Views on Divorce?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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.

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]

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]

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.