July 2010; available from http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rev&chapter=1; Internet.

[21]Waldron, “Saturday or Sunday (Part 4).” Waldron says, “seven or eight times” because Mark 16:9 is in dispute. Of the times that the term “first day of the week” is used, six speak of the very day Jesus was raised from the dead (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; John 20:19).

[22] Jesus was certainly divine prior to His resurrection (John 1:1; 17:5), “but He assumed, in a new way, kingship and lordship at His resurrection.” Sam Waldron, “’Saturday or Sunday: Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?’ A Debate Between Baptists (Part 2)” [on-line]; accessed 14 July 2010; available from http://sharpens.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-06-03T05%3A44%3A00-04%3A00; MP3.

[23]Waldron, “Saturday or Sunday (Part 4).”

[24]Murray, Romans, 258-259.