Of course a change of mind does not mean that he was wrong in his first judgement.

I note too that a recently updated version of the book has been published.

1. Heth has changed his view to some degree. I don’t have the article, but I did read an article by him in the past few years that explained his change of understanding.

2. In his article on divorce and remarriage John Piper quotes Tom Schriener as support for the betrothel (engagement) view of the word pornea which is most often translated as adultery in our english translations. Tom Shriener no longer holds that view. It was something that he was taught at Western Conservative Seminary under Earl Radmacher during his initial seminary training.

3. At Bethlehem Baptist there is not agreement among pastor’s supporting John Piper’s view. Pastors are allowed to hold the view that divorece is allowed for adultery or desertion by an unbelieving spouse.

In short, Christians appear to be simple minded.

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

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.

“For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?” 1 Cor. 3:4