Nov
12
2009
Divorce and Remarriage: A Smokescreen and a Fire
Try arguing with left-leaning Christians about homosexuality and within the first five minutes someone will throw divorce and remarriage in your face. Much to my chagrin, I’ve been embroiled in debates about homosexuality many times, and every time, someone defending homosexual behavior brings up divorce. “If marriage is so important to you,” the retort will go, “why don’t you ever talk about the sin of divorce?” The implication being: “You are just picking on homosexuals. You don’t follow the literal letter of the law any more than we do. If you did, you would be focusing on divorce, because that’s the bigger issue in our churches.”
Where There’s Smoke…
When it comes to debating homosexuality, divorce is both a smokescreen and a fire. It is a smokescreen because the two issues–divorce and homosexuality–are far from identical. For starters, there are no groups in our denominations whose raison d’etre is the celebration of divorce. People are not advocating new policies in our churches that affirm the goodness of divorce. Conservatives, in the culture and in the mainline, keep talking about homosexuality because that is the fault line right now. We’d love to talk (and do) about how to have a healthy marriage. We’d love to talk (and do) about the glory of the Trinity, but the battle right now (at least one of them) is over homosexuality. So we cannot be silent on this issue.
Just as importantly, the biblical prohibition against divorce explicitly allows for exceptions; the prohibition against homosexuality does not. The traditional Protestant position, as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith for example, maintains that divorce is permissible on grounds of marital infidelity or desertion by an unbelieving spouse. Granted, the application of these principles is difficult and the question of remarriage after divorce gets even trickier, but almost all Protestants have always held that divorce is sometimes acceptable. Simply put, homosexuality and divorce are different issues because according to the Bible and Christian tradition the former is always wrong, while the latter is not.
Finally, the “what about divorce?” argument is not a good as it sounds because many of our churches do take divorce seriously. I realize that many churches don’t (more on that in a minute). But a lot of the same churches that speak out against homosexuality also speak out against illegitimate divorce. I’ve said more about homosexuality in the blogosphere because there’s a controversy around the issue in the wider church. But I’ve said more about divorce in my church because this is the more dangerous issue for us (and most congregations I imagine). Virtually every single discipline case we’ve encountered as a board of elders has been about divorce. The majority of pastoral care crises I have been involved in have dealt with failed or failing marriages. My church, like many others, takes seriously all kinds of sins, including illegitimate divorce. We don’t always know how to handle every situation, but I can say with a completely clear conscience that we never turn a blind eye to divorce.
…There’s Probably Some Fire
And yet…and yet, many conservative evangelicals have been negligent in dealing with illegitimate divorce and remarriage. Pastors have not preached on the issue for fear of offending scores of their members. Elder Boards have not practiced church discipline on those who sin in this area because, well, they don’t practice discipline for much of anything. Counselors, friends, and small groups have not gotten involved early enough to make a difference in pre-divorce situations. Christian attorneys have not thought enough about their responsibility in encouraging marital reconciliation. Church leaders have not helped the uneducated to understand God’s teaching about the sanctity of marriage, and we have not helped those already wrongly remarried to experience forgiveness for their past mistakes.
So yes, there is plenty of duplicity to go around. The evangelical church, in many places, gave up and caved in on divorce and remarriage. But the remedy to this negligence is not more negligence. The slow, painful cure is more biblical exposition, more active pastoral care, more faithful use of discipline, more word-saturated counseling, and more prayer–for illegitimate divorce, for homosexuality, and for all the other sins that are more easily condoned than confronted.
55 Comments
Excellent post. I need some help, though. I’m looking for resources that deal with whether “acceptably” (as you put it) divorced individuals are fit to pursue eldership within a church. Experiencing a situation where some members think ‘yes,’ while others think ‘no.’ Any recommendations? From anyone, not just Kevin. Thanks in advance.
Yes a great resource is “Divorce & Remarriage: A Permanence View” it answers that question and many more about Divorce & Remarriage. http://www.ccwtoday.org/resource_view.asp?resource_id=16
Consistency is key. It’s hypocritical to rail against homosexuality – particularly homosexual “marriage” – while being cowardly silent on unbiblical divorces within our congregations. Thanks for posting this.
Thanks Kevin.
“For starters, there are no groups in our denominations whose raison d’etre is the celebration of divorce. People are not advocating new policies in our churches that affirm the goodness of divorce. Conservatives, in the culture and in the mainline, keep talking about homosexuality because that is the fault line right now.”
That says it all.
Also,
The Divorce Dilemma by John MAcArthur and Biblical Eldership by Strauch
I think you’re right on smoke and fire here. I don’t think quoting Westminster here is very helpful though. Two-kingdom thinking leads to some very strange conclusions in a number of areas. It led the Reformers to believe that it was the job of the State to kill the adulterer, therefore the church could remarry the innocent party. So do accept Westminster you have to accept that the State has a responsibility to put the adulterer to death! That is the only reason remarriage is allowable. That’s why Westminster says to treat the offender as if they’re dead. That’s problematic on a number of fronts (like Biblically!). So the homosexuals are right about Evangelical hypocrisy on this issue. Jesus clearly taught that divorce and remarriage is not allowed. Its only a similar hermeneutic to the homosexual hermeneuts that allows for divorce and remarriage. And a similar physchology as well- sympathy for ones celebate state and the “inability” to remain celebate.
Deek,
It seems in my view that the church should take these issues case by case.
2 helpful resources:
1. wwww.biblebb.com/files/elder.htm: it is an article by Dr. Robert L. Saucy.
2. God, Marriage, and Family by Andreas J. Kostemberger
Correction:
http://www.biblebb.com/files/elder.htm
To chime in on more resources: William F. Luck’s Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View must be considered.
See my 2-part series and overview here.
I think another issue not being recognized yet under the “hypocrisy” charge is that homosexuals are the ones making this THE cause de jour. We have yet to see the throngs pushing the “pedophiles are Christians too” plank, nor for that matter have we yet seen the “wife beaters for Christ” cause put forward. I suppose we can anticipate the inclusive emote to pour forth in those cases as well. And why stop there? Adulterers, gossips, liars, blasphemers, fornicators, gluttons, sluggards, all deserve respect and honor as fellow members of the Body of Christ. We should have parades honoring their lifestyle choices and of course who are we to judge?
Has anyone noticed the only people apparently worth of serious critique by the emergent heretics are “fundies”?
This would be merely pathetic if not so eternally dangerous.
Perhaps people could apply the “no-harm” test to individual cases of divorce and individual instances of homosexual sex. More information about this test is on the Gay and Christian website (www.gaysandslaves.com).
Regarding the Divorce issue, I always wondered how prohomosexual Christians handle what I like to call the Brokeback Scenario. A married man finds out he is gay and desires to divorce his wife to enter a homosexual relationship, is that appropriate? Which gets Carte Blanche? The homosexual nature or the original marriage vow? Is the bigger sin violating the “natural” sexual orientation or divorce? Do they simply ignore divorce and if so, how are they any different than Evangelicals? Have you seen any treatment on this issue from an ethical standpoint from a Homosexual camp.
Kevin DeYoung,
The Bible is not “tricky” on divorce and remarriage. Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery. (Mark 10, Matthew 19, Matthew 5, Luke 16, 1 Corinthians 7). Kevin, the divorce and remarriage issue is only “tricky” for you because you want it to be. With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, you wouldn’t dare go against divorce and remarriage. However, you consider yourself bold because you’ll oppose a minority group like homosexuals.
Paul (Post #13)
With all due respect it appears you’ve not dealt with the issues. And appealing to simplicity because is supports a narrow view not supported by Scripture itself is not a sufficient answer.
Good post, Kevin!
As a pastor who has been divorced and remarried, let me tell you there is much fire around the issue; some of it due to ignorance, some of it due to self-righteousness, some of it due to tradition, some of it due to sin, and some of it due to self-justification. It is also obvious that many good and learned men disagree on this issue, so it is possible to keep reading books and articles until you find someone with whom you agree or supports your position, or makes the most compelling case.
Instead of reading what other men have written, study it for yourself. Look at all the Scriptures dealing with the issue of divorce, remarriage, and elder qualification; along with other Scriptures that come alongside of this area. Be able to back up your position with Scripture, not opinion backed up by what someone else has written. It is not something to be taken lightly.
Paul (Post #14)
Regarding “appealing to simplicity because is supports a narrow view”- that statement seems more culturally relevant than philosophically informed or Biblically faithful. How do you logically arrive at the other Paul “appealing to simplicity because is supports a narrow view”? The claim to be Biblically faithful, while not dealing with Scriptures teaching on divorce, is the same hermeneutic of the pro-homosexual practice “Christians”. Adulterers AND homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom. “Evangelical sins” do not exempt us from judgment. Jesus’ very clear statements in Mark 10 etc. as well as 1 Cor. 7 and Romans 7:1-6 cannot be reconciled with the reigning Evangelical view. Once again John Piper is the prophetic voice of the church in the 21st century. It is just as important that it is ONE man and ONE woman, as it is one MAN and ONE woman (and it doesn’t mean one at a time). Let him who has ears to hear, hear. And let us repent, as evangelicals (supposed gospel people) of condoning adultery.
Now, now, Scott…don’t get your knickers in a twist.
Search the Scriptures and by all means listen to others who have done so responsibly.
Peace.
I am totaly confused and would appreciate someone enlightening me. Sexual sin is present in people who are married; people who have been married and divorced, single people who have never been married. Homosexual behavior is a sexual sin.
I could understand a practicing homosexual bringing up the rampant use of pornography by professing Christians in a debate. But “marriage and divorce”. That is like debating the difference between someone who robs banks with “how many bank employees should be trusted with the keys to the fault.”
Is the sin of homosexualty more heinious in God’s eyes than other sexual sins? In other words, are we as Christians more concerned if our son thinks he’s homosexual than we are if he gets his girlfriend pregnant? I think, that–if most were honest with themselves, they would rather hear that their son is fornicating than that he thinks he’s homosexual. Is it biblical to think that way? I think not, and yet that is how most would think about these types of sexual sins.
Perhaps we should spend more time on our knees regarding the sexual sins rampant in the professing Church, and spend less time feeding into the homosexual agenda.
D.L. Kane
Aah, but it’s so much easier and such a convenient distraction to take our eyes off what is really destroying marriages and focus on those sinful preverted homosexuals. I mean if they must sin sexually, can’t they do it like normal people?”
Re suitability of illegitimately divorced and remarried to pursue eldership in church it seems to me the qualifications of an elder debar membership. Husband of ‘one wife’ suggests this. Even if it refers to polygamy the principle is surely the same. ‘Blameless’ also seems to impinge. Will a congregation or wider society re a divorced/remarried person as ‘blameless’?
Re the scope of divorce/remarriage. Jesus seems to limit the scope significantly, so horrifying his disciples. My problem with the desertion clause in WCF is it seems to open the door wide open. That and it adds to the one exception Jesus allows.
“Is the sin of homosexualty more heinious in God’s eyes than other sexual sins? In other words, are we as Christians more concerned if our son thinks he’s homosexual than we are if he gets his girlfriend pregnant?”
D. L., I don’t think you believe that you are “totaly confused.” (Sic). What you wrote, above, is a non sequitur. I mean, there could be a difference between God’s view of sexual sin and our view, which is imperfect and influenced by the world.
Sex between two men or two women is a kind of sin against nature–and a sin against God. Sex between a man and a woman, which is a sin against God outside of marriage, is not a sin against nature.
Kristin- yep. And its not insignificant that homosexuality is the height of “dishonorable passions”, the end result of the unrighteous suppression of the truth… futile thinking… foolish hearts… While heterosexual immorality is “dishonoring to their bodies”, homosexualality itself is a “dishonorable passion”.
Paul,
Just to clarify, the tone of my post was not meant to be taken as hostile. This is just a very serious problem in the evangelical church and your comment wasn’t philosophically informed. You had set the rules- be logical and biblically faithful. So that is what I was trying to point out. Your response to me, oddly, was fallicious. It was an “appeal to ridicule”. May I gently recommend that if you set the rules, you play by them. Thanks brother.
Yes Kirstin, I was legitimately confused as to what was being discussed. John Thompson’s comment help clarify. Two separate issues seemed to be blended into one: 1) Who meets the biblical qualifications to be an elder in a church; and 2) Sexual sin in general.
We are limited to the outward manifestations of sin in a man’s life in terms of determining qualifications. Is a man who is married and never divorced, who in secret habitually uses pornography to satisfy is sexual desires and inwardly lusts after women more qualified than a single man who may have homosexual thoughts; but who knows they are sinful and never practices them outwardly?
That was my point. The outward manifestaton of sin is all we can base our assessment on. To think that a practicing homosexual is qualified to be an elder or a pastor is the same as thinking that a man who is an adulterer is qualified. Of course, that then opens up the topic of what makes a man an “adulterer” and that is what leads to the debate about “marriage and divorce”. Is a man who gets his desire for “natural” sexual gratification satisified by viewing pornography in the privacy of his home office while his family is sleepying silently in the other room an adulterer? I beleive that he is.
My point was that there are thousands of “married and never divorced” men who are elders; who are also very much viewed as adulterers by God and whose sexual sins are far more henious than a man who may think he’s homosexual but who knows homosexuality is a sin and therefore does not indulge in his desires for it. Just as there are men who have been married and divorced and do not indulge in pornography or homosexuality.
Thanks, Scott. Not sure where the ridicule comes to play in my post. Seems as though you were not seeing a different reading from the texts on divorce other than your own. Consider, for example, Mal 2:16 in the NIV “‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD God of Israel, ‘and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,’ says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.” The ESV reads, “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and(AI) do not be faithless.” Clearly these are not saying the same thing and the complexity of issues in translation must be considered, among the plethora of other relevant passages, before one simply concludes that all divorce is wrong. Again, I encourage any and all to read William F. Luck on this topic or my brief (link previously posted).
Without question this is a problem in the Church and in the world. But unless and until we come to grips with the Scriptures’ bearing on this, we will continue spewing tradition and misunderstanding. No ridicule here; only admonition in spirit of Christian love and honesty.
Scott,
Correction: I meant Paul in post #13 was not seemingly coming to grips with the complexities. Apologies.
Paul- Truth!
Thanks for the links and recommendations. Helpful. (See comment #1)
Scott,
You said: “Jesus clearly taught that divorce and remarriage is not allowed”. Read Matthew 5:31-33. Jesus’s sermon on the mount covers the topic of divorce, allowable for marital unfaithfulness.
That being said, I think it’s a huge issue in the church that needs to be discussed, preached on and a cuase for church discipline. I just think you should be more careful when making statements (that you can’t take back) when they don’t seem to have a biblical basis.
An indepth study of this passage, as well as, so many others is helpful in sheding light on how God views sexual sin and it appears to be quite different from how many of us view it.
“Also I have seen a horrible thing in the prophets of Jerusalem: They commit adultery and walk in lies; They also strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are like Sodom to Me, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.” Jeremiah 23:14
Russ,
Yes, Jesus does allow divorce for adultery. The exception clause explains that divorce in this case does not make one an adulterer (because they already are). So divorce is allowed, but I am talking about remarriage. Marriage is indissovable by anyone accept God, and He does this by…. ummm…. killing people. Marriage is not a legal fiction. Two truly become one until death. Let no man put asunder- only God can end what He created in marriage. This is Jesus teaching in the Gospels (Mark 10 makes no sense otherwise) and those allowing for divorce and remarriage CANNOT explain 1 Cor 7 and Romans 7:1-6 amongst other passages. It is like the pro-homosexual practice Christians who use one verse out of context and ignore the key passages on the issue. Evangelicals need to explain Romans 7:1-6 if they are to marry divorcees with a clear (albeit wrong) conscience.
Scott,
So, following your argument, my marriage to my wife (her 2nd) is sinful, unbiblical and we should repent of our sins? Is that what you’re saying? I need not explain to you why she was divorced, save to tell you that it is something that Christ Himself gives explicit agreement too. And the divorce was not of her choosing I might add.
And I’m not suggesting anywhere that marriage is a “legal fiction” as you put it. Marriage represents Christ’s relationship with His church. Instituted by God and Ordained by God. Perhaps you should be disciplined in not assuming people believe one thing before you post.
Russ,
I’m sorry to hear about your wife’s unfaithful husband. I wasn’t implying that you were saying it was a legal fiction, but that all who view marriage as dissolvable (apart from death), are not understanding the nature of marriage and are treating it as a legal fiction. So yes, I would say you and your wife should repent. Just as I must repent and turn from the sexual sin I’ve committed in my life. We must listen carefully to what Jesus calls sin. I believe Scripture is very clear that divorce and remarriage is adultery (study in depth ALL the passages people have mentioned above). We must call “sin” what Jesus calls “sin”. In this case I believe that adulterers are telling Jesus “I have no sin” or more accurately “I have not serious sin like adultery”. I’m just saying that if Jesus is teaching that there is no divorce and remarriage, and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, we must be EXTERMELY careful to listen to what the Scriptures teach on this. It won’t matter if we say “but Lord, we’re Evangelicals” if we make void the Word of God by our traditions. D.L.’s citation of Jeremiah 23:14 is a clear warning to all of us.
You say “Is that what you’re saying?” which seems to imply that you’ve never heard this view. What I’m saying is not radical- John Piper is one of many who hold this view… oh, and it was the view of the church for the first 1,500 years. That alone should give us enough pause… and fear… to actually listen to what the Bible says. There will be many homosexuals, fornicators… who will be surprised because their churches taught that it was not sin. I’m just saying I believe we Evangelicals are in the same position.
Scott
My sympathies are with you in your desire to limit divorce. We scarcely need our bibles to see what a disaster it is. That being said, I don’t think your argument holds for Matt 19. In Ch 19 the adulterer (the woman) is being divorced and the ‘innocent party’ (the man is remarrying, yet his remarriage makes him an adulterer.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
He is not already an adulterer he becomes an adulterer by remarriage. In this case the exception clause makes no sense if it is read as implying ‘you don’t make an adulterer out of someone who is already an adulterer’.
Russ
While the legitimacy of your marriage is for you, your wife and your church, I do think you illustrate the difficulty. It is very hard to have a discussion on divorce/remarriage since so many evangelicals are in this position and have a vested interest.
If homosexual inclination were given the legitimacy our inclination for divorce/remarriage has been given or if sufficient influential evangelicals had children of homosexual inclination I wonder whether we would be today with homosexuality where we are with divorce/remarriage.
My point is we vigorously condemn what is distant but what is up close we more readily accommodate.
This is by no means a plea to be soft on homosexuality, rather it is a plea to be hard on wrongful divorce/remarriage. I doubt if the moral authority and indeed the will is left to be hard on divorce in many churches.
PS
The same could be said for gender issues. Scripture is twisted and ignored because our churches have sufficient members with a vested interest to create a power lobby that has more authority than Scripture.
We do with the Scriptures in gender and divorce issues what homosexual people do with it on the matter of homosexuality.
John:
Please consider: “it is men whom Jesus condemns for their flippant attitude toward the marriage covenant in Mt. 19:8, 9 (note the masculine pronouns throughout).” The man becomes an adulterer BEFORE he ends the marriage. Please, folks…read http://inchristus.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/divorce-and-re-marriage-part-1/ and http://inchristus.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/divorce-and-re-marriage-part-2/, then come let us reason.
Apologies for the above links: They should be:
http://inchristus.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/divorce-and-re-marriage-part-1/
and
http://inchristus.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/divorce-and-re-marriage-part-2/
Scott
Just read your latest comment. Again, I am in agreement with your basic premise. I find Wenham and Heth compelling on this. Yet, I would ask what you would advise a divorce/remarriage couple, now married for lets say 15 years with three children to do.
Like you I think there should be a recognition of their sin before the Lord. However, I think it is imporatnt to recognise that the new marriage is a real marriage, though one wrongly entered. It would be as wrong to divorce now as it was the first time. I think the situation is analogous to a polygamous marriage. In my view this is probably what Paul is referring to when he says the elder must be the husband of one wife. In other words there are certain situations that cannot in justice be corrected but which though they do not debar from membership do debar from leadership.
Many divorced and remarried elders/pastors/lecturers ought not to be in office. This at a stroke would make more feasible divorce control in the church and prevent the church being a laughing stock in the world. While many who run the church are divorced no headway on the matter of divorce is likely.
Paul
It is men to whom Jesus is speaking and indeed it was only men who could divorce in C1 Palestine. However, I don’t think the man in this text is the sexual sinner, it is his wife.
The basic question Jesus is asked is if a man should put away his wife for any fault he sees in her. The Pharisees wish to know if he belongs to the ‘open’ party of Pharisees who advocate divorce on the ground of any fault found in the wife, or the ‘narrow’ party who allow the husband to divorce and remarry only if he finds her guilty of adultery.
It is possible Jesus is saying I allow for divorce on the basis of her adultery (rather than stoning her), however, I do not permit remarriage under any circumstances.
This position is well argued by Wenham and Heth and presented ina more popular form with lots of practical pastoral advice by a book on divorce and remarriage by Andrew Hornes, the title of which I forget.
I think you struggle Paul to make the man the guilty party in Matt 19.
Yea….Heth and Wenham’s findings are good but antiquated. And I understand that Heth has lightened up on his position after reading Luck (with whom he is good friends, according Luck via personal communique). I see no reason to take Matt 19 to say it was the woman who was the erring party. I fear your struggle is making the woman the erring party. Of course, Malachi 2 speaks of the husband wrongly divorcing his wife (ESV) and Deut 24 prohibits the man from re-marrying his wife after divorcing her. It does not prohibit her from re-marrying another.
Enough said. I’ve said plenty elsewhere as mentioned.
John,
Thanks for your comments. I can only reply very briefly. By the first century, polygamy was no longer a part of Jewish culture, so I believe Paul was talking in Timothy and Titus about divorce and not polygamy. Its “one wife”, not “one at a time” that is his concern. Also, I don’t think you’re quite following my thinking on Matthew 19 (and I haven’t explained it that well). What I’m saying is that we should seriously consider the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6. I am heading out of town in about 20 minutes so I can’t spell out my view right now. Read Piper (point 11) here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/
I came to the same conclusion apart from Dr. Piper.
Piper’s wrong that all remarriage is adultery while spouses remain alive.
Sorry. He’s just plain wrong.
No time to engage anymore but Piper has not done his homework.
“Unless I am convinced by scripture and not by Pipers, and MacArthurs and Sprouls who have often contradited each other; unless I am so convinced that I am wrong, my beliefs are bound to the text of the Bible; my conscience is held captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”
Godly learned men, throughout the history of the church have held differing opinions (with strong convictions) on the issues of remarriage after divorce. To attempt to make a dogmatic rule about something that godly men have debated for centuries is futile and perhaps even dillusional. If you have spent anytime reading about this, you will soon discover that it is a debate that has never been resolved. So, whose understanding is correct?
Of course that is exactly what Rome said would happen if we were left to interpret scripture for ourselves. Therefore, if one wants all local churches and all Christians to believe the same thing in regard to this, one can always convert to Rome and allow the church Magisterium to tell them what they must believe about these issues.
You cannot have it both ways.
Kevin, you can’t have it both ways. When a church tolerates divorce and remarriage, it loses its moral authority to condemn homosexuality. You would rightfully laugh at the idea of an openly homosexual pastor excommunicating someone for divorce and remarriage, yet you completely accept a remarried pastor excommunicating someone for homosexuality. It’s not often I will say anything on behalf of homosexuals, but homosexuals have the right to scream “hypocrite” when adultery (remarriage) is completely tolerated and homosexuality is condemned.
Paul,
I don’t see how he is in any way condoning UNBIBLICAL divorce and remarriage. Most bible students today seem to understand zse”whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
If a father had two sons and they regularly eat at billy’s fast food and he being concerned for their health says; “do not eat at billy’s fast food, except for the salads, or you will be disobeying me.” I think most folks would understand what he is saying, although there would probably be some confused by this. I think the bible is clear marriage is meant to be forever with 2 exceptions (Matt 19:9;1Cor 7:15). All deviations from this is sin and should be dealt with. Remarriage after divorce was presupposed when this was addressed in the N.T.
Piper states, in his own position paper on this issue: “I do not claim to have seen or said the last word on this issue, nor am I above correction, should I prove to be wrong. I am aware that men more godly than I have taken different views. Nevertheless, every person and church must teach and live according to the dictates of its own conscience informed by a serious study of Scripture.”
“every person and church must teach and live according to the dictates of its own conscience informed by a serious study of Scripture.” Amen, Dr. P….Amen!!
“Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” Matthew 23:10
“For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?” 1 Cor. 3:4
I know desertion based on 1 Cor 7:15 has been a standard interpretation in Protestant circles. I think it is exceedingly weak.
1. It stands in opposition to Jesus’ one exception clause (whatever it may mean).
2. It does not sit comfortably with previous verses.
‘1Co 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband(but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.’
3. It is by no means clear that an unbelieving partner is free to remarry, especially in the light of VV10-11. The much more natural reading and that which would most easily align to divorce in the gospels and earlier in chapter, is that the believing wife is not obliged to harry her unbelieving husband and resist the divorce. ‘God has called us to peace’ further supports this understanding.
4. Language ‘is not bound’ is different to ‘bound’ in 7:39.
5. Indeed, on the basis of Jesus’ teaching, an unconverted couple who separate are not free to remarry (for Jesus is speaking about marriage in general not merely for christians) however, Paul, we are told is making it possible for a believer and an unbeliever to divorce and remarry. It doesn’t stack up.
6. Divorce on the grounds of desertion drives a train and truck through the intention of Jesus to limit divorce. It legitimates divorce and remarriage for at least one half of any married couple thus making a mockery of the biblical opposition to divorce.
1 Cor 7:15 “In such cases..” again clearly exception talk. So it fits fine with the context and notice the brackets in vs. 10 and verse 12. Jesus did not address this issue Jesus was addressing a Jewish context (the gospels)when the church was born there were new issues to address.
Bound being different word: True but the sense is the same. It would be quite strange to tell someone they are no longer bound and then let them know they cannot remarry for they are bound. What sense of freedom what this bring? In the light of the divorce certificate in the day in which in my understanding they would say something like “you are know FREE to remarry.” Not being bound would make sense, the opposite of bound is free. God is good and Luke 18:29,30 tells us that Jesus wants to bless these folks who endure the division in family.
You might say well they are free to divorce but not to remarry. The view of the day was that when you get divorced lawfully you were free to remarry. The biggest issues were what was lawful.
People abuse this and it causes damage. Lots of folks abuse grace but we are never going to stop preaching it.
God Bless
[...] Divorce and Remarriage: A Smokescreen and a Fire [...]