Divorce and Remarriage

[staythecourse]

To Josh

Mr.,

First, thank you for your capable moderating abilities.

To quote your earlier reply:

"...no longer bound" must mean, along with other things, "free to remarry". If it's taken to mean "No longer bound, but only in the narrow sense of financial obligations, etc. and not in the granting of remarriage" then the "innocent" party has not really been freed. No, they must live with the thought that they may not marry another for the rest of their lives, at no fault of their own

My limited Greek forced me to look this up and two different words are used in the same passage: most of use know doulos is "servant" or "slave." Commentators see that Paul says she is not slavishly obligated to try to make this unworkable marriage work and live in a house where there will be no peace for "God has called us to peace." He later uses a different word deditia which means bind but is only used in legal senses by Paul - the lawyer that he is in the NT. So, it apparently would be legal aspects of marriage.

So, loosed from marriage does not mean free to remarry. (Pardon to all divorced people. I'm hashing out who I can marry and what I can tell those I know in similar situations. Bless your patience and know the Lord loves you deeply)

 

[staythecourse]

A thanks to Pastor Bruce

To all reviewing this thread, I asked him to look at this and gave me some personal advice on the side. Appreciate that sir.

 

[MW]

On this basis, divorce is a punishment on the guilty party and a reward for the innocent. Such a view would make reconciliation an impossibility for a conscientious upholder of moral principles. Definitely something amiss here.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Matthew,
No one so far has said that reconcilliation is not possible, so long as another marriage has not taken place. Where do you see the disjunct? The one thing I've suggested is that remarriage for the guilty party is ONLY lawful back to his former spouse, provided he/she isn't already married. Perhaps that wasn't clear.

I also wouldn't call divorce "reward" for the innocent person. But they are free/no longer bound. And they may remarry another. That's no "reward" for the pain of adultery or abandonment. But maybe it's a chance for a fresh start. I just don't think that if the guilty party won't (and eventually can't) reconcile, that he's free to remarry.

 

[MW]

Bruce, doesn't the Deuteronomic law specifically forbid the taking again of one's divorced spouse? I have thought the purpose of that law is to ensure that marriage does not become sanctioned promiscuity. My view would be that a divorced couple cannot be reconciled. The divorce has made their irreconcilability official in the eyes of society.

I would be on my guard against any theory of divorce which sees it as a punishment. If it is a punishment then it must be upheld regardless of the married persons' feelings towards each other. The biblical purpose of divorce is to serve as a remedy against hardness, where one spouse clearly does not want to fulfil marriage duties to the other person any more, and makes the other person suffer because of it.

 

[crhoades]

If a cause for divorce is adultery, wouldn't it make sense that reconciliation wouldn't be an option in the OT as the adulterer would be killed?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

OK. Matthew, I think I see where you're coming from. The way I've always read that Deuteronomic law, it reads to me as though no return is possible between the married and divorced parties, once another marriage has been entered into by either person. A new marriage is like a bridge of no return. The text states that she can't go back to the man, even if he seems "free" again, after another divorce or even the death of her replacement.

The way I read you, you see that law teaching that the legal act of the divorce is itself the bridge of no return. I'll chew on that. But it seems to me that in the absence of promiscuity or remarriage, even the apparent permanent separation by divorce could be salvaged, room for repentance, provided there was no other impediment--namely an intervening marriage, i.e. new vows.

I agree with your basic assessment of the reason God allowed divorce, namely as a remedy. I don't see the legal act itself as punishment or reward. It is a declaration. And innocent parties have rights they may exercise after said declaration. I'm just curious, given the nature of the declaration, do you think that the guilty party in a divorce-situation has the same freedom to remarry (someone else) as the innocent one? Matthew Poole indicated that in his day divines differed. I come down on the side that says the one in the wrong may not.

 

[satz]

To Bryan

Dear Bryan,

Please don’t take offense at what I say, but here are my thoughts.

With respect, what you seem to be saying is that your conscience would not allow you to marry because of your past. But I do not feel you have come close to proving that God sees it as a sin for someone who has committed fornication in the past to marry. I would urge you to reconsider before holding to what I feel to be a incredibly unmerciful interpretation of scripture, both for yourself and others. And when I use the word unmerciful, I mean unmerciful as measured by the law of God.

Again, with respect, none of the four examples you give really mean anything. Just because you have some examples of people who were involved in immorality and then remained single does not prove it is something God commands. It seems you are starting with a premise and then looking for examples to support that premise, but you have not yet proven the validity of the initial premise from the bible. I do not believe there is any verse in the bible that even hints that a repentant fornicator cannot marry. Narrative examples should not be made immediately into prescriptive commands.

What I don't necessarily agree with is the idea "Now you are saved, all things have passed away, new things have come, get married depite your past." I've heard that before but even here, with the Samaritan woman, I do not see a go-ahead for marriage. Any Elihu's out there that might care to tackle this? It may take some effort to uproot this thinking.

I would agree with you to a point, repenting for sin does not eliminate the physical consequences of sin. However, the consequences should not be extended beyond what God says they are. A previous fornicator will have to live with a certain amount of shame, and may have added difficulty convincing a potential spouse to overlook the past sin. But if the potential spouse can be convinced, I see nothing in the word of God to prevent the marriage from going ahead. Again, and I say this with respect, so please take no offence, I think it is a weak conscience that must continue to punish itself after repenting beyond what God has specifically required. And I do not see anywhere that God has required this burden of repentant fornicators with regards to marriage.

As an example of how fully repentance can clear a person, consider how after denying Jesus Christ three times in public, Peter was still confident in being the leader of Apostles and disciples alike on the day of Pentacost. Consider too how despite his past failure he boldly took the lead in moving to find a replacement for Judas.

Off hand, I can also think of Rehab being mentioned in the genealogy of the Lord in Matt 1:5, apparently married to Salmon. Was it a sin for her to get married in that way?

I would be interested in your thoughts on this. If you reviewed this read, I guess you already know I think Piper missed the boat on divorce and remarriage. I might post something on that later if time permits.

 

[MW]

If a cause for divorce is adultery, wouldn't it make sense that reconciliation wouldn't be an option in the OT as the adulterer would be killed?

My view is that the punishment for adultery is death, not divorce. A divorced state, according to the biblical view, is a marriagable condition. If modern States do not punish adultery with death, it opens the possibility of reconciliation, or in the case of a divorce, of remarriage, even for the guilty party.

 

[MW]

I'm just curious, given the nature of the declaration, do you think that the guilty party in a divorce-situation has the same freedom to remarry (someone else) as the innocent one?

Yes, divorce has given that freedom to the guilty party in the eyes of society. Of course that does not prejudice the church from enacting its own discipline. The Scottish reformed church had a rigid discipline, including a stool of repentance, which seems to be sorely missed today. But even the GA pronounced the guilty party free to marry if his life were spared.

 

[satz]

Re: Piper's Article

I hope I might be allowed to make some comments on Piper’s article, particularly the portions quoted below.

Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage. More on this below.

The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.

I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

It is my belief that when we go for the sense rather than just the sound of the words, Both Mark and Luke are completely consistent with the ‘exception’ in Matthew, and when we look at all the passages together, it seems possible to tell that Jesus did not intend to prohibit all divorce and remarriage, but only certain types of divorce and remarriage.

First, Matthew 19;

Matthew 19:2-13 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

Firstly, from here we see the context of all of the Lord Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage, which is basically his controversy with the Pharisees. In the gospels we do not (to my knowledge, I am open to correction ) ever see the Lord sitting around and teaching on divorce and remarriage simply for the sake of telling divorced people what they could not could not do. All his teaching on divorce and remarriage, and certainly the main passages referenced in Piper’s article involve the Lord dealing with the fact that the Pharisees were teaching an erroneous doctrine on divorce. As we can see from this passage, I believe the Lord’s teaching on d & r must be considered in the context that the Pharisees were teaching that divorce was allowable for every cause. So the Lord here corrects them and tells them, no divorce is not ok for every cause, because what God has joined together, let no man put asunder. But then he goes on and tells them that though divorce is not allowable for every cause it is allowable for some causes, and the one he lists is fornication.

Note also that it says that the Pharisees were tempting him. The Lord’s teaching on d & r was not addressed to a sincere godly Israelite who had been afflicted with a sinfully rebellious spouse. He was, in a sense rebuking Pharisees who were asking an insincere question. Which is why, I believe, in many of the other passages he sounds like he is setting an absolute rule. He is making a strong point (rebuking the Pharisees doctrine of divorce for any cause) by stating a general principle and not mentioning the exceptions. But there are legitimate, godly exceptions, and he makes on right here.

Now coming to the Sermon on the Mount,

Matthew 5:27-32 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

It seems to me here, that Jesus Christ is not setting out to teach a doctrine of divorce and remarriage. He is rescuing the seventh commandment from abuses, and more specifically, he is dealing with ways that men try to break the spirit of the commandment while still looking like they hold to its letter. The first way is fantasy. The second way, is by abuse of the divorce laws so that they could get rid of their current wife, take the woman they want and appear to be free from the seventh commandment because they were technically married to this new woman (hence no adultery). We see this not only from the direct context but from comparing with Matt 19 to see what was the current teaching on divorce in Israel.

Luke 16:14-18 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Again, here we see the context is the Lord rebuking Pharisees for their hypocrisy. I believe his condemnation of remarriage must again be understood in light of Matt 19 which explains what his controversy was with the Pharisees over divorce and remarriage and exactly what kind of divorce and remarriage he was condemning.

Mark 10:2-12 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Again, we see this is no sincere discourse on d & r, Jesus Christ is responding to the Pharisees tempting him. By comparing spiritual things with spiritual, we look back at Matthew 19 and see the Pharisees also tempted him there, and understand the context of this discussion most probably involved their teaching of divorce for any cause. Though it is not mentioned here, both it, and the exception of fornication should be understood by comparing back to Matthew 19.

 

[kvanlaan]

Bryan, many thanks for your post. That's the sort of thing that I was hoping to find in my (truncated by the birth of my fifth child) "digging" that I mentioned earlier in the thread. I find your approach very humble and Scriptural, both highly commendable.

My sincere thanks to all of you for your thoughts on this - it is something I have wanted to flesh out in my own mind for some time. I don't know that I have made up my mind on this issue yet, but your posts gives me a lot to chew on. I find it increasingly important to have a solidly Scriptural viewpoint on this with more and more of it happening within Christian circles.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Bruce, a question...are all PCA pastors required to abstain from marrying the guilty parties to another?

 

[beej6]

Has anyone read Jay Adams' book on this matter? Coincidentally I just picked it up recently and am finding it helpful...

 

[PresReformed]

Has anyone read Jay Adams' book on this matter? Coincidentally I just picked it up recently and am finding it helpful...

It's the best thing out there that I've read on the subject.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce, a question...are all PCA pastors required to abstain from marrying the guilty parties to another?

The Confession only states what the innocent party in a marriage may do after a lawful divorce: "marry another as if the offending party were dead. On the matter of the offender's remaining liberties, the Confession is silent.

As far as I know, this question regarding pastor's participation is not directly addressed (in so many words) in our constitutional documents, so I think it is principally a matter of conscience for a minister. I don't have to marry any couples, and especially if I think they have no business being married to one another.

The Confession states that
---marriage is one man/one woman
---polygamy/andry is forbidden
---consent is required
---Christians must marry only in the Lord
---a Christian may not marry an infidel, a papist (or other idolater), a practicer of sin, or heretic
---marriage must be outside biblically defined limits of "consanguinity"

Violations of the above, whether by parties or an officer, are contrary to Scripture, and so in the nature of the case are disciplinary offenses (depending on what may be known by the parties involved).

I hope this answers your question. Or feel free to ask another.

 

[staythecourse]

Rahab and Matthew 19

I am glad we keep re-copying the Scripture so that it stays at the forefront of this discussion. It helps keep me on track.

Matthew 19:3-9:

3 And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?"

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

5 and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'?

6 Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?"

8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery."

Here, Jesus brings marriage back to its original state as a creation ordinance, in short, they way things are meant to be once marriage has taken place.

"In the beginning" divorce and remarriage was not the way it was meant to be. Jesus tells us if we marry, we are to remain married as the two have become one flesh and (mysteriously) God is given the credit as having joined the two together.

The above is foundational to my thinking and convictions thus far. Marriage is a creation ordinance and the marital bond so symbolizes the Christ-church union that it grieves the Lord terribly when this basic truth is destroyed. I haven’t given the Scriptural references here regarding Christ and the church as it relates to marriage so you must forgive me.

The above piece Scriptural evidence is crucial in my understanding of the topic or remarriage. I place emphasis on context and audience:

Since Jesus is speaking to Pharisees and a Jewish audience in Matthew, my interpretation is that the Lord tells these Jewish people, the Jewish Pharisees, and his Jewish disciples that if a Jewish bride-to-be is found unclean before uniting to her legally bound man via pre-marital immorality, he may "marry another," without guilt.

Digging is required (at least in my hashing this out) as to the Greek word “gune” and “aner” or “woman/wife” and “man/husband,” respectively. As I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, these are the only words used in the NT for the marriage bond. They did not have separate words for wife and husband. To me this is a good thing. It clarifies the possession aspect of marriage. They are not "husband" and "wife" but "man and woman", each owning the other in both betrothal and marriage.

Using Mary and Joseph then with Matt 19 in mind, Joseph was literally Mary’s “man/husband,” so says the Word, (“aner” in Greek is translated “husband” in this case, as we might expect.)

Matthew 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her, desired to put her away secretly.

Since the Word tells us they were man and woman even before marraige and Joseph was just/righteous in divorcing her, the implication was that he was guilt-free in divorcing her. Therefore, being guilt-free he could marry. She however, would not have been able, now being unclean.

This is important when considering the Biblical account of Joseph’s desiring to divorce Mary coupled with Jesus’ disputed exception clause, both of which appear in Matthew’s "Jewish-audience" gospel.

Matt 19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery."

Joseph would have appeared to have sinned had not Jesus clarified his step-father’s righteous actions (Piper). This also helps out those of us who may have concluded that sin might result if a betrothal were called off for indecency on the other’s part.

Regarding Jay Adams’ book on remarriage, his use of “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin,” as the basis for his final conclusion (if that is indeed what he did) does not appear to be true to the text (Piper again). Paul has been addressing virgins immediately prior to this:

I Cor 7:25ff Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.

I think then that this is good in view of the present distress that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

But if you should marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin should marry, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.

(“Virgin” is assumed to refer to a virgin young woman according to the text [which uses “she” repeatedly throughout] and the commentaries I have consulted confirm this. This virgin woman/daughter is either engaged to a man or is being held from marriage by the father out of concern for her well being due to the “current distress.”)

Context points not to divorced people, but to those who have never made vows.

Regarding the word “loosed” Piper states:

10.15 It is significant that the verb Paul uses for "loosed" (luo) or "free" is not a word that he uses for divorce. Paul's words for divorce are chorizo (verses 10,11,15; cf. Matthew 19:6) and aphienai (verses 11,12,13). Paul the attorney, was practiced in using precise words, thank God.

Adam’s also seems to disregard Paul’s final conclusion on the matter (Piper, thrice):

I Cor 7:39, 40 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord…

I truly believe this is God's ultimate expectation on the matter.

As an aside, the “to whom she wishes” is enlightening as it helps me see the extent of an adult’s obligations to their parents’ desires later in adult life.

Mr. Li, thank you for pointing out that the examples I pulled from Scripture are not conclusive proof that pre-marital fornicators are unable to marry. I completely agree. It was not meant to be "load bearing" walls in the matter but perhaps "cross-beams." In fact, your directing my attention to Rahab’s marriage speaks of a marital bond which occurred “post-faith, as she is listed among the greats of Hebrews 11 and was helpful to me in my further consideration on the matter.

I’ll expose my thinking here as to why I used the examples I did. My reasoning is similar to that of how the Word uses Melchizedek, that glorious and enigmatic figure. God was making a point in using him as a Christ-figure. He had a point in portraying him as He did – to present him as a type of Christ – so says Paul.

In the cases I gave, they were literally all the Biblical examples that I could produce regarding premarital union (forced or consensual) with respect to marriage and where the Lord left them in time, so to speak, for us to examine. Their witness closes with each of them alone.

I am glad you brought Rahab up, sir. She is an exception. You brought up an excellent point. She was a Gentile, even a prostitute, came to faith (Hebrews 11), and then married, and in that order, as far as I can tell. If this exposition is accurate, regenerate people begin with a clean slate and then indeed can marry regardless of their past, Praise be to God! I will have to do further research though to be thoroughly grounded with a clear and biblical conscience in the matter however. It may very well be that Lord happily grants marriage to his regenerate children, albeit once, as per His Law.

Thank you for allowing me to continue to sharpen iron here. I truly believe the motto of the site is being fulfilled in this matter, at least for myself. Please continue to post as I am reading them all. God be with us if we continue.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Rev. Bruce:

Since as of now you are in the "some people can never be remarried camp", what is the process of dealing with those people who do in fact get remarried. From what I understand, people who believe like you do, believe that the new marriage is really valid, because to say otherwise is to say that there was no end of the old marriage which would mean that the innocent spouse can not move on either.

CT

 

[satz]

Mr Wiley,

Let me attempt to address your post. Do tell me what you think.

As you say, let us keep scripture at the forefront.

Matthew 19:3-9:

3 And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?"

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

5 and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'?

6 Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?"

8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery."

Here, Jesus brings marriage back to its original state as a creation ordinance, in short, they way things are meant to be once marriage has taken place.

"In the beginning" divorce and remarriage was not the way it was meant to be. Jesus tells us if we marry, we are to remain married as the two have become one flesh and (mysteriously) God is given the credit as having joined the two together.

The above is foundational to my thinking and convictions thus far. Marriage is a creation ordinance and the marital bond so symbolizes the Christ-church union that it grieves the Lord terribly when this basic truth is destroyed. I haven’t given the Scriptural references here regarding Christ and the church as it relates to marriage so you must forgive me.

The above piece Scriptural evidence is crucial in my understanding of the topic or remarriage. I place emphasis on context and audience:

I would repeat my assertion (open to correction off course) that there is no place in scripture where the Lord Jesus simply sits down to discuss his doctrine of divorce and remarriage with his sincere disciples. All this teachings on divorce, certainly those quoted in Piper’s article are made in the context of his refuting the Pharisee’s heresy of divorce for any cause, as seen in Matt 19:3

And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?"

I believe it is important to keep this in mind, that all of the Lord’s following discourse is made in this context and to answer this question. He is not setting down a doctrine for all possible kinds of divorce and remarriage he is answering the specific question can a man divorce ‘for any cause at all’. Also, note that the Pharisees came to him ‘testing him’. This was no sincere question about when and if a divorced man could remarry. Hence if the Lord sounds like he is completely against remarriage, it is because a) he is rebuking insincere pharisees for trying to trap him b) he is rebuking remarriage after a specific type of divorce, which is divorce for light or frivolous reasons – divorce for any cause at all, as the verse says.

Thus when Jesus makes all his statements about the lofty and important nature of marriage – in the beginning, one flesh, God did not intend divorce was how it should be – he is arguing against a very specific type of divorce, divorce for any cause at all. It says all that right in Matt 19:3. The Pharisees come up to him and ask if a man may divorce for any cause. The Lord says ‘No way!’ and gives all these arguments from the nature of marriage and God’s intent why this is so. But all this still leaves us completely in the dark as to what he would think about, say for example, a woman who despite her best efforts has had her husband abandon her for unrepentant adultery. The Lord simply has not addressed this yet because his emphasis so far as been on divorce for any cause, divorce for light or frivolous reasons or (and we understand this by comparing to Matt 5) as a kind of legalized adultery to try to avoid the seventh commandment by getting rid of the old wife for inconsequential reasons so that the would be adulterer could be ‘officially’ married to the woman he was lusting after.

In verse 9, he finally gives his verdict on what he considered an acceptable able reason for divorce and remarriage – fornication, an example of a severe breach of the marriage covenant. Note that this exception in verse 9 comes after his reasoning on 4-8, so it is an exception even to those reasons. If there is truly a severe and unrepairable breach in a marriage, which the Lord defines as something serious like fornication occurring, then the Lord is merciful and allows divorce and remarriage for the offended party.

And, I believe a careful examination of the other d & r passages from Luke and Mark will reveal the context for those passages is this very same controversy the Lord was having with the pharisees.

Since Jesus is speaking to Pharisees and a Jewish audience in Matthew, my interpretation is that the Lord tells these Jewish people, the Jewish Pharisees, and his Jewish disciples that if a Jewish bride-to-be is found unclean before uniting to her legally bound man via pre-marital immorality, he may "marry another," without guilt.

I guess I must say I do not quite understand why you feel it is necessary to say the exception clause refers to engagement and not marriage. Has not marriage been the point of the whole conversation so far? Doesn’t the certificate of divorce the pharisees refer to (Deut 24, unless I am wrong) have to do with marriage and not engagement? I really do not see why it is necessary to suddenly believe he is talking about engagement instead of taking the plain meaning of the words that he is continuing on his discourse on marriage. With respect, it seems that the arguments of Piper and many others seems to boil down to ‘Well he can’t possibly have been giving a case where it was legitimate to get remarried, so it must be something else.’ But I fail to see why his is the case.

Regarding Jay Adams’ book on remarriage, his use of “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin,” as the basis for his final conclusion (if that is indeed what he did) does not appear to be true to the text (Piper again). Paul has been addressing virgins immediately prior to this:

I have not read Jay Adam’s book before, so I am not sure what his exact argument is. The argument I see from 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is not that it is directly used to tell a divorcee he or she is free to remarry, but rather it is used to define what being ‘bound’ or not ‘bound’ means.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

Hence, a person not ‘bound’ is, from these verses free to marry. By comparing spiritual things with spiritual we thus understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 is saying a Christian abandoned by a unbelieving spouse is not under bondage, ie not bound, ie free to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Hence we can let the bible be its own commentary on what Paul means for the abandoned spouse to be not under bondage. I do not see the basis for what some have claimed that for the abandoned spouse to not be under bondage refers simply to them being free from having to fulfill their marital duties.

Adam’s also seems to disregard Paul’s final conclusion on the matter (Piper, thrice):

I Cor 7:39, 40 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord…

I would respond to this simply by saying every verse in the bible must be read in context of the rest of the bible, and Paul’s statement must be understood to include his own exception for abandonment in v15 as well as the Lord Jesus’ exception for fornication in Matthew. Some people might complain that this is reading down the words of scripture, but I would say it is rightly dividing the bible (2 Tim 2:15), as well as attempting to give the sense as opposed to merely the sound of scripture (Nehemiah 8:8).

It would also be helpful to understand that God wrote the bible to sometimes include statements that sound absolute, but are actually intended to include exceptions and qualifications that are understood from the rest of the bible. Sometimes these qualifications can be understood from the immediate context of the verse. But at other times it will require reading a completely different book and a) comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13) and b) understanding that there are no contradictions in scripture (2 Pet 1:20-21).

As an example, consider these few verses that sound absolute, but have exceptions implied in them. And many, many more could be found in the bible.

Job 31:1 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

Does Job 31:1 prohibit Job from all looking at maids so that he could not even check visually if his maids were properly clothed for the winter? Does the verse prohibit all thinking upon maids such that he could not consider wishing her well on her birthday or wondering if she was paid enough? Or does this verse prohibit a specific kind of looking and thinking upon maids?

1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Does 1 Corinthians 10:23 mean that literally ALL things are lawful? Including murder, adultery and stealing, or does the ‘all’ need to be qualified in a way so that we understand Paul means all things of a particular category?

Matthew 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Matthew 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Do these verses will condemn all kinds of planning for the future whatsoever? Or do they condemn a particular type of planning?

Luke 14:12-13 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

Does this verse condemn ever inviting your relatives or friends over for dinner?

Finally, I guess I must confess to still being somewhat confused about why you think an ex-fornicator cannot marry. There is simply no command of God to that effect. Even if you were to prove that every character in scripture that engaged in pre-marital sexual relations was to remain single after that, I do not believe it would really mean anything in the absence of a direct command. The point regarding Melchizedek is interesting, but I do not think it amounts to proving the point. You yourself say that we know Melchizedek is a type of Christ by the inspired revelation of Paul. On the other hand there is no indication at all (that I know off) that God intends all these examples to be a type of what a fornicator ought to do after repenting. There is certainly shame involved in the lost of virginity, and an ex-fornicator may possibly feel less inclined to marry or have greater difficulty in convincing a potential spouse he or she is a good marriage prospect. But these are all practical difficulties that are the consequence of sin which can be overcome my effort and repentance. God has not ordained any such burden upon his children.

In the absence of such a prescriptive command from God, I guess I would say I see no reason to label Rahab as an ‘exception.’ If God has not commanded it, repentant fornicators are free to marry as they please (in the Lord off course), if their spouse will have them. Rahab’s example might be used as proof of this, but the way I see it, such proof is not even needed as the opposing point of view has not even been established yet.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rev. Bruce:

Since as of now you are in the "some people can never be remarried camp", what is the process of dealing with those people who do in fact get remarried. From what I understand, people who believe like you do, believe that the new marriage is really valid, because to say otherwise is to say that there was no end of the old marriage which would mean that the innocent spouse can not move on either.

CT

Sorry not to see this back when CT,

As of now, yes, I think that some re-marriages are improper. I am willing to listen to the arguments for the side that Matthew proposed. It is apparently an old Scottish Presbyterian position.

That said, marriages entered into, whether proper or improper, are under most conditions nevertheless true marriages. If the marriage shouldn't have taken place, like anything else that shouldn't have been done, such a thing should be repented of. Not everything sinful can be undone. And some bridges can not be recrossed.

One particularly confusing matter that I think neither Matthew nor myself could easily address is: What about a couple once married and divorced, who after 4 other marriages apiece, remarry. The old Levitical law prohibited this marriage, as it would prohibit a brother from marrying a sister. So, since the law of the land permits such a union, are they married now, or is this arrangement no marriage at all?

All we can do, sometimes, is try to pastorally help the people who want to change and to do the right thing. We attempt to untangle the web of confusion that sin creates one case at a time.

 

[staythecourse]

Brother Mark, please call me Bryan.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply and patience as I gather more information and my thoughts coagulate. To continue on the divorce matter:

Your quote:

I would repeat my assertion (open to correction off course) that there is no place in scripture where the Lord Jesus simply sits down to discuss his doctrine of divorce and remarriage with his sincere disciples. All this teachings on divorce, certainly those quoted in Piper’s article are made in the context of his refuting the Pharisee’s heresy of divorce for any cause, as seen in Matt 19:3

I'm thinking you missed the private teaching Jesus had with his disciples in Mark right after Jesus spoke with the Pharisees about divorce? This would be his intimate thoughts on the matter with friends.

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Mark had no exception clause as we know.

Your quote: (Incidently if someone might show me how to multi-quote properly I would do that.)

I believe it is important to keep this in mind, that all of the Lord’s following discourse is made in this context and to answer this question. He is not setting down a doctrine for all possible kinds of divorce and remarriage he is answering the specific question can a man divorce ‘for any cause at all’.

I argue that He uses the "for any cause at all" part of the Pharisees question to clarify what exactly is permissible, namely nothing except premarital sex on the others part.

Also, note that the Pharisees came to him ‘testing him’. This was no sincere question about when and if a divorced man could remarry. Hence if the Lord sounds like he is completely against remarriage, it is because a) he is rebuking insincere pharisees for trying to trap him

Are you saying that it sounds like Jesus is making an unqualified statement? If you are then we agree. If not, then Jesus would be decietful if it, as you say' sounds' like he is against remarriage. He's not the author of confusion but wants us to see what He expects. Jesus' sarcasm (if that's what it would be) is lost on me. Maybe I misunderstand you.

Jesus Christ's teaching was sincere and universal regardless if the question posed was a sincere inquiry for truth (the rich young ruler) or, what I would call, a "teeth-baring, dagger-in-hand frontal attack" against His Messianic authority (as in this case).

You again:

b) he is rebuking remarriage after a specific type of divorce, which is divorce for light or frivolous reasons – divorce for any cause at all, as the verse says.

Yes, the question was for for light and frivilous reasons but did He use the opportunity to expound on the issue for our benefit? But could he have used this opportunity to clarify? I believe he did. A betrothed can divorce amd marry another.

Your quote:

Thus when Jesus makes all his statements about the lofty and important nature of marriage – in the beginning, one flesh, God did not intend divorce was how it should be – he is arguing against a very specific type of divorce, divorce for any cause at all. It says all that right in Matt 19:3. The Pharisees come up to him and ask if a man may divorce for any cause. The Lord says ‘No way!’ and gives all these arguments from the nature of marriage and God’s intent why this is so. But all this still leaves us completely in the dark as to what he would think about, say for example, a woman who despite her best efforts has had her husband abandon her for unrepentant adultery.

I am not following your thoughts here, forgive me. Is there a reason you would not pull Paul's teaching from I Corithians here where he addresses a woman trying to keep a marriage together. Since Scripture is timeless (truth not changing) and "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness," (fundamental truths) the cohesive whole of Scripture on a topic tells us the complete revelation of God on any matter. Paul's thoughts are then Jesus' thoughts on the matter. I believe we are already in agreement on this. If Paul, as I argue, says that a person may not remarry unless the spouse dies, Jesus is saying it also. This would be a caes of "Whatever you bind on earth has been bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth has been loosed in Heaven."

In verse 9, he finally gives his verdict on what he considered an acceptable able reason for divorce and remarriage – fornication, an example of a severe breach of the marriage covenant. Note that this exception in verse 9 comes after his reasoning on 4-8, so it is an exception even to those reasons. If there is truly a severe and unrepairable breach in a marriage, which the Lord defines as something serious like fornication occurring, then the Lord is merciful and allows divorce and remarriage for the offended party.

Here is the rub, namely, definitions of words. I argue fornication is not adultery. I narrow the word to premarital sex and you use the general form of immorality as a whole. With my proposed definition, a man may divorce if she's been found unfaithful either in betrothal or in the marriage bed as stated in Deuteronomy 22.

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

Your quote:

I guess I must say I do not quite understand why you feel it is necessary to say the exception clause refers to engagement and not marriage. Has not marriage been the point of the whole conversation so far?

Excellent point. I concur that it certainly appears to be.

Doesn’t the certificate of divorce the pharisees refer to (Deut 24, unless I am wrong) have to do with marriage and not engagement? I really do not see why it is necessary to suddenly believe he is talking about engagement instead of taking the plain meaning of the words that he is continuing on his discourse on marriage.

Again, excellent point. It may be a wrong conclusion to have Jesus jump from marriage to betrothal. It would only be true if it was clear the word translated "pornea" meant general fornication within marriage. Yet why did He not say "mochea" for adultery and end the controversy we are having now?

We know that the sentence for such was death not divorce per the Torah. But I'll admit that it may be Jews could not stone a person while under Roman rule (Jesus' crucifixion as an example of their limitations on capital punishment).

With what am I left at this point?

1. He was allowing for divorce and remarriage as we see it today if a woman commited any type of general perversity outside of marriage, or

2. He was saying that if a woman keeps acting like a temptress to other men yet stays pure sexually a man cannot divorce her (not my thoughts I picked it up in my studies so far. Hillel's school allowed for the "burnt toast divorce" while the Shammai meant 'immorality" was the grounds for divorce.) or

3. Jesus popped out of the argument to make a statement about premarital sex and how divorce from betrothal allows the innocent party to marry since he/she has remained pure/chaste.

You:

With respect, it seems that the arguments of Piper and many others seems to boil down to ‘Well he can’t possibly have been giving a case where it was legitimate to get remarried, so it must be something else.’ But I fail to see why his is the case.

Piper and others have come to that conclusion having first thought remarriage was legitimate. If you don't agree with Piper's exegesis that Matthew included Joseph's decision to divorce Mary in the same passage with the exception clause was meant to clarify things for Jews then I see why you don't see it. You simply don't believe it's good exegesis.

I agree that the weak point would be that Jesus would suddenly make an all encompassing statement in an otherwise concise arguement about frivilous divorce. So we have either

1. Jesus wants us to see he is only making a statement against frivilous divorce or
2. He is making a broad statement about promiscuity that included engagements and ending them.

Arguments for the first.

1. I agree, it is safest to say that the Pharisees were only interested in Jesus answer of married couples who had been so for some time (while trying to catch Him in a contradiction to the Law and call Him a blasphemer. It is important to note that He calls them evil for not keeping things the way they were from Creation regarding a man and wife.)

2. Jesus would not expound the teaching to include betrothal.

3. Relatedly, it seems disjointed for Jesus to go off on a tangent about betrothal when it seems clear the Pharisees were only interested in wives they had been married to for some time.

Rejoiner:

1. As per above, this would be safest to assume though there may be a small chance they meant betrothal.

2. Jesus could have taught multiple truths on a topic at any given time and I am sure did to clarify matters. This may have been such a time.

3. Jesus could have taken this opportunity to include the sanctity of betrothal and purity.

As stated before, Joseph was sending Mary away for fornication and was a "just man" not evil in doing so. The divorcer was innocent in this matter so he was able to remarry. Here is another point we would differ: Joseph (the betrother) could "marry another" as he had not had intercourse with her. So while I read "marry another" in Matt 19 it could mean "marry someone other than his betrothed" while you and (many) others read Matt 19 that a married man may "remarry after he has already become one flesh with her at some time."

You:

I have not read Jay Adam’s book before, so I am not sure what his exact argument is. The argument I see from 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is not that it is directly used to tell a divorcee he or she is free to remarry, but rather it is used to define what being ‘bound’ or not ‘bound’ means.

Hence, a person not ‘bound’ is, from these verses free to marry. By comparing spiritual things with spiritual we thus understand 1 Corinthians 7:15 is saying a Christian abandoned by a unbelieving spouse is not under bondage, ie not bound, ie free to marry.

I cannot agree with you here. Knowing the differences in words used in Greek and my respect for Paul's vocabulary, he makes a point to use a word that cannotes slavery in the first instance and freedom from legal matters/Law in the second. I am confident here. Two different words. A woman is not enslaved to a Christian-hating man if he wants no part of Christianity notr a Christian wife. in the second case, the law clearly allows a widow to marry a believer.

Hence we can let the bible be its own commentary on what Paul means for the abandoned spouse to be not under bondage. I do not see the basis for what some have claimed that for the abandoned spouse to not be under bondage refers simply to them being free from having to fulfill their marital duties.

I am not sure what marital duties you have heard other people bring up. Paul is saying in essence, "sign the divorce papers that you husband has brought to you if your faith makes him hate you and want to leave."

I would respond to this simply by saying every verse in the bible must be read in context of the rest of the bible,

I agree and we may have come to different conclusions.

Paul’s statement must be understood to include his own exception for abandonment in v15 as well as the Lord Jesus’ exception for fornication in Matthew. Some people might complain that this is reading down the words of scripture, but I would say it is rightly dividing the bible (2 Tim 2:15), as well as attempting to give the sense as opposed to merely the sound of scripture (Nehemiah 8:8).

It would also be helpful to understand that God wrote the bible to sometimes include statements that sound absolute, but are actually intended to include exceptions and qualifications that are understood from the rest of the bible. Sometimes these qualifications can be understood from the immediate context of the verse. But at other times it will require reading a completely different book and a) comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13) and b) understanding that there are no contradictions in scripture (2 Pet 1:20-21).

Point taken and our conclusions may differ.

Finally, I guess I must confess to still being somewhat confused about why you think an ex-fornicator cannot marry. There is simply no command of God to that effect.

You do not believe the death sentences of the OT testify to a very clear end to marriage possibilities. We need to investigate how they flow into the NT. Let's address the whole fornication issue in another post and end with your following statement.

Even if you were to prove that every character in scripture that engaged in pre-marital sexual relations was to remain single after that, I do not believe it would really mean anything in the absence of a direct command. The point regarding Melchizedek is interesting, but I do not think it amounts to proving the point. You yourself say that we know Melchizedek is a type of Christ by the inspired revelation of Paul. On the other hand there is no indication at all (that I know off) that God intends all these examples to be a type of what a fornicator ought to do after repenting. There is certainly shame involved in the lost of virginity, and an ex-fornicator may possibly feel less inclined to marry or have greater difficulty in convincing a potential spouse he or she is a good marriage prospect.

Yes, but why? Why are we geared that way? Why are virgins honored so over those of us who have fallen? Because it has been earned and/or they have been kept clean. They are chaste. An extreme example is rape. Why was Tamar so depressed after her rape? She was defiled. Why should guilt feelings in rape even arise (and that is the profound question)? Can we be ashamed and innocent of something at the same time. Perhaps, but if Tamar were clean, any righteous man could have taken her as a wife without hesitation. Yet she has shame. Even in rape an honorable man has to overlook the defilement and loss of virginity as if it were nothing (to love and cherish the woman and treat her as special to overcome shame feelings) With that, praise God for supergood guys and sin-overlooking women down through the ages, they as as God, for they have overlooked and forgiven.

A long post but with practice I can truncate arguments.

I will post the early fathers views on remarriage as promised.

 

[satz]

Hi Bryan,

Sorry I took so long to reply. It is obvious you have put in a great deal of thought and study into this topic. May the Lord reward you by granting you knowledge of the truth.

I would continue with my own comments.

I'm thinking you missed the private teaching Jesus had with his disciples in Mark right after Jesus spoke with the Pharisees about divorce? This would be his intimate thoughts on the matter with friends.

Notice that his disciples ask him of the same matter. So what he is addressing is similar to what the Pharisees previously tempted him about. From comparing to Matthew we understand that was to be divorce for any cause, not divorce in severe cases. Although Mark contains no exception clause, I believe it must be read in light of the exemption clause given in Matthew, ie that exemption is implied here.

Mark 10:2-12 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

I argue that He uses the "for any cause at all" part of the Pharisees question to clarify what exactly is permissible, namely nothing except premarital sex on the others part.

I apologize, but I don’t quite understand what you mean. How would the ‘for any cause at all’ part of the Pharisee’s question lead to a conclusion that only premarital sex is permissible (as a cause for divorce)? My point was that since the Pharisees came up to the Lord and asked him about divorce for any cause, he was answering the question they put to him. Hence his condemnation of divorce and remarriage is a condemnation that applies when the divorce was for ‘any cause’ or light and frivolous reasons, as I have been arguing. The exception of fornication he gave indicates his thoughts on what should happen when there is an extreme case or a legitimate reason for divorce.

Are you saying that it sounds like Jesus is making an unqualified statement? If you are then we agree. If not, then Jesus would be decietful if it, as you say' sounds' like he is against remarriage. He's not the author of confusion but wants us to see what He expects. Jesus' sarcasm (if that's what it would be) is lost on me. Maybe I misunderstand you.

Jesus Christ's teaching was sincere and universal regardless if the question posed was a sincere inquiry for truth (the rich young ruler) or, what I would call, a "teeth-baring, dagger-in-hand frontal attack" against His Messianic authority (as in this case).

I understand that I was perhaps a little unclear in that part. What I was saying was that the Lord was making a strong point by making an absolute statement and neglecting to mention the exceptions. To explain a little, consider James 4:4 where James rebukes friendship with the world as enmity with God and denounces those who are the world’s friends as adulterers and adulteresses. Now James could have immediately qualified himself by reminding his hearers of 1 Cor 5:10 that tells us that some company with the sinners of this world is necessary and allowed, and of 1 Cor 10:27 which allows Christians some form of social company with unbelievers and of 1 Cor 7:31 that tells us there is a proper use of the world that does not degenerate into the friendship he is condemning. But adding all those qualifications at that place in his epistle would have completely destroyed the strong point that James was trying to make. Hence he neglects to mention those qualifications and leaves it up to us to find them though study of the Word. This is not deceit, but making a strong point to an audience that (at the moment) only needs to hear one side of the story. And the bible is full of examples of such speech.

That is how I believe the Lord Jesus’ statements on divorce and remarriage are to be read. He is rebuking the Pharisees for their heresy regarding divorce and remarriage, so he does not mention (except in Matthew) the exceptions allowed for legitimate divorces.

Yes, the question was for for light and frivilous reasons but did He use the opportunity to expound on the issue for our benefit? But could he have used this opportunity to clarify? I believe he did. A betrothed can divorce amd marry another.

I guess we are interpreting the passage slightly differently. I agree that he used the opportunity to expound on the issue for our benefit. He asked the Pharisee’s question directly by condemning divorce and any subsequent remarriage when the divorce was for ‘any cause’. He then gave us an example of what he considered a acceptable reason to divorce where remarriage would be subsequently allowed – a severe breach of the marriage covenant like fornication.

I am not following your thoughts here, forgive me. Is there a reason you would not pull Paul's teaching from I Corithians here where he addresses a woman trying to keep a marriage together. Since Scripture is timeless (truth not changing) and "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness," (fundamental truths) the cohesive whole of Scripture on a topic tells us the complete revelation of God on any matter. Paul's thoughts are then Jesus' thoughts on the matter. I believe we are already in agreement on this. If Paul, as I argue, says that a person may not remarry unless the spouse dies, Jesus is saying it also. This would be a caes of "Whatever you bind on earth has been bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth has been loosed in Heaven."

When I wrote that I was writing from the perspective of someone sitting there in the first(?) century listening to the Lord speak. Many people use the lofty statements Jesus makes about the nature of marriage as a sound bite for the fact that he would never allow remarriage. I was saying that to his actual hearers in those days the flow of the situation would have gone like this:

1) The Pharisees harass the Lord asking him about divorce for any cause.
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

2) He rebukes them and tells them why divorce for any cause is not allowed under his religion.

Matthew 19:4-8 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

So everything so far, including the statements about marriage in verses 4 to 8 has been designed to answer the Pharisee’s heresy of divorce for any cause. It is at this point that I meant my statement to be understood. Those people hearing this exchange would know the Lord condemned divorce for any cause. They would still not know what his position was on divorce for severe and exceptional causes. The Lord gives it to us in verse 9:

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Where he tells us that if the divorce is for a significant reason like fornication, the man who remarries is not caught by his condemnation of the second marriage being adultery.

I cannot agree with you here. Knowing the differences in words used in Greek and my respect for Paul's vocabulary, he makes a point to use a word that cannotes slavery in the first instance and freedom from legal matters/Law in the second. I am confident here. Two different words.

In that case what would you say it means for the abandoned spouse to be ‘not under bondage’ in v15? Even if the greek differences you say are true ( I am not questioning your knowledge, its just I have no knowledge at all of greek, so I couldn’t make a judgment either way) I do not see that it defeats the reasoning I put forth. In the first instance the abandoned spouse is not in bondage to slavery – an apt description of a marriage to an unbeliever hostile to Christianity. Again, I would see no reason not to take the plain meaning of verse 15: if an unbelieving spouse departs, the Christian is not in bondage to that spouse or the marriage. He or she is hence free to remarry.

I am not sure what marital duties you have heard other people bring up. Paul is saying in essence, "sign the divorce papers that you husband has brought to you if your faith makes him hate you and want to leave."

But if a person signs the divorce papers, and is divorced he or she is free to remarry. The Lord Jesus only condemned remarriage if the divorce was for frivolous reasons as the ‘divorced’ person would not be truly free.

I agree and we may have come to different conclusions.

Point taken and our conclusions may differ.

That’s fair enough, although off course to hold a position from the bible means that no matter how humble you may want to be, you necessarily view contrary positions as being wrong. So I would ask you to reconsider.

I hope I am not oversimplifying things, but it seems to me the difference between the two views regarding remarriage might be stated thus. One side sees absolute statements like 1 Cor 7:39 and then believes that the exceptions given by Jesus and Paul must be read down in light of this. The other side believes that the presence of exceptions means that while 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:1-3 may sound absolute, the sense the God intended is not. Again, remember what I said about James 4? I believe God has written the bible in a way that there are absolute sounding statements that are meant to be understood with relative force, or to include exceptions and qualifications not mentioned directly in the verse. This is not deception, this is just a way of strongly emphasizing a point. I believe those who have studied literature may be able to back me up in that this is a commonly used literary device even in common speech or writing. The WCF and other reformed confessions (I think) lists works of necessity and mercy as being allowable on the Sabbath day, but Exodus 20:8-11 mentions no such thing. Just because an exception is not mentioned in one place of scripture where the bible deals with a particular subject does not mean it does not exist.

Consider also 1 Cor 7:5 from the same chapter: Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Paul only gives one, just one possible reason for a couple to abstain from sexual relations: mutual consent for prayer and fasting. Does that mean the wife being severely ill or the husband having to go of to war to defend the nation are not acceptable reasons? Paul’s absolute sounding language is to be understood in a relative sense.

Having never married, I obviously have not given this topic as much study as some. However, at present my position regarding when remarriage is acceptable is a little more, shall we say, liberal than most. This is why I do not believe it is important to quibble over the exact meaning of fornication in Matt 19 (with respect, off course, to the great amount of thought you obviously put into it). I believe that God allows divorce for a severe and unrepairable breach in the marriage covenant. A person who is legitimately divorced in this manner is allowed to be remarried. Simple as that. Fornication and desertion are, in my view, not intended as ‘lists’ of the only possible reason when divorce and remarriage is allowed, but rather they were used by Jesus and Paul as examples of what constitutes a severe enough breach of the marriage covenant to justify divorce. I know you may disagree with my reading on some of these verses, but just consider this reasoning. Mark and Luke record no exceptions, but Matthew lists an exception for fornication twice (ch 5 and 19). Paul later added an exception for desertion by the inspiration of the Spirit. From this we know that the Lord’s teaching on this subject was never meant to create absolute lists of what is acceptable and not.

Consider, the Lord Jesus taught a principle of mercy in dealing with the Sabbath day (Matt 12:1-8). See especially verse 7: But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. Jesus taught that mercy is more important than a rigid adherence to the letter of the law. It was by understanding this principle that the disciples understood they were allowed to ‘break’ the Sabbath, even though there was no explicit authorization for this activity in the Law (and they didn’t yet have an confession to teach them about acts of mercy and acts of necessity ). It was by understanding this principle that David knew it was ok for him to eat of the shrew bread normally meant only for priests. And the Lord Jesus completely exonerated his actions. It is also by these principles that the reformed confessions of faith allow acts of mercy or necessity to include even actions that are not explicitly listed down in scripture.

Consider also, the Lord Jesus taught a principle of intent in dealing with the Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-28). The same incident, I believe, but look at verse 27. In justifying his disciples’ actions, his time the Lord says the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. God sometimes brings suffering and trials into the lives of his children to build their faith. But the Sabbath was never designed to be such a trial. It was meant to be a blessing. While circumstances may sometimes make keeping the Sabbath a trial of faith, a doctrine or interpretation that requires keeping the Sabbath in a way that is genuinely detrimental to man is rejected by the Lord.

By these same principles Jesus justified himself for healing on the Sabbath and allowed men to do necessary tasks as helping their oxen. (Luke 13:10-17).

If we apply these principles to marriage, we are not presumptuous, I believe, to likewise conclude that marriage was made for man, not man for marriage. Marriage was supposed to be a help and a blessing to man, not a way by which God sees if his children will endure hardship for his sake. A difficult marriage must be borne with, as God has said marriage is, in the normal scheme of things, to be a permanent bond for life. But if one party has completely forsaken the marriage, either by unrepentant adultery or by deserting the other party, I believe we are justified in concluding that to require the marriage to stay together would be to overthrow the purpose of marriage in the same way forbidding the Lord Jesus to heal would overthrow the purpose of the Sabbath. And since God never forbade remarriage – except when it was subsequent on a frivolous divorce – what is the purpose of preventing the innocent party from remarrying? With respect, may I humbly submit that this seems to be an unmerciful exaltation of sacrifice against mercy.

Yes, the Lord has the authority to require this children to stay even in impossible marriages. And he has the authority to require an abandoned spouse to remain single for the rest of his or her life. But I do not believe he exercised his authority in that fashion. What I have written regarding mercy and intent, and the explicit exceptions given by Jesus and Paul lead me to this conclusion. Remember, Jesus justified David and his disciples for breaking the Sabbath even for things not explicitly listed down in the scripture – the principles of mercy and intent were enough.