Episode 88: Biblical Divorce and Remarriage
by Ashley Ramsey on 09/24/2009 at 3:12 PM
 iTunes | Listen Now/RSS |
To Retreat or Advance? -- 00:00
I'm a homebody. I like a night out with the girls or a ladies day at church, but an overnight retreat is not my idea of a good time. Maybe I met my lifetime retreat quota in youth group. I went on every weekend discipleship time and summer camp my church hosted. I lived for those times away with my friends and with the Lord. That was also a season of my life before I'd learned the discipline of daily "retreat."
And even though I have become consistent in the discipline of meeting/retreating with God in the mornings, I cycle through times of retreating out of duty and times of retreating for the purpose of communion and renewal. Retreating with the right purpose is essential because our souls do not reset or renew themselves the way our bodies do.
I recently had a series of mornings where I woke up just as troubled about a problem as I was when I went to sleep the night before. I had told myself as I climbed into bed that all I needed was a good night's rest. Apparently you can't just sleep off your problems the way you can fatigue. John Piper says it well:
The human heart does not replenish itself with sleep. The body does, but not the heart ... we replenish our hearts not with sleep, but with the Word of God and prayer.
This week on the roundtable Motte, Lisa, Steve and I talk about retreats. Some of us love them and some of us hate don't like them as much. We want to know what you think makes a great retreat.
Biblical Divorce and Remarriage -- 15:56
Some of our readers have expressed confusion and apprehension about dating someone who's divorced. How do you know if their divorce was biblical and if they're free to remarry? Some of our readers are divorced and wondering how to proceed in the dating scene. Dr. Dominic Aquila from New Geneva Theological Seminary joins Lisa to explain what God's Word has to say about divorce and remarriage. Stay tuned next week for this two-part interview.
Destined to Become a Nag? -- 33:10
They agree on most things pertaining to raising a family and ministry but when it comes to heath and finances she's worried they're too different. If she marries him will she become the nagging wife she never wanted to be? Candice addresses her concerns about the guy but also points this listener toward her own growth area: pride.
1. Rebekah in SoCal said the following at 3:38 PM on Sep 24:
I think a Boundless retreat would be great!
Lisa-we could have your "marrying Pastor" be the keynote and help Candice match-up all 5 of us single listeners.
2. Janice (aka 1 of the 5 single listeners) said the following at 5:53 PM on Sep 24:
5?! Really? ;-)
Boundless retreat?! YES PLEASE! And that's coming from a total introvert.
Lisa, you commented in your intro to the Dr. A segment about the whole communion in the wedding ceremony thing. What's the verdict on that?! You can't through a random comment out there like that and not explain!!
3. Janice (aka 1 of the 5 single listeners) said the following at 5:54 PM on Sep 24:
Oh, and way to go on the divorce segment. Tough words to hear but we need to take marriage seriously!! Both the getting and STAYING married!
4. Mike said the following at 6:27 PM on Sep 24:
I would like to point out that Dr. Aquila's position on divorce and remarriage is only one possible interpretation on Scriptures regarding that thorny subject. There are others.
So, folks, if you're in that situation, I strongly suggest you do some independent research on your own, as well as take it to the Lord in prayer.
5. Andrea-Elena said the following at 7:29 PM on Sep 24:
I'm "live commenting" on the podcast. Fun, fun! =)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"He's not a babysitter; he's a parent!" <--- Awesome, Lisa!! Thank you for saying that!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope part 2 addresses instances of abuse -- not only physical/sexual but also mental/emotional. Esp. when that abuse arises from what is likely clinical narcissism. (Someone dear to me is going through this.) Is it wrong to divorce to be away from one's abuser? (I hope not!)
Also... what if a person divorced while an unbeliever, was single for a time, and then became a Christian? How does that affect whether this person is released to remarry?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To the inbox sender-inner: Do NOT marry this guy -- unless he changes sometime soon... or at least shows some teachability!!! I have seen the problems that a financially irresponsible and lazy man can create in a marriage. (I agree with Candice - the health & eating issues are more about "can I live with it?")
And Lisa, you've hit it on the head about the fact that these things bother her now at the we're-still-long-distance stage is a BIG ol' red flag.
Yikes. Wow... Candice, you're right - pride. That definitely is a way we single gals can prepare to NOT be a nagging wife. Humility, love, compassion, and helpmeet-mindedness do not nag.
Ah, yes... Amen, Candice. This man doesn't command this woman's respect. I believe this relationship is not one that should go forward.
6. Liz said the following at 8:59 PM on Sep 24:
I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but am so thankful to see divorce & remarriage addressed. Once I saw the Tweet about the interview I was hoping we wouldn't have to wait long!
I've been reading Boundless since the very beginning so have gotten quite the education over the years. My husband and I have been married for almost two years and applied a lot of the articles and posts throughout our 14 months dating/engaged. The "twist" to our relationship? He was previously married. When he'd been married about 5 years, she out of the blue met him at the door one day with a suitcase. He sought counseling and tried to work things out for over a year. When she continued to walk away and push him away, it was over. The amazing part of this story? God has now turned the most horrible part of his story around and we have started facilitating a DivorceCare group at our church. God has taken something completely awful and is using it for good, to the glory of His kingdom. From our first class we had at least one reconciliation that we know of, and we're praying more might be possible with this second session that just started.
Did I ever expect to marry someone who was previously married? Not in a million years! Yet, God prepared each of us for the other in His perfect timing. Wow, what an amazing God we love and serve!
7. Vanessa said the following at 10:04 PM on Sep 24:
I'm still confused on the whole divorce/remarriage thing and I've been arguing this a LOT lately with people...all but one disagree with me.
Where in the Bible does it specifically say that remarriage after divorce is permissible (in any case). I see where there are several instances where DIVORCE is allowed, as a concession, but I fail to see where the Bible specifically says that remarriage after divorce is permissible. I find Scripture which states that a widow is "free to marry in the Lord" but that same provision was NOT included in the same passage when speaking about divorced people. On the contrary, I can find several places in the Bible where it specifically states that marrying a divorced person is causing them to commit adultery.
I have had people try to argue with me saying that if the divorce happens pre-conversion, all your prior mistakes are erased and you are free as if you had never been married before and you are free to remarry another Christian.
This topic has come up a lot in my single circle of friends as most of us are close to or past 30 and the old adage "all the good ones are taken" has come up. I disagree, thinking that if God's plan for the majority of us is marriage and if we're not deliberately sabotaging that, and at 30 are still NOT married...then God must have a reason for it. I've been actively seeking marriage for 10 years and it just hasn't happened. I've been told that I might have to "lower my standards" and not rule out someone who has been divorced. I've also been told that my unwillingness to do so is "limiting God" and what He can do in my life and that I'm just being stubborn.
8. Sasha said the following at 10:45 PM on Sep 24:
If you do a Boundless retreat, I am so there! A thousand miles is no obstacle! :) (And yes, I am an introvert too...)
9. obewan said the following at 2:41 AM on Sep 25:
#3. Janice (aka 1 of the 5 single listeners) said the following at 5:54 PM on Sep 24:
"Oh, and way to go on the divorce segment. Tough words to hear but we need to take marriage seriously!! Both the getting and STAYING married!"
--------------------------------------
I am not so sure they were so tough. They did allow for a few "escape clauses" on the remarriage part. Many people only allow the in event of death clause.
As a never married single, this is an issue I struggle with a lot. The hard part is getting the real story. I feel like it is something that should be known up-front before the first date and the problem is it requires knowledge of very personal information.
The other issue is people will almost always play the unfaithful card on their ex. I mean, if their ex is dating, they will extrapolate and say they are sleeping around so that they are free to remarry. I know many in my current singles groups who say they divorced because of “irreconcilable differences” but then their ex started “dating around”.
How is a pastor or Christian pre-marital counselor REALLY going to know the truth? Is the ex who wants to remarry supposed to hire a private detective to spy on the unfaithful spouse? In most cases, the ex WANTS the other ex to BE “unfaithful” so that they will be "free" to remarry. It just opens up too many thorny issues for me to ever feel comfortable in dealing with. I suppose I should be more open to the straightforward situations though.
10. obewan said the following at 7:16 AM on Sep 25:
What was with the volume on the podcast? When it first started it was at ear-splitting levels. I had to take my headphones off to avoid the pain since I could not figure out where the volume slider was fast enough.
Later on, it quieted down to a tolerable level. I have never had that problem with a Boundless podcast in the past.
The sound engineers on my hometown TV networks do it all the time. The level is at one setting for a program, and then a different program comes on at an explosive level and it nearly drives my downstairs neighbors out of house and home. I get pretty mad whan they do that since I can't get to the remote fast enough. LOL
11. Mike said the following at 8:06 AM on Sep 25:
Vanessa (#7) wrote:
Where in the Bible does it specifically say that remarriage after divorce is permissible (in any case).
"But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace." - 1 Cor 7:15
In this case, "not bound" means "not bound by wedding vow". The believer is permitted to remarry if the unbeliever departs.
12. Vanessa said the following at 8:28 AM on Sep 25:
Mike (#11) That was the passage I was talking about when I said that I see in the Bible where remarriage is permitted for widows. Further in that same passage, it uses those same words but ADDS that the widow is "free to marry in the Lord." I would think that if the writer took the time to make that distinction clear when he was talking about widows, he would have made the same point about divorced people. That has been MY point, because I've had at least one person say that the "free to marry in the Lord" is IMPLIED for divorcees but stated for widows. I disagree.
I don't disagree that there are sometimes when people must get divorced, either to avoid life-threatening circumstances, such as in abuse or when the unfaithful spouse requests to leave.
13. JuliaH said the following at 8:38 AM on Sep 25:
My youngest sister rededicated her life to the Lord and got baptised at a retreat last weekend. My whole family has been praying fervently for this to happen for over a decade now. That is what makes a great retreat!
14. obewan said the following at 10:16 AM on Sep 25:
#5 Andrea-Elena:
"unless he changes sometime soon... or at least shows some teachability!!! I have seen the problems that a financially irresponsible and lazy man can create in a marriage."
---------------------------------
I hope you are not stating fiscal "irresponsibility" as grounds for "Biblical divorce". Your comment implies that you are since you imply that "recovery" from these problems should be expected if the person considered for marriage has suffered from them in the past.
And if you do accept that problem as grounds for divorce, you open up many thorny issues. For starters, what defines ambition? What if the woman expects a six-figure income and $500K house? What if the man gets laid off and it takes a year of two or even more to find re-employment in his given profession?
I have myself been laid off 4 times in 20 years, sometimes for long periods of time. I thank the Lord that I was not married to a woman with unreasonable expectations at the time.
One of my co-workers involved in a plant closing with me nearly got divorced himself over this issue. The state we were living in had double-digit unemployment. She refused to sell their home. He had excellent offers out of state, but gave them up to stay with her. The last I heard, he had spent a decade working at Sears for $8 an hour when he had previously been a high income earning Sr. Engineer. An abusive wife would accuse him of having no ambition, but his abuse came in another manner I suppose.
15. Andrea-Elena said the following at 10:55 AM on Sep 25:
obewan:
It's not about how much a man makes or his earning potential. It's about his mindset and values.
No, financial issues are not grounds for divorce.
The situation I know of has factors far, far beyond mere financially irresponsibiilty. And I'm not sure how to explain w/out gossiping. Suffice to say, this particular man makes a good salary and has potential to continue to grow in his field. No problems there. And the true problem in the area of finances is not merely that he has been irresponsible to the point of jeopardizing his family's future (and physical safety) but more than that: his mindset and values evidence that he's not merely making some bad decisions but has a HISTORY (before and during the marriage) of really faulty (even sinful) attitudes about money and possessions. And these problems are w/in a context of verbal/emotional/mental abuse against his wife that kept escalating into physical violence (though the physicality of his anger never made physical contact with his wife or child - objects were destroyed or thrown). He goes into blind rages and often cannot remember what he did or said.
There will be a divorce. I just don't know if the ex-wife will be biblically allowed to remarry.
All I know is that I try to support my friend and her child.
That is the sort of man I warn my single sisters in Christ against. And the woman who sent in the e-mail discussed in the Inbox segment is not married to the man she talks about - she's known him for 4 months long distance. I think it's wise for her to break up with him. I would do so, if it were me. That's not the same thing as recommending a divorce, surely!
16. Andrea-Elena said the following at 11:28 AM on Sep 25:
obewan:
I forgot to mention -- it's not the history of having bad financial things happen to him that gives alarm about the man described in the Inbox segment. It's the evidence of stiff-necked-ness. That's why I said that he needed to be demonstrating some teachability.
We don't know enough of the details to know if the man has faulty/sinful attitudes towards financial stewardship or has at least a basis (perhaps a small and not-reinforced one) of good values to grow from.
How I interpreted the sender-inner's description was that the trajectory of this man didn't look like one that would garner a woman's respect. Certainly, it's not garnering the sender-inner's respect.
Perhaps I take a too pessimistic view on this man in particular, likely colored by the horrible situation my friend has been in. My thinking was akin to Who knows how huge the iceberg is underwater? You can see only so much of it. What root problems are lurking underneath this man's current attitude issues?
Maybe he's just going through a rough patch. But even so, if (1) he's currently not self-motivated enough to make necessary changes in his life and (2) he's not willing to heed the counsel of a woman whom he'd like that she be willing to investigate the possibility of marriage with him, then she does need to consider how long she's willing to wait to see evidence that he is the type of man SHE wants to follow.
It may be more of a situation of they're not a good fit.
And he may need to take some time to get more stability in his life before presenting himself as husband material to any woman.
Maybe along the way God will help him meet a woman who is willing to encourage him as he makes the good changes needed in his life.
17. BDB said the following at 1:56 PM on Sep 25:
Vanessa (#12) wrote:
>>"free to marry in the Lord" is IMPLIED for divorcees but stated for widows. I disagree.<<
Well, Vanessa, I have observed VERY different behavior for those who have been abandoned by their spouse vs. those whose divorce for other reasons (such as immaturity.)
I'm observing a few of these situations right now, unfortunately. One guy, who I know is still legally married (but physically living as a separation), has his facebook page set up as "single" and looking for a relationship. At this time I'm praying about whether I approach the woman's parents, who I know, or a member of the pastoral staff to impose some accountability. I'm pretty sure that her brother alread knows, so I don't necessarily want to open up something they already know about.
But I also know situations where a spouse appears to have been abandoned for no discernable reason. That person usually is crushed and seeking help from the church. Sometimes their spouse is still in the church, too, and at least one of them is seeking reconciliation. It has been my experience that these individuals are way, way less open to being approached - perhaps because they are still praying for reconciliation. If their ex-spouse remarries, then it can be assumed they've thus committed adultery and the abandoned spouse is released. But in my experience, the abondoned spouse is in no hurry to date around themselves. Also in my experience, in immaturity-driven divorces, both immature spouses are usually in a big hurry (and pretty loud) about wanting to remarry.
One of the most uncomfortable conversations I ever overheard was a woman my age complaining that her spouse was asking people in the church to pray for reconciliation of their marriage, and she had zero interest in that. I'm certainly not going to be her escape route from her marriage. Geez.
18. BDB said the following at 2:37 PM on Sep 25:
Retreats are common. Sometimes organizations like to be cute and call them an "Advance." I had one boss in college that decided to be different and call our annual department planning meeting a "Flanking Maneuver."
19. Louise from Chicago said the following at 3:00 PM on Sep 25:
Comment 17, if someone has filed for divorce and is currently not living with the spouse than he/she is free to pursue other relationships.
Now, in my opinion it is better to wait a while before doing so, but separated people do have this option.
It is also more honest to post his status as "separated" but I am unfamiliar with Facebook and do not know if this option exists.
"Accountability" to his estranged wife's parents?
I don't see it at all.
And I must be one of the most "mature" divorcees on this planet...I have ZERO interest in remarrying.
20. BDB said the following at 3:18 PM on Sep 25:
I do think that you were right to point out the stubbornness for the inbox segment. The people I know with the best marriages are willing to learn from each other. Usually that's a pretty good sign of motivation. That does not mean they immediately give up all their preferences. But I remember having lunch with a woman (a vegetarian) who remarked that a guy was such a bachelor - there was absolutely no fresh fruit in the house. I still remember that conversation - I think I always have fresh fruit in the house now, too. And frankly, when I'm in charge of dessert for Bible study, I also bring a small amount of fresh fruit because there are a few people who go through seasons of not eating dessert.
When one of my oldest friends was considering proposing to his now wife, one of the things he cited was her willingness to bend a little bit. In his case, he was in the Army, and she hated guns. But she was willing to go to the firing range with him (ONCE) to at least see what it was like. He didn't expect her to be exactly the same - what fun would that be anyway? But she was at least willing to get out of her comfort zone a bit.
One of the top 5 causes of divorce is stonewalling - an unwillingness to even discuss and address an area of conflict. Stonewalling is definitely a red flag.
21. Trevor Dolby said the following at 3:32 PM on Sep 25:
The divorce section missed a key piece of the modern picture, namely cohabitation. In Biblical times, of course, the problem didn't occur too much because of the likelihood of one or the other being put to death :) but it's everywhere now, and it seems odd that Christian churches regard a 20-year cohabitation as no bar to marriage, while a two-week marriage would certainly be one! One suspects Jesus might take a different view (as indeed the Old Testament did).
I thought Candace answered the letter-writer very well – we should be very careful in thinking ill of the man in the situation, as we don't have his side at all.
22. BDB said the following at 3:32 PM on Sep 25:
Louise from Chicago (#19) wrote:
>>Comment 17, if someone has filed for divorce and is currently not living with the spouse than he/she is free to pursue other relationships.<<
Not Biblically they're not - particularly in he case where there spouse seeks reconciliation.
The facebook case I'm referring to no divorce filing has been made. Facebook does not have a 'divorced' or 'legally separated' category.
What I'm saying is that I know her parents, and its more a question of whether they should be doing something to protect their daughter by informing of his activities. She's living with them. My concern is of all the people I've read about where one spouse was having an affair and those aware of it are afraid to bring up the subject with the other spouse.
Think of this hypothetical: A pastor does not need to permit someone to be in their fellowship who is married but who wants to meet new girls in, say, the young adults ministry before he files for divorce. E.G. he is trying to find a new woman to be his escape route from his marriage. That is a predator.
You know what, I have a pastor I can discreetly bring this up to. I think I need to do that.
23. obewan said the following at 4:36 PM on Sep 25:
I concur and agree wholeheartedly with BDB's maturity comments. And, I have seen both sides of the story too on the reconciliation issues.
My experience is that men are usually the most anxious ones in terms of resuming dating after a breakup.
We have men all the time joining our Church singles group WHILE in the process of divorce. One of them did it 4 times! Every time he got divorced, he came back to church to pick out a new wife.
He got away with it because he has quite a lot of money I am sad to say. If asked about all his wives, he would respond that he kept getting married to mental patients who won't take their meds.
He was also well known for stating - even to women - that women were only good for cooking, cleaning, and sex. The last thing he told me before disappearing completely from our church was that he was meeting women on the Internet and having sex with them.
While all this was going on, he was in the process of divorce number 5! I warned him that if the church elders found out he would be placed under church discipline. I did not tell the elders, but maybe they did find out. Alas, I gossip, but it is a true real world story and must serve as a warning to others.
24. Vanessa said the following at 4:50 PM on Sep 25:
#17 - I'm not really interested in the maturity level of divorcees and remarriage. I'm not in that situation. I have close family members who have chosen to remarry after divorce, so it isn't as if I've never had someone close to me make that choice. I'm also not really interested in the "pop culture" of America or "official views" of my denomination affiliation. I'm interested in what the Bible says, what Jesus taught, and the intent of the Scriptures teaching about divorce.
I want someone to tell me exactly where in the Bible it specifically states that remarriage after divorce is okay, because I don't see it anywhere. Until someone can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that remarriage is not adultery...I'm not even entertaining the idea of dating someone who has been married in the past, no matter how "wonderful" a person he may be or how "perfect" we are for each other.
I'm not opposed to dating younger men to get a guy who has not been married before, and as a matter of fact, the guy I'm interested in at this time is over 3 years my junior and both of us are perfectly fine with that age gap because there isn't much of a maturity gap at all.
25. Zusanne said the following at 5:20 PM on Sep 25:
As I was listening, I thought, "I don't go to retreats, either." Then I realized, I've been to two in the past month.
One was an annual job-related (required?) retreat, and I don't mind going to it. It generally is a good time, and, since I'm a bit of a control freak and I do have some responsibilities and decision-making input, I'm okay with the event.
The other one was a ladies retreat. I generally avoid these--for whatever reason I really don't know--but it's an annual event at my church and I was facing some loving pressure to go. So I went. I've never regretted NOT going; I have regretted several times over the past few two since losing all that time . . . nice people, good conversations with friends, was able to be helpful while I was there, learned a few lessons from the Scripture being taught, but it's not really my "thing." Not sure I'll go again.
26. Jeremy said the following at 9:47 PM on Sep 25:
Many people seem to be misrepresenting the Biblical teaching on remarriage.
Romans 7:2-3:
Mathew 5:32:
Mark 10:11-12:
Luke 16:18:
The notoriously difficult-to-translate clause in Matthew 19 is the exception, not the rule. Remember one of the principles of Biblical interpretation: interpret the unclear based on the clear. These passages could hardly be more clear -- remarriage after divorce is sinful if the spouse is still living. John Piper has an excellent set of sermons on the topic, available here.
27. Louise from Chicago said the following at 6:21 PM on Sep 26:
Comment 22, I disagree with your definition of "predator."
Now, since you seem to know so much after this particular situation, is this couple legally separated i.e. has someone filed for separation with their state?
In my opinion, the situation isn't really any of your business.
I would personally recommend staying out of it.
And also in my opinion, if someone is old enough to have been married then he/she is old enough to no longer require "parental protection."
28. Nate said the following at 6:55 PM on Sep 26:
To Vanessa primarily, et al:
If you take 1 Cor 7 as a whole (ESV), in it's context to surrounding scripture, I see Paul talking to people in 4 main groups: the church as a whole (7:1a), unmarried/widows (7:8), married (7:10) and "the rest" (7:12). It's clear that chapter 7 does not single out 'widows' as the only or even primary audience to the teaching. The above referenced verse (7:15) is under the context/audience of the "rest". Based on what I showed above, this 'rest' would include divorcees by implication, (since unmarried/widows & married have been addressed previously). Verse 15 says that "if an UNBELIEVING SPOUSE separates, let it be so. In such cases, the brother or sister is not enslaved." My studies of connecting scripture and various commentaries lead me to conclude that in such a case, if a spouse wants out, and will not be reconciled despite all efforts, we as believers can let them go without fear of sin, (breaking the covenant of matrimony) or "bondage" to such. As far as I can define "freedom", that includes the freedom to remarry.
I say this to lovingly contradict your first post, Ms. Vanessa. Read and study 1 Cor 7, in it's context with external sources of study by those smarter then us. I believe you will see, clearly, that re-marriage is biblically permissible based on this text. I temper that by saying it is a LAST COURSE OPTION only when all routes of reconciliation have been completely exhausted.
I am ready to be flamed at will. :)
--NMM
29. Nate said the following at 7:16 PM on Sep 26:
I say all the above from careful study, and deeply wounding experience. I was married for 7 years. My wife, professing to be a believer, moved out last year, and moved in with a man she had been seeing for 6-12 months. After feigning attempts to reconcile, she filed for divorce shortly thereafter and left me completely in the dust. i did everything I knew to do save what was there, and I was driven to near complete mental failure as a result. She would here none of it; reconciliation, talking, counseling, nothing. She wanted what she wanted, which was out so she could pursue elsewhere. The situation was clearly futile. Having no interest in draining years in battle (I'm only 29), I relented and signed the papers she obtained on her own. She is gone for good, of her choice, and I had no power to stop it. A clear fit to 1 Cor 7:15.
I was physically, mentally and emotionally destroyed, as well as desperately lonely. One can;t know how bad it feels to be decieved for SO LONG and wholesale discarded, unless you've been through it. It's taken a year of healing to say again, that I yearn SO badly for a woman who really loves Jesus, loves me, and is someone I can trust, enjoy intimately and love back. I have much healing to go, but God has brought so much good from this hellish situation, I know I am on the right path. I have no hitch in my spirit or conscience about marrying again. I desire it greatly, when God feels I am ready for it. Despite the pain, I am content to be satisfied in the LORD, in His strength, as everything within me cries for intimacy with a special woman all my own.
I would not have a problem marrying a divorcee given their previous marriage followed the guidelines of Scripture. I'd even be eager for such a relationship, as that person would know the pain. I temper that by saying that I would be stepping VERY CAREFULLY into that realm. God would have to be my guide through that minefield. Which He would, as I trust and call on Him.
On a related note, I do get weary of of the many 'single-christian-women' posts I see, lamenting the lack of decent christian men. I just don't see it, but quite the opposite. Forgive me, but I am unwilling to change the being God made me in order to attract girls. I am a flawed human, like anyone else, trying to let God mold me to His image. I will not abandon 'me' to acquire or settle on whoever may come along. I have my eyes open but I am also trusting God to reveal her to me in His time.
Sorry for the sermon. I prefer to read then speak/type, but I could not let this subject go un-answered.
--NMM
30. Mike said the following at 6:57 AM on Sep 27:
Louise from Chicago (#19) wrote:
And I must be one of the most "mature" divorcees on this planet...I have ZERO interest in remarrying.
My ex-wife doesn't either. But then, she has little reason to. She has a live-in boyfriend; she gets her way 100% of the time with the children; she has the child support money to finance her decisions; she shares expenses with the live-in.
While I don't know anything about your particular situation, I'm not so sure a lack of desire to remarry is the mark of maturity.
31. Alli said the following at 8:26 PM on Sep 27:
Hi! I was so happy to hear the question of the week. Nine months ago, I could have asked that question almost verbatim. I'm similar to the asker in many ways, and was in an LDR with a guy who didn't care about eating healthy foods, worked out minimally, was very introverted (I'm very extroverted), he's a self-admitted cynicist and pessimist, while a coworker coined me as an 'irrepressible optimist'--I could go on with our differences.
Because we were long distance throughout the entire relationship, my vision of what my life would be like if we were in the same city was clouded. I didn't see our differences as dealbreakers, but the longer we dated, the more frustrating they got, and the more disagreements over them we had. But while I was in the "infatuation" stage of the relationship, the emotional benefit of his companionship trumped any rational evaluation of whether we should even be in relationship. Even when he put down the aspects of my lifestyle that we didn't share--which I've now learned is a red flag--I overlooked thinking about the question of whether we were truly compatible.
He broke up with me two months ago, mainly because he decided he wanted a girl who thought very similarly to him. At first, I was crushed, but after lots of prayer, a little counseling, and some reflective thinking, I know that God did me a favor when He answered my prayer of "break us up if this relationship isn't your will."
Though the breakup was painful, I feel so much freer to be me without this guy. I, too, didn't want to be too picky, but I now have a much better idea of what my own lifestyle priorities are. I learned that being 'picky' enough to choose someone more similar to me in certain areas could save me and a potential partner from a lot of frustration and disagreements.
I'm not saying that the couple in the question needs to break up, but I would advise them to think carefully about their priorities, both individually and together, pray fervently, and seek counsel. When in a long-distance relationship, things can move more slowly because the couple doesn't see each other regularly, and the rose-colored glasses stay on longer. The sooner you take the glasses off, the easier discernment (as to whether the relationship should continue) will be.
32. Louise from Chicago said the following at 9:06 AM on Sep 28:
Comment 30, I have no desire to remarry because I really enjoy living alone.
I do not have a live in boyfriend to "share expenses" with nor do I receive child support nor maintenance (formerly called alimony) from my former spouse.
Now, if you believe that my enjoyment of living alone makes me "immature" well so be it, you have a right to your opinion.
Nice thoughts on here, BTW, you're "immature" if you want to remarry, and if you don't!
People are different, folks!
Even St. Paul said so in the Bible.
Some divorced people want to get married again, and some don't!
33. Jo said the following at 10:30 AM on Sep 28:
Obewan, 23:
He was also well known for stating - even to women - that women were only good for cooking, cleaning, and sex."
And this man got FIVE women to marry him? The mind boggles...
34. Vanessa said the following at 10:32 AM on Sep 28:
Thanks #26. I'm generally a fan of John Piper and I'm definitely checking out the link. Much appreciated! God Bless.
35. LizH said the following at 10:51 AM on Sep 28:
I vote for a Boundless retreat!
36. Louise from Chicago said the following at 11:10 AM on Sep 28:
Comment 33, comment 23 stated the man had a lot of money.
Rich men and women will always find available marrige partners!
And I don't care for his "what woman are for" views either, but I personally have to give him credit for honesty.
If he stated his views to potential partners, at least they could formulate an idea of the subsequent marriage.
37. obewan said the following at 11:15 AM on Sep 28:
#33. Jo said the following at 10:30 AM on Sep 28:
Obewan, 23:
He was also well known for stating - even to women - that women were only good for cooking, cleaning, and sex."
And this man got FIVE women to marry him? The mind boggles...
-------------------------------------
When he did say it it was usually in the context of a joke, but it was a crude joke at that and it made me cringe every time he said it.
He did have a proven track record for getting married to mental patients, so either they did not know any better, were co-dependent, had low self-esteem, or became mental patients after getting married due to the abuse. Maybe all of the above to some extent.
With some women who are struggling, money talks. A man who owns a drugstore, an appliance store, 300 apartment homes, and a coffee farm and processing factory has a lot to offer in terms of creature comforts and financial stability. There are plenty of women willing to exploit themselves for financial gain, but they are not all Christians. If he does not find the woman he wants at a Church he just goes outside the church. And, once married, he usually leaves the church. And, if he cannot have a church wedding, he tells them to pound sand and gets married by a justice of the peace.
I better not say any more lest I gossip. But it was all out in the open, and if anyone from my church reads this post they will know right away whom I am talking about. He never tried to hide anything nor did he show any shame.
He always treated me with scorn since I am a lifelong single. He used to remind me that he might have had several wives, but at least he was not afraid of commitment. LOL
38. Louise from Chicago said the following at 11:50 AM on Sep 28:
"With some women who are struggling money talks."
"There are plenty of women willing to exploit themselves for financial gain."
The above quotes are from comment 37.
Be fair, please; these days there are just as many men who choose partners on the basis of financial standing and are willing to "exploit themselves".
39. BDB said the following at 12:20 PM on Sep 28:
Nate (#28) - the one place I would quibble with you is that your post seems to equate "divorced" with believers who have been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse. They are not the same thing.
ONE of the people was abandoned. The other did the abandoning. I don't see anything in the Bible that allows the one doing the abandoning to remarry.
And this is a critical point in the case of divorced men especially, like the one obewan mentioned. If they've abondoned their first family, I really don't understand why the church should be OK with them pursuing and/or marrying someone else in the church.
Vanessa, I'm not saying you should date or marry anyone who is divorced. I have deep reservations about that, too. And frankly, I really don't like it when people try to set me up with their divorced friends.
At the same time, I know women who've been abandoned by their husbands while they have young children. Literally, they are divorced over their own objections. Just because the secular government allows easy divorce does not mean we should condemn the innocent spouse to struggle alone for the next 60 years of their life.
But I think that the best solution in those cases is for two innocent spouses to marry each other. Theologically, they'd both be covered under the abandonment rule. And frankly, I know a few couples in this situation where God really does seem to have blessed the situation. And there's lots of children who really appreciate stepparents who stepped up to the plate and took the place of the parent who abandoned them.
I do think that 1 Timothy 5:8 is relevant here:
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
There are 40 verses in the Bible about how God cares about the fatherless. In other words, a lot more verses about that than about remarriage.
40. Loris said the following at 12:29 PM on Sep 28:
Nate #28 and 29,
May the Lord give you peace while you recover. I am sorry your wife acted so foolishly. I hope you are surrounded with friends who will give you good counsel and support.
My mother was also an injured party. Her husband of 10 months abandoned her 40 years ago--went to work and never came back. He had hidden his schizophrenia from her. He had a 19 year old girlfriend in another town. His own parents hired a detective to find him. Mom waited eight years to divorce him hoping he'd get medicated and return. She never heard from him again. She married my dad at age 35, having lived celibate for eleven years. I am her only child, born late in life. She and my dad just had their 26th anniversary. She refers to her second marriage as "the Lord restoring the years the locust has eaten." (Joel 2:25)
I firmly believe that divorce is justified in cases of adultery, abuse and abandonment. Nate, I hope you will meet a lady who is committed to her faith and to marriage.
41. obewan said the following at 1:01 PM on Sep 28:
Be fair, please; these days there are just as many men who choose partners on the basis of financial standing and are willing to "exploit themselves". (Louise #38)-----------
Sorry. Did not mean to offend or open the battle of the sexes debate again.
I only mentioned women because I was responding to a specific question about types of women voiced in comment #33.
I can think of plenty of examples where old "cougar" Hollywood women got married to men 30 years younger than themsevles! They are open and shut cases of men marrying for money in my opinion.
42. Jeni said the following at 1:15 PM on Sep 28:
A Boundless Singles Retreat is a great idea! Why not add a murder mystery too it!?!?! I have a friend who planned a fantastic Live Clue Game. And now the ideas are flowing... ;-)
43. Jeremy said the following at 1:16 PM on Sep 28:
BDB (#39):
The "abandonment rule" allows a believing spouse to accept a divorce intiated by unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15). That is it. Nothing is mentioned about remarriage being permissible in this case, and remarriage is abundantly clearly addressed in other places:
(see my earlier comment for some other references)
Yes, society, including much of the church, has moved away from Biblical teaching about remarriage, but we need to let Scripture be our authority. Marriage is for life in God's eyes, and remarriage while a spouse is still living is adultery.
44. BDB said the following at 1:31 PM on Sep 28:
Louise (#27) wrote:
>>And also in my opinion, if someone is old enough to have been married then he/she is old enough to no longer require "parental protection."<<
Strictly speaking, it's not merely a matter of what's happening to the couple. It's making sure that the pastoral staff is aware of the situation. If they observe anything inappropriate, then they have a responsibility to step in. One example is a still-married man hitting on unmarried women at church -it's one thing for a divorced person to disclose that when they meet someone. It's quite another for someone to attempt to pass themsleves off as single. The pastoral staff should be aware of the situation if for no other reason that if woman X asks the pastor, "Do you know antying about Y? He's invted me to lunch." The pastor should be able to say, "Well, is Y's divorce final yet?" Many women are already skittish about being approached, we don't want to make things worse by them being afraid that every man who approaches them is being deceptive.
I mean really, if we are encouraging women to check someone's character with the pastoral staff, that pastoral staff needs to be aware of problems. If someone had a substance abuse problem, and was refusing to seek treatment, again pastoral staff ought to be informed. We do have church programs for that, but part of accountability in community is making sure these issues are addressed. If someone is not disclosing them, that's deception.
Worst case scenario of not speaking up: one of your friends is deceived by and marries the guy - and ends up divorced by him like his first wife. Better to speak up discreetly and allow pastoral staff to decide whether intervention is necessary.
I know that in the ministry I'm responsible for I've made it clear to everyone that they should report a problem if they see it, and we can conduct an objective, impartial investigation. Minor things are often noticed by people in major fraud cases, but they aren't sure so they stay silent. Lives are destroyed by people staying silent.
Speaking up to pastoral staff discreetly is NOT the same as spreading gossip about someone to everyone who will listen. It means going to the pastor and saying, "Are you aware of this situation." Most of the times I've done this, the pastor has said, "Yes, we're aware, and these are the steps we're taking to deal with it."
But sometimes they say, "Oh...uh-oh. If you'll excuse me, I need to make a phone call."
45. Nate said the following at 1:49 PM on Sep 28:
BDB (#39):
Totally agree with you on that point. Everything I spoke was in the context and case of the believer left behind or abandoned. In no way does that apply to the abandoning spouse. Sorry for my lack of clarity on that, and thanks for clearing it up.
--NMM
46. Louise from Chicago said the following at 1:54 PM on Sep 28:
Comment 44:
You quoted my comment about married people not needing "parental protection" then you went off on a tangent about informing church pastors about people's personal lives.
I fail to see the connection, but maybe I'm just having a dense day.
47. Nate said the following at 2:17 PM on Sep 28:
Loris (40):
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I have meditated quite a bit on that passage in Joel, and found it very comforting. I am looking forward to better things ahead, especially in the area of re-marriage.
Jeremy (43): Respectfully, if you examine the latter part of 1 Cor 7:15, "..In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved..". The context here is enslavement to the bonds/covenant of marriage. If one is the free from those bonds, by implication such a one would be free to marry again, (provided these adultery guidelines are followed, IE such a one is not marrying an abandoning spouse, etc).
In the end though, God has worked wonders through re-married couples. This subject is not what I would call an 'absolute' Christian doctrine that must be accepted by all, (like Christ's propitiatory death/resurrection/atonement, etc). Clearly there are convictions on both sides of the re-marriage issue and I respect them. My conviction, based on extensive biblical study, prayer, and God's moving in my life (some of which I shared above), is that I fall directly into the context of 1 Cor 7:15. Provided I follow biblical standards with regard to a potential life partner, I would not have any hitch in my conscience to marry again.
--NMM
48. Sarah said the following at 2:21 PM on Sep 28:
Trevor Dolby (#21)
I have often wondered about that too!!! Leah became Isaac's wife when they laid together. So many couples lay together, have a house together, have kids together... all without calling it "marriage," thus leaving them re-marriable within the eyes of the church. But why? I don't remember any marriages in the Bible that required a white dress and unity candle. When people made a commitment and sealed that commitment with sex, they were married.
In my church experience, people who have lived in sexual sin in the past, but come to the Lord, are forgiven. But someone who is divorced has a different set of rules. Whose rules are these? Wedding vows aren't prescribed in the Bible. I think we are looking at a marriage through the lens of America today and following what the government calls marriage - signing certain piece of paper and purchasing license from the government. Travelling back in time, or even to other countries now, marriage could be established differently - making a pubic commitment (living together) and sharing each other physically would mean marriage.
I don't think one is forgiven when the other is not. I don't think we can pretend like one sexual sin is different than another. I don't think we can kid ourselves into thinking that this debate isn't intensly shaded by what we view as socially acceptable in the 21st century.
49. Brian Krieger said the following at 3:28 PM on Sep 28:
Louise:
I’m sorry to go a tad off topic, but I’ve “heard” you make the comment similar to:
“In my opinion, the situation isn't really any of your business.”
Writing about an issue is just not as easy as speaking in person, so I’m trying very hard not to write anything that could be taken as bombastic. In a nutshell, you don’t feel this comment demonstrates a negligence of the body of believers? I completely understand a desire to stay away from a nanny state (and, as we all know, you never badger anyone to Godly deeds, then they are not of the heart), but we are to encourage one another, to go to your brother, to restore one caught in a trespass with a spirit of gentleness. I take the bible as promoting proactive ministry rather than reactive or a ministry of ignoring.
I know in our westernized societies we have this great tendency to favor individualism* above all other things (often at the expense of our own spiritual health), so I guess to me it seems that is precisely what that comment exhibits. Maybe I’m off base or completely misunderstanding you.
* - and, in the church, anonymity as that better breeds the ability to hide ones sin.
50. skp said the following at 3:41 PM on Sep 28:
Louise,
I don't see what BDB is trying to do as parental protection. What if he told her best friend instead of her father? Would that still be protection? To me it's not protection- it is just giving the someone closest to the person information (which by the way they may or may not choose to devulge) so that the person can make informed decisions.
That goes the same for the women he is dating. I personally would like someone close to me to tell me whether or not not a man I was considering dating was separated or that one I am currently dating was "dating around".
You think its fine that a separated man is dating, but wouldn't you still want to know? At least you would know what you were getting into.
To me its all a matter of being upfront and honest.
51. BDB said the following at 4:14 PM on Sep 28:
Louise (#46) wrote:
>>then you went off on a tangent about informing church pastors about people's personal lives.<<
Allow me to re-phrase.
It's not so much protecting one spouse against the other, it's making sure everyone in the church body is submitting themselves to the appropriate accountability.
Yes, living in community reqires a level of accountability. Partly this is my auditor training seeing red flags - usually small problems become large problems when those in charge don't recognize the small problems.
For those who are divorced, we do have a divorce care group. For those with substance abuse issues, we do have celebrate recovery. As a church, we strongly, strongly want people to be healed first. If they are not, then they can cause problems in other people's lives.
For example, this is why children's ministry volunteers must go through a criminal background check. We need to demonstrate a level of due dilligence to ensure no child predators are allowed to work with children. It's required by our insurance company, but it's also a good governance practice.
The most damage in a church or other organization comes from individuals who refuse to let anyone hold them accountable. Churches fail when pastors mis-manage money, and there is no church board or other process set up to ensure finances are handled properly.
Those who have major issues, who refuse any sort of accountability, can be a danger for others. This is one of the reasons people get hurt in churches.
Frankly, you can have the same problems in a business. Someone who gets divorced and then is constantly hitting on co-workers can created a sexual harassment lawsuit. An employee with a substance abuse problem, who is missing work, working in an unsafe manner (such as driving a company vehicle) can negatively affect other people's lives. Unfortunately, a company I worked for had an employee, a pot user, cause a serious accident in a company vehicle - literally 5 hours after I had a meeting with him.
Those with leadership responsibility for an organization, especially those with legal responsibility, should be informed of things that can affect others. The last thing you want is a lawsuit against a church by someone saying, "I thought it was a safe place!" But there is also plenty in the New Testament that lay out responsibilities for those in church leadership, which include dealing directly with those whose sin is affecting others in the body.
52. Mike said the following at 7:59 PM on Sep 28:
Jeremy -
Piper simply doesn't go into the actual Hebrew or Greek words, nor the historical context of these debates, which is undeserving of someone of his caliber. There were two forms of divorce in Jesus' day. There was the "for cause" divorce, for which there were 4 grounds called out in Jewish law: adultery (or sexual immorality), emotional neglect, material neglect (based on Exodus 21:10-11), or childlessness (which was seen as a moral duty, based on the command in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply").
The second type of divorce was the "any cause" or "any matter" divorce, championed by the Hillelites, the dominant sect of Judaism at the time, who stated their position based on Deuteronomy 24:1. They interpreted "uncleanness of a matter" to be "any matter or uncleanness" - including "should she spoil his dish", for example (that was actually written into the Mishnah, the Jewish case law that preceded the Talmud). The Shammaites, the chief challengers to the Hillelites, took a far narrower approach on that phrase, however, interpreting it to mean "uncleanness of a matter" - in other words, sexual impropriety, including adultery.
So, when the Pharisees came to Jesus in Matthew chapter 9 and asked Him if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for "any reason", they were asking Him on which side of the debate He fell. They were NOT asking Him a general question about divorce. Jesus sided with the Shammaites, repudiating the ridiculous "any matter" divorce that had become so popular at the time.
Now, Farmer Tom has done some additional research, and as it turns out, there are two very distinct phrases in both the Greek and the Hebrew for "divorce" - and they mean very different things. The phrase used for "put away" (as in Matthew chapter 9) refers to the "any matter" divorce - and coincidentally refers to where Joseph was going to "put Mary away" quietly when he found her to be pregnant. He was going to use the "any matter" divorce to spare her the public embarrassment of being accused of adultery. (Contrary to popular belief, while it was still technically a part of the law by the time of Christ, actual death sentences for adultery were rare, except in cases of mob action.)
Furthermore, Deuteronomy 24:1 makes reference to the "writ of divorce". This is no small matter. This certificate, instituted in the Mosaic law, made it plain that the woman who carried it had been divorced legally. That was very important; it meant that she could not be accused of adultery if she followed what every single one of these certificates said: "You may marry any man you wish."
We also know that God divorced Israel. (See Jeremiah Chapter 3.) The cause was adultery - whoring after other gods.
Why is all of this relevant? Because there is a difference between a valid divorce - those with Biblical grounds - and an invalid divorce. Jesus repudiated the invalid ones when he sided with the Shammaites against the Hillelites. It is the invalid divorce that causes a remarriage to be adultery, not all divorces.
I'm going to try a part 2 of this post; the rest is too long (apparently) for the blog.
53. Mike said the following at 8:00 PM on Sep 28:
(cont'd)
Now, as Rev. Piper points out, He also reaffirmed the expectation that marriage was a lifelong prospect through his recitation of the Genesis "one flesh" union. But He also still allowed for divorce - he did not state that all divorce was invalid, but it was "allowed" in cases of "hardness of heart". Paul said the same thing in 1 Cor 7. He explicitly states that the abandoned believer is "not bound".
All of this is covered in Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible by Dr. David Instone-Brewer, in way more detail than I can possibly handle here. But I can tell you that the original language of the Scripture is extremely important, and the study of the actual historical documents (such as 1st century divorce certificates) is critical to understanding this issue. Just reading an English translation does not give you the full context of the debates that were going on at the time, nor does it give you the full intent.
However, if I can get this past the Boundless censors (grin), here's some relevant text on the "remarriage is adultery" front from the book:
"Putting aside, for a moment, the differences in the various versions of the answer, the core of Jesus' answer was:
"'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.'
"The difficulty in this answer lies in the word 'commit adultery'. The word and its cognates occur twenty-seven times in the New Testament and very frequently in the Septuagint and other literature, always with the specific meaning of illegal sexual activity with a person who is married to someone else...
"Bruce Malina complained that this is as illogical as saying 'Everyone who sells his TV set and buys another commits theft.' It may be more accurate to say that it is equivalent to: 'whoever repossesses someone's car and sells him another, commits theft.' The act of adultery can be compared to stealing another person's property, especially in a society where marriage contracts are written out like a deed of purchase. Repossessing a car is perfectly legal, but it carries a social stigma, much as divorce did. An onlooker is never sure whether there was a deliberate failure to keep up the payments, or whether the purchaser's finances suddenly changed and he was unable to pay. Similarly, selling another car to him might make people gossip, like remarrying after a divorce. Although it is perfectly legal to sell him another car, one wonders if the seller is taking advantage of him. As a result, one may call the seller 'avaricious' or 'mercenary,' but one cannot call him a thief. Similarly, a person who has legally divorced and legally remarried, might be called inconstant or immoral, but he cannot be called an adulterer.
"A few commentators have suggested that divorce was valid but remarriage was not, so that the person who takes another wife is committing adultery. However this would again fall outside the normal meaning of 'adultery,' which always involved illegal sex with a married person. If the divorce was valid, this was not adultery but fornication (i.e., sex with an unmarried person).
"The solution that almost all commentators have found is to assume that the divorce was invalid. This solution works very well, because if the divorce was invalid, the person was still legally married to the first partner, so the second marriage was adulterous. This solution will now be examined for all four scenarios that are described in the various versions of Jesus' answer:
"1. A man who marries an invalidly divorced woman commits adultery (Luke 16:18; Matt. 5:32).
"2. A man who invalidly divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery (Matt 5:32, variants of Matt. 19:9).
"3. A man who invalidly divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (Mark 10:11; Matt. 19:9; Luke 16:18).
"4. A woman who invalidly divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery (Mark 10:12).
"...The third scenario would be difficult for most Jews at the time to accept because it was technically impossible for a man to commit adultery by marrying an unmarried woman. He was allowed to have more than one wife, and so it was no crime for him to remarry, even if his divorce to his first wife was invalid. However, Jesus had already stated his belief in monogamy, which meant that a man had to be validly divorced before he could remarry. Strictly speaking one might say that he was guilty of polygamy rather than adultery when he married his second wife. Yet Jesus was making the point very strongly. He was saying not only that polygamy was immoral but that it was illegal. He gave scriptural proofs that polygamy was against God's will. This meant that the man's second marriage was invalid, and thus he was cohabiting with an unmarried woman.
"...[Mark] pointed out that the man was committing adultery 'against her' (Mark 10:11), that is, against his wife. In a polygamous society, adultery is always against the husband. Mark was pointing out that one of the consequences of Jesus' teaching about monogamy was that adultery was no longer a crime just against a husband, but also against a wife. The husband could no longer hide behind the fact that technically he had not vowed exclusive faithfulness when he married. Marriage was meant to be monogamous, which meant that both husband and wife owed exclusive faithfulness to each other, and either could be the victim of adultery." (pp. 148-151)
So, based on careful research of the original texts, the Jewish case law at the time, and examination of the historical documents, we find that there is - and was - a difference between a valid divorce and an invalid divorce. Jesus was NOT making a blanket statement about all divorce, as some have tried to claim. Instead, he was repudiating the 1st-century equivalent of the "no fault" divorce we have today - and stating that, unless you had a divorce based on Biblical grounds AND in which the spouse was "hard hearted" (i.e. unrepentant), your divorce was invalid and therefore unrecognized by God. Therefore, you were still married and any remarriage would be a violation of that bond. But valid divorces with Biblical grounds where one spouse refused attempts at reconciliation would not suffer that problem, and the spouse who attempted reconciliation would be "no longer bound, because God has called us to peace" (1 Cor. 7:15).
54. Carol said the following at 8:48 PM on Sep 28:
Jeremy (#43) Umm, what really is the point of allowing divorce in the case of abandonment if there is no allowance for remarriage? The abandoning spouse has already left the marriage and all responsibilities of the marriage; the only benefit of divorce would be the ability to remarry.
55. Kelly said the following at 9:07 PM on Sep 28:
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
Luke 16:18
If we think about Biblical times, I would assume the man had all of the power to do the divorcing. So... we have a clear directive that a man cannot divorce his wife and marry another. Nor can a man marry a divorced woman.
Can a woman marry a divorced man (who was abandoned by his wife)? It's a cultural situation that did not exist in Jesus' time.
Reading here: http://bible.cc/luke/16-18.htm
it makes me think how harsh these laws sound. I truly feel for those who had an abusive spouse or who were abandoned by their spouse. Does God truly want those unwilling divorcees sentenced to a life of singleness with no hope of remarrying?
How much hurt and pain have they been through already, to be denied that future as well! Especially if the woman had no children (one of the strongest callings of our hearts).
56. Leah said the following at 7:50 AM on Sep 29:
I'm afraid I'm not able to currently listen to the podcast - my internet quota is dangerously low :(
I am interested to know one thing from the podcast though.
Supposing a Christian couple get married, then ten years down the track one of them turns their back on their Christianity. Said partner wants a divorce and moves out. Her husband fights for years to stay married, requesting they go to marriage counselling - she is only interested in divorce counselling. She no longer shows any signs of being a Christian. The divorce goes through.
Is her husband free to remarry?
57. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:25 AM on Sep 29:
Comment 51 quote:
"Frankly, you can have the same problems in a business. Someone who gets divorced and then is constantly hitting on co-workers can created a sexual harassment lawsuit."
Yup, it's only divorced men and women who are "hitting on co-workers."
Single, married and widowed people would never do such a thing....
58. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:52 AM on Sep 29:
Comment 50, it was BDB himself who first mentioned the concept of parental protection.
Quote from BDB's comment 22:
"What I'm saying is that I know her parents, and its more a question of whether they should be doing something to protect their daughter by informing of his activities. She's living with then."
59. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:57 AM on Sep 29:
Comment 49,
You did not "'hear' me make a comment similar to:
“In my opinion, the situation isn't really any of your business.”"
That is a direct quote from my comment
27.
I'm not ashamed of that quote either.
I meant exactly what I said.
Of course, most of the people on this blog won't agree with that, since the concept of a high level of community accountability is a fairly prevelent belief on this blog.
That is fine, too.
60. Brian Krieger said the following at 10:17 AM on Sep 29:
Leah:
The way that I’ve seen it treated is that the church treats it in a church discipline manner. Approach (as indicated by the bible) the offending spouse. If they refuse, then they are being recalcitrant. An unrepentant Christian is not truly one of God’s (doesn’t actually exist, actually). Thus, Paul’s words would be applicable (if an unbelieving spouse wants to leave, let them). The key that you state is that the injured spouse follows a biblical course of trying to reconcile (as opposed to encouragement to go, etc.).
But others may see that differently.
61. Brian Krieger said the following at 10:21 AM on Sep 29:
Louise:
I missed a crucial word. It should have been I’ve heard you make similar comments before. Sorry for the lack of clarity (I know I was using a line from your comment.).
I suppose my question is do you think that such a lack of accountability is biblical (or even warranted)?
62. Jeremy said the following at 10:58 AM on Sep 29:
Mike (#53):
I think correcting this misconception was exactly Jesus's point in his harsh blanket statements such as Luke 16:18, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." (note there is zero mention of the validity or invalidity of the divorce itself) His point was that even if divorce itself might be permitted in very limited cases -- in an important sense the marriage covenant still applies, in the sense that while one's spouse is still living, having sex with any other person is still adultery. The assumption that this bond must immediately disappear with divorce, and the further assumption that Jesus's unstated meaning was that this was only true in cases of invalid divorces is certainly convenient, but it pretty heavily relies on reading several passages in a very unnatural way (or, as Dr. Instone-Brewer did, simply re-quoting them with the word "invalid" inserted at will). Assuming unstated exceptions to the clear words of Christ is exceedingly dangerous.
And as an additional simple way to see that it is highly unlikely that Jesus was merely disallowing remarriage in the very limited way suggested, note the disciples' reaction to words! "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry"! (Matthew 19:10) The disciples understood Jesus's meaning to be so radical, so extreme, as to make marriage itself seem less desirable! I would argue that a close inspection of Jewish law related to divorce at the time is not helpful here, because Jesus was completely re-framing the issue.
A very close parallel could indeed be observed to God's relationship with Israel. Although God did in a sense "divorce" them, His covenant with them did not end. Romans 11:1: "God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!"
63. Louise from Chicago said the following at 11:07 AM on Sep 29:
Comment 61, I have a secular humanist worldview so I don't base my opinions on whether or not the particular concept in question agrees with what is stated in the Bible.
Therefore, I don't share your opinion of community accountability.
I believe this "lack of community accountability" is "warranted" as a basic human right to privacy.
Now, that is what I believe.
Disagree with me and my worldview all you want, Mr. Krieger.
You're not going to change my mind.
64. Brian Krieger said the following at 12:01 PM on Sep 29:
Louise:
Thanks for the response. Contrary, perhaps, to what you might expect, I have no whispers of thinking I can change your mind. As you have read here, I may be used as a tool for God’s purpose in that, but I, alone, by what I say, cannot change your heart. You are right, though, in that many of the folks around me who read this blog are beneficiaries of mutual accountability. We do see the rich reward from the "wounds" of a friend (Prov 27).
Those might be things that point in our direction, but I don’t see that they would ever convince.
Thanks again for the answer, I appreciate it!
65. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:52 PM on Sep 29:
Comment 63, my thoughts, opinions and beliefs are in my mind aka my brain.
My heart contains blood, muscle and blood vessels.
If you and others on this blog feel you benefit from a feeling of community accountability, then that's fine with me.
I would never accept such a concept...I am too independent.
66. Vanessa said the following at 1:32 PM on Sep 29:
#49 - I hear your argument about couples cohabitating, and honestly, I would hesitate just as much at dating a man who had lived with his girlfriend as I would one who has been divorced, simply because of the whole "sharing your life" thing. I haven't found any Scriptural prohibition against marrying someone who had a prior sexual relationship. The ideal is that two virgins come together on their wedding night and that someone who falsely claims virginity is liable for annulment (or divorce)...but nothing that states you have to be a virgin to marry.
I know that OT marriages were not white dress and unity candles. However, there was a definite commitment on the part of the man, at least...and the woman left the protection of her family and joined together with the man under his protection.
To the poster of the Biblical word study on the original Greek and the two "forms" of divorce...thank you for giving me something to study further~
67. Mike said the following at 4:08 PM on Sep 29:
Jeremy (#62) wrote:
I think correcting this misconception was exactly Jesus's point in his harsh blanket statements such as Luke 16:18, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery." (note there is zero mention of the validity or invalidity of the divorce itself)
Not true. The Greek word used for "divorce" in that verse (and not coincidentally in every other verse where this statement is made) refers to "putting away" one's wife - the exact term used for the "any matter" divorce. Jesus was answering a specific question posed to him about a theological debate between two sects of Judaism, not making a blanket statement about all divorce.
The disciples' reaction is perfectly understandable on two fronts:
1) Jesus was saying that you couldn't just divorce your wife at whim. That was the practice at the time; there were virtually no divorces "for cause" at the time; just about every divorce had become the "any matter" type because it was more convenient, and because it avoided "airing dirty laundry" (not coincidentally, the same reasons given by proponents of "no fault" divorce today).
2) Jesus also repudiated polygamy by reaffirming the "one flesh" union from Genesis chapter 1. This meant that men could also be held for the sin of adultery - which they could previously not be. (Under the original Levitical code, they could, but this had gotten twisted around in the intervening centuries.) Because of the polygamy laws, a man who cheated on his wife technically hadn't sinned against her; he never had promised exclusive faithfulness to her, so he hadn't broken his vow. When Jesus slammed the door on that one, the disciples would naturally have been shocked.
So the reaction of the disciples does NOT hinge on a blanket prohibition against remarriage. Sorry.
68. Mike said the following at 4:12 PM on Sep 29:
Kelly (#55) wrote:
If we think about Biblical times, I would assume the man had all of the power to do the divorcing. So... we have a clear directive that a man cannot divorce his wife and marry another. Nor can a man marry a divorced woman.
You're both right and wrong. :-)
Men were the only ones who could initiate the "any matter" (i.e. no fault) divorce. Women, however, could petition the court for a divorce if they had grounds.
This is further support for the argument that Jesus was specifically talking about the "any matter" divorce when he issued the prohibition against remarriage - the fact that it was aimed at men. Since only men could initiate the "any matter" divorce, but either gender could divorce for cause, it makes perfect sense that Jesus would phrase it the way He did.
69. Mike said the following at 4:14 PM on Sep 29:
On the subject of cohabiting couples vs. marriage ceremonies, I refer the reader to 1 Cor 6:16:
"Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.'"
Seems that, at least in Paul's mind, sexual intercourse is the same thing as the "one flesh" union...Kinda makes you wonder, huh?
70. Trevor Dolby said the following at 5:50 PM on Sep 29:
Vanessa (66): You would be right to hesitate: living with a girlfriend _is_ a serious matter. In ages past, people who did that were encouraged to marry (see Jane Austen for obvious examples).
However, in Biblical times, the end result might have been different. The first thing to note is Deuteronomy 22, where a non-virgin bride was liable to be stoned to death for "being promiscuous while still in her father's house" (v21). Adultery is punishable by death (v22), and any man caught sleeping with a girl not his wife nor engaged to anyone must marry her and never divorce her (v28,29).
Sarah (48): I think the key here is to look for God's action; when Jesus was asked about marriage and divorce, he responded by focusing on what God had joined, and basically said that human action can't undo God's joining (hence remarriage being adultery, rather than fornication).
It's clearly absurd to believe that a human-constructed ceremony is the only way for God to join two people, or for it to somehow require God to join people. Alongside the cohabitation issue (which you rightly align with marriage itself) is the even thornier issue of invalid marriages happening in churches.
A woman who has lived with one man after another for years without any repentance, and then gets married in a church to somebody, is an obvious testcase :) Even if a church could be found who would actually go along with this, the most obvious question when the divorce happens is "was the marriage ever valid?" It can be argued that divorce is a perfectly reasonable end to a marriage that was never right in the first place, and didn't represent God joining two people together at all! You could even argue that it is required in such cases . . .
As a side-note, I have deliberately used women as examples; women and men are subject to different strictures in the Bible, and the human body shows this, as there is no male equivalent female virginity. The Bible also allows polygamy (without encouraging it!) but not polyandry, and generally treats men and women differently (including both OT and NT).
71. Loris said the following at 2:17 PM on Sep 30:
Trevor Dolby #70 says: "As a side-note, I have deliberately used women as examples; women and men are subject to different strictures in the Bible, and the human body shows this, as there is no male equivalent for female virginity."
Yes, and I've always thought that was extremely unfair that there was no physical signifier for men.
72. Jeremy said the following at 3:31 PM on Sep 30:
Mike (#68):
A serious problem with your view arises, then, from Mark 10:11-12:
According to your argument, verse 12 must refer to divorce for cause (since it was intiated by a woman), yet Jesus still clearly states that remarriage in this case is adultery.
The truth is that "apoluo", the word you claim is only used for the "any matter" divorces, is used in Mark 10:12 also. And, as you observe, since women could not initiate these types of divorces, the word clearly does NOT refer only to those types of divorces, but rather to divorce as a whole. Jesus seems to even have gone out of his way in this passage to apply it to women also, lest anyone be confused and think it applied only in a limited context.
73. skp said the following at 4:07 PM on Sep 30:
Louise,
If you were dating a married man and didn't know it, would you want someone to tell you?
74. Trevor Dolby said the following at 6:11 PM on Sep 30:
Loris (71): I know - it does seem unfair. I fear we shall have to wait until eternity to ask God about it, as there's no definite answer in the Bible.
75. Mike said the following at 7:10 PM on Sep 30:
Jeremy (#72) wrote:
And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
Mark 10:11-12 (emphasis added)
According to your argument, verse 12 must refer to divorce for cause (since it was intiated by a woman), yet Jesus still clearly states that remarriage in this case is adultery.
Well, maybe not. I was perhaps inaccurate to say it referred specifically to the "any matter" divorce. I should rather have said to a divorce "without cause". Here's why: It was only under Jewish law that a woman could not initiate a divorce. Under Roman or Greek law, she could. In fact, under those systems, it was ridiculously easy; all one party had to do was move out of the house. Poof. You're divorced. This was the situation to which Paul was speaking in 1 Cor. 7.
So it still refers to a "divorce without cause". Sorry for the confusion.
This really isn't that difficult. The whole issue of divorce is a bit of a break from the normal unyielding requirements of the law, for the precise reason that there are two parties involved. The party who doesn't want the divorce - the one who wants to hold the marriage together and is ditched anyway - is shown grace in being allowed to remarry.
The verses you keep quoting specifically speak in the active: The one who divorces and remarries commits the adultery. The one who doesn't want to divorce - the one who is abandoned against his (or her) wishes - is "no longer bound" and is "called to be at peace". This does not undermine the fundamental holiness of marriage; it merely does not hold the innocent party bound to the party who broke the covenant.
Peace.
76. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:49 PM on Sep 30:
Comment 73,
No, I don't need to be told...I think I can figure out myself if someone I'm dating is married.
I'm almost forty-four years old and I don't need a protector or a babysitter.
77. Trevor Dolby said the following at 11:55 AM on Oct 1:
Mike (67): I'm not convinced Jesus 'repudiated polygamy by reaffirming the "one flesh" union from Genesis chapter 1' - it seems likely that the disciples would have reacted differently had they understood Jesus that way.
For example, David and Solomon both had multiple wives (but neither divorced anyone that we're aware of), and Jesus would almost certainly have come under attack for disparaging them if he had been understood to be declaring polygamy to be intrinsically wrong (rather than merely being sub-optimal).
78. Jeremy said the following at 12:55 PM on Oct 1:
Mike (#75):
Despite your somewhat shifting definitions, that one is not true either. I'll quote once again:
I'm sure we could have an extended discussion on the meaning of "porneia" (I think here it most likely refers to unfaithfulness during the Jewish betrothal period), but that is not the point here. The point here is that clearly it is not only the active divorcer who is the adulterer in the case of remarriage, but the abandoned party as well.
And I don't mean this to be insulting, but perhaps you can see in your own arguments here the need to continue shifting points of view and thoughts in order to try to get around what seems to be very clear, consistent teaching in Scripture. I find that all too common, both in myself and others. It is very tough to subject ourselves to the authority of Scripture, especially when commands therein have deeply personal implications, but I would encourage you to think about the possible underlying motivation for resistance.
Just to add, the "no longer bound" and "called to be at peace" passage does not talk about remarriage, only the accepting of divorce. Extending it to cover remarriage, especially in light of the clear teaching specifically on remarriage elsewhere in Scripture really makes little sense.
79. Missy said the following at 1:38 PM on Oct 1:
I am a almost divorced woman from a man who has been unfaithful throughout our marriage. I have three children and I have prayed and sought restoration of our family for years. It was a sad day when I realized that not only did he not want his family, he doesn't want to be a Christian anymore and according to 1 John, wasn't really before. I am not interested in dating but am also not wanting to be alone. I was a good wife and I don't say that prideful but just didn't give him the "reasons" to do these horrible things. I was faithful; I have biblical reasonS to divorce but that doesn't make me want it or happy about it. I didn't have a choice and we were abandoned and abused long enough. For someone to judge me and hold this against me hurts and I realize that we should never assume or judge someone because of a status. We should be careful because there are so many hurting women (and men) and children out there that didn't earn this.
80. BDB said the following at 1:54 PM on Oct 1:
Louise (#76) wrote:
>>I'm almost forty-four years old and I don't need a protector or a babysitter.<<
Well, yes. Certain things come with life experience.
However, if you're dealing with a 22-year-old married guy and an 18-year-old woman, it's not quite the same situation.
There are other young marriages that result in divorce where the spouses do submit themselves to some mentoring. If they handled conflicts in an immature way, and their willing to learn from their mistakes, reconciliation is possible. But it doesn't do anyone any good for them to assume it was their marriage at fault and go out and do the exact same thing again to someone else.
Part of the reason that pastoral staff ought to be informed is so they can observe behavior in other contexts. Lots of problems happen from misunderstandings or incomplete information. There is an expectation that pastoral staff will handle such things with discretion.
Just the simple matter of honesty - being a liar is something subject to church discipline. I have no issue with people who disclose that they are divorced, and I do know some people who do that quickly to get it on the table and make sure people aren't surprised later. My objection is someone who is legally married representing themselves as legally single. Polygamy is still a crime!
I'm equally firm on bringing attention to someone who is engaged in predation on church members for some kind of financial scam. Some years ago a member of our ministry staff asked me to attend a presentation on one business and give them an opinion as to whether it was legitimate. It was selling long-distance services, which was being deregulated at the time, so it was legal, but the promises of easy money through residual income.
I did end up in an argument with one of my co-workers who said I had no right to challenge them. Fortunately, God provided me with a powerful personality, and I have no problem taking on those 30 years senior to me who are attempting to perpetrate fraud on my friends.
81. NewName said the following at 2:04 PM on Oct 1:
@#77: I think it's worth pointing out that, using the Apostle Paul's criteria, neither Solomon nor David would have been eligible to be elders in the church had they been living at the time Paul's words were spoken. You know, because each had more than one wife.
82. Nate said the following at 4:37 PM on Oct 1:
Jeremy -- Forgive me, but...
["no longer bound" and "called to be at peace" passage does not talk about remarriage, only the accepting of divorce.] That sure as heck sounds like bondage to me.
This seems like an interpretation issue to me. If it was an absolute rule in God's eyes, He would have said, "Thou shalt not re-marry for any reason under the sun." He didn't. All these interpretations aside, there is no hard/fast such rule.
Frankly, this whole thread then suggests that all the abandoned/adulterated-against spouses since way back when are living in sin because they re-married, which I think is absurdly ridiculous.
If I seem fired up a bit, forgive me, it's NOT a personal attack. I'm one of those abandoned spouses, and I see no absolute biblical mandate that prevents me from remarrying, provided such a potential mate lines up with scripture, (a believer, non-abandoning spouse, etc).
Unless one has been abandoned, betrayed or left with the garbage, they have no idea what it feels like (and I hope they never do). God instilled in humanity the desire to be loved, known, and significant, which is fulfilled no better on earth then in a godly marriage. I will not except someone telling me to 'turn that off' because my spouse decided to hit the road, or vainly wait, hoping that 'someday' she'll realize the error of her ways and come running home. It's just plain ridiculous.
With all the respect I can muster, if you're conviction is to not remarry, fine. It's your conviction. However it is not a not a biblical absolute. Please stop making it sound like it is.
--NMM
83. Trevor Dolby said the following at 6:41 PM on Oct 1:
NewName (81): Quite true :) In fact, St. Paul's statements about that are a good reminder that Christians didn't really try and prohibit polygamy until much later . . .
The reality, I suspect, is that God considers polygamy to be the least-bad option in cases where there simply aren't enough men to go around (as a result of tribal warfare, etc). There's certainly no Biblical evidence for the curtrent ban on polygamy.
84. Mike said the following at 8:01 PM on Oct 1:
Jeremy -
Okay, let's turn this around and play the game your way.
"Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV)
There's a "plain Scripture" teaching.
"Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover." (Exodus 12:21)
Hey, wait a minute! That's contradictory! God said not to kill, then He told us to kill! No fair! That makes no sense!
[sarcasm mode off]
The "plain Scripture" sometimes isn't so "plain" - because of the issues of translation and context (both linguistic and cultural). So continuing to insist that the "plain Scripture" says what it says and that trying to interpret it in context is wrong doesn't carry much water.
Just to add, the "no longer bound" and "called to be at peace" passage does not talk about remarriage, only the accepting of divorce. Extending it to cover remarriage, especially in light of the clear teaching specifically on remarriage elsewhere in Scripture really makes little sense.
Says who?!? There's no reason to believe that! Even the study notes in my Bible on 1 Cor. 7:15 say:
"not under bondage. When the bond is broken in any of these ways [death, adultery, or abandonment], a Christian is free to marry another believer. Throughout Scripture, whenever divorce is permitted, so is remarriage. By implication, the permission for a widow to remarry (vv. 39,40; Rom 7:3) because the 'bond' is broken, extends to this case where there is no more 'bondage.'" (MacArthur Study Bible, published by Nelson). This is a very conservative set of study notes, by the way; hardly the sort of study Bible given to loose interpretation. They don't, for example, include the grounds of childlessness or neglect from the Mishna (based on Genesis 9:1 and Exodus 21:10-11).
Now, to your Scripture: It is entirely consistent with my and Instone-Brewer's view. If the man divorces his wife without proper cause, then he causes her to commit adultery because remarriage is assumed. Gee, that was hard. Remember, this Scripture comes in the context of answering the Pharisees' question about "is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason" - which goes back to the Hillelite / Shammaite debate. So Jesus was, again, siding with the Shammaites that no, you had to have proper grounds for the divorce; otherwise, the bond was still intact and you're still married.
I've been researching this for going on 6 years now, and Piper is the ONLY person I've ever seen who holds the "absolutely no remarriage ever, under any circumstances" view. Well, besides yourself.
And speaking of "shifting views" and the like, how come you go for Mark 10:11-12 - no remarriage without the "adultery" exception - one time, then go for Matthew 5:32 - remarriage if there's porneia - the next? Isn't that a contradiction? Can I remarry if there's adultery or not? If I take the "plain Scripture" view, which text do I use?
This is the problem with taking the exclusionary view, which is the argument used by Piper and yourself. It puts down some very shifting, inconsistent (and if I may say so, legalistic) ground. Can the adulterer remarry? Does that mean I can cheat on my wife and use that as an excuse to get a new one? What about the abandonment clause?
No - what actually works here is the same thing that Jesus refers to in Matthew 5:21-22:
"Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
Why is this relevant? Because it's about the heart. The view that I take, and that Instone-Brewer takes, is that the judgment of God, and the mercy of God, interleave with the divorce issue just like every other issue: What's in your heart?
If your spouse breaks the marriage covenant, you're called on to forgive. But if you can't, you're allowed to divorce. The marriage covenant has still been broken, though, which means a new one can be formed. You are "no longer bound". Should you choose to forgive? Yes, you should. But sometimes, you don't have any control over it. Sometimes, you fight hard to keep the marriage together, and you can't do anything about it. The spouse departs. Or the spouse is an unrepentant adulterer. In these cases, the spouse is suffering from "hardness of heart". The covenant is broken.
This solution encompasses all those sticky situations that people always ask about. "Do I have to stay single forever if my spouse abandons me?" "Can I cheat on my spouse as a way of getting a new one?" The answer to these questions is: Where's your heart? Did you make every effort to honor your covenant? Do you respect the original intent of marriage? Or are you just trying to play legal beagle?
In that day, in that culture, remarriage was assumed after a divorce. What Jesus repudiated was the notion that you could just ditch your spouse for frivolous reasons - reasons that did NOT break the covenant - and expect not to commit adultery in the process.
I've spent nearly 6 years studying this - not because I was looking for a loophole, but because I didn't want to disappoint my Father and remarry wrongly. I tried to hold my marriage together, and repented of any wrongdoing that I had any control over. Until very recently, I was even praying and asking counsel from Godly mentors about the possibility of reconciliation - and I've been divorced for over 5 years. It made no difference; she was determined to leave because "divorce is how you fix a mistake".
I refuse to believe that under those circumstances, 1 Cor 7:15 doesn't apply. You have two other people who have posted here with very similar stories. These are people with broken hearts, who most likely made mistakes in their marriages (I've found very few marriage breakdowns that were 100% one person's fault), but who were working hard to hold it together. What's in the heart? Where's the grace for the person who is trying to follow the intent of the law - to honor the covenant? What matters more: Washing the outside of the cup or the inside?
What I find incredibly curious about this debate is that people turn into Pharisees on the matter of divorce far more quickly than on any other subject. They get wrapped around the axle in microseconds - and I'm really not sure why. Perhaps it's because, as Dr. Instone-Brewer suggests, the historical context of the Scripture has been lost and the resulting text is somewhat confusing - and seems so harsh. Or perhaps it's because we're very sensitive to issues that directly affect the family.
If it will make you feel any better, I wrestled with this myself for about 5 years, believing largely as you do, until I deepened my research efforts to understand the full context of these debates. If I may suggest it, perhaps picking up a copy of Instone-Brewer's book would allow you to see the full argument; I really can't do it justice on a blog post. The details are very scholarly and deal with a fair amount of historical and cultural context.
85. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:43 PM on Oct 1:
Comment 80, the question in comment 73 was specifically directed at me, so therefore I answered it the same way.
:)
And, while polygamy may be against the law, lying about your marital status is not and does not contsitute polygamy.
Thank you for your viewpoint though, sir.
86. Leah said the following at 8:52 PM on Oct 1:
Brian (60) - I understand the husband in my story (my uncle) was free to divorce (he didn't really have much choice - his ex-wife was determined), but what I want to know is if he was free to remarry.
87. Brian Krieger said the following at 3:01 PM on Oct 2:
Leah (86):
I would say that your uncle is (as Paul said) no longer bound (free to marry). I take no longer under bondage as the bondage of marriage. What is bound by the marriage is bound. Once the bounds are freed, you are granted that which is free outside the marriage as well. I know that I disagree with Piper (though it’s rare that I do, on this item, I believe him to be wrong), but that is how I (and, if I understand my church, as well).
88. Trevor Dolby said the following at 5:50 PM on Oct 2:
Mike (80): You state that 'Piper is the ONLY person I've ever seen who holds the "absolutely no remarriage ever, under any circumstances" view' but surely the Catholic church for the last 2000 years would have held the same views?
89. BDB said the following at 7:34 PM on Oct 2:
Trevor (#88) - The Catholic process for annulment of marriage is quite extensive. They do seem to take marriage a lot more seriously than many protestants.
90. Jeremy said the following at 3:31 PM on Oct 3:
Mike (#84):
If indeed you have wrestled with this and feel at peace about it, so be it, but I cannot help but point out what I see the teaching of Jesus to be. I know I may come across as harsh to you specifically, but that is partly because I see a lot of my own tendencies in your arguments, the desire to make a unnatural reading fit, the commitment to seeking out resources and opinions that line up with my own and changing arguments as necessary when something is shown to be wrong. I wonder about that because of our exchanges here:
You first claimed the word for divorce used in the gospel passages referred to the "any reason" Jewish divorces. However the Mark 10 passage showed that this could not be accurate, which you acknowledged.
You claimed that Jesus was only addressing a specific Jewish legal question and that his teaching about divorce was therefore not universal. Later you must have realized this was incorrect, because you said it was not about Jewish law at all, but rather divorces under Roman law (becasue again Mark 10 would not fit if it was about Jewish law).
You then claimed that only the initiator of the divorce is forbidden by Jesus to remarry. However, Matthew 5 says exactly the opposite. You responded by essentially conceding that point -- that if a wife is abandoned without proper cause, then she is forbidden to remarry (which seems to be exactly the opposite of what you said in comment 75).
After this you latched on to a minor point about 1 Corinthians 7, although this passage is specifically about two unbelievers that marry and following that one becomes a believer (which I don't think any of the specific stories on here have claimed). So regardless of our interpretation of this passage, it doesn't really matter in terms of remarriage after the divorce of two believers.
And since we all tend to read mostly things that line up with our position, I will add that Piper is by far in the majority in commentaries and books I have read on the subject, precisely because as you acknowledge, the straightforward reading of these multiple passages is clear, and it takes a lot of "context" and "culture" to try to argue for an almost completely opposite meaning.
Anyway, that is my take -- I think Scripture is exceedingly clear on this point, and my personal experience is that those who strive to fight against that clarity almost always have a personal stake in doing so. Yes, God gives grace and forgiveness, and no, one who has gotten remarried is not living in continued sin. But to say that there was no sin in the first place is, I think, to do a disservice to Scripture. I hope that our comments on here will inspire people to think and pray about the issue.
91. Louise from Chicago said the following at 8:03 PM on Oct 3:
I predict none of you will actually remarry.
Not enough time...you have to devote house to these long comments about scripture interpretation.
That's one way of settling the issue!
92. farmer Tom said the following at 8:45 PM on Oct 3:
Jeremy,
I used to believe exactly as you do about the divorce issue. I've been following the exchange you had with Mike. (He mentioned my name at one point.)
One of the things which I don't think Mike mentioned, and you seem to be studiously avoiding is sort of a major red flag to your "no remarriage" position.
When studying a subject, in this case divorce, it is alway prudent to start at the beginning. The first mention of divorce in Scripture is the place where all discussion must start. God is giving the Law through Moses. God established the rules for divorce in Deuteronomy 24.
1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Now it does not get any clearer than that. God in His Law allowed a women who had been divorced to remarry, period, end of discussion. Why is that significant?
Because in the verses right before Jesus addresses the issue of divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5, He says this,
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So Jesus made it clear that He was not changing the Law, nor was He there to destroy it, and that Law includes Deuteronomy 24, with it's explicit statements about divorce and remarriage.
So then the only logical and Biblically consistent solution to the contradiction between the Law of Moses in Deut 24 and what Jesus said in the NT must be that He was referring to something other than the divorce decree in Deuteronomy 24.
Otherwise, Jesus is a liar, because He had just claimed that He did not come to destroy the Law. The law says divorce and remarriage are allowed. Are you saying that Jesus said the Law was wrong/incorrect/unreliable???
I challenge you to take a concordance, a notebook, and your Bible, (ignore all the books and authors written on the subject), then do some more study on the subject yourself. Examine the Hebrew words for divorce (a noun) and putting away, (a verb) and notice that they often appear in the same sentence. Thus they can not be the same thing. After you have studied all the passages in the Law of God, to which Jesus referred, then, and only then, go to the New Testament, and find the Greek words for divorce (a noun) and putting away( a verb). You will find that the Pharisees were playing word games with Jesus, on the subject of divorce, and that our English translations are clearly wrong in how they translated Jesus' response to the Pharisees questions.
Jesus can not and did not change/destroy the Law. Therefore divorce and remarriage are still allowable under certain circumstances.
93. Marie said the following at 10:47 PM on Oct 3:
Farmer Tom,
Jesus specifically stated that God gave the commands of the Old Testament in this case because of the weakness of the Israelites, not because it was the ideal.
94. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:54 AM on Oct 4:
Typo alert, comment 91 should read "devote hours" rather than "devote house."
95. farmer Tom said the following at 12:38 PM on Oct 4:
93. Marie,
You failed to do what I suggested.
Read the question from the Pharisees in Matthew 19:7, then the answer from Jesus in verse 8,
get a concordance, look up the two different terms in the Greek in verse 7 then the Greek term in His answer in verse 8. What they asked and the answer they receive, are not exactly the same thing.
Frankly you don't know what you think you know. Jesus Christ did not change the Law.
I used to argue exactly as you just did, and I was wrong. God's Word does not contradict itself, rather our understand is not correct.
96. Jeremy said the following at 8:50 AM on Oct 6:
Farmer Tom (#92):
Correct, Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but you ignored the last part of his statement -- but to fulfill it, so that "we have been released from the Law" (Romans 7:6). Jesus was not saying the Law was incorrect, but rather insufficient (see Matthew 5:20); indeed that is the theme running throughout Matthew 5, the contrast between "you have heard it said" (the Law) and "but I say to you" (the further command of Jesus). The law has been fulfilled and is no longer binding on believers, and God himself begins directly contradicting the requirements of the Law in Acts 10.
You seem to be essentially raising the exact same question the Pharisees did in Matthew 19:7, "Why then did Moses command to giver her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" It seems only appropriate to respond with Jesus's answer, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (emphasis added)
Surely you see the parallel to Matthew 5 and many other teachings of Jesus -- the law says X, but that is insufficient, so I say to you Y. Responding "yeah but X is still in the Bible and is less demanding" undermines Jesus's entire point.
97. farmer Tom said the following at 6:48 PM on Oct 6:
7 They say 3004 unto him 846, Why 5101 did Moses 3475 then 3767 command 1781 to give 1325 a writing 975 of divorcement 647, and 2532 to put 630 0 her 846 away 630.
Mat 19:8 He saith 3004 unto them 846, 3754 Moses 3475 because of 4314 the hardness 4641 0 of your 5216 hearts 4641 suffered 2010 you 5213 to put away 630 your 5216 wives 1135: but 1161 from 575 the beginning 746 it was 1096 not 3756 so 3779.
Mat 19:9 And 1161 I say 3004 unto you 5213, 3754 Whosoever 3739 302 shall put away 630 his 846 wife 1135, except 1508 [it be] for 1909 fornication 4202, and 2532 shall marry 1060 another 243, committeth adultery 3429 : and 2532 whoso marrieth 1060 her which 3588 is put away 630 doth commit adultery 3429.
Please notice the difference between divorce and "put away".
from Strong's Greek 647
apostasion
neuter noun
1) divorce, repudiation
2) a bill of divorce
Greek 630
apolyō
verb
1) to set free
2) to let go, dismiss, (to detain no longer)
a) a petitioner to whom liberty to depart is given by a decisive answer
b) to bid depart, send away
3) to let go free, release
a) a captive i.e. to loose his bonds and bid him depart, to give him liberty to depart
b) to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty
c) indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart
d) to release a debtor, i.e. not to press one's claim against him, to remit his debt
4) used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce her husband.
5) to send one's self away, to depart
One of the common arguments used in this discussion is that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. Again, that is not what Jesus said, read it for your self. He said that Moses allowed them to "put away" their wives.
Now the typical response is that divorce and putting away are the same thing. But that argument is absurd on its face. Because that makes the Pharisees and the Lord, imbeciles.
What moron would say, as the Pharisees did in verse 7,
"Why 5101 did Moses 3475 then 3767 command 1781 to give 1325 a writing 975 of divorcement 647, and 2532 to put 630 0 her 846 away 630."
Are you suggesting that these fools were saying that Moses gave them a command to divorce and divorce.
Of course, since that is a quote of Deuteronomy 24, where it says,
"then let him write 3789 her a bill 5612 of divorcement 3748, and give 5414 [it] in her hand 3027, and send 7971 her out of his house 1004."
Strong's Hebrew 3748
kĕriythuwth
feminine noun
1) divorce, dismissal, divorcement
Strong's Hebrew 7971
shalach
verb
1) to send, send away, let go, stretch out
a) (Qal)
1) to send
2) to stretch out, extend, direct
3) to send away
4) to let loose
b) (Niphal) to be sent
c) (Piel)
1) to send off or away or out or forth, dismiss, give over, cast out
2) to let go, set free
3) to shoot forth (of branches)
4) to let down
5) to shoot
d) (Pual) to be sent off, be put away, be divorced, be impelled
e) (Hiphil) to send
Now maybe you're going to argue the Moses was the idiot here. And it's his fault that the divorce and divorce are used twice in the same sentence for different things, but if they are different things that they can't be the same thing can they???
See the legitimate desire for less divorce has caused men who preach the Word, to play fast and loose with the meaning of words which are related to the divorce issue. And that needs to be stopped.
Jesus did not say that someone who marries a person who is divorced commits adultery, rather He said that a person who marries someone who has been "put away" commits adultery.
98. Jeremy said the following at 1:07 PM on Oct 7:
Farmer Tom (#97):
You are arguing against yourself here. There is indeed a distinction between "apoluo" (putting away) and "apostasion" (divorce), but the former is a broader category. Divorce necessarily implies a putting away, but putting away does not necessarily imply divorce (although divorce is the only means Moses allowed for putting away). Therefore, when Jesus equates remarriage with adultery in the case of "apoluo" (putting away), this of necessity includes all divorces, and potentially some other situations as well.
So to summarize the interaction in Matthew 19, Jesus first reiterates the design and purpose of marriage, a one-flesh union for life. The Pharisees ask why, in light of that, Moses allowed for them to "put away" their wives by means of a divorce. Jesus responds that not only divorce, but the putting away itself was allowed because of the Israelites' hardness of heart, but this was not the design. And anyone who puts away his wife and marries another (except in the case of "porneia") commits adultery.
You are right about what Jesus said, but to argue that because he referred to a broader category (putting away) that he did not mean a subset of that category (divorce) is self-defeating. And in our society, there is not really any situation in which a wife and husband are separated but not divorced, in which a Christian could think a remarriage is legitimate. Thus for all practical purposes, the passage is about divorce, which is why virtually every scholar and commentator treats it as such.
99. farmer Tom said the following at 8:58 PM on Oct 7:
Jeremy,
you're parroting the standard line on the subject. Fine. I believe that divorce is the legal document which terminated a marriage, putting away is the physical act of putting the wife out of the house.
I think the two are related like oranges and orange juice. Yes they are related, but they are not the same thing.
Of course, you have a right to your opinion. I'm sure you are not going to change your mind. After all, I'm just some dumb farmer with a concordance and a desire for truth, why should you listen to me?
But before you write me off as a total hack, go back to the beginning of the discussion. What did the Law say? Did the Law come from Moses, or God Himself? If Deuteronomy 24 is Scripture which God inspired Moses to write, did Moses make a mistake? Did God tell Moses to write the wrong thing? Did God change His mind? Was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, suggesting that God the Father should not have had Moses write Deut 24? Was God the Father mistaken in allowing Moses to write Deut 24, so God the Son was correcting God the Father's mistake?
Ever thought about this? Forget for a moment that you have ever read any of the New Testament. Since we believe that the Old Testament is the inspired Word of God, at the time Christ was walking the face of the earth, what was the Biblical standard for divorce and remarriage? In what passage is that found? What was the Biblical standard the day the Pharisees questioned Jesus? Was Jesus still under the Law?
Let me be very clear, as I end this post. I do not wish divorce on anyone. I think it is always the result of sinful attitudes and behavior on the part of one or both of the parties involved. I believe that marriage is a picture of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His church, and should be held in the very highest esteem. I wish the divorce would never happen.
My only reason for participating in this current discussion is a desire for truth. And I am concerned that the Word of God is being mishandled in an attempt to preserve marriage. I'm all for preserving marriage, but lets be faithful to the Word of God as well. And if the conclusion we reach after studying Scripture is in fact different than what conventional teaching has always been, then I'll have to stick with what Scripture says, rather than accepting mans opinion.
Later Jeremy,
God Bless.
100. Jeremy said the following at 11:01 AM on Oct 8:
That is fine, but surely you would acknowledge that the former necessarily involves the latter? Divorce necessarily also includes the separation? If so, then Jesus's words about the results of the separation necessarily also apply to divorces. I am not arguing that they mean the same thing (although Jesus may well have been using apoluo to mean divorce in this passage, which is why it is translated as "divorce" in the NASB, NIV, ESV, NLT, CEV, NKJV, The Message, etc., etc.), but rather that the difference makes Jesus's words broader, not narrower.
As for your comments on the OT, I wonder a bit about your view of the Law. I suggest reading Romans -- Paul explains the believer's relationship to the Law quite well. The Law was intended to point out sin and thus our need for a savior, and to lead people to faith. Jesus fulfilled that need, and we now no longer live by the Law, but by the Spirit. God did not make a mistake in the Law, but its purpose has been fulfilled in Jesus, which is why Jesus abrogated certain commands of the law in the gospels, then God still more in Acts, and finally Paul explained our complete freedom from the Law in Romans. The specific commands or allowances of the Law are of use in seeing our unrighteousness before God, but are not binding on us today, and Jesus's words on the issue of divorce certainly take precedence over Moses's.
Anyway, you have been much more pleasant and rational in this discussion than in many of your comments, which I greatly appreciate. I too am really only interested in this insofar as I see abuses of Scripture for the sake of accomodation of culture; divorce itself has never affected me directly.