When looking at the verses in the Bible that cover divorce and remarriage it seems to be a rather simplistic view to say that God hates divorce, except in the case of adultery or abandonment. We all too often focus on the exceptions while ignoring the full message of the Bible.
What I’m talking about is the whole book of Hosea, where Hosea continues to faithfully love, provide for and cherish his unfaithful adulterous wife who has even had illegitimate children.
Or what about the love exhibited by the Lord to His unfaithful, abandoning people.
If marriage is the picture of Christ’s relationship to His bride the church, what does a divorce even if due to adultery say to others about Christ? See if you believe that the Bible says that we were bought with a price and that the Lord will keep His own you begin to run into difficulty. The marriage relationship is a deep mystery that shares much theology.
So how can it be reduced to an act of adultery will break the bonds of marriage and that what the Lord hates – divorce, then becomes acceptable. Where is the grace or mercy? Where is the love despite our sin? Does the Lord put a number on it? After so many acts of adultery then divorce is acceptable or after so many years of adultery or abandonment then divorce is acceptable? Does the Lord put a number on our sins such that if we sin ten times we are no longer forgiven?
Wow, see the issues here.
So I was wondering how to better explain the deeper theological ramifications of divorce and the picture of marriage representing Christ and the church. I honestly had never heard a sermon that did not allow for divorce in the exception clauses although honestly I have never heard very many sermons on divorce in any manner.
Julius mentioned a sermon of Voddie Baucham’s yesterday in his comment. Turns out I had this sermon on my computer already but had not listened to it until yesterday. Thanks for pointing it out Julius. Mark also mentioned a paper of John Piper’s that I plan to read as soon as possible.
So if you truly want to glorify God in all you do and you understand that Scripture is provided to show us the way to do so, listen to the sermon below.
It will stretch your mind and your understanding of Scripture.
Like other portions of Scripture you may just throw it off to the side and say this can’t be.
The Lord can’t truly want this to be our attitude about divorce and remarriage.
This is too hard. This is unfair.
But prayerfully consider the message in light of all of Scripture and not just a few selected verses on divorce and remarriage. I recommend listening to it a couple of times if the thought is totally new to you.
Voddie Baucham – The Permanence View of Marriage
These are just my notes from listening to the sermon.
Jesus said several times “…you’ve heard this … but I say this ….”
Divorce and Remarriage; a Permanence View. Jim Elliff
Divorce and wrongful remarriage are forgivable sins. We want to start here, at the heart of our faith in Christ. When Jesus died, He did not fail to atone for the misdeeds of His people in this critical area. Even the person who has acted as wrongly as possible in this matter may be fully forgiven, and may have a fulfilled life of service to God after repentance. Also, God mercifully blesses many second marriages that began sinfully. This is a mystery for which we can all be extremely grateful.
Matthew 5:31-32
31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
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. ESVDeuteronomy 24:1- 5
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then 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 of his house, and she departs out of his house,
2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife,
3 and the latter man hates 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 man dies, who took her to be his wife,
4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance. ESVOur righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees …
Matthew 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. ESV
- Permanence – No divorce, no remarriage under any circumstances – Boice, Piper
- Semi – Permanence – Allows divorce, no remarriage –
- Permissive – Allows divorce, allows remarriage – MacArthur, Carson
Adultery only
Adultery, Abandonment of believing spouse by an unbelieving spouse- Liberal – just about anything
1) One flesh permanent until death
Matthew 19:1-9
1 Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.
2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” ESV2) Initiating a divorce is never lawful
Matthew 19:7-9
7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” ESVNever does the Bible say it is lawful to divorce.
3) Remarriage after divorce is adultery if a former spouse is living
Romans 7:2-3
2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
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, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. ESVMark 10:10-12
10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.
11 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.” ESVLuke 16:1-18
18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. ESV
Possibly Related Posts:
Tags: Bible, Divorce, Jim Elliff, Marriage, Remarriage, Scripture, Voddie Baucham
I currently received a divorce from my husband of 15 years. Our marriage from the start has been hard. He has had more than 4 affairs with 4 different women. I myself have had an affair since our separation started. I will add that from the start I never was really in love with my ex husband. I married him to get out of a home life that was awful. My mom was an alcoholic….I wanted out so bad. I’m struggling with this view of remarriage and I’m going to study it more. In the beginning when one committed adultery they were put to death so therefore the other party was permitted to get remarried. Why would Jesus say divorce except if the spouse committed adultery. I’m desperately seeking insight for this.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Anonymous,
I’m sorry that things are working out so poorly for you and your marriage. Read through the posts concerning divorce and ask the Lord for His wisdom. I think you will find that divorce and remarriage is not the Lord’s will for anyone. You are correct that the penalty for adultery was death, it is serious because adultery defiles the image the Lord choose to represent Christ and His Church, marriage. When reading through the New Testament Scriptures we see repeatedly that Christ has a higher expectation of His people than what was commanded in the Law of Moses. Thus the no divorce and remarriage.
Christ can forgive us of our sins no matter how heinous if we truly repent and ask forgiveness. If Christ can forgive you of your sins, should you not also forgive your husband and seek restoration if possible?
However, I’m afraid that your marriage is just a symptom of a much bigger and more serious problem. We are encouraged to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.
2 Corinthians 13:5 (ESV) Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.
The book of 1 John is very helpful to read through and see if you are truly in the faith and a believer or just a “cultural Christian”.
Ten Tests of True Christianity
Ten “Christians” God Will Not Allow Into Heaven
Six Signs of a False Conversion
Cry out to the Lord for His wisdom and Salvation and He will grant it.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
[Reply]
Christ explained that marriage was intended to be permanent. He says that divorce except for “porneia” is not allowed. In Corinthians if an unbeliever wishes to depart from a believer, the believer is to let them depart and that we are called to peace and that the believer is not obligated. That is scripture. Any position on divorce that deviates from scripture, is not of God but someone elses opinion. That simple. We as humans want to make scripture say something it doesn’t. We are always in danger of adding to and taking away from it. What does scripture say? Honestly and prayerfully search. We are not to seek our will (very hard to resist our will) or bind someones conscience on a matter that the scriptures do not. If we do, we (whether we realize it or not) are making ourselves God. Didn’t the pharisees do this? Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men? Pastor Piper, MacArthur, Bachman, and DA Carson are sound biblical preachers. I highly recommend them. But, let us not forget to prayerfully search the scriptures daily ourselves.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Nice looking blog. : ) My sister pointed that sermon out to be (Voddie), as well as John Piper’s article on his Desiring God site. I do like the sermon a lot, and I appreciate the concern and motive behind the permanence view. But, I have to say that, as a young, stupid, 25 year old single guy that is still learning a lot and growing in grace… I do still disagree with Voddie at this point. To me, a clear reading allows for the two exception clauses, despite the fact that they aren’t mentioned in every book in every instance. But, again, I agree with holding marriage in the highest regard and keeping it sacred. If someone said something like, “My wife slept with another man last night, so I’m divorcing her”, I think I would be concerned about the man and his minimal understanding of grace and the gospel. So, I’d still recommend Voddie’s sermon. But, I also still fall on MacArthur’s side. I did go to his school. That doesn’t make me biased… does it? ; )
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Adam,
Thanks.
Many theologians over the years have disagreed over the permanence view of marriage and the exception view, even more sound teachers than Baucham, Piper or MacArthur. I don’t think that the issue will ever be settled this side of heaven. The average church goer hasn’t heard even a good sound sermon espousing the exception clause as the only reason for divorce much less one espousing the permanence view. Without good dialogue and iron sharpening iron we will often stay with what we’ve heard before without realizing there are different ways of looking at an issue.
I admit I come to the issue of divorce probably more biased than you. See I’m the child of divorced parents and have seen the fruit divorce produces even almost 40 years later. But as even you recognize a cut and dried approach to the exception clause would cause you as a believer to question a person’s understanding of the gospel and grace, what does that same view do to non-believers? Piper is not my favorite pastor by any means, I even question some of what he does, but his quote on marriage is dead on:
If marriage is the closest picture we have to the relationship of Christ to the Church how can we think that it can be broken just because of sin? See that gets into deeper theological territory. Can a believer lose their salvation? How many sins does it take? Will salvation be removed from a believer by the Lord? Is it still grace if it must be earned or kept? The questions are endless.
For that reason I feel the permanence view is the most closely aligned with marriage as a type and the gospel as a whole. I could be wrong, but I think having that view will be a wiser, safer choice than the exception view.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
[Reply]
A marriage covenant was design to provide boundaries and bondage for the parties but not impunity from it‘s breach. The importance of exposing the error of the permanence view is to preserve Jesus original intent that allowed recourse for the innocent party of adultery. Paul’s instruction on this issue starts with the position of Christ and addresses an element that Christ did not. Together they constitute a path forward for resolving divorce and remarriage. The Church has an avenue to confront and resolve instead of enforcing the extra-biblical position of perpetual singleness and calling for more divorces.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 9th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Mr. Doster,
Other verses on divorce in the Bible must also be considered before developing a doctrine based on what is referred to as the ‘Exception Clause’.
The sentence “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” is pretty clear and no exception is given. Where does the exception come from? Divorcing your wife makes her commit adultery unless (or except) in the case she has already committed immorality on her own.
When you apply other biblical verses to this passage such as:
No explanation of remarriage is given in Scripture for NT believers. Why? Because it is adultery and falls in the above categories.
Hosea is very clear about what the response of a spouse should be in light of adultery.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
[Reply]
The structure of Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 should be read and understood like any other statement that has a proviso. The conclusion Jesus makes, that remarriage will result in adultery, is based upon the rule having excluded the exception (infidelity) from consideration. There is no need to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel here. Luke and Mark are not at odds with Matthew in their recording of the teaching of divorce and remarriage by Jesus. All three men are affirming the same judgment that Jesus taught, that adultery would result from remarriage, while Matthew explains that Jesus had excluded infidelity from His conclusion.
Mark and especially Luke’s account is more abbreviated and they merely state the rule taught by Christ while Matthew’s account explains how Jesus qualified the rule. Matthew gives the fuller text in which Jesus drew His conclusion, being that, remarriage will result in adultery unless the divorce has grounds in fornication.
Why remarriage is adulterous
Outside of infidelity or when infidelity is not a factor for the divorce such as described in Matt. 5:32 we need to understand the reason why a subsequent marriage is adulterous. It is not because they are “still married in God’s eyes” but because both parties remain under the moral obligation of covenant loyalty. The marriage was dissolved but the moral obligation of fidelity was not for it precedes and transcends the marriage. Covenant responsibilities are not negated merely because a marriage has been. A legal severance (divorce) will not annul the moral obligation of covenantal faithfulness, consequently a subsequent intimate relationship results in adultery.
That truth reveals why the one being divorce “innocent party” will enter into an adulterous relationship when remarried (Matt. 5:32 ) and why Paul instructed the Christian couple to remain unmarried or be reconciled (1Cor. 7:10-11), and why the woman was defiled in her second marriage (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). You can be legally unmarried (1Cor. 7:10-11) but still bound by covenant obligation to remain faithful. Marriage and divorce are events that reveal the legal marital status of a couple in society. A marriage can be terminated as they were in both Old and New Testaments while not terminating the moral obligation of fidelity. Conversely, we should conclude with Christ that divorce terminates covenant obligation and frees one for remarriage when it has grounds in infidelity.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 10th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Mr. Doster,
If the “exception” is as important to understanding divorce as you seem to think then Mark and Luke would have included it, also.
Notice what Luke says:
“Everyone”, no exception, who divorces and remarries, commits adultery and also the one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. The Matthew 5:32 passage is dealing with making a wife to commit adultery, while the Luke passage is dealing with the man’s adultery. Mark 10:11-12 deals with both man and wife. In essence, the whole point is not divorce but how divorce causes adultery.
Actually saying that divorce is acceptable in the case of infidelity is the bigger stretch when taken in context with all other verses.
When you start adding extra Biblical qualifications to marriage you are in very shaky territory. Scripture does not qualify between legal marriage and a covenant marriage. You are adding to God’s Word.
Notice Paul gives no exception here:
Remarriage to another would be adultery just as Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 state.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
[Reply]
Neal Doster Reply:
May 11th, 2012 at 9:14 am
All of the Word of God is important, even if one writer says less than another. There are many places in the 4 gospels where one writer reveals something the other didn’t. You are suggesting that we shouldn’t believe him because the other writers didn’t say it. That would eliminate a lot of the word of God. I believe every word, it’s you who wants to eliminate the exception given by Christ. If one writer reveals something another writer didn’t on a particular topic I wouldn’t call it a stretch but rather a complement.
I wasn’t saying that a marriage is not covenantal, but rather the covenant of marriage precedes the marriage. It not me who teaches that fidelity is a requisite for marriage but rather God. Its you who disagrees with Him.
There is no such thing as an unconditional covenant. A covenant by nature has stipulations that has binding requisites for at least one party. The nature of a covenant changes when it transcends the two parties, as in a marriage covenant. This type of covenant has a vertical (God to man) factor. Marriage is God’s institution and it’s covenant should be understood with the requisites He has given for it. Marriage is intended to be lifelong, Fidelity is a known prerequisite for the covenant of marriage and a requisite in marriage.
Most of the covenants in the bible are reciprocal in nature. A reciprocal covenant is not formed to obligate one party only. It is foolish to think that when the conditions are agreed upon by both parties that one party can renege on their part, but still hold the other party perpetually indebted. Fidelity is a God ordained prerequisite for the covenant of marriage. This is one of several things that can be clearly seen in the Law in Deuteronomy 22:13-30. The purpose of the law itself is to provide retribution against those who violated sexual purity and the covenant of marriage. We can see there, that fidelity is a requisite for both the betrothed and the married (22-24) and that the Law provided recourse to deal with those that violated covenantal obligation.
Every institution God has ordained has had moral and/or legal recourse for the purpose of dealing with the dysfunction brought into it by sin. This recourse provided protection for the innocent and judgment for the guilty. We should be careful our teaching doesn’t rescind these God intended provisions. The rules God has ordained within them has always been plagued by mans alteration of them, either by elimination or liberalization. Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees was about the extent of the law of divorce (Matthew 19:1-9) that allowed them “freedom” to remarry. Unlike fidelity these other grounds were not God ordained and could not release them from the bondage to be faithful. We do a covenant great injustice when we remove the conditions from and the recourse for it. If sexual fidelity is not a requisite for marriage, then the Duet. 22 retribution Laws are unjustifiable.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 11th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Mr. Doster,
I am saying we cannot take three words from the Bible out of the context of the passage and out of the context of the rest of the Bible and make it our theology.
Otherwise “… there is neither male nor female…” would have to mean literally there is neither male not female, which as we know is not the case. Context, context…
You have come to that passage with the pretext that it is an exception clause. However, if you look solely at what all the passages concerning marriage and divorce state you will not be able to back up the “exception clause” as meaning what you suggest.
Is the exception that God has not joined them together? Of course not, so then let not man separate.
Why did Moses allow divorce? Because of hardness of heart. Divorce is evidence of hard heartedness.
In that day it was not only acceptable but expected that a man would divorce an adulterous wife. So if that is what Jesus said why would the disciples react so? Because Jesus has knocked the accepted view out. Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. All other passages negate the idea of remarriage except in the case of death.
See Divorce and Remarriage – John Piper’s View
Our Christian marriage is not based on our covenant with a spouse it is a covenant with God Himself. Spousal fidelity is overridden and encompassed by fidelity to God. Marriage is the picture of God’s covenant with His elect. If your marriage is dependent on your spouse it will fail. Marriage is dependent on our covenant with God and His Holy Spirit will aid us.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
The book of Hosea is about him demonstrating the supererogatory grace of God. I’m sure you understand what would occur if Gomer got justice. I’m all for Christians who go above and beyond the call of duty but it’s imperative that we don’t misinform others about what God could have rightly done in having Gomer executed. God did not have to go to this extent of grace, He could have chosen to deal with it Lawfully.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 10th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Mr. Doster,
You are correct that the grace Hosea demonstrates toward Gomer is evidence of God’s grace displayed towards us. We all deserve the stoning due Gomer.
However, we as believers are also called to demonstrate God’s grace towards one another.
Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful, even to our enemies, or our adulterous spouse.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
[Reply]
In 1 Cor. 7 Verse 15 “not under bondage” or “no longer enslaved” carries the same idea as verse 39 “at liberty”, subsequently and consequently remarriage will not result in adultery. Compare the situation in verse 15 with that of the previous two scenarios (Christian couple of verses 10 and 11, and the situation with the mixed couple of verses 12-14) and ask, was there a one size fits all command? The obvious answer is no, so we shouldn’t force fit the same conclusion as the permanence view tries to do, being that none of them has the right of remarriage. If that were the case then Paul would not have issued a proviso. One of the most important things about godly discernment is to know when additional factors are relevant or if they are relevant in altering the conclusion of such questions. Discernment is all about discriminating when God discriminates and not discriminating when He doesn’t. The permanence view misses the significance of Paul’s change of address in verse 12 “But to the rest” which clearly speaks to and instructs differently than He did in the circumstance in verses 10 and 11.
Because the permanence view advocate’s that “not under bondage” (verse 15) only means that a believer is free to yield to a divorce but is not free to remarry, it’s important to keep in mind that Paul is addressing dissimilar situations. He is not instructing the same solution in verse 15 as he did in verse 11. The expression “not under bondage” follows in logic by contrast, the admonition to “reconcile or remain unmarried” (verse 11). The admonition to “reconcile or remain unmarried” reminds the Christian couple that they, although unmarried, are still under covenant bondage and that this bespeaks the obligation to reconcile. Conversely, the expression “not under bondage” instructs the individual there that they are free from such obligation. It is the contrast of being under the bondage of the marriage covenant that Paul is referring to. He conveys here the same idea as he does in v.39 “at liberty to be married”.
Yielding to divorce is found in the expression “let him depart,” while “not under bondage” conveys the consequence of this case of departure. The believer experiences freedom by the unbelievers act of repudiation. Following the flow of Paul’s thinking we see Him reversing the instruction to “remain unmarried” to that of giving freedom to do so. The expression “not under bondage” is the freedom an individual has from the previous covenantal bondage that is normally retained when divorced, such as the unmarried Christian couple. The retention of covenantal obligation is key to understanding when and why remarriage is adulterous. This is the main point Jesus is making on His teaching about divorce. The obligation of exclusive loyalty remains even if unmarried.
This retention is also key to understanding when the Church should allow for remarriage after divorce. Three things in scripture potentially frees a married or previously married individual from covenantal bondage. Fornication, repudiation by an unbeliever, the remarriage of an ex-spouse. If these things have occurred a divorced individual is “not under bondage” to reconcile and should no longer be expected to remain unmarried.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 10th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Mr. Doster,
In the passage of 1 Corinthians 7:10 – 40, nowhere is remarriage discussed except in verse 1 Corinthians 7:39 which is in the case of the death of her husband.
Actually there is a one size fits all command for believers:
The only one allowed to separate is the unbelieving spouse.
Only in verse 39 is freedom upon death of a spouse said to allow remarriage.
Is it a sin to remain married? No
Is it a sin, on your part, to be divorced by your spouse? No
Is it a sin to remain unmarried seeking reconciliation? No
Is it a sin to offer grace and mercy to a sinning spouse? No
Might it be a sin to divorce even in the case of abandonment or infidelity? Yes
Unless the Lord convinces me otherwise, I will stick with the plain reading and understanding of the Bible passages. Believers are not to divorce.
You have expressed your ideas concerning the exception clause quite liberally throughout the internet. I am fully convinced in my own mind that the permanence view is the correct Biblical view.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
[Reply]
Neal Doster Reply:
May 11th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Their is no doubt that God designed marriage to be for a lifetime. But there is a simultaneous truth in that He also designed sexual fidelity as a requisite in marriage. The rational for understanding the exception clause to allow for divorce originates from this fact. Deuteronomy 22:13-29 is an important predicate in helping us to see that infidelity was a grave breach of an inviolable covenant. The retribution for breaching this covenant in this manner in the Old Testament brought sever recourse. A recourse that undeniably affirmed that sex was a sacred union meant solely for marriage and those bound by it. To adulterate the gift of sex, especially within covenant bondage justified the ultimate penalty. An important question to answer is, was there recourse for adultery? The permanence view creates an enigma that leaves the divorced or innocent party defenseless and instructs them to try to be satisfied with a life of singleness, a life of consequent frustration and hardships. They believe for example, that if a man with two small children divorces his wife for another woman and gets remarried, his former wife is to live her life without a companion and raise the children without a father (in the home). The exception clause Jesus gives allows her recourse to deal with a husband that has abandoned God’s will.
A few of these men concede that a spouse can be involved in gross sexual immorality that warrants a divorce, but teach that the innocent party should not remarry. Ironically, some in the permanence view would instruct the man in this example to continue his second marriage while instructing his former wife to remain companionless. I see no biblical justness in that. This position should be shown to be erroneous so that the innocent doesn’t suffer needlessly, attempting to live their whole life without a companion.
I personally believe that the intent of these men is honorable but the practical outcome of their teaching is cruel. If our teaching denies someone of God ordained companionship then we should be sure we are absolutely right. God created us as relational sexual beings to find intimate fulfillment in one another, within His institution of marriage. To say that a divorce person, especially the innocent, should deprive themselves of this wonderful gift and relationship is to speak beyond the words of Christ.
All through the Old and New Testaments God never imposed perpetual singleness as a solution to divorce and remarriage. The gospel record of the teachings of Christ primarily refutes the belief that divorce circumvents adultery. What’s important is to remember that the permanence view advocate’s perpetual singleness, not Jesus. It wasn’t Jesus intent to keep people out of marital relationships, but rather to inform them that it’s sinful not to maintain the one their in.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 11th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Mr. Doster,
The permanence view of marriage does not force one to be “defenseless and instructs them to try to be satisfied with a life of singleness, a life of consequent frustration and hardships.” Our satisfaction is to come from the Lord and obedience to His Word. The OT recourse for adultery was stoning but yet in the NT Jesus gives us the example of grace and mercy.
Living the Christian life is not a life free of suffering and hardship. There are much worse things than living a life of singleness. You are implying that one cannot live a live glorifying the Lord without the “right” to remarry.
You said:
The safer way to be absolutely right is to not divorce and remarry. Have you not read Paul on singleness? Marriage is not necessary to be fulfilled. Paul was not deprived. God created us to find fulfillment in Himself, marriage is just a picture and foretaste of our ultimate fulfillment in Christ. But not a requirement for fulfillment.
I’m not going to continue this tit for tat because it is needless.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
Dear Berean Wife
I’ve not meant to upset you or to disagree with the idea of permanent marriage. Much of what you have said I agree with. My concern is for the establish second marriage homes that are disillusioned by the permanence view. The main premise of the permanence view is the first of three which states in absolute form in order not to leave room for an exception, The one flesh union created in marriage is permanent until death. If this proposition is true then the permanence view must become an advocate for polygamy for the remarried or as some in the view hold, the remarried must divorce and reconcile with their first spouse. Do you not know that the permanence view is bigger than pastor Voddie and pastor Piper? Do you have any friends in a second marriage? Is it your belief that they now have two spouses? In light of the main premise of the permanence view, how do you get around an absolute belief ? What would you counsel the divorced and remarried? If it’s the same as pastor Piper and pastor Voddie, can you explain how you disregard or get around your main premise? I hope you are aware that there are people who are leaving their families because they have been lead to believe they are still in a one flesh relationship with their first spouse.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 11th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Mr. Doster,
I’m not upset I just find this discussion unfruitful.
You are looking from the issue of second marriage homes while we should look at the issue from God’s Word. When we let our emotions rule we will fail to be obedient to God’s Word.
I do know that there are some who call for those who are remarried to divorce and return to their first spouse. As if sin was that easy to undo. Adding more sin into the equation, a second divorce, will not undo the first divorce and subsequent remarriage.
Both my parents have had multiple marriages and I have many friends who are in second marriages. The only passage which discusses returning to a first spouse is in Deuteronomy.
Notice what it says “her former husband” or in some versions “her first husband”. It does not say her one and only husband, her covenant husband or her one true husband. She is the second husband’s wife and he is her husband. At least five times the phrase “marries another” is found in the Bible. The second marriage is valid and recognized by the Lord. However, that does not mean it did not begin in sin nor does it mean it was according to God’s Word. Yet, even though the Israelites, under Joshua, were told to not make a treaty with the people of the land, they did make a treaty with the Gibeonites. They were then expected to fulfill their treaty even if they had sinned in making it. It was a “covenant” albeit begun in sin. They were bound by it.
Those that are remarried are bound by that covenant and should remain in the state they are in. Forgiveness is available from the Lord upon repentance and confession of their sin of divorce and remarriage.
The church should preach God’s Word fully and not side step the difficult truths of Scripture for emotional reasons or because it is too hard.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
[Reply]
Neal Doster Reply:
May 12th, 2012 at 11:53 am
I know better than to interpret God’s Word subjectively. My favorite bible expositor is John MacArthur, well known for his exegetical exposition of scripture. In 5 decades of ministry he has taught through the whole New Testament verse by verse. Voddie nor John Piper wouldn’t dismiss his teachings as emotionally driven. I believe when we engage one another in the quest for Truth it will be fruitful. Your last post, if I understood you implied that you believe that your friends and family that have remarried are not still married to their first spouse, correct? This is what confuses me about your position. Can you explain how marriage is permanent and not permanent? How do you get around the main premise of the permanence view in how you view the remarried?
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 12th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Mr. Doster,
You did use subjective terminology in considering divorce – hardships, frustration, etc.
I enjoy MacArthur better than most other pastors although I disagree with his divorce position and his endtimes, nevertheless he is exceptionally sound.
If your issue is with the terminology of “Permanence View of Marriage” I agree it is very flawed terminology, I did not choose it just as I didn’t choose Calvinism as a name of a set of beliefs. Marriage is never permanent because man is not married in Heaven. Man is not to put asunder the marriage bonds, yet man will continue to defy God’s instructions. There are no Biblical provisions for remarriage except in the case of the death of a spouse.
Those who have divorced and remarried are married to their present spouse and no longer bound to their previous spouse. However, they have stepped out of God’s plan and desire for marriage. The truth must be preached although feelings get hurt and people are not happy about it.
Berean Wife
[Translate]
I used subjective terms to explain how individuals have expressed difficulties in singleness. Again my sympathy for then is not how I derive at what I believe, as I understood you to imply. The position I hold is theologically sound and that is the reason I appeal to MacArthur. I certainly agree that we need to inform people of the sinful consequences of divorce and remarriage. I agree that God’s intent for marriage is for it not to be broken. I would like to commend you for your defense of the sacred institution of marriage. For the grace and patience you demonstrated, your love for the Lord, His Church, and for humanity. You have my admiration. God bless
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 14th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Mr. Doster,
Many use terms such as hardship and frustration to aid in developing their theology. Essentially because God could not really expect a divorced person to remain single so thus there must be some allowance for divorce and remarriage. That seemed to have been what you suggested also. Sorry if I misunderstood.
The Divorce ‘Exception’ Clauses in Matthew’s Gospel is a helpful synopsis of the exception clause and different views.
Thank you for your kind words.
Striving to be Berean,
Berean Wife
[Translate]
[Reply]
Neal Doster Reply:
May 15th, 2012 at 6:26 am
I read the article several weeks back. It reminded me that I wanted to leave a response. Julian Freeman is a gifted communicator and a man of discernment. I’m grateful for those who have contributed to the strength and weaknesses of an argument. It helps us to think through a particular position. Bottom line is, as he implies, you don’t get to a conclusive position. We read lots and lots of data and it leaves people feeling that the exception clause is unknowable. In the sea of information I’m reminded of MacArthur’s advice about interpretation, perspicuous.
Instead of arbitrarily bringing something else into the text and debate endlessly if that’s it or not, why not allow for it’s clear meaning. Why not except the exception clause as stated? Why not except it in the context it’s found? Why not understand it in the light of the specific question that was ask of Jesus? If we do this we have a clear answer, but not one the permanence view can survive.
[Translate]
[Reply]
Berean Wife Reply:
May 15th, 2012 at 9:55 am
Mr. Foster,
Those who say the exception clause allows for divorce and remarriage have arrived at a position that is not clear when taken in the context of the rest of Scripture.
While it is clear that although not desired by the Lord divorces will happen, because an unbelieving spouse may leave. Nevertheless the presumption that remarriage is allowed is shaky at best. Perspicuity doesn’t allow us to add to the verse concepts that are not addressed.
Matthew 5:32 clearly says “and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The exception doesn’t address this. Marrying a divorced woman is committing adultery. The exception is dealing with divorce and causing the wife to commit adultery, not with remarriage after a supposedly valid divorce.
I am convinced that the “Permanance View” is the safer view albeit the poor choice of name.
Berean Wife
[Translate]