# Views on Divorce?



## Jaymin Allen

I recently read a John Piper article dealing with his treatment on divorce texts. In this article (Piper on Divorce), Piper takes a very interesting view on rationale for divorce. Piper believes infidelity or sexual immorality are not biblical reasons for leaving a spouse. Leaving the only valid reasons, death (Rom 7:2) and an unbelievers desire to depart (I Cor. 7:15). 

Have any of you heard of this view? If so, what do you make of it?


----------



## Simply_Nikki

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


 I always thought that this meant that sexual immorality was a grounds for divorce. Certainly, I think counseling is in order and that reconciliation should be desired, but I think reconciliation from the victimized partner who is willing to stay with the offender is out of an act of grace, and not necessarily compulsion.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Two Biblical Reasons:

Adultery (I also believe this to include abuse/abandonment)

Unbelieving Spouse


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Jesus says pretty clearly in Matthew 5:31-32 that adultery is the only grounds for divorce (at least for Christians). But it should really only apply if the spouse that commits adultery is unrepentant. If the offending spouse is truly broken and seeks forgiveness, it should be given, painful as it may be. Even so, clearly some people are called to stay with a spouse who commits adultery even if they are unrepentant and continue doing it (see Hosea). 

As for abuse, I think it's important that the wife leave that situation and report her husband to the police. She shouldn't necessarily divorce him, but she shouldn't stay in a harmful environment either. If it is clear he is repentant and the abuse stops, then I believe she is obligated to return to him.


----------



## raekwon

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Unbelieving Spouse



It should be made clear that one's spouse being an unbeliever is not a valid grounds for the believer to _pursue_ divorce, but is valid grounds for _not pursuing_ reconciliation if the unbeliever decides to bolt. (1 Cor 7:12-16)


----------



## BobVigneault

I get this question a lot from the inmates through Crossroads Bible Institute. We have to be very careful about how the questions get phrased. One fellow asked, "Why and when do church people encourage divorce?”

A variation is, 'when is divorced allowed?'

We may be answering questions that scripture does not explicitly answer but we can help someone to arrive at an answer. Here's my take:

God hates divorce, the church should hate divorce. The church should never encourage divorce or put it’s approval on it in any way. Jesus made no provision for divorce, neither did Paul and neither should the church. The reason is simple. Marriage is the picture of God’s unbreakable covenant with his church. If the marriage covenant before God is broken then it makes a mockery of the covenant that God has made with His people - ‘what God has joined together let no man separate.’

You will hear folks say that the bible allows for divorce in the case of adultery (or fornication) and abandonment. This is not true, the bible never allows for divorce, period. Divorce is never God’s revealed will. Now, having said that. It is very easy in our culture to get a divorce. Our society has mocked God’s commands at every corner. People get divorced. What do we do with a brother or sister who is the innocent party in a divorce? There is usually an innocent party. Can that person be an elder or serve in the church? Well scripture speaks to these matters. Can that person remarry? Scripture speaks to that question but there can be some different interpretations of the doctrines arrived at. 

Bottom line is, divorce is not provided for in scripture but scripture helps us in where we should go if a divorce takes place.

If I'm off target here I would appreciate some pastoral direction.


----------



## Neogillist

I looked at Piper's article. I think he is right. Did you know, there has not been a single case of divorce among the puritans? When a marriage would get on the rock, the couple would separate and the wife would typically return to live with her parents (as happened to John Owen's daugther). Most puritans married twice or three times even, but always after the death of their previous partner. Men would often marry widows (like Calvin and others) out of love and a desire to support the orphans. John Lightfoot, for instance married his first wife at 26, and she was a widow. The fact that many Reformed congregations have divorced and remarried couples is a sad trend that proves how believers nowadays often value the comfort of their lives above the Law of Christ.


----------



## Herald

Simply_Nikki said:


> Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought that this meant that sexual immorality was a grounds for divorce. Certainly, I think counseling is in order and that reconciliation should be desired, but I think reconciliation from the victimized partner who is willing to stay with the offender is out of an act of grace, and not necessarily compulsion.
Click to expand...


Bingo. I think we stray into error when we allow personal convictions to be our presupposition to scripture. The text is not ambiguous.


----------



## BobVigneault

raekwon said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelieving Spouse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be made clear that one's spouse being an unbeliever is not a valid grounds for the believer to _pursue_ divorce, but is valid grounds for _not pursuing_ reconciliation if the unbeliever decides to bolt. (1 Cor 7:12-16)
Click to expand...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

WCF 24:



> 5. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.a In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce,b and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.c
> 
> a. Mat 1:18-20. • b. Mat 5:31-32. • c. Mat 19:9; Rom 7:2-3.
> 
> 6. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage;a wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.b
> 
> a. Mat 19:6, 8-9; 1 Cor 7:15. • b. Deut 24:1-4.



Links and Downloads Manager - Christian Walk Links - The Westminster Divines on Divorce for Physical Abuse - The PuritanBoard


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

raekwon said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelieving Spouse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be made clear that one's spouse being an unbeliever is not a valid grounds for the believer to _pursue_ divorce, but is valid grounds for _not pursuing_ reconciliation if the unbeliever decides to bolt. (1 Cor 7:12-16)
Click to expand...

 
Also I would add that the following IMU,


> 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.
> 1 Cor 7:15 (KJV)


 does not mean the believer is free to marry again after the unbelieving spouse has left, but that the believer is free to let the unbeliever go, hence the statement"called to peace". I say this because the goal in mind here is the salvation of the unbelieving. Keeping yourself open for the unbelieving spouse to return is a great statement of mercy and grace to the unbelieving spouse.

This is my position. Should my wife ever leave me i will stay open until she dies in order that she may someday return. 

I say that in all humility, I know some would disagree.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

BobVigneault said:


> You will hear folks say that the bible allows for divorce in the case of adultery (or fornication) and abandonment. This is not true, the bible never allows for divorce, period.
> 
> Bottom line is, divorce is not provided for in scripture but scripture helps us in where we should go if a divorce takes place.
> 
> If I'm off target here I would appreciate some pastoral direction.



Sorry Bob, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how else do you intepret Matthew 5:32 than at very least an allowance for divorce:

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

I agree that God hates divorce and it should never be "encouraged," but I think Jesus spoke pretty clearly on allowing it in the case of adultery....


----------



## BobVigneault

Because he is speaking after the fact Mason and the only exception being addressed is whether or not you force your wife to commit adultery.



ColdSilverMoon said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will hear folks say that the bible allows for divorce in the case of adultery (or fornication) and abandonment. This is not true, the bible never allows for divorce, period.
> 
> Bottom line is, divorce is not provided for in scripture but scripture helps us in where we should go if a divorce takes place.
> 
> If I'm off target here I would appreciate some pastoral direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bob, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how else do you intepret Matthew 5:32 than at very least an allowance for divorce:
> 
> "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
> 
> I agree that God hates divorce and it should never be "encouraged," but I think Jesus spoke pretty clearly on allowing it in the case of adultery....
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

BobVigneault said:


> I get this question a lot from the inmates through Crossroads Bible Institute. We have to be very careful about how the questions get phrased. One fellow asked, "Why and when do church people encourage divorce?”
> 
> A variation is, 'when is divorced allowed?'
> 
> We may be answering questions that scripture does not explicitly answer but we can help someone to arrive at an answer. Here's my take:
> 
> God hates divorce, the church should hate divorce. The church should never encourage divorce or put it’s approval on it in any way. Jesus made no provision for divorce, neither did Paul and neither should the church. The reason is simple. Marriage is the picture of God’s unbreakable covenant with his church. If the marriage covenant before God is broken then it makes a mockery of the covenant that God has made with His people - ‘what God has joined together let no man separate.’
> 
> You will hear folks say that the bible allows for divorce in the case of adultery (or fornication) and abandonment. This is not true, the bible never allows for divorce, period. Divorce is never God’s revealed will. Now, having said that. It is very easy in our culture to get a divorce. Our society has mocked God’s commands at every corner. People get divorced. What do we do with a brother or sister who is the innocent party in a divorce? There is usually an innocent party. Can that person be an elder or serve in the church? Well scripture speaks to these matters. Can that person remarry? Scripture speaks to that question but there can be some different interpretations of the doctrines arrived at.
> 
> Bottom line is, divorce is not provided for in scripture but scripture helps us in where we should go if a divorce takes place.
> 
> If I'm off target here I would appreciate some pastoral direction.



Bob, basically you're right on target. While divorce is permitted under the circumstances articulated earlier in this thread, it's not God's perfect plan. Every attempt must be made to reconcile and to avoid breaking the marriage covenant. Unfortunately we are fallen people and divorce does happen. When it does happen it is a tragedy of epic proportions. It is not a matter of, "You cheated on me so now I can divorce!" It's more of, "You cheated on me and I am wounded deeply but marriage is a holy covenant and I will cling to Christ in this matter." 

There are wonderful Christian men and women who oppose divorce but have it thrust on them anyway. In that case God allows for it and the church should not ostracize this person. In fact, they should come along side them for the purpose of encouragement and support. I have witnessed dear saints shunned because they were divorced. This ought not to be. It is a blight to the testimony of the church. 

The story of Hosea and Gomer is a wonderful example of the grace, mercy and forgiveness in spite of repeated adultery. The fact that Hosea obeyed the word of the Lord did not mean that all was well with his relationship with Gomer. A marriage that is rocked by infidelity is shaken at its roots and placed in peril. The work needed to restore trust and intimacy is daunting and for that reason many decide it is easier to divorce and start over. Certainly Hosea had reason to feel that way. 

In summary, the text does say there is grounds for divorce but it's not a positive command; it's negative. Still, God gives grace and will not abandon the Christian who fights against a divorce that is thrust upon them.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

ColdSilverMoon said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will hear folks say that the bible allows for divorce in the case of adultery (or fornication) and abandonment. This is not true, the bible never allows for divorce, period.
> 
> Bottom line is, divorce is not provided for in scripture but scripture helps us in where we should go if a divorce takes place.
> 
> If I'm off target here I would appreciate some pastoral direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bob, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how else do you intepret Matthew 5:32 than at very least an allowance for divorce:
> 
> "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
> 
> I agree that God hates divorce and it should never be "encouraged," but I think Jesus spoke pretty clearly on allowing it in the case of adultery....
Click to expand...




> 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.
> *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.
> Matt 19:8-9


Yet even in the case of adultery it is the hard of heart that put away the unfaithful spouse. Therefore, would it not follow that this is not necessarily endorsed but merely permissable. Divorce in this case is an admission of hardness of heart.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

raekwon said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unbelieving Spouse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be made clear that one's spouse being an unbeliever is not a valid grounds for the believer to _pursue_ divorce, but is valid grounds for _not pursuing_ reconciliation if the unbeliever decides to bolt. (1 Cor 7:12-16)
Click to expand...


Thanks for the clarification. I should have been more clear.


----------



## satz

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> Yet even in the case of adultery it is the hard of heart that put away the unfaithful spouse. Therefore, would it not follow that this is not necessarily endorsed but merely permissable. Divorce in this case is an admission of hardness of heart.



Pastor Paul,

I would respectfully disagree. Just as Jesus said he requires mercy and not sacrifice with respect to the sabbath law, so I believe it would be unmerciful to force a christian to stay in a marriage with an unrepentantly unfaithful spouse, or to deny that same christian remarriage if he or she was abandoned by their spouse.

I would emphasize of course, that just as many have said on this thread, I am talking about completely a unrepentant spouse. So maximum effort ought to be expended to save the marriage, and a christian always ought to be willing to forgive a repentant spouse, no matter how terrible that spouse's sins might be.

However, if the spouse cannot be recovered, I believe there is no fault of the christian in divorcing and seeking to remarry.

When Jesus condemns the pharisees for hardness of heart in Matt 19:8 he is making reference to their earlier statement in v3 asking him if divorce was allowable _for every cause_. Jesus condemns their doctrine and in v9 he gives his position "_And I say unto you..._".

He then gives an explicit allowance for a man to to put away his wife and marry another and not fall under the condemnation of committing adultery if the cause was fornication. 

Also, in 1 Cor 7, Paul in v15 tells us that if an unbelieving spouse departs the christian is 'not under bondage'. In v27 we see that in Paul's use of language to not be 'bound' to a wife is to be 'loosed' and to be 'loosed' is to be free to marry, ie the position of a legitimately divorced person is identical to that of a single person.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Bob, basically you're right on target. While divorce is permitted under the circumstances articulated earlier in this thread, it's not God's perfect plan. Every attempt must be made to reconcile and to avoid breaking the marriage covenant. Unfortunately we are fallen people and divorce does happen. When it does happen it is a tragedy of epic proportions. It is not a matter of, "You cheated on me so now I can divorce!" It's more of, "You cheated on me and I am wounded deeply but marriage is a holy covenant and I will cling to Christ in this matter."
> 
> There are wonderful Christian men and women who oppose divorce but have it thrust on them anyway. In that case God allows for it and the church should not ostracize this person. In fact, they should come along side them for the purpose of encouragement and support. I have witnessed dear saints shunned because they were divorced. This ought not to be. It is a blight to the testimony of the church.
> 
> The story of Hosea and Gomer is a wonderful example of the grace, mercy and forgiveness in spite of repeated adultery. The fact that Hosea obeyed the word of the Lord did not mean that all was well with his relationship with Gomer. A marriage that is rocked by infidelity is shaken at its roots and placed in peril. The work needed to restore trust and intimacy is daunting and for that reason many decide it is easier to divorce and start over. Certainly Hosea had reason to feel that way.
> 
> In summary, the text does say there is grounds for divorce but it's not a positive command; it's negative. Still, God gives grace and will not abandon the Christian who fights against a divorce that is thrust upon them.



Well said. I believe you are exactly right.


----------



## HaigLaw

Ray Sutton, who formerly pastored a PCA church in Tyler, Tx, and now is a pastor/bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church in Dallas, wrote a little book over 25 years ago entitled "Second Chance," which deals with the Biblical passages on divorce.

Pastor Sutton points out that the word translated "adultery" is really the Greek word "porneia," which is usually translated fornication, or any moral uncleanness. 

What do you guys/gals make of that?


----------



## HaigLaw

I read the Piper article cited, and have a lot of respect for Piper, but I find the Sutton book I cited above more persuasive.

There was also a recent article in Christianity Today that took a similar position to Sutton's. I will look that up and post a link. We're heading out for dinner with my daughter now.


----------



## christianyouth

Taken from the article in question, here is how Piper understands the exception clause, "Except for unfaithfulness".



> 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.





> 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.





> 11.2 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:
> 
> 1. 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
> 2. It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew's exception clause instead of moicheia
> 3. It squares with Matthew's own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19
> 4. 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).


----------



## christianyouth

Piper's view allows the Matthean exception to square with the absolute condemnations of divorce and remarriage throughout the NT.


----------



## HaigLaw

The Christianity Today article I referred to earlier can be found 
here. The article is entitled "What God Has Joined - What does the Bible really teach about divorce?" by David Instone-Brewer. The author refers to his book, _Divorce and Remarriage in the Church_ (InterVarsity Press), and says, "every Jew in Jesus' day knew about Exodus 21:10-11, which allowed divorce for neglect. Before rabbis introduced the "any cause" divorce, this was probably the most common type. Exodus says that everyone, even a slave wife, had three rights within marriage—the rights to food, clothing, and love. If these were neglected, the wronged spouse had the right to seek freedom from that marriage. Even women could, and did, get divorces for neglect—though the man still had to write out the divorce certificate."

He summarized his view of the 3 grounds for divorce as:

1. Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
2. Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)
3. Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)

"Jewish couples listed these biblical grounds for divorce in their marriage vows. We reiterate them as love, honor, and keep and be faithful to each other. When these vows were broken, it threatened to break up the marriage. As in any broken contract, the wronged party had the right to say, "I forgive you; let's carry on," or, "I can't go on, because this marriage is broken.""


----------



## christianyouth

Just curious, but where in 1 Cor. 7 does he find that the Bible permits divorce for 'emotional and physical neglect'? I just read the chapter and I certainly didn't see that.


----------



## TimV

> 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.



Piper is a great man. Piper is a Baptist. Baptists have a warped view of the Old Testament. A proper Reformed methodology would be to interpret the assumptions of Christ's audience by what they had read and understood from the Law, which allows divorce. Then you re-invent the wheel again and again, and come back to the WCF as the most Biblical interpretation of the issue.


----------



## blhowes

TimV said:


> Piper is a great man. Piper is a Baptist. Baptists have a warped view of the Old Testament.


----------



## Herald

blhowes said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper is a great man. Piper is a Baptist. Baptists have a warped view of the Old Testament.
Click to expand...


Bob, munch away my friend. Not even going to comment.


----------



## christianyouth

TimV said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piper is a great man. Piper is a Baptist. Baptists have a warped view of the Old Testament. A proper Reformed methodology would be to interpret the assumptions of Christ's audience by what they had read and understood from the Law, which allows divorce. Then you re-invent the wheel again and again, and come back to the WCF as the most Biblical interpretation of the issue.
Click to expand...


Sure, but Jesus says the reason why the OT 'allowed' for divorce, because of the 'hardness of your hearts'. He wasn't endorsing divorce, or saying that divorce is o.k. but it's not God's best plan, he was *condemning* divorce.


The point of Piper is that the parallels of the Matthew passage speak against divorce in such an absolute way that it would be silly to say that the hearers didn't interpret Jesus' statement as absolutes. We certainly can't deduce that from looking at the passages and their absolute condemnations of divorce. 

So, we can either reinterpret the Matthean exception, one phrase found in the NT that seems to permit divorce, or we are forced to reinterpret the absolute condemnations of divorce throughout the NT and say, "Well, in light of the Matthean exception we know that these really can't be absolute condemnations."

I think it's a more sound exegetical principle to reinterpret the Matthean exception. Has nothing to do with having a bad understanding of the OT. It has to do with striving for continuity within the NT.


----------



## BobVigneault

I've got nothing. Hey Bob, do you like your popcorn totally immersed in butter or just sprinkled? I like it both ways. 



North Jersey Baptist said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper is a great man. Piper is a Baptist. Baptists have a warped view of the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob, munch away my friend. Not even going to comment.
Click to expand...


----------



## jwithnell

The heart of the Bible's teaching on both fidelity and divorce stands in direct opposition to what our society (and sadly, many of our churches) push. The standard advice today is: what's best for ME, what makes ME feel good? Infidelity and divorce strike most closely to the offended partner, than ripples out to a huge circle including the children, church, extended family ... Recognizing that you must remain pure young in life, faithful when and if married, and potentially forgiving, requires constant self-sacrifice and sometimes agonizing before God in prayer. But it results in benefits to many beyond yourself. That said, the decision to forgive an offending spouse must be decided on a case-by-case basis. I am familiar with a case involving a dear sister who I believe is scripturally right in separating herself and her children from a spouse who has been unfaithful in more ways than can be numbered.


----------



## TimV

> Sure, but Jesus says the reason why the OT 'allowed' for divorce, because of the 'hardness of your hearts'. He wasn't endorsing divorce, or saying that divorce is o.k. but it's not God's best plan, he was condemning divorce.



That doesn't make a whit of difference. The fact of the matter is that Piper is speculating as to what the audience thought at the time, and he's doing it without proper recourse to the Law.




> So, we can either reinterpret the Matthean exception, one phrase found in the NT that seems to permit divorce, or we are forced to reinterpret the absolute condemnations of divorce throughout the NT and say, "Well, in light of the Matthean exception we know that these really can't be absolute condemnations."



Try to find out how many verses in the NT say you can't marry your sister. Why should the NT repeat everything in the OT? And the authors of the WCF knew that, and it figured in to their theology and guidelines.


----------



## christianyouth

TimV said:


> That doesn't make a whit of difference. The fact of the matter is that Piper is speculating as to what the audience thought at the time, and he's doing it without proper recourse to the Law.



The NT departs from the OT in this regards. While the OT allowed for divorce, the NT doesn't. That is the point of Jesus saying, "Moses wrote this for the *hardness of your hearts"* And point Piper arguing that WITHIN the NT we see absolute condemnations of divorce. 



> 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.'



What is going on in this passage, if not an absolute condemnation of divorce? It's a clear break with the OT allowance of divorce.

Hrmm.. I'm not positive if Piper is right on this, but it definitely would harmonize a lot of the NT divorce passages.


----------



## a mere housewife

Wow, just as a lay-person reading the Bible I always thought those passages were crystal clear -- Christ condemned the hardness of heart that brought about the situations of divorce -- there is never any divorce without sin; but the further comment on fornication clarifies that there is a way for one party to be free and clear of that sin and 'hardness of heart'. 

The idea that the 'freedom' once the unbeliever departs means 'free to let them go', but still bound by a covenant they have broken is a terribly confusing concept of freedom. If a person is free then then they are no longer bound by the vows that made them not free previously. The freedom has to do with the obligations of the covenant, not with the -- ability to make peace with the fact that your spouse has left you and broken the covenant between you regardless of anything you could do about it.

I think the statement of the WCF is clear and does justice to the clarity of Scripture.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

This is a tough topic. I do hold to what I said earlier and will respectfully disagree with those who hold a different view. 

In my humble opinion, This time on earth is so short, and if my wife ever leaves me I will remain unmarried till her death, and maintain fidelity to Christ. This is my conviction, and for me it is the safest.

The Christian life is often a call to sufffering, even in the case of divorce and remarriage. 

I do not aim to unnecessarily hurt my brethren in this view. I have dear brothers and sisters in Christ who have been divorced and remarried. I gladly recieve them and love them as dear friends. I have not been in their shoes, so I do not pass judgment on them. This is merely my personal conviction and also the advice I would give any who might ask it of me.

As I look across the landscape of the church visible I see lots of divorced and remarried folks, I love these folks, who am I, you can not undue what has been done in the case of divorce and remarriage.


----------



## HaigLaw

christianyouth said:


> Just curious, but where in 1 Cor. 7 does he find that the Bible permits divorce for 'emotional and physical neglect'? I just read the chapter and I certainly didn't see that.



I provided a link to the Christianity Today article so I could avoid quoting whole paragraphs, but here's another sample of his position on 1 Cor. 7:

"Divorce for neglect included divorce for abuse, because this was extreme neglect. There was no question about that end of the spectrum of neglect, but what about the other end? What about abandonment, which was merely a kind of passive neglect? This was an uncertain matter, so Paul deals with it. He says to all believers that they may not abandon their partners, and if they have done so, they should return (1 Cor. 7:10-11). In the case of someone who is abandoned by an unbeliever—someone who won't obey the command to return—he says that the abandoned person is "no longer bound.""


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

a mere housewife said:


> *The idea that the 'freedom' once the unbeliever departs means 'free to let them go', but still bound by a covenant they have broken is a terribly confusing concept of freedom.* *If a person is free then then they are no longer bound by the vows that made them not free previously. The freedom has to do with the obligations of the covenant, not with the -- ability to make peace with the fact that your spouse has left you and broken the covenant between you regardless of anything you could do about it.*


 
This has me rethinkin, to be honest, as a "recovering dispensational baptist" just really starting to understand the biblical concept of covenant, I may not have fully grasped what Paul is really sayin here


> 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.
> 
> 1 Cor 7:15


_not to be confused as saying that a dispensationalist cannot grasp this, I am sure some can._


----------



## staythecourse

> but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


 Matt 5:32



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



Piper argues that "except for_ pornea_" (19:9) means premarital sex not 1. general sexual immorality or 2. _moicheia_ adultery. Therefore in our day and age according to him, it's OK to break off an engagement if you find that your fiance' was unfaithful. That was the divorce Joseph was considering in giving Mary.

However, Piper stops with the logic there which would then mean the fiance' (Mary) would be committing adultery if she got married. She could not get married in that case.

If Mary had committed immorality anytime before marriage, he could have divorced her and remarried (since they had not come together). Mary could not get married, nor could any 21st century fornicator. Piper doesn't say that but that is the logical end.

I'm not making that statement strong enough. Piper's conclusion would prevent millions (billions?) of marriages (no fornicators could marry except to the other fornicator) and put 100's of millions of believers in adulterous marriages (adjust the numbers as yo see fit but you get the point.)


----------



## Jaymin Allen

Quick question
If Jesus allowed divorce for unfaithfulness, why doesn't He give a similar statement to Paul's in 1 Cor. 7:15 asserting the release of the brother or sister from the marriage covenant?


----------



## christianyouth

Jaymin Allen said:


> Quick question
> If Jesus allowed divorce for unfaithfulness, why doesn't He give a similar statement to Paul's in 1 Cor. 7:15 asserting the release of the brother or sister from the marriage covenant?



This is one of the reasons why Piper takes the interpretation that he does. If Jesus taught that there is a cause for just divorce, we would expect other parts of the NT to either reiterate this or at least not contradict this. But reading the other parts of the NT that mention divorce and remarriage, I notice that they all seem to be absolute condemnations of divorce. That is, unless they are read through the lens of the Matthean exception.

Another answer though, for the people who believe that divorce in some scenarios is biblical, would be that many of the epistles assume that their recipients know certain things. In Acts, every time someone responds, it doesn't have to include language that implies irresistible grace, because we have the Epistles that point that out very clearly. So in 1 Cor. it may not have been necessary for Paul to lay out the obvious reasons for divorce. If it was, like the other view on divorce here teaches, taught in the Law and then reaffirmed by Jesus, we could say that the audience had knowledge of it, and didn't need to be reminded by Paul.

Not sure which answer is right, yet.


----------



## Leslie

Does forgiving one's partner and returning to the marital state necessarily involve the obligation to resume a sexual relationship as per the command not to deprive one's partner sexually? What if the partner fornicated and acquired the HIV infection, in which case resuming the sexual relationship would be suicidal? An HIV positive partner presumably could be selfish enough to insist on not being deprived, in spite of the consequences to his/her partner and offspring. Actually, this is not merely a modern problem because the same situation would have prevailed in Paul's day, the pre-antibiotic era, as regards syphilis--not quite as deadly as AIDS but still a nasty disease.


----------



## HaigLaw

staythecourse said:


> Piper argues that "except for_ pornea_" (19:9) means premarital sex not 1. general sexual immorality or 2. _moicheia_ adultery. Therefore in our day and age according to him, it's OK to break off an engagement if you find that your fiance' was unfaithful. That was the divorce Joseph was considering in giving Mary.
> 
> However, Piper stops with the logic there which would then mean the fiance' (Mary) would be committing adultery if she got married. She could not get married in that case.
> 
> If Mary had committed immorality anytime before marriage, he could have divorced her and remarried (since they had not come together). Mary could not get married, nor could any 21st century fornicator. Piper doesn't say that but that is the logical end.
> 
> I'm not making that statement strong enough. Piper's conclusion would prevent millions (billions?) of marriages (no fornicators could marry except to the other fornicator) and put 100's of millions of believers in adulterous marriages (adjust the numbers as yo see fit but you get the point.)



I think that's a fair analysis of Piper's position. By contrast, the Christianity Today article and Ray Sutton book I cited above both treat _pornea_ (Matthew 19:9), usually translated "fornication," instead of _moicheia_, usually translated "adultery." The WCF position does not deal with these words, but takes "Adultery" as the KJV gives it to us in 19:9. 

Sutton's position is that the "pornea" envisioned in Matt. 19:9 includes any serious moral uncleanness that deserved any O.T. death penalty offense. So it is not a "liberal" position that he takes. He reasons that, under O.T. law, the offending spouse would have been stoned and thus the marital covenant broken by death. 

My concerns are and have been over issues of administration in a permissive culture with few if any death-penalty offenses and with church sessions who have little or no competence in dealing with legitimate Biblically-based offenses.


----------



## HaigLaw

christianyouth said:


> ...
> 
> Another answer though, for the people who believe that divorce in some scenarios is biblical, would be that many of the epistles assume that their recipients know certain things. In Acts, every time someone responds, it doesn't have to include language that implies irresistible grace, because we have the Epistles that point that out very clearly. So in 1 Cor. it may not have been necessary for Paul to lay out the obvious reasons for divorce. If it was, like the other view on divorce here teaches, taught in the Law and then reaffirmed by Jesus, we could say that the audience had knowledge of it, and didn't need to be reminded by Paul.
> 
> Not sure which answer is right, yet.



I think this is a very important hermeneutical point. The Bible is not written as a thesis on systematic theology, with all the doctrines conveniently organized. 

This is a point the Christianity Today article I cited above makes, and is very critical to his analysis on abandonment including abuse; that is, that when Paul mentioned abandonment, he already knew about the other grounds, and wanted to make sure that abandonment was a type of neglect, when neglect per se was already covered.


----------



## HaigLaw

Leslie said:


> Does forgiving one's partner and returning to the marital state necessarily involve the obligation to resume a sexual relationship as per the command not to deprive one's partner sexually? What if the partner fornicated and acquired the HIV infection, in which case resuming the sexual relationship would be suicidal? An HIV positive partner presumably could be selfish enough to insist on not being deprived, in spite of the consequences to his/her partner and offspring. Actually, this is not merely a modern problem because the same situation would have prevailed in Paul's day, the pre-antibiotic era, as regards syphilis--not quite as deadly as AIDS but still a nasty disease.



I think our hermeneutics for discerning these exceptions needs to contemplate these kinds of real-life situations. 

It's all fine and good to say -- God hates divorce and so should we, therefore we do things not fine or good when we make rules tighter than God's and leave people in their misery.


----------



## Galatians220

I've always held to the PRCA's position on divorce and remarriage... A sample of a PRCA sermon on it can be found here: The Word on Divorce and Remarriage.

That said, I remain a member of a church that upholds the WCF position. For other reasons, I would not join the PRCA (one of the least being that there isn't one within 100 miles of me). I* will adhere to my church, for it is the best that I can find. * But this teaching, well... 

"No-fault" divorce is one of the worst things that state legislatures ever hit American society with. It's little different from the old practice of a husband "saying three times," "I divorce you," and the divorce being final.

If a circuit court in this state were to grant my husband a divorce on the "no fault" language in MI, which is "there has been a breakdown in the marital relationship to the extent that the goals of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved," would I feel as though God accepts that and considers that what He has joined together has been put asunder? The State of Michigan trumps Him? No. Would I consider myself free to find another man? No...

But that's *JUST ME.* (Please, please, do not take any of this personally!) 

Margaret


----------



## HaigLaw

joshua said:


> Is someone here advocating "no-fault" divorces?



Not that I've seen. But since a member has said that "no-fault" divorce is not legitimate, it may be fair game to say that many of these would constitute grounds for abandonment, in the Biblical and WCOF sense. 

Otoh, I knew of one case over 25 years ago in Dallas County in which the husband left the wife and said he had become homosexual, and filed for no-fault divorce.

This woman had a lot of faith, and contested the divorce and demanded a jury trial. She told the jury that she did not believe the marriage was irreconcilable, and the jury believed her, so his request for divorce was denied.

They reconciled, and were back as husband and wife, the last I heard. I have not kept up with them in recent years, however. 

I would have to say, though, that in over 99% of the cases of no-fault divorce, the divorce is granted on the word of one spouse only.


----------



## HaigLaw

Galatians220 said:


> I've always held to the PRCA's position on divorce and remarriage... A sample of a PRCA sermon on it can be found here: The Word on Divorce and Remarriage. Margaret



I read the sermon cited. The bottom line, interpreting Matt. 19:9, was, "Couples can live separately--although they should not, except in the case of fornication." That is, he construes the "porneia" exception allowing separation but not divorce or remarriage. 

I think the Christianity Today article I cited above is a better example of the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics.


----------



## DMcFadden

Folks,

Piper's argument has NOTHING to do with being a baptist. There are a number of very good exegetical cases to be made for several of the divorce/remarriage views (e.g., betrothal, prohibition of incest, etc.). Inerrantists (and NOT just baptists) have argued for a number of views other than the Erasmian one.

James Boice, a Presbyterian, commented:



> It cannot refer to adultery because adultery was punishable by death, and in that case there would be no need for a divorce. If the word does not refer to adultery, which is sexual sin after marriage, the only thing it can refer to is sexual sin before marriage, which is what we mean by fornication. In other words, Jesus was reinforcing the Old Testament’s teaching by his interpretation of Moses’ specific “divorce” regulation.
> Boice, J. M. (2001). The Gospel of Matthew (403). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.



Even though I once wrote 450 pages on the subject of marriage and divorce in the NT back in the day, I have no dogs in this hunt. However, it doesn't seem fair to Piper to blame it on his denomination, nor to act as if the exegesis is crystal clear; it isn't.


----------



## HaigLaw

I don't recall anyone criticizing Piper for being a Baptist, or saying these passages are easy.

What is your view, Dennis? Or do we have to read all 450 pages?


----------



## staythecourse

Hey, how come Joseph didn't have Mary stoned? Roman rule I guess? Also, I'm interested in your in-depth study (from back in the day as you say) and your current view now that it has fermented a bit over the years.


----------



## DMcFadden

HaigLaw said:


> I don't recall anyone criticizing Piper for being a Baptist, or saying these passages are easy.
> 
> What is your view, Dennis? Or do we have to read all 450 pages?



On criticizing Piper as a Baptist . . .



> Piper is a great man. *Piper is a Baptist. Baptists have a warped view of the Old Testament. *A proper Reformed methodology would be to interpret the assumptions of Christ's audience by what they had read and understood from the Law, which allows divorce.



On saying that these passages are easy . . .



> Bingo. I think we stray into error when we allow personal convictions to be our presupposition to scripture. *The text is not ambiguous*.





> I always thought those passages were crystal clear



My view has changed a bit over the years. I will try to explain later tomorrow.


----------



## HaigLaw

OK, Dennis, fair enough. I suppose I'd read all that, then slept a time or two. 

and to Bryan, the issue of Joseph's recourse to stoning Mary is a critical issue in the article cited. So you might read the article and get the answer your asking for. OK, I see, you already did; sorry. I find the way members use acronyms sometimes confusing, and it's hard to keep track of who's who.


----------



## Galatians220

HaigLaw said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is someone here advocating "no-fault" divorces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I've seen. But since a member has said that "no-fault" divorce is not legitimate, it may be fair game to say that many of these would constitute grounds for abandonment, in the Biblical and WCOF sense.
> 
> Otoh, I knew of one case over 25 years ago in Dallas County in which the husband left the wife and said he had become homosexual, and filed for no-fault divorce.
> 
> This woman had a lot of faith, and contested the divorce and demanded a jury trial. She told the jury that she did not believe the marriage was irreconcilable, and the jury believed her, so his request for divorce was denied.
> 
> They reconciled, and were back as husband and wife, the last I heard. I have not kept up with them in recent years, however.
> 
> I would have to say, though, that in over 99% of the cases of no-fault divorce, the divorce is granted on the word of one spouse only.
Click to expand...

 
"No-fault" divorce is legitimate under the civil law, but just as there are a lot of things that are legal but morally wrong, so is "no-fault" divorce.

In Michigan, complaints for divorce are boiler-plate and contain, as "grounds," *only* the language that I cited above (I goofed: it's "objects" of matrimony, not "goals"). As a legal writer and researcher, I used to draft them from computer macros: you just fill in the names of the plaintiff and defendant, the date that one or the other officially left the marital home, whether there are minor children or whether the wife was currently pregnant, draft the summons, have a check cut for the filing fee, get it filed and have the process server serve the defendant. That's literally all there is to it. Whatever one puts in the complaint, the divorce is automatically final within six months without children and within a year if there are minor children.

There is no way to allege fault in this state until it's time for the property settlement to be adjudicated. Only then can one spouse say, "(S)he cheated on me..." whether it's true or not. Sometimes even Christians will allege that for the sole reason that they want the judge to look more favorably on them as to child custody or the division of the marital estate.

No-fault divorce statutes are legitimate civilly, but they must be a stench in God's nostrils. They're just one more way that the devil is undermining one of God's most beautiful institutions, the one that symbolizes and is a picture of the union between Christ and His Church. Can *that *union ever be severed and another union entered into? For any reason whatsoever? I've just been reading an interesting article by David Engelsma in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal in which he argues these points from Jeremiah 3...

(If anyone thinks, well, _she's had a good marriage, she doesn't know what she's talking about, _uh, *no...* Both of us have had "grounds" against the other - temporary though they may have been - to have thrown in the towel at many points over the past 35 years. But we meant what we said: "...till death do us part." _Most_ things, *with God's grace,* can or should be worked out.)

I applaud states in which it's possible for a complaint for divorce to be contested and/or denied, and I applaud spouses who contest such complaints and are willing to fight for their marriages. That's a wonderful story you cited, HaigLaw... Thank you so much for posting it. May God bless you.

Margaret

_Ephesians 5:22-32..._


----------



## Leslie

Since there is disagreement amongst serious Bible scholars, it seems cruel to impose, with Piper, the most restrictive of the interpretations as if the issue were, indeed, crystal clear. It's not crystal clear. Hence the disagreements. Nevertheless, guys with happy marriages sit on their high and mighty thrones making ex-cathedra pronouncements on real-life situations that the scriptures don't address. There are other scriptural principles that apply in some cases--like one's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; therefore a woman has a moral obligation to do whatever she needs to do in order to avoid being beaten. I know of a woman who locked her intoxicated husband out of the house in the winter time--it taught him a lesson and dried him out. She was not being submissive. Separation with gradual renewed contact, with each parameter negotiated can be healing to a relationship. There is also the HIV issue. Scriptural ethics are meant to be followed. One extreme is obedience only as long as it doesn't cause inconvenience--not legitimate. The other extreme--rigid absolutes with utter disregard of consequences is also not legitimate. Is there not some middle ground, some room to discuss the various ethical principles that bear on any particular case?


----------



## staythecourse

> I find the way members use acronyms sometimes confusing, and it's hard to keep track of who's who.



No worries. If I used an acronym PAMA (please accept my apologies). I can't remember Piper's answer on Joseph's decision not to have Mary stoned based on the evidence he had. I'll re-reread it.


----------



## HaigLaw

staythecourse said:


> I find the way members use acronyms sometimes confusing, and it's hard to keep track of who's who.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. If I used an acronym PAMA (please accept my apologies). I can't remember Piper's answer on Joseph's decision not to have Mary stoned based on the evidence he had. I'll re-reread it.
Click to expand...


Acronyms! I meant to say -- pseudonyms; sorry! And I had to look back 3 times to see if in fact, Bryan is "staythecourse." 

Yeah, I think Joseph's option of having her stoned was critical to Piper's exegesis of Matt. 19:9. I tried to follow his argument, although I tend not to agree.


----------



## HaigLaw

Leslie said:


> Since there is disagreement amongst serious Bible scholars, it seems cruel to impose, with Piper, the most restrictive of the interpretations as if the issue were, indeed, crystal clear.... Is there not some middle ground, some room to discuss the various ethical principles that bear on any particular case?



I think you have some excellent points, Leslie. And I think our exegesis and hermeneutics need to be consistent with the fact that the gospel is redemptive. 

One of the hardest points in Piper's position is the notion that, if you have entered into a second marriage when you shouldn't have (and I didn't see any exceptions other than death of the first spouse), then you should repent of that, yet still be faithful to your current spouse. 

I remember, years ago, dialoging with a guy on a Christian BBS sponsored by a publishing house out of Nashville, who was so strict on this that he actually said that it would not be Biblical for him to divorce and remarry if his wife committed adultery on him, but that if he killed her after such adultery, it would be OK to remarry. God could forgive the murder, but not the remarriage after adultery, somehow. 

Go figure!


----------



## staythecourse

> so strict on this that he actually said that it would not be Biblical for him to divorce and remarry if his wife committed adultery on him, but that if he killed her after such adultery, it would be OK to remarry. God could forgive the murder, but not the remarriage after adultery, somehow.



Booo. Hogwash, fiddle faddle, and insanity.


----------



## HaigLaw

staythecourse said:


> Booo. Hogwash, fiddle faddle, and insanity.



Yeah, but it got worse. I said, OK, I think I understand your position, thank you, and don't wish to discuss this with you anymore. 

He persisted, telling me my soul was in peril for disagreeing with him, and the moderators had to ban him. Then he came at me in private email, and I had to invoke recourse through the ISP. This issue causes an OCD in some people, I'm afraid.


----------



## staythecourse

OOOOOOOooooooook. Emphasis on the_ insanity._


----------



## danmpem

> This thread in its entirety.


----------



## BJClark

> Yet even in the case of adultery it is the hard of heart that put away the unfaithful spouse. Therefore, would it not follow that this is not necessarily endorsed but merely permissable. Divorce in this case is an admission of hardness of heart.



And what of the spouse who forgives and the other refuses to accept that forgiveness and divorces anyway?


----------



## HaigLaw

BJClark said:


> And what of the spouse who forgives and the other refuses to accept that forgiveness and divorces anyway?



Yes; some people want out of the marriage no matter what.


----------



## moral necessity

HaigLaw said:


> BJClark said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what of the spouse who forgives and the other refuses to accept that forgiveness and divorces anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes; some people want out of the marriage no matter what.
Click to expand...


Let them leave, as per I Cor.7. Yet, if they are professing believers who want to leave, then the elders of the church and the witnesses before whom the marriage covenant took place ought to be brought in to try to remind the leaving one of their vows that they made before the Lord, and ought to strive to reconcile the leaving party with the remaining one. Actually, in my opinion, the bringing of the witnesses should perhaps be considered with unbelievers as well, as they were making a vow before God and ought to be reminded of the seriousness of that covenant bond that they voluntarily entered into before him. Who knows?...perhaps it will be used by God to impress upon them a greater depth of their sinfulness and need of a Savior.


----------

