# Divorce and Remarriage



## LadyFlynt

Okay, yes I am 

Here's to start...

a) this is NOT an attack on anyone who is D&R
b) let's not make this personal or bring in personal issues to it
c) I am not one to be so ungracious as to "cut off" a divorced person in normal church activities in the manner that many fundamentalists do and I have had friends that are D&R


On to the discussion...

The Pastor is going through the sermon on the mount. Unlike many pastors, he has decided to hit this topic head on with his own POV...he holds one of the two common POV, adultery only (the other being the 3 or 4 A's depending on how you count : abandonment, adultery, addiction, and abuse).

The verses in play here are Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:7-9. Other verses will come into play however.

1) please note that in Matthew 19:6 it says that no man shall put asunder. So in God's eyes are not the couple still married?

2) the pastor admitted that the two should reconcile...but that divorce is also okay. Well, if they can and should reconcile, why divorce? Scripture said it was for the hardness of their hearts...not that it was God approved.

3) in Galatians 5:19...if porneia means sexual sin (including adultery) in this context...then why is adultery (moicheia) included? If porneia is only used in broad context, then there would be no need to add moicheia as it would already be included. If porneia is used in a narrow context (sex before marriage) then that changes the context of the Matthew verses (see the case of Joseph and Mary).

4) If we even conclude that it IS refering to adultery (sex outside of one's marriage)...the WHERE does it say that they can remarry (including the innocent party)? I don't see it. I see the person is not bound to the duties of that marriage, but I also see that that person is still "one" with their spouse in God's view (even if not legally).

[Edited on 9-24-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

They are not one in God's view if God is the one who allowed the divorce. Divorce means exactly that, cut apart. They are no longer married. All maritial obligations are severed, except for the part of repentence on the part of the guilty party. But even of one were to remarry, I doubt God considers that an illegitimate marriage. Notice what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, "you've had 5 husbands and the one you live with is not your husband." It is unlikely all 5 of her husbands died. More likely, she was sexually immoral and those previous husbands were still alive. But Jesus didn't say "you had 1 husband and 6 shack ups." Furthermore, abandoment by an unbeleiver is considered grounds for divorce in 1 Cor. 7. Free means free, no longer married. If free, then you are permitted to remarry. Otherwise you are not really divorced.


----------



## LadyFlynt

ouch!

pondering...


----------



## ChristianTrader

If the two are still married then how does one make sense of Deut. 24. One is not even allowed to go back to their "spouse" even if they were to both consent. So in God's eyes they are still married?

CT


----------



## LadyFlynt

CT, in Deuteronomy it says he can't take her back because she is defiled (from being remarried). I'm confused. First it says she can go become another's wife, then it says she is defiled from it (remarriage/adultery). Help?


----------



## LadyFlynt

#3?


----------



## ReformedWretch

I had a dispensationalist ask me why I could be so strict in my views on marriage and divorce yet believe God divorced Israel. He said that if I believed God only allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart, why would He divorce?

I found it a very good question.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

My pastor did a 16 sermon series on "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage" all of which are online and easily accesible via the search engine link below (this is audio). In the box that says "Any Series" choose "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage".
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/Audio-Search.asp


----------



## BJClark

LadyFlynt,

How did she become defiled? 

He pronounced her unclean when he divorced her the first time, so how could she now be found clean in his eyes, in order to marry her again?

And in Duet. 24, it doesn't matter if her second husband divorced her or IF he died, the first husband still couldn't marry her again.





> CT, in Deuteronomy it says he can't take her back because she is defiled (from being remarried). I'm confused. First it says she can go become another's wife, then it says she is defiled from it (remarriage/adultery). Help?


----------



## BJClark

Does God join every marriage?

I mean, looking at these verses, why would we believe God does? Most certainly He can bless every marriage, but does He really join them all?




> (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? {15} And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? {16} And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." {17} Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." {18} "I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty."



And IF God didn't join some marriages who did? Maybe man himself, being outside of God's will?

The Bible says what God has joined together, He could join two Christians together as they are both His, but the lost person isn't His, so could He join them together? Or would He join a Christian with a Non-Christian?

Just some of my own questions.

[Edited on 9-24-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## bfrank

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I had a dispensationalist ask me why I could be so strict in my views on marriage and divorce yet believe God divorced Israel. He said that if I believed God only allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart, why would He divorce?
> 
> I found it a very good question.



One might argue that God divorced Israel for the purpose of bringing about repentance and reconciliation not for chasing after another people. In the same way, the argument could be made that that's how Christians should view divorce, not for chasing after a new spouse but for bringing about repentance and reconciliation.

It's a tough issue for sure.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Puritan Sailor_
> They are not one in God's view if God is the one who allowed the divorce. Divorce means exactly that, cut apart. They are no longer married. All maritial obligations are severed, except for the part of repentence on the part of the guilty party. But even of one were to remarry, I doubt God considers that an illegitimate marriage. Notice what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, "you've had 5 husbands and the one you live with is not your husband." It is unlikely all 5 of her husbands died. More likely, she was sexually immoral and those previous husbands were still alive. But Jesus didn't say "you had 1 husband and 6 shack ups." Furthermore, abandoment by an unbeleiver is considered grounds for divorce in 1 Cor. 7. Free means free, no longer married. If free, then you are permitted to remarry. Otherwise you are not really divorced.



Convert those cents to dollars, and add a few zeros. This is a valuable, biblical principle.


----------



## satz

> If we even conclude that it IS refering to adultery (sex outside of one's marriage)...the WHERE does it say that they can remarry (including the innocent party)? I don't see it. I see the person is not bound to the duties of that marriage, but I also see that that person is still "one" with their spouse in God's view (even if not legally).



Hi Colleen,

As a genuine question, where do you get the idea that a person can be not bound to the marriage but still 'one' with the spouse/former spouse. I can't think of any place where the bible speaks of such a half-way state. If divorce is the splitting up of a marriage, than logically speaking, if the divorce is one God allows, wouldn't the innocent party be not bound to any spouse and hence free to remarry in the same way as a single person would be?


----------



## LadyFlynt

BJ, yes, I believe marriage of believers and unbelievers (and mixed) is held as a valid vow before God. If I were to take what you said, then I could marry an unbeliever and then divorce him when I'm ready to move on because it "wasn't a valid marriage"...my MIL tried to pull this one. We are also not called to divorce when our spouse is an unbeliever....we are called to pray for them and be a witness by our behaviour.


Mark Li, the scriptures state that no man can put asunder what has been joined before God (or rather what God has joined together). Also that God does not intend divorce. Israel demanded divorce, so God said FINE, have your divorce and the consequences that go with it. This does not show that he approved of such.



Has anyone here read the books Till Death Do Us Part? and Daughters of Sarah? That would be where I am coming from. But I want to look further into it as the history on divorce is not fully clear to me either.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> CT, in Deuteronomy it says he can't take her back because she is defiled (from being remarried). I'm confused. First it says she can go become another's wife, then it says she is defiled from it (remarriage/adultery). Help?



In order to restrain the hardness of man's heart God allowed for divorce under the Old Testament in the case of uncleanness. In order to hinder men from completely trampling upon this concession, and upon women in the process, He commanded that a wife, once put away, was not to be taken again by the same man. This would (1) cause a man to seriously consider the consequences of the putting away, and (2) prevent the well known ANE vice of woman trading.

Like so much of OT law, the Jewish religious leaders introduced various sophisms to bring the commandments of God under their power. Numerous shortcomings of a wife were classified as uncleanness, thereby widening the cause for putting away. Christ brings us back to the original intent of the commandment by clarifying that fornication, or sexual uncleanness, is the only valid cause for putting away. But He first takes us back to the original intent of marriage: What God hath joined together let not man put asunder. It reminds us that the marriage union is a divine ordinance, and therefore not to be treated lightly, as if it were a mere business transaction. Yet it also recognises that man can in fact sunder that union, and is inclined to do so.

In 1 Cor. 7, the apostle Paul does not provide a different cause of divorce when he deals with the issue of unbelievers "leaving" or abandoning their spouses. Abandonment is itself a divorce. By "leaving," the unbeliever has put himself away, and effectively terminated the marriage. This leaves the abandoned person in a state of limbo. The apostle determines that such a state is in fact one of singleness, and therefore the person is free of the marriage bond. They may choose to marry again.

[Edited on 9-25-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## satz

Hi Colleen,

regarding the Lord's statements in John 19, I think we have to see that when Jesus says 'what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder' in verse 6 he says it in the context of the pharasees asking him in verse 3 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife _for every cause?_'

As Rev Winzer stated above, it seems Jesus is correcting the abuses of the law of God that was going on at that time. In fact in verse 9, he Jesus restates that fornication is a valid reason for 'putting away your wife'.


----------



## BJClark

LadyFlynt,

I didn't ask if the vow was valid, I asked did *God* join them together? 

Or did God allow the believer to make the choice to be unequally yoked to an unbeliever and live with the consequences of their choice? (kind of like Isreal demanding a divorce, and God allowing it, did He approve of the marriage to begin with? How could He, if He tells us very clearly do not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever?)


And No, even if you married an unbeliever you couldn't just divorce them because they are not a believer. However, IF the unbeliever wants a divorce you let them go, per scripture. 

Are you going to try and hold them hostage in a relationship they no longer want to be in? Or are you going to do as God shows us, He does with the unbeleiver who desires to live in their sin? He lets them go. (Per the letter to the Romans) 

Most certainly it would be great IF they repented, But do you know for certain they were called? Do you know if God knew them from before creation? Do you know if they were chosen by God? We don't, so if they choose to leave, then we give them the freedom to leave. 

Sometimes even trying to convince an unbeliever to work on a marriage just because of OUR understanding about God's design for marriage to be a lifetime, will only serve to harden their heart even further against God. 

Why would an unbeliever want to serve or worship a God who tells them they are not even ALLOWED to leave a marriage they no longer want to be in? They would see that as God is controlling, and not loving.

As Christians, we can still pray for them, and we can still live a Godly life before them, but we aren't called to hold them hostage in a relationship they don't desire to be a part of. 

Most certainly we want them to make the choice to stay in the marriage, BUT we want them first to be reconciled to God through Christ, even if that means we go through a divorce, even if it means that marriage is never restored. And we must also accept the possibility, that they are not called, no matter how much we might want them to be. 




> BJ, yes, I believe marriage of believers and unbelievers (and mixed) is held as a valid vow before God. If I were to take what you said, then I could marry an unbeliever and then divorce him when I'm ready to move on because it "wasn't a valid marriage"...my MIL tried to pull this one. We are also not called to divorce when our spouse is an unbeliever....we are called to pray for them and be a witness by our behaviour.
> 
> 
> Mark Li, the scriptures state that no man can put asunder what has been joined before God (or rather what God has joined together). Also that God does not intend divorce. Israel demanded divorce, so God said FINE, have your divorce and the consequences that go with it. This does not show that he approved of such.
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone here read the books Till Death Do Us Part? and Daughters of Sarah? That would be where I am coming from. But I want to look further into it as the history on divorce is not fully clear to me either.
> 
> [Edited on 9-25-2006 by LadyFlynt]





[Edited on 9-25-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> LadyFlynt,
> I didn't ask if the vow was valid, I asked did *God* join them together?


If I believe that God is sovereign in all things, then yes, I believe that God joined them together. Their decision was within God's hidden Will.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Could someone hit on #3 please?


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Could someone hit on #3 please?



I think the difficulty may be with trying to read this list as a non-overlapping set of categories.

I do not think it is to be taken that way. E.g., "drunkenness" and "revelries". Not exclusive. One contains aspects of the other. Same with "idolatry" and "sorcery" or "dissensions" and "heresies".

I don't think it was Paul's intent to come up with a set of terms where each one captures only one sort of infraction.

It is certainly appropriate to call out both fornication and adultery.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> LadyFlynt,
> I didn't ask if the vow was valid, I asked did *God* join them together?
> 
> 
> 
> If I believe that God is sovereign in all things, then yes, I believe that God joined them together. Their decision was within God's hidden Will.
Click to expand...


Certainly it is by God's will that they were married - as are all things. But this does not necessarily make them "one". 



> (1Co 7:12-13 NKJV)
> But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
> 
> (1Co 7:15 NKJV)
> But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.



The believer is required to stay married to the unbeliever, but the believer is not bound to the unbeliever. If the unbeliever divorces the believer - then the believer is free to remarry. They were not "one" in marriage because a believer can not be one with an unbeliever. They are not of the same mind/faith. 

And what about two unbelievers? Can they be "one" in marriage. I don't think the Bible is concerned about the validity of marriage among unbelievers, much more the "oneness" in them. I think Paul is only concerned about the obligations of the believers.


----------



## LadyFlynt

So it's like saying "adultery and other sexual sins"? Okay, that makes sense. Those that use this (#3) would say that it doesn't make sense to say "adultery and adultery"...but that is only one way to look at it. If it is being presented as "adultery and other sexual sins" then that would clarify the issue.


----------



## providenceboard

Concerning Deuteronomy 24,

According to John Murray's _Divorce and Remarriage_ ,

The passage is not giving the first husband the right to divorce his wife. It is saying that IF he divorces her he may not take her back. If I remember correctly, the point is to make the man think twice before divorcing his wife. 

Jeff


----------



## Blueridge Believer

What about Ezra 10 folks? There was a lot of putting away there of wives and children from strange marriage.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I paid attention to Pt2 of D&R today. The pastor's main points were his personal opinions on examples.

Unbeliever leaves...innocent remarry....yes

Person's spouse leaves for another...innocent remarry....yes

2 ppl have an affair...their marriages break up...the innocents remarry...can the 2 having the affair marry eachother if they have *repented?....he says yes he would perform the ceremony

abusive spouse...he says innocent can divorce and marry someone else




Anyone want to have a go at the *third*example?


----------



## Theoretical

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I paid attention to Pt2 of D&R today. The pastor's main points were his personal opinions on examples.
> 
> Unbeliever leaves...innocent remarry....yes
> 
> Person's spouse leaves for another...innocent remarry....yes
> 
> 2 ppl have an affair...their marriages break up...the innocents remarry...can the 2 having the affair marry eachother if they have *repented?....he says yes he would perform the ceremony
> 
> abusive spouse...he says innocent can divorce and marry someone else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to have a go at the *third*example?



The third one is very strange. From the standards in the Gospels and Epistles, the innocents' remarriage is fine, but the two actually committing the affair would fall under the category of permanently ineligible to remarry, given their adultery. I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other. It seems to retroactively condone the past adultery and is a slap to the innocent parties. Just my


----------



## MW

A divorced condition is a remarriageable condition in the eyes of the State; and though marriage is ordained by God it is administered by the State. Hence a divorced person is able to be remarried. The Church can counsel the State as to biblical marriage, but at the end of the day, the State rules.

Whether ministers should personally sanction the State's rules by officiating at such weddings is another question, and a knotty one at that.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> A divorced condition is a remarriageable condition in the eyes of the State; and though marriage is ordained by God it is administered by the State. Hence a divorced person is able to be remarried. The Church can counsel the State as to biblical marriage, but at the end of the day, the State rules.
> 
> Whether ministers should personally sanction the State's rules by officiating at such weddings is another question, and a knotty one at that.



I'm not too concerned about the State here...the State can condone homosexual marriage and it not be recognized by the church...just as a church can enact a marriage that is not recognized by the state (I know of such cases). My concern is on where we are *supposed* to be standing as a church.


----------



## SRoper

"I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other."

Would the existence of children produced by the adulterous relationship change anything?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Theoretical_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I paid attention to Pt2 of D&R today. The pastor's main points were his personal opinions on examples.
> 
> Unbeliever leaves...innocent remarry....yes
> 
> Person's spouse leaves for another...innocent remarry....yes
> 
> 2 ppl have an affair...their marriages break up...the innocents remarry...can the 2 having the affair marry eachother if they have *repented?....he says yes he would perform the ceremony
> 
> abusive spouse...he says innocent can divorce and marry someone else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to have a go at the *third*example?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The third one is very strange. From the standards in the Gospels and Epistles, the innocents' remarriage is fine, but the two actually committing the affair would fall under the category of permanently ineligible to remarry, given their adultery. I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other. It seems to retroactively condone the past adultery and is a slap to the innocent parties. Just my
Click to expand...


That was pretty much how I felt on the quilty persons' issue. The pastor made an emotional, subjective appeal to "his own observation" of their repentence. To me, this is no different than someone who is remarried unlawfully (according to scripture, not state) and then saying, well we repent now we are comitting adultery where five minutes before we repented we were. I like the RPCNA's and FPC's stand on this one...to not participate in any remarriages.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Another question...this pastor is PCA...is he in violation of anything on this issue?


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I'm not too concerned about the State here...the State can condone homosexual marriage and it not be recognized by the church...just as a church can enact a marriage that is not recognized by the state (I know of such cases). My concern is on where we are *supposed* to be standing as a church.



Marriage is by definition between man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman; hence the comparison is irrelevant. You would have been better off raising the issue of consanguinity or affinity; but even then the Bible appears to regard the union as valid, even though unlawful.

You might need to ask the prior question of whether or not the church should insist that the adulterer be punished. If so, his punishment might solve the problem, particularly if the church believes in the death penalty.

However, since the State does not seem willing to punish adulterers at all, you will have to reckon with the fact that they are afforded the liberty to remarry, and the church has no say in the matter, seeing that marriage is a civil ordinance.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other."
> 
> Would the existence of children produced by the adulterous relationship change anything?


They had not had children from the affair.


----------



## 3John2

This is hard for me to do but here it goes. Usually this does NOT go very good at least it hasn't in other christian forums. I AM divorced. My wife committed adultery with NUMEROUS men & ultimately got pregnant by someone other than me. Veriable as she was away (Ukraine) during the time she got pregnant so obviously not mine. I was devastated obviously. My pastor KNEW my wife & flat out told me she was wrong & not saved. He gave me a book by Ray Sutton called "Second Chance : Biblical Principles of Divorce & Remarriage". Gary North was the General editor. Sutton is Reformed & in that book he covers almost all the points brought up here. He mentions about God "divorcing" Isreal etc. 
The book talks heavily about covenant & specifically what the covenant of marriage is. Very heavy & good book. It truly set me free. 
But the ugly scar of divorce still hurts & is a painful reminder of what happens when you marry someone who is NOT elect but merely a "professing" christian. Very tough way to learn that difference. I pray God will bring a good God fearing & loving lady my wife. I think I might have met her but we are currently seeking God on this & putting His will above ours.
I would recommend that book to anyone whether or NOT they are divorced. I think it is a good book for married couples PERIOD.


----------



## PresReformed

I've studied up on this issue a bit and I found that Jay Adams' book "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible" is one of the best, if not the best book out there on the subject. I think that 1 Corinthians 7:27,28 clearly says that it is not sin for divorced people to get remarried. 1Co 7:27-28 "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (28) 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." Divorce is not the unpardonable sin.


----------



## PresReformed

SRoper said:


> "I don't see where the Scriptures or even just ordinary wisdom would see fit to permit the adulterous pair, even in repentance, to marry each other."
> 
> Would the existence of children produced by the adulterous relationship change anything?



Christ came from the lineage of the fruit of David and Bathsheba's marriage, both who were adulterers that married.


----------



## kvanlaan

Quick interjection here: Is the case of an abusive spouse not a scenario for church discipline (and perhaps civil, that is, criminal discipline)? What is the scriptural basis for a divorce in this case?


----------



## satz

> What is the scriptural basis for a divorce in this case?



I believe it would be the principle that God desires mercy more than sacrifice. Persistant, unrepantant abuse is just as great a violation of the marriage covenant as fornication or desertion. For those who want to stick strictly to the only fornication or desertion is a valid reason line, I wonder if they are as strict with 1 Corinthians 7, which says the _only_ reason for a couple to abstain from sexual relations is prayer and fasting. I guess that rules out illness or medical reasons then...


----------



## BJClark

kvanlaan;

I would think 1 Corinthians 7:12-13 would come in to play here...

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she is *pleased* to dwell with him, let her not be put away. And if the woman hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."

So is a person that abuses their spouse really pleased to dwell with them?

if they were pleased to be with them, would they be abusing them?

And in the case of church discipline, would it apply IF one is not a member of a church body?



> Quick interjection here: Is the case of an abusive spouse not a scenario for church discipline (and perhaps civil, that is, criminal discipline)? What is the scriptural basis for a divorce in this case?


----------



## BertMulder

> 20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
> 
> 22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
> 
> 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
> 
> 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
> 
> 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
> 
> 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
> 
> 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
> 
> 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
> 
> 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
> 
> 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
> 
> 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
> 
> 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
> 
> 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.



So what is the import of this passage on the issue of divorce and remarriage. The marriage bond is a picture, a type of the covenant relationship of Christ and His church. Christ NEVER divorces His church. Now I know, that in case of adultery there is a Biblical warrant for separation between spouses. However, in the eyes of the Lord, however, the marriage bond is never totally severed. Same as in the case of a marriage where the unbelieving spouse departs. The marriage bond can only really be severed by death.



> 32But 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. *



And this text specifically condemns remarriage, of both the guilty and the innocent party.


----------



## satz

> However, in the eyes of the Lord, however, the marriage bond is never totally severed. Same as in the case of a marriage where the unbelieving spouse departs. The marriage bond can only really be severed by death.



Burt, 

What is the bible support for this? The bible never uses the langugue of couples being allowed to seperate but their marriage bond is still intact, it says divorce. The fact that marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and the church does not mean every aspect of that relationship is similar in marriage. Marriage ends after death, but the same is surely not so for Christ and his church's relationship.

As for the Matthew passage, isn't the passage addressing divorce for improper causes (ie for causes other than fornication). The passage is saying that man who divorces his wife for a wrong reason causes her to committ adultery, and anyone who marries that woman - who has not been properly divorced - commits adultery since the previous marriage was not properly dissolves. It says nothing about remarriage after lawful divorces.


----------



## LadyFlynt

It doesn't say why they were divorced...just if they were divorced and then remarried...


----------



## BertMulder

> whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery



The plain reading does not say: whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, _saving for the cause of fornication_, committeth adultery.

The part in the italics only applies to the first part of the sentence. At least that was the way I was taught the English language.


> 32But 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.



This is a good booklet on the topic:

Until death do us part, by Prof. Engelsma:

http://www.prca.org/current/Marriage/Pages 1-58.htm



> *Does Scripture Then Contradict Scripture?*
> 
> There is one text in the Bible that might seem to approve remarriage after divorce. One text! If understood as approving remarriage, this text would approve the remarriage only of the "innocent party," that is, the married person whose wife (or husband) has fomicated. All other remarriages are forbidden as adultery.
> 
> This one text is Matthew 19:9:
> 
> And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall many another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
> 
> Against the seeming approval of the remarriage of the "innocent party" m Matthew 19:9 stand a number of texts that clearly forbid all remarriage after divorce, regardless of the ground for the divorce. These passages condemn all remarriage after divorce as adultery.
> 
> Mark 10:11, 12: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and many another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
> 
> Luke 16:18: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
> 
> I Corinthians 7:10, 11: And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
> 
> I Corinthians 7:39: The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
> 
> Romans 7:2, 3: For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
> 
> The prohibition of remarriage in these passages is absolute.
> 
> Romans 7:2,3 and I Corinthians 7:39 ground the absolute prohibition in the nature of marriage as a lifelong bond by virtue of God's sovereign ordination as Creator and Governor of this world.
> 
> One text apparently conflicts with this absolute prohibition of remarriage by a seeming approval of the remarriage of the "innocent party."
> 
> If Matthew 19:9 does, in fact, permit the remarriage of the "innocent party," it flatly contradicts Scripture's teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the passages quoted above, especially I Corinthians 7:3 9.


----------



## satz

> The plain reading does not say: whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, saving for the cause of fornication, committeth adultery.
> 
> The part in the italics only applies to the first part of the sentence. At least that was the way I was taught the English language.



Yes, the part in italics is applies to the first part of the sentence. But it sets the context for the second half. Who is the 'her that is divorced' in the second clause? The improperly divorced woman from the first clause.

If we look at the larger context of Matt 5, Jesus Christ is dealing with ways the pharasees tried to get around the Seventh Commandment. He deals first with fantasies, than with improper or frivolous divorces. By context we understand when he condemns remarriage it is not any remarriage but remarriage subsequent to one of the Pharasee's frivolous divorces.


----------



## BertMulder

So Christ is speaking out of both sides of His mouth (spoken with reverence):

The parallels from the other synoptic Gospels:



> Mark 10:11, 12: And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and many another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
> 
> Luke 16:18: Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


----------



## satz

> So Christ is speaking out of both sides of His mouth (spoken with reverence):



I am not sure what you mean by 'speaking out of both sides of his mouth'. Prehaps you could explain? My point was that his condemnation of remarriage must be understood in context of his condemnation of divorce for improper causes. The remarriage is sinful not because all remarriages after divorce are sinful per se, but because the initial divorce was not for a proper reason, hence the woman was not truely free to remarry.



> The parallels from the other synoptic Gospels:



Again I would maintain that in all of Christ's controversy with the pharasees about divorce and remarriage, we must understand the context that the pharasees were fond of divorce for frivolous reasons. These are not examples of Jesus explaining the situation of a man or woman divorced because of fornication and commenting on the propriety of their remarriage. Matt 5 already sets the context that Jesus was condemning the pharasees for their frivolous divorce practices. We see this again in Matt 19:3 when the pharasees come to him 'tempting him' and asking 'Is is lawful for a man to put away his wife _for every cause_? Mark 10:2 reitterates that the context of his discussion on marriage was the pharasees were 'tempting him'. I believe all the passages when understood togeather show that Jesus is condemning remarriage after unlawful divorces, not all remarriage whatsoever.


----------



## PresReformed

> 1Co 7:27-28 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (28) 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.



Paul clearly teaches here that divorced people may remarry. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that divorce is only finalized in death.



> Lev 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or a harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
> 
> Lev 21:7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.



These two verses teach that priests could not marry divorced women. If marrying divorced women was forbidden by all, then this prohibition for the priesthood would not make any sense. Clearly it is implied here that others married divorced women but priests were forbidden to.


----------



## kvanlaan

Bobbi, point taken, but where then does Matthew 19:9 come in (it seems pretty cut and dried)? Let's confine this argument to two hypothetical believers, one abusive to the other in a physical manner. This is then a case for church discipline, is it not? (And perhaps criminal justice). But the Lord hates both sins, and to divorce for a reason not fully borne out by scripture is merely adding to the pile. While the man may rightly go to jail for beating his wife, is it right for her to divorce him? 

My point is not to argue the common sense of it but to seek where scripture would lead in this case. Common sense says yes, do it and do it quickly. But does scripture not point to discipline by the church, his coming to repentence, and a resumption of the relationship? If he will not repent, does the Bible not point to divorce and single life for the woman?


----------



## satz

> does the Bible not point to divorce *and single life* for the woman?



Kevin,

I am sincerely interested in this. Where do you get the bolded portion of your last statement from? If the bible points to divorce for a woman, why do you automatically jump to 'and single life'? What is the biblical reason for that? This is a genuine question. I have seen many christians make the same conclusions and I genuinely cannot understand why.

Regarding if abuse is a legitimate cause for divorce, at this point in time I believe it is. In the gospels it sounds like the Lord Jesus is saying fornication/adultery is the only valid reason but Paul under divine inspiration adds another reason for desertion. We also see cases in the Old Testament where God commanded his people to divorce pagan wives. I think we should understand that in this case Jesus was not trying to set down a list of the only possible reasons for a legitimate divorce, but using fornication as an example of a severe breach of the marriage covenant that would allow a divorce. As I mentioned in a post earlier, I think this is a similar situation to 1 Corinthians 7 where Pauls langugue sounds like prayer and fasting is the only acceptable reason for a couple to abstain from marital relations. But most christians, I believe, would understand that Paul is using that as a example of a 'serious reason' not saying that is the only possible reason, ever. It is a similar case to the Lord's teaching on acts of mercy on the sabbath day. No one interpretes his teaching to mean the only acceptable act of mercy is there specific act of helping your ox, but we understand him to have used that specific example as a representation of a general category.

Off course, even if there is a legitimate reason, divorce should be the absolute last resort. Given the importance of marriage and the emphasis on forgiveness in the bible, every attempt at converting the sinning party and restoring the marriage should be made. Only in a case of complete unrepentance and hard-heartedness should divorce be resorted to.


----------



## kvanlaan

Mark,

My lead into that was the prohibitions against remarriage for one divorcing for reasons other than infidelity. This is a fairly new topic for me, I am unaccustomed to any dealings with divorce in my immediate and extended family. This is also the reason that my posts may seem a bit harsh - I have no personal experience with it, so I feel more (perhaps unreasonably) comfortable pontificating from an objective, Scripture-only view. I'm sure that if I had any personal experience with it, I would be changing my tune a bit.


----------



## satz

Kevin,

I did not mean to imply your posts were harsh, I did not find them so at all. I too have no personal experience with divorce in my extended family. I did try my best to show why I think divorce and remarriage are allowed for reasons other than infidelity. I would be interested to know what you think.


----------



## kvanlaan

Mark, thanks for the reply - I didn't think _you_ were saying that the posts were harsh but for those on this forum that _have_ been through divorce or seen it close at hand, my comments might seem a bit clinical and heartless (like Calvinistic poetry in motion!)

Let me look this up a bit and I'll get back to you...


----------



## kvanlaan

Actually, a quick rejoinder on this (before I start digging) would be that if we have the words of our Lord in Matthew 19:9 stating one and only one legitimate reason for divorce (fornication), Paul's statement must then be put in _that_ context, the context of Christ's words on the subject. To me, that is the contextual bubble from which we cannot depart. Paul's later statements may be inspired, but they surely would not contradict Jesus' statement. 

A quick peek shows me that my Greek word studies books don't (for some reason) cover Matthew. Any clues from the Greek that anyone else can see?


----------



## BJClark

Where would Matthew 18:18-20 play into this process? 

"Verily verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: And whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again, I say to you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Heaven.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them."

It seems to be a continuation of the reconciliation process in the previous verses, and then in the following verses Jesus goes into the teachings on forgiveness.



> Originally posted by LadyFlynt
> CT, in Deuteronomy it says he can't take her back because she is defiled (from being remarried). I'm confused. First it says she can go become another's wife, then it says she is defiled from it (remarriage/adultery). Help?



Doing a word search on defiled....in such a case it seems the reason he can not remarry her is because HE pronounced her unclean...when he divorced her...

2) to pronounce unclean, declare unclean (ceremonially)

In Deut. 24:2 it says "And when she is departed out of his house, she MAY go and be another man's wife." So that tells me remarriage is allowed.

What was unclean about her? it doesn't say..

And in verse 1 it also says he is to give the wife a certificate of divorce..so looking up the word divorce...

1) to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant

Wouldn't this mean the covenant itself has been cut off...and would no longer be valid and would certainly seem the marriage covenant had been severed, or loosed as refered to in the above passages...

In looking at the root word of Put away...it doesn't seem to mean the same thing as divorce.

1) of separation
a) of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
b) of separation of a part from the whole
1) where of a whole some part is taken
c) of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
d) of a state of separation, that is of distance
1) physical, of distance of place
2) temporal, of distance of time

So in terms of someone who has been 'put away' looking at the root word, it would mean they are still married, so it would be adultery if they married another...so yes, it makes sense if a man puts away his wife...she couldn't marry someone else..


----------



## kvanlaan

Joshua, excellent blathering, I quite enjoyed it! The difference in the situation does shed some new light on it.

(Still digging...)


----------



## satz

On the net I found this analysis on D & R, which is actually similar to what Joshua and Greg have already said.

1 Cor 7:15 says:



> 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.



The thing to ask, off course, is what does it mean to ‘not be under bondage’? 

Verse 27 of the same chapter says:



> Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.



I think it is reasonable to infer from this that if you are not bound to a wife, you are loosed from one. If you are not bound, or in bondage to you marriage, you have been loosed from it. And what does the bible say about those who are loose from marriage?

Verse 28:



> 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.



They can marry without sinning. I think Paul is teaching here that those whom have been abandoned by a pagan spouse are free to remarry if they choose. I think we can draw the general principle from this: if someone is divorced for a reason the bible allows, as opposed to a fivorlous or carnal reason, they are free to remarry.


----------



## staythecourse

*A Hard saying - Divorce and Remarriage*

To people whom I'd like to give input:

Being older and unmarried, a previous fornictor and fearing God so as not to defile my future wife and staying in an adulterous relationship should I marry, I had to do some research.

My final conclusion is fornicators cannot marry without sinning (unless they abstain from sex) and unless death of the spouse occurs, the two are still married before God. Do you know of any old resources that may address fornicator's marrying (I had asked Christ to save me at an earlier age before the fornication. This is not about me so much as God's overall view on the matter so I can direct others in similar situations - it may even impact my church as elders are asking me to research the topic) I may re-look at Adam's book again.

Below is Piper's Essay.

Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage After Divorce Is Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive
1. Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.

Luke 16:18: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

1.1 This verse shows that Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in God's sight. The reason a second marriage is called adultery is because the first one is considered to still be valid. So Jesus is taking a stand against the Jewish culture in which all divorce was considered to carry with it the right of remarriage.

1.2 The second half of the verse shows that not merely the divorcing man is guilty of adultery when he remarries, but also any man who marries a divorced woman.

1.3 Since there are no exceptions mentioned in the verse, and since Jesus is clearly rejecting the common cultural conception of divorce as including the right of remarriage, the first readers of this gospel would have been hard-put to argue for any exceptions on the basis that Jesus shared the cultural assumption that divorce for unfaithfulness or desertion freed a spouse for remarriage.

2. Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who does the divorcing.

Mark 10:11-12: And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.'

2.1 This text repeats the first half of Luke 16:18 but goes farther and says that not only the man who divorces, but also a woman who divorces, and then remarries is committing adultery.

2.2 As in Luke 16:18, there are no exceptions mentioned to this rule.

3. Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teach that Jesus rejected the Pharisees' justification of divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted the purpose of God in creation that no human being separate what God has joined together.

Mark 10:2-9: And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, 'What did Moses command you?' 4 And they said, 'Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.' 5 But Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.'

Matthew 19:3-9: 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." 7They 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."

3.1 In both Matthew and Mark the Pharisees come to Jesus and test him by asking him whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They evidently have in mind the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply describes divorce as a fact rather than giving any legislation in favor of it. They wonder how Jesus will take a position with regard to this passage.

3.2 Jesus' answer is, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives" (Mt. 19:8).

3.3 But then Jesus criticizes the Pharisees' failure to recognize in the books of Moses God's deepest and original intention for marriage. So he quotes two passages from Genesis. "God made them male and female. ...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Genesis 1:27; 2:24).

3.4 From these passages in Genesis Jesus concludes, "So they are no longer two, but one." And then he makes his climaxing statement, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

3.5 The implication is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees' use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the standard of marriage for his disciples to God's original intention in creation. He says that none of us should try to undo the "one-flesh" relationship which God has united.

3.6 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.

4. Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.

Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

4.1 Jesus assumes that in most situations in that culture a wife who has been put away by a husband will be drawn into a second marriage. Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage adultery.

4.2 The remarkable thing about the first half of this verse is that it plainly says that the remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away is nevertheless adultery: "Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her (the innocent wife who has not been unchaste) an adulteress." This is a clear statement, it seems to me, that remarriage is wrong not merely when a person is guilty in the process of divorce, but also when a person is innocent. In other words, Jesus' opposition to remarriage seems to be based on the unbreakableness of the marriage bond by anything but death.

4.3 I will save my explanation of the exception clause ("Except on the ground of unchastity") for later in the paper, but for now, it may suffice to say that on the traditional interpretation of the clause, it may simply mean that a man makes his wife an adulteress except in the case where she has made herself one.

4.4 I would assume that since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, therefore a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman's adultery has broken the "one flesh" relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an innocent divorced woman, "If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for you to remarry." This seems wrong for at least two reasons.

4.41 It seems to elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital union and disunion.

4.42 If sexual union with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can't remarry (as Jesus does say) assumes that her divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another. This is a very unlikely assumption. More likely is that Jesus does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the "one-flesh" relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.

5. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who divorces should not remarry.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11: To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

5.1 When Paul says that this charge is not his but the Lord's, I think he means that he is aware of a specific saying from the historical Jesus which addressed this issue. As a matter of fact, these verses look very much like Mark 10:11-12, because both the wife and the husband are addressed. Also, remarriage seems to be excluded by verse ll the same way it is excluded in Mark 10:11-12.

5.2 Paul seems to be aware that separation will be inevitable in certain cases. Perhaps he has in mind a situation of unrepentant adultery, or desertion, or brutality. But in such a case he says that the person who feels constrained to separate should not seek remarriage but remain single. And he reinforces the authority of this statement by saying he has a word from the Lord. Thus Paul's interpretation of Jesus' sayings is that remarriage should not be pursued.

5.3 As in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 and Matthew 5:32, this text does not explicitly entertain the possibility of any exceptions to the prohibition of remarriage.

6. 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.

1 Corinthians 7:39: A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:1-3, Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during his life? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning her husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

6.1 Both of these passages (1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2) say explicitly that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. No exceptions are explicitly mentioned that would suggest she could be free from her husband to remarry on any other basis.

7. Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ's disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.

Matthew 19:10-12: The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.' 11 But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuches who have been so from birth, and there are eunuches who have been made eunuches by men, and there are eunuches who have made themselves eunuches for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

7.1 Just preceding this passage in Matthew 19:9 Jesus prohibited all remarriage after divorce. (I will deal with the meaning of "except for immorality" below.) This seemed like an intolerable prohibition to Jesus' disciples: If you close off every possibility of remarriage, then you make marriage so risky that it would be better not to marry, since you might be "trapped" to live as a single person to the rest of your life or you may be "trapped" in a bad marriage.

7.2 Jesus does not deny the tremendous difficulty of his command. Instead, he says in verse ll, that the enablement to fulfill the command not to remarry is a divine gift to his disciples. Verse 12 is an argument that such a life is indeed possible because there are people who for the sake of the kingdom, as well as lower reasons, have dedicated themselves to live a life of singleness.

7.3 Jesus is not saying that some of his disciples have the ability to obey his command not to remarry and some don't. He is saying that the mark of a disciple is that they receive a gift of continence while non-disciples don't. The evidence for this is l) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 13:11, 2) the parallel between Matthew 19:12 and 13:9,43; 11:15, and 3) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 19:26.

8. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the "one-flesh" relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4: When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.

8.1 The remarkable thing about these four verses is that, while divorce is taken for granted, nevertheless the woman who is divorced becomes "defiled" by her remarriage (verse 4). It may well be that when the Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was legitimate he based his negative answer not only on God's intention expressed in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, but also on the implication of Deuteronomy 24:4 that remarriage after divorce defiles a person. In other words, there were ample clues in the Mosaic law that the divorce concession was on the basis of the hardness of man's heart and really did not make divorce and remarriage legitimate.

8.2 The prohibition of a wife returning to her first husband even after her second husband dies (because it is an abomination) suggests very strongly that today no second marriage should be broken up in order to restore a first one (for Heth and Wenham's explanation of this see Jesus and Divorce, page 110).

9. 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.

1 Corinthians 7:15: If the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

9.1 There are several reasons why the phrase "is not bound" should not be construed to mean "is free to remarry."

9.11 Marriage is an ordinance of creation binding on all of God's human creatures, irrespective of their faith or lack of faith.

9.12 The word used for "bound" (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where Paul says, "A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as long as he lives." Paul consistently uses deo when speaking of the legal aspect of being bound to one marriage partner (Romans 7:2; l Corinthians 7:39), or to one's betrothed (l Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not being bound in l Corinthians 7:15, he chooses a different word (douloo) which we would expect him to do if he were not giving a deserted spouse the same freedom to remarry that he gives to a spouse whose partner has died (verse 39).

9.13 The last phrase of verse 15 ("God has called us to peace") supports verse 15 best if Paul is saying that a deserted partner is not "bound to make war" on the deserting unbeliever to get him or her to stay. It seems to me that the peace God has called us to is the peace of marital harmony. Therefore, if the unbelieving partner insists on departing, then the believing partner is not bound to live in perpetual conflict with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and innocent in letting him or her go.

9.14 This interpretation also preserves a closer harmony to the intention of verses 10-11, where an inevitable separation does not result in the right of remarriage.

10. 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin.

10.1 Recently some people have argued that this passage deals with divorced people because in verse 27 Paul asks, "Are you free (literally: loosed) from a wife?" Some have assumed that he means, "Are you divorced?" Thus he would be saying in verse 28 that it is not sin when divorced people remarry. There are several reasons why this interpretation is most unlikely.

10.11 Verse 25 signals that Paul is beginning a new section and dealing with a new issue. He says, "Now concerning the virgins (ton parthenon) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." He has already dealt with the problem of divorced people in verses 10-16. Now he takes up a new issue about those who are not yet married, and he signals this by saying, "Now concerning the virgins." Therefore, it is very unlikely that the people referred to in verses 27 and 28 are divorced.

10.12 A flat statement that it is not sin for divorced people to be remarried (verse 28) would contradict verse ll, where he said that a woman who has separated from her husband should remain single.

10.13 Verse 36 is surely describing the same situation in view in verses 27 and 28, but clearly refers to a couple that is not yet married. "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin." This is the same as verse 28 where Paul says, "But if you marry, you do not sin."

10.14 The reference in verse 27 to being bound to a "wife" may be misleading because it may suggest that the man is already married. But in Greek the word for wife is simply "woman" and may refer to a man's betrothed as well as his spouse. The context dictates that the reference is to a man's betrothed virgin, not to his spouse. So "being bound" and "being loosed" have reference to whether a person is betrothed or not.

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).

11. 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.

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

11.1 Several years ago I taught our congregation in two evening services concerning my understanding of this verse and argued that "except for immorality" did not refer to adultery but to premarital sexual fornication which a man or a woman discovers in the betrothed partner. Since that time I have discovered other people who hold this view and who have given it a much more scholarly exposition than I did. I have also discovered numerous other ways of understanding this verse which also exclude the legitimacy of remarriage. Several of these are summed up in William Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (Nelson: 1984).

11.2 Here I will simply give a brief summary of my own view of Matthew 19:9 and how I came to it.

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.

Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew's exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia ("except for immorality") instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. The question nags at me why Matthew would not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant.

Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneiais in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication or incest (l Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?

A. Isaksson agrees with this view of porneia and sums up his research much like this on pages 134-5 of Marriage and Ministry:

Thus we cannot get away from the fact that the distinction between what was to be regarded as porneia and what was to be regarded as moicheia was very strictly maintained in pre-Christian Jewish literature and in the N.T. Porneia may, of course, denote different forms of forbidden sexual relations, but we can find no unequivocal examples of the use of this word to denote a wife's adultery. Under these circumstances we can hardly assume that this word means adultery in the clauses in Matthew. The logia on divorce are worded as a paragraph of the law, intended to be obeyed by the members of the Church. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that in a text of this nature the writer would not have maintained a clear distinction between what was unchastity and what was adultery: moicheia and not porneia was used to describe the wife's adultery. From the philological point of view there are accordingly very strong arguments against this interpretation of the clauses as permitting divorce in the case in which the wife was guilty of adultery.

The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don't accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew's record of Jesus' birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.

*In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves "to divorce" Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was "just" in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.*

Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19 needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to allow for "divorces" like the one Joseph contemplated toward his betrothed whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). *Therefore, Matthew includes the exception clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but also in general to show that the kind of "divorce" that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication is not included in Jesus' absolute prohibition.*

A common objection to this interpretation is that both in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is marriage not betrothal. The point is pressed that "except for fornication" is irrelevant to the context of marriage.

*My answer is that this irrelevancy is just the point Matthew wants to make. We may take it for granted that the breakup of an engaged couple over fornication is not an evil "divorce" and does not prohibit remarriage. But we cannot assume that Matthew's readers would take this for granted.*

*Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for us to exclude "the case of fornication" (since we can't see how a betrothed virgin could be "made an adulteress" in any case), it may not be pointless for Matthew's readers. For that matter, it may not be pointless for any readers: if Jesus had said, "Every man who divorces his woman makes her an adulteress," a reader could legitimately ask: "Then was Joseph about to make Mary an adulteress?" We may say this question is not reasonable since we think you can't make unmarried women adulteresses. But it certainly is not meaningless or, perhaps for some readers, pointless, for Matthew to make explicit the obvious exclusion of the case of fornication during betrothal.*

This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages:

It does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke and the whole range of New Testament teaching set forth above in sections 1-10, including Matthew's own absolute teaching in 19:3-8 
It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew's exception clause instead of moicheia 
It squares with Matthew's own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19 
It fits the demands of Matthew's wider context concerning Joseph's contemplated divorce. 
Since I first wrote this exposition of Matthew 19:9 I have discovered a chapter on this view in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce and a scholarly defense of it by A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (1965).

*Conclusions and Applications
In the New Testament the question about remarriage after divorce is not determined by:

The guilt or innocence of either spouse, 
Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or not, 
Nor by whether the divorce happened before or after either spouse's conversion, 
Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth, 
Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion involved, 
Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart, 
Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.* 

*Rather it is determined by the fact that:

Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8), 
Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11), 
God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39), 
The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13), 
Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30). 
Those who are already remarried:*
Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness 
Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above) 
(Bryan's note: Piper doesn't convince me here. I want to research more) Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God's will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous

End of Piper's Essay.

I have presented this to the head elder of my church (who I am grateful does not automatically dismiss Piper's work) and will be doing so again to our other elders. We have 3 others, one of whom may be entirely against this interpretation.

Word from you all?


----------



## satz

Dear Bryan,

The first part of your post indicates you believe even unmarried people who fornicated before are barred from marriage? Why do you believe this?

I do not think Piper's article addressed it.


----------



## staythecourse

*Personality probably*

I may not have much grace is the short answer.

My pastor does not agree but here are some quick answers.

1. OT examples of people apparently staying single after even rape. - Tamar after being defiled by her 1/2 brother went to Absolom's home "desolate" to live. M Henry seems to indicate he believes she stayed that way.

2. Judah did not touch the other Tamar and their is no mention of her getting married after her sin with her father in law.

3. In the Law, fornication was punishable by death or the two were to marry.

4. No mention of Dinah getting married after her fornication/rape.

Now, the only possibilty I see would be in Jesus' response to the Samaritan woman. I need to sift through this text. Here Jesus says she has had 5 men and the one she has now is not hers. Point being, union did not make him her man (yet somehow the others were hers...)

Henry says:

Observe, (1.) How discreetly and decently Christ introduces this discourse (v. 16): Go, call thy husband, and come hither. Now, {1.} The order Christ gave her had a very good colour: "Call thy husband, that he may teach thee, and help thee to understand these things, which thou art so ignorant of'' The wives that will learn must ask their husbands (1 Co. 14:35), who must dwell with them as men of knowledge, 1 Pt. 3:7. "Call thy husband, that he may learn with thee; that then you may be heirs together of the grace of life. Call thy husband, that he may be witness to what passes between us.'' Christ would thus teach us to provide things honest in the sight of all men, and to study that which is of good report. {2.} As it had a good colour, so it had a good design; for hence he would take occasion to call her sin to remembrance. There is need of art and prudence in giving reproofs; to fetch a compass, as the woman of Tekoa, 2 Sa. 14:20.
(2.) How industriously the woman seeks to evade the conviction, and yet insensibly convicts herself, and, ere she is aware, owns her fault; she said, I have no husband. Her saying this intimated no more than that she did not care to have her husband spoken of, nor that matter mentioned any more. She would not have her husband come thither, lest, in further discourse, the truth of the matter should come out, to her shame; and therefore, "Pray go on to talk of something else, I have no husband;'' she would be thought a maid or a widow, whereas, though she had no husband, she was neither. The carnal mind is very ingenious to shift off convictions, and to keep them from fastening, careful to cover the sin.
(3.) How closely our Lord Jesus brings home the conviction to her conscience. It is probable that he said more than is here recorded, for she thought that he told her all that ever she did (v. 29), but that which is here recorded is concerning her husbands. Here is, {1.} A surprising narrative of her past conversation: Thou has had five husbands. Doubtless, it was not her affliction (the burying of so many husbands), but her sin, that Christ intended to upbraid her with; either she had eloped (as the law speaks), had run away from her husbands, and married others, or by her undutiful, unclean, disloyal conduct, had provoked them to divorce her, or by indirect means had, contrary to law, divorced them. Those who make light of such scandalous practices as these, as no more than nine days' wonder, and as if the guilt were over as soon as the talk is over, should remember that Christ keeps account of all. {2.} A severe reproof of her present state of life: He whom thou now hast is not thy husband. *Either she was never married to him at all, or he had some other wife, or, which is most probable, her former husband or husbands were living: so that, in short, she lived in adultery.* Yet observe how mildly Christ tells her of it; he doth not call her strumpet, but tells her, He with whom thou livest is not thy husband: and then leaves it to her own conscience to say the rest. Note, Reproofs are ordinarily most profitable when they are least provoking. {3.} Yet in this he puts a better construction than it would well bear upon what she said by way of shuffle and evasion: Thou has well said I have no husband; and again, In that saidst thou truly. *What she intended as a denial of the fact (that she had none with whom she lived as a husband) he favourably interpreted, or at least turned upon her, as a confession of the fault.* Note, Those who would win souls should make the best of them, whereby they may hope to work upon their good-nature; for, if they make the worst of them, they certainly exasperate their ill-nature.

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.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Not everyone who is divorced is entitled to "remarry so long as there is repentance involved." Paul is fairly clear, when he states that there are cases (of abandonment) where the believer is not to consider him/herself "under bondage." The "bonds" are the marriage bands, the covenant of faithfulness. If the unbeliever has cast them off, the believer is not bound to fulfill them "one-sidedly." It is no more a covenant, period.

But just because the _righteous one_ is free, does not mean that the guilty party is free of sin's consequence. If convicted, they MUST seek reconcilliation, and if that reconcilliation is not possible, the guilty party is NOT free to just marry again. This is a lasting consequence for the sin. This is a real test of the genuinness of an adulterer's repentance. If he/she will agree that he/she violated God's law, and that there is no room to "fix" the sin, therefore one must stay single unless the previous spouse dies. The "righteous one" may be married again fully within the Law. But that's fine. He/she was not bound in such circumstances.

Its a simple matter really, of equity in jurisprudence. The righteous one is not punished for the sins of the wicked.


----------



## 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

crhoades said:


> 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

Contra_Mundum said:


> 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

beej6 said:


> 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

LadyFlynt said:


> 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

ChristianTrader said:


> 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.


----------

