The topic is divorce. The question is about what the Bible says regarding divorce. I'm sure there is a diversity of views on the topic among Christians, but most conservative, Bible-believing Christians would assure you of this: "We are not allowed to divorce and remarry except in the case of adultery or desertion." You're all pretty much on board for that, right? I mean, isn't the Bible abundantly clear on this? Well ... I would contend that this is one of those cases, like when we read the qualifications for elders, that we might be interpreting with our feelings and experience rather than with the texts at hand.
Both Matthew and Mark give accounts of Jesus commenting on the topic of divorce. Mark gives this account:
2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." 5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:2-12).The text is rather black and white. Divorce and remarriage is adultery. There ... that should settle it, right?
"Oh, wait," you protest, "what about the 'exception clause'?" You see, we all know the exception clause. And we shouldn't avoid it in the least. But before we go there, please keep in mind, whatever it says and means, it must be consistent with Mark.
Both of Matthew's accounts have the exception clause built in:
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt 5:31-32).First, let's note what Jesus's answer is to the question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce His wife?" The answer is the same in both Mark and Matthew. No. The Pharisees found an exception in "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce", but Jesus chalks that up to hardness of heart. Both accounts explain the facts this way: "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Why do you suppose that this answer from the lips of our Lord is insufficient for them and for us?
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" 4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:3-9)
Then there's the exception clause. The phrase is "except for sexual immorality". You're nodding knowingly, now. "See? Adultery is the exception to the no-divorce rule." Fine ... except that's not what it says. It says "sexual immorality". There is a word in the Greek for adultery. In Matt 15:19, in fact, they appear in the same sentence. So ... why didn't Matthew use that term? Could it be that he didn't intend it? "Well, no," you assure me, "he intended adultery along with any other sexual immorality." Okay ... but now we have another problem. Why didn't Mark include an exception clause? I mean, this is an important issue. Why did he miss it? And beyond that, why would Jesus include adultery (and a variety of other sexual immoralities) when the existing Law required death for such things? These things seem ... problematic.
I think a clue is found in the other mention in Matthew about divorce.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly (Matt 1:18-19).Oh, now, wait ... what's all this, then? Mary and Joseph weren't even married. How could he divorce her? Well, in biblical times, betrothal meant something. The only means by which you could terminate a betrothal was by divorce. In this account, Joseph's betrothed "was found to be with child". What was he to conclude? Well ... sexual immorality, of course. So Joseph, "a just man", set out to divorce her. Had he done so "on the grounds of sexual immorality" (which was not adultery), he would not have been married and, therefore, would not have been causing or committing adultery. In other words, it is perfectly consistent with what Jesus was saying.
I would suggest that we have taken a far too liberal approach to divorce and remarriage in the Church. Jesus wasn't unclear on His answer. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." That's not vague. But we push it. "Really? Never??!!" If we are to keep Matthew and Mark compatible with each other, we can either say that Mark missed something vital or that the exception clause from Matthew was not what we thought it was. If the exception clause is actually in regard to betrothal rather than our version of "marriage and divorce", Jesus's answer of "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate" makes perfect sense. And, in view of God's notion of marriage as an image of Christ's relationship to the Church, it makes perfect sense.
In other words, as far as I can tell, being true to the text without trying to reinterpret it through feelings and experience rather than Scripture itself, it appears to me that the biblical view of divorce and remarriage is "Don't do it ... ever." There. I said it. Let fly the tomatoes of war.
Footnote: I need to make it abundantly clear that I do not see divorce and remarriage as some "unpardonable sin". Don't even go there. Don't even think it.
35 comments:
re: your foot note - on divorce, you're not willing to suggest that we ought to castigate those who have divorced and remarried, even though you think it is a sin, is that right?
Do you hold a similar position on gay marriage? That is, would you also not castigate any gay folk who attended your church and claimed to be married (ie, lived together in a loving, devoted relationship)?
Just curious. Some people seem to treat gay marriage as a special sort of sin, more deserving of preaching against than any other (what they consider to be) sin and less willing to accept gay and lesbian Christians and married couples as equal church members and fellow believers.
Even if someone thought that gay marriage was sinful, I never really have understood that position - ie, why would you reject a married gay couple from your church or condemn their "sin" but not a divorcee, for example?
We are not supposed to cut off (okay, just a really far stretch of a play on the word "castigate") people who sin. It doesn't matter if it's divorce and remarriage, adultery, premarital sex, or homosexual behavior. The object is 1) to bring them to Christ if they're not there and 2) restore them if they are.
I do consider homosexual behavior a sin (no surprise there). (By the way, if two men want to live together and love each other, I'm good with that. It's the "men laying with men as with women" that causes problems.) I do consider adultery, bestiality, incest, oh, you know, a list of other things that you've already agreed to as sins. I don't see homosexual sins as worse than, say, adultery. All sinners need repentance not shunning, restoration not hate. (And I would be the first to agree that many in the Church are poor at that.)
Now, Matt 18 and other passages say that a Christian who does not repent after a series of planned "opportunities" to do so is to be "put out", but that's not what I think you were asking. But if a divorced and remarried person shakes their fist in the face of God and defies Him ("You have no right to tell me what to do") or a homosexual does the same, both (biblically) are likely to end up "outside". But that isn't a problem of an unforgivable sin. That's a problem of refusal (of a self-professed Christian) to repent -- for any sin.
Okay, so here's what I'm saying...
There is one married couple in your church. The wife was a divorcee. She left her first husband because he was abusive and she disagrees with your church's teaching. She does not think it was sinful for her to divorce her abusive husband and to be honest, she's a bit angry at anyone who would suggest otherwise.
So, it's not a matter of her being repentant, she gladly left her abusive husband because she believes that was the right thing to do, and she believes she was right to remarry, as well. She doesn't "flaunt" her remarriage, it's just a reality and she is not repentant at all for any part of her story.
A second couple in the church is a gay married couple (in their opinion, anyway). They, too, aren't repentant of their position because they disagree with your church's teaching. They don't believe it is sinful to be married and being in love and committed to one another, they married.
They don't flaunt it, it's just a reality and, like the first couple, they aren't repentant because they just don't believe there is anything to be repentant about.
Are both couples still welcome or are they "confronted" with their "sin" and, failing any repentance, eventually asked to leave?
In short, is it okay to disagree about whether one action (not mentioned in the Bible) or another is a sin or not? Or must everyone agree with the "official church" position on each "sin" in order to be allowed to continue at your church?
"... your church" ... I like that. As if it's mine; I own it, I run it, I decide what is or isn't acceptable. I know, I know ... that's not what you meant ... but in the final analysis, that's kind of how it comes down, isn't it? Let me explain ...
Dan Trabue: "Is it okay to disagree about whether one action (not mentioned in the Bible) or another is a sin or not?"
Not mentioned in the Bible? That's not what we're talking about, is it? I'm saying, "This is what the Bible says." You're saying, "That's not what it says." But no one is saying, "It's not mentioned." So someone who flaunted their TV watching, for instance, or, say, their smoking because it's "not mentioned in the Bible" wouldn't be in the same category as someone who felt justified in murdering someone because one is "not mentioned in the Bible" while murder is clearly in there. (I chose "murder" not as a comparison to the issues we're discussing, but as a sin upon which we both agree.)
Dan Trabue: "Or must everyone agree with the 'official church' position on each 'sin' in order to be allowed to continue at your church?"
So if, by "your church", you mean the Church and, by "official church position", you mean "what the Bible says", then, yes, we're supposed to agree with the Bible as to what it says is sin. Of course, we don't, so I can see a question. On the other hand, if, by "your church", you mean "the church you happen to be part of", then I don't understand the question at all. If "this particular church" holds that divorce and remarriage is a sin (and gives biblical reasons for it as I have) and someone comes in who disagrees and holds (without biblical support as in the example you gave) that it's not a sin, why go there? Why attend that church? If "this particular church" holds that marriage is between a man and a woman (and gives biblical reasons for it as I have) and someone comes in who disagrees and holds (without biblical support as in the example you gave) that "marriage" is to be redefined, "same-sex" can be "married" under this new definition, and the church is wrong and they're right, why go there? Why attend that church?
Or, in reverse, would you argue that all churches everywhere need to go to the "least common denominator", so to speak? (I know ... that sounds bad, but I'm hoping you understand the question.) Is it your view that all churches, in order to be "godly" churches, need to set aside all beliefs about "what is sin" and embrace whatever beliefs people might have regarding sin? (I know, for instance, a growing number of folks who argue that sex in all forms -- married, unmarried, adulterous, bestial, whatever -- is "good" and "a gift from God" and that anyone who argues otherwise has failed to understand the Bible. We should embrace them, too, right?) In other words, you get to decide what is or isn't sin ... not the Bible, not the church, not anyone's understanding of Scripture ... whoever is reading it. In which case, it ends up pure relativism, doesn't it? You decide what your church (and mine) will or will not allow.
Continuing from the previous comment ...
Two things on this. First, I don't want to go to a church that embraces the "least common denominator" -- that simply says, "Whatever you believe is okay with us ... we just want you to go here." I don't see that as helpful ... to me. If I'm in error, I want to know it. If I'm sinning, I want to know it. I don't want them patting me on the back and telling me, "It's all good" when it's not.
Second, here's something that seems to be missed entirely, but feeds into that first point. I believe that the Bible quite clearly labels divorce and remarriage as sin. I believe that the Bible quite clearly labels homosexual sex as sin. I've given the biblical reasons why. Now, what hasn't been stated is that I don't see sin as "You dirty rotten heathen ... get thee hence!" I see it as a detriment, a disease, something that has a treatment on one hand and, on the other, without the treatment is bad for the sinner. I don't see myself as sin-free or "better than you" because I'm not engaging in "that" particular sin (whatever "that" sin is that we're discussing). So when I call sin "sin", my goal is to bring about repentance, a call on Christ for forgiveness, restoration. Even if it gets to the point of removal from fellowship, the point is ... well, let Paul say it ... "so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor 5:5). (In case you're not familiar with that quote, Paul says it when he delivers an unrepentant sinner to Satan "for the destruction of his flesh".) When I call sin "sin", it is not my goal to make people more "moral", "better people". It is my goal to restore them to Christ. It is likely that they are unaware of their disconnect with Christ (you know ... deceitful heart and all), and I hope for their best, not for some condemnation. I understand that lots of people who call whatever sin they're talking about "sin" are doing so out of a "holier-than-thou", moralizing, judgmental perspective. I would urge them to repent. To me, calling sin what the Bible calls sin is for the benefit of the sinner, not some "righteous indignation" on my part.
Stan - I'm out in right field with ya.
Kind of sparse out here, isn't it?
Stan said:
That's not what we're talking about, is it? I'm saying, "This is what the Bible says." You're saying, "That's not what it says." But no one is saying, "It's not mentioned."
I am saying quite clearly and with not a single exception that gay marriage is NOT mentioned even one time in the Bible. Period. It simply isn't. I'm sure you can agree, it is never mentioned there.
That fact is in dispute by no serious Bible scholar that I know of.
Right?
Stan said:
So if, by "your church", you mean the Church and, by "official church position", you mean "what the Bible says", then, yes, we're supposed to agree with the Bible as to what it says is sin.
By "your church," I'm specifically referring to your local congregation. By "official church position," I'm referring to your specific local congregation.
What the Bible DOESN'T say, as I have already noted, is that gay marriage is a sin. That is your impression of what God intends based on a handful of verses in the Bible. So, the question I'm asking is NOT "Are we supposed to agree with the Bible," although that's a good question to ask.
I'm asking if you had a member who disagreed with your local church's position on a particular action - where you considered the action to be a sin and they did not - how do you handle such a situation?
Let's suppose you took a logical first few steps and had a series of prayerfully considered Bible studies and at the end of it, neither side agreed. You still thought action A (whatever that may be) is a sin and they did not think so and so, continued doing action A, thinking it a good and blessed action to take.
THAT is my question. What then? How does your specific local church or (if you're a member of a faith tradition that handles such problems as a monolithic group), how does your denomination handle such disagreements?
Stan said...
First, I don't want to go to a church that embraces the "least common denominator" -- that simply says, "Whatever you believe is okay with us ... we just want you to go here."
Nor do I. Not in the least. We certainly have strong beliefs about what falls within Christian actions and what does not. We are, for instance, a peace church in the tradition of the Amish and Mennonites. We have taken a clear cut stand against war, considering it to be sinful, and calling upon our members to not take part in such activity.
Quite clearly, we believe in taking a stand.
However, we are also a church that believes in God's grace - not just for ourselves, from God, but for one another. So, on quite serious matters - especially matters of life and death, oppression, human rights, assault, rape, etc we do tend to take solidly strong stands, since so much is at risk there.
But on whether or not smoking, or drinking, or drugging, or driving or cursing or clubbing, etc, etc, whether these less drastic, dangerous activities that go unmentioned in the Bible, we side towards grace. We may disagree with a brother or sister who smokes marijuana, but we don't disassociate over it.
There are a thousand little laws (not unlike in the days of the Pharisees) that we might try to enforce upon our members. But the primary laws, Jesus says, is love God and love people. This is what we actively promote. And, if someone thinks that driving a Hummer is acceptable, while I may disagree, I am gracious and loving towards them. It is only as the sin becomes more dangerous and oppressive that we take stronger stands.
The reason for this, seems to me, is exactly because we don't want to be the Pharisees of the world, adding law upon law, burden upon burden on people's shoulders.
As you mention in another entry, we are a people of Joy and Grace, not rules and regulations.
As you say...
I see it as a detriment, a disease, something that has a treatment on one hand and, on the other, without the treatment is bad for the sinner.
Sin is that which is bad for us. So, we don't beat up or embarrass or mock the brother who disagrees with us upon an action we think is less than healthy, we express our opinions and love and the sure knowledge that we are less than perfect recipients of God's good and joyous Grace. Hallelujah!
Dan Trabue: "I am saying quite clearly and with not a single exception that gay marriage is NOT mentioned even one time in the Bible."
What a baffling position to take. I'm still trying to figure it out. First, with not a single exception will you find a mention of child abuse in the Bible. Whew! What a relief! I thought it was a sin! Well, of course it is. So "not mentioned" is not the criteria. On the other hand, marriage is mentioned continually in Scripture. It always references "man and woman", "husband and wife", opposite sex couples whose primary goal is to fulfill the first command -- be fruitful and multiply. The Bible never mentions "gay marriage" because marriage is defined to exclude "same sex". I mean, it never mentions marrying one's cat either, but we're both sure that doesn't make any sense because that's not marriage. "Not mention" is a nonsense argument both because it is a non-argument and because it defies the very clear, multiple references to "husband and wife" that the Bible uses for "marriage". Here, make it simpler. When the Bible says "wives, submit to your husband", which member of the gay couple should submit to which? When it says "husbands are to be head of their wives", which member of the gay couple is head? I know, I know ... neither, but it is abundantly clear that the Bible thinks marriage is man and woman.
And it's not an opinion "based on a handful of verses." It's what the Bible has to say about marriage.
Dan Trabue: "On quite serious matters - especially matters of life and death, oppression, human rights, assault, rape, etc we do tend to take solidly strong stands, since so much is at risk there."
So, since "oppression, human rights, assault, rape" are a "solidly strong stand", what do you do in your church with someone who stands there and says, "I'm in favor of doing those things and I'm not going to stop"? Are they accepted warmly or, after some effort, shunned? If so, why?
Dan Trabue: "I'm asking if you had a member who disagreed with your local church's position on a particular action - where you considered the action to be a sin and they did not - how do you handle such a situation?"
I'm assuming we're talking matters that are in the Bible. I'm still against such things as smoking or driving Hummers as matters of divide. We're talking about matters of Scripture here. The church leadership reads the Scriptures, comes to a conclusion about what it says (or doesn't say), and determines what is or isn't sin. Based on what the Bible says is sin, they would then call on those who are in sin to repent. If they don't (that is extremely simplified), then they are put out. I don't know why that would be a problem. I have attended churches that determined "this is a sin" when I didn't see it as such. They put me out ... and I was fine with that. Why would I want to go to a church that was so confused? So what's the deal here?
One last time (because you repeated it so many times), I do not hold that "gay marriage is a sin". I've never suggested it. I've never claimed it. I know some do; I haven't. I have always held the position that it is a non sequitur, an oxymoron. It's not "a sin" -- it simply doesn't exist. What occurs in the instances that you describe does not coincide with what the Bible defines as "marriage".
Wow...quite the conversation you got started, Stan.
I agree with your interpretation of the Bible on this, and yes, it's definitely sparce out here! I grew up in a small country church that was VERY conservative in its reading of Scripture on such matters, so it's been very surprising to me to learn that so many Christians are okay with divorce and remarriage.
I haven't always known what to do with the exception clause, so thanks for pointing out Matthew 1:18-19. I never thought about how that passage fits in with the divorce question. What I never have understood, though, is...even if for some reason people think they can justify divorce, all passages still make it pretty clear that remarriage is adultery, so...hmmm.
To join in with the gay marriage discussion, it seems like a mute point to me. The terms gay and lesbian have to do with sex. If two men (or two women) just enjoyed each other's company, it would be a homosocial relationship, not a homosexual one. I doubt very seriously that any gay or lesbian couple wants to get married...but not have sex. And I can't conceive of anybody reading/studying the Bible and still thinking that gay sex is okay. In any case, your explanation of this sounds apt to me, Stan. Sex is only permitted within the "marriage bed" and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
Ruth: "all passages still make it pretty clear that remarriage is adultery"
True. Hard to miss. The question I didn't answer but only hinted at was "So ... what do I do if I'm remarried after a divorce and I come to the conclusion that remarriage is adultery?" Perhaps there's another post in that, eh?
One problem with your exegesis on this point can be seen in this statement...
What occurs in the instances that you describe does not coincide with what the Bible defines as "marriage".
You are suggesting that when the Bible DESCRIBES marriage, that it is DEFINING marriage (ie, when the Bible mentions "man and woman get married," God is stating that "man and woman getting married is the one and only way of viewing marriage.") God has not said that.
You have interpreted the Bible to mean that, and you're welcome to do so. The problem is not your (incorrect, by my estimation) hunch that the Bible does not allow for gay marriage, it is your presumption to speak for God, that when God said, "a man shall leave his parents and marry a woman..." that God MEANT TO SAY, "and that's the one and only way it can possibly be, not two men, not two women..."
You're welcome to your hunch about what God thinks about topics not covered in the Bible, but it is inadvisable for any of us to presume to speak for God. And the fact is, gay marriage is not a topic covered in the Bible.
Let me give an analogy from my side of things... as a good anabaptist, I am opposed to war, I think war is a sin and Christians ought not engage in the killing of our enemies.
However, as much as I think this is obvious from biblical teaching as well as logical thinking, I do not presume to say, "God condemns all war!" God does not say that directly in the Bible and God has never spoken directly to any of us on the topic. It is merely my hunch about what is right based on reasoning and the teachings of Jesus and the rest of the Bible.
The thing is, I acknowledge that God has never said, "all war is wrong," it is my hunch, my reasoning based on MUCH that is written in the Bible on the topic.
Similarly, you have a little written in the Bible that seems to suggest to you (and many others) that marriage can only be defined as between a man and a woman, but it is only your hunch, your interpretation, God has not spoken that.
I don't mind you having a hunch about the topic, I'd just hope for some humility (on all our parts) not to presume to speak for God or to say "And that's the way it is. Period!" on anything that God has not specifically stated.
So ... in your view the vast number of mentions of "marriage" in the Bible do not provide a definition, and the total absence of any mention of anything approaching gay "marriage" means absolutely nothing. The historic definition for all societies and cultures and all religions is meaningless. And, if you were to be quite candid, you'd have to say that, without meaning to be unkind, God was somewhat negligent for not mentioning it somewhere because, after all, He did intend it to be "normal".
I do have to wonder who is speaking for God here.
Well, it's not me. I'm merely telling you what makes sense to me and trying to be as clear as possible that I'm NOT speaking for God.
I'm telling you that the Bible does not, in fact, mention gay marriage at all.
I'm telling you that the Bible does not say "one man, one woman" is the one and only way marriage must be. IN FACT, the Bible has God giving David his many wives (plural, as in polygamy), so there is a strong indication that the "Bible's" opinion is not exclusively one man, one woman.
I'm not speaking for God. I'm just pointing out what the Bible does and doesn't say without benefit of editorializing. Beyond that, I'm telling you my opinion.
Which is, of course, what you're doing. The difference is, perhaps, that I'm not saying I'm speaking for God. Are you suggesting that you ARE speaking for God when you say the one and only way for marriage to be right - according to God - is one man and one woman, or are you, like me, just saying that's your opinion?
Stan said...
Based on what the Bible says is sin, they would then call on those who are in sin to repent. If they don't (that is extremely simplified), then they are put out...
I don't know why that would be a problem. I have attended churches that determined "this is a sin" when I didn't see it as such. They put me out ... and I was fine with that. Why would I want to go to a church that was so confused?
1. I don't see being humble on "sins" not mentioned in the Bible as being confused. Just showing a little Godly humility in the face of our flawed humanity.
2. I don't have a problem, per se, with churches practicing "the shun." At some point, if someone is actively advocating a nutty and offensive enough position ("it's good to slaughter children," for instance), we may well choose to disassociate with them.
3. The problem, as I see it, are twofold:
A. doing so over every little "sin" or potential sin ("He smokes and we disapprove and he is not repentant, therefore, he must be banned!")
B. Selective choosing of certain "sins" as being shun-worthy, but not others - why do churches spend so much time preaching against gay marriage and the mythical homosexual agenda (when gay marriage is not a topic covered in the Bible) but not, as you note, over divorcees remarrying (which IS covered in the Bible)?
4. Ultimately, I think it behooves us to be a bit more humble on "sins" that aren't covered in the Bible.
Stan said:
in your view the vast number of mentions of "marriage" in the Bible do not provide a definition, and the total absence of any mention of anything approaching gay "marriage" means absolutely nothing.
1. It is not "my view" that the Bible does not provide a definition of marriage. It's just not in there. God does not appear in the pages of the Bible and say, "THIS is what marriage is..."
2. In the Bible, we have polygamy and monogamy that are both presented as legitimate models of marriage - neither one of which is condemned in and of itself. And yet, you and I probably can both agree that monogamy is a preferred vision of marriage. Polygamy (and even polygamy PLUS concubines) was socially and morally acceptable back then, it is not today. The Bible simply does not detail the One Perfect Definition of Marriage Approved by God (TM).
3. I'm glad that we can agree that gay marriage has a "total absence" in the Bible. On that point, you are wholly correct.
4. I'm sure you can agree that the absence of a topic in the Bible does not automatically infer it is wrong or right. Cars are also never mentioned in the Bible, does that suggest that cars are wrong? No. (Perhaps for other reasons, but the fact that they're not mentioned in the Bible is no proof of their wrong-ness). That line of reasoning does not stand.
5. I'm not suggesting it means nothing, just that one can't logically get from A to B with the information you have presented.
Dan Trabue: "I'm telling you that the Bible does not, in fact, mention gay marriage at all."
There are lots of things that are not mentioned in the Bible. One has to ask oneself, "Why? Why are the things that are not mentioned ... not mentioned?" And you'll agree that there are a variety of reasons. The Bible doesn't talk about the morality of airplane travel or how we ought to conduct ourselves when we're driving. Why? Well ... those things didn't exist. That's fine. We can derive information about modern things from what was written without problem. For instance, "love your neighbor like yourself" ought to inform us as to how we ought to conduct ourselves on the road. Easy enough ... nothing particularly controversial there.
Another reason that things may not be mentioned is that they are non-issues. Nothing is said in the Bible about how to build a roof on a house (as a silly example) because it just didn't matter. The proper method of road building or city design or even civil governments isn't covered ... because these are not issues that needed addressing. Deal with them as they come.
Another reason a particular item may not be mentioned is because it was already covered. This was my approach on the "divorce for adultery" question. Why didn't Jesus say "... except for adultery ..."? Because it was already covered. God had already ordained that adultery included a death penalty. No one got divorced for adultery. They either forgave ... or they were widowed. "Why not mention adultery?" is answered by "because it's a non-question, answered elsewhere."
So ... you suggest that the Bible never mentions "gay marriage" even though it was normal and acceptable because it was normal and acceptable. Now, we know (both you and I) that marriage between genders was normal and acceptable because every single mention of marriage in the Bible includes opposite-gender couples -- without exception. Using your favorite tool -- reason -- we can reason through these facts to figure this out. Perhaps it was that gay marriage was always intended but just never existed until 2008 (or so), so, like cars and planes, it's just never mentioned. That would seem really odd, since I'm quite sure that there were homosexuals in the Old Testament. Okay ... so maybe it's never mentioned because it was a non-issue. It was just ... normal ... like a thatching roof or having a king, so it's not mentioned. That would be reasonable, except that marriage is mentioned repeatedly in Scripture. Apparently there are lots of issues regarding marriage that needed to be addressed. And yet ... not one mention of "gay marriage". So, perhaps "gay marriage" wasn't addressed simply because it was already addressed. Now, if the multiple prohibitions against homosexual behavior that appear in the Bible were actual prohibitions against homosexual behavior, then why in the world would anyone talk about "gay marriage"? It would be like "You are not allowed to have any fruit juice of any kind!" "Well, okay ... but can we have orange juice?" If God already commanded that homosexual sex is a sin, then there would be absolutely no reason for Him to address the question of whether or not they could be married.
Now, maybe you have another idea. That's fine. But from the perspective of reason and the biblical texts, it would appear that the question has already been resolved, not from some mere "hunch", but from Scripture and evident reason.
Stan: "Why would I want to go to a church that was so confused?"
Dan Trabue: "I don't see being humble on 'sins' not mentioned in the Bible as being confused."
I believe you misunderstood me. If a church declares a "sin" what is not (or is not clear), and then ejects me for not agreeing with them, why would I want to go to that church? They are confused. That's what I meant.
Dan Trabue: "In the Bible, we have polygamy and monogamy that are both presented as legitimate models of marriage - neither one of which is condemned in and of itself."
I'm confused. On what basis would you say that "monogamy is a preferred vision of marriage" if you already think that both polygamy and monogamy are "legitimate models"? "Gay marriage", you argue, isn't even mentioned, so you accept that one, but polygamy, which you say is "legitimate", you would reject. "Bestiality is sin," you argue, even though I'm not sure why based on your method of determination. Still, the Bible never says you can't marry your cat, and I'm pretty sure you'd agree that we aren't supposed to do that. On what basis do you prefer monogamy over polygamy or human-to-human sexual relations over human-to-animal?
(By the way, I would argue -- have argued -- that polygamy is not a "legitimate model" of marriage in Scripture. It occurred and it was condoned, but it was never right. On the other hand, every single biblical reference to marriage is about male and female, father and mother, husband and wife. So I would disagree with your statement above as well as some sort of "gay marriage is fine" argument.)
Ah, I see.
Here you noted...
And you'll agree that there are a variety of reasons. The Bible doesn't talk about the morality of airplane travel or how we ought to conduct ourselves when we're driving. Why? Well ... those things didn't exist. That's fine.
Hey, we agree on our reasoning, at the very least! Yes, car travel, airplane travel, the notion of equal rights for women and slaves, and the notion of gay marriage did not exist in those times. And so none of those are covered in the Bible. We are starting from the same point, logically speaking.
And, while it is clear to us today that women ought to have equal rights (those rights are God-given, after all) and that slavery is wrong so the "problem" that such behavior is not condemned in the Bible (ie, sexism or slavery) is not problematic, because we recognize that those sorts of notions did not exist back then. Not in any meaningful way.
Now, we DO know better. Sexism is wrong. Slavery is wrong. Cultures and times change. I'm not willing to condemn biblical people for their polygamy, sexism or slave-holding. It was a different society. But times change.
Likewise for gay marriage. We have no logical nor moral reason to stand opposed to gay marriage and so, we can celebrate it, if we so conclude. Its absence from the Bible is not conclusive evidence of its immorality (or morality). We have to use a bit of our GOD-Given reasoning and that is a good and blessed thing, seems to me.
Stan asked...
I'm confused. On what basis would you say that "monogamy is a preferred vision of marriage" if you already think that both polygamy and monogamy are "legitimate models"? "Gay marriage", you argue, isn't even mentioned, so you accept that one, but polygamy, which you say is "legitimate", you would reject.
As I have said: Our reasoning. We can reason out that polygamy has been harmful and is not preferred to monogamy. Although some cultures may disagree, it is commonly accepted in our culture that monogamy is preferred.
Some of the problems with polygamy would include that it has traditionally been a vehicle for sexism (ie, it is usually men marrying many women for their pleasure and propogation, I suppose, not the other way around) and oppression (women had fewer rights and opportunities); polygamy does not allow for the time needed to develop a wholesome, loving relationship - I find it hard to maintain time for my wife and family with only one wife, how in the world could I possibly find time for multiple wives??... for example. We can reason our way away from polygamy as a good model.
What we CAN'T do is say that it is condemned biblically, since it isn't. I'm not saying that polygamy is a legitimate model, the BIBLE does.
Dan Trabue: "Now, we DO know better. Sexism is wrong. Slavery is wrong."
So ... as you understand it slavery (the biblical kind -- which is not the same as, say, the American kind was) and sexism and the death penalty were all sin ... but God failed to address it as such. Instead, He regulated it and waited for us to figure out what was right. Perhaps those people back then were just too stupid or ... I don't know ... what? Certainly God failed to address problems back then that should have been addressed. Instead of outlawing slavery (as He should have) or outlawing sexism (as He ought), He put limits and regulations on it. Of course, that whole "death penalty" thing is problematic. He knew it was wrong, evil, not to be done ... but He commanded it anyway. Well, we're all entitled to mistakes from time to time, right?
Now, I know you would never say God made a mistake. I just don't know what other conclusion you can come to since He didn't address fundamentally important issues in some cases, regulated other issues that should have been prohibited in other cases, and commanded things that you would call "sin" in other cases.
Your not willing to say polygamy was wrong ... but it is for us today. Fine. Your call. I did suggest that polygamy was wrong ... in the Bible. But that's just me. I'm stuck with the notion of a consistent, reliable, infallible Bible. ;)
Look, Dan, I think it is abundantly clear that we are not getting anywhere here. I see plain Scripture as plain Scripture. I see Scripture as consistent with Scripture. I evaluate what should or shouldn't be moral today from what the Bible says. And, despite all your arguments to the contrary, I don't have a problem with any of that.
More problematic for us, you define "sin" different than I do, "marriage" different than I do, even "the Bible" different than I do. We are using the same terms but meaning different things. I'm not saying "You're wrong and I'm right." I'm saying that we are two people separated by a common language. I say "marriage" and know what I mean and you say "marriage" and know what you mean, but we both get tripped up because we don't mean the same thing. So when we disagree we're both baffled.
Perhaps we ought to let these dogs go back to sleep (humor intended to say "let sleeping dogs lie" even though we've kicked these awake). We're not getting anywhere. You're no closer to understanding me, and I'm no closer to understanding you on this topic. So let's stop beating this poor horse (why do so many cliches have animal abuse in them?). Okay?
If only the two of you could just kill this bird with one stone....
Wouldn't that be nice? I think we've let it go, but if you have that secret "one stone", I'd be interested ... :)
I don't. Just using another animal abuse cliche'! :o)
Speaking of throwing things though, the anticipated "tomatoes of war"........ where were they?
I do hope that someday you will address the issue of remarriage and adultery, like you mentioned to Ruth. Maybe THAT is where you may have some ducking to do?
By the way, concerning marriage and divorce, my husband and I just celebrated our 30th anniversary a couple days ago. I'm actually somewhat surprised myself that we have hung in there this long because it has not always been very easy. (A rather silly statement, because it's hard to imagine many who have been married this long saying the opposite, which would be, "It has always been very easy!") We have had some truly wonderful and blessed times over the years but I'm quite sure others living with some of our circumstances would have divorced long ago but, here we are, 3 decades after our walk down the aisle, very glad and so thankful (ALL thanks be to God) that we have kept our vows, have endured and shared all our lives-thus-far "events" together, and stayed married, for the sake of our 3 good kids just to mention 1 of many reasons. We decided early on that divorce wouldn't even be an option when life's trials arose. And I think that has made quite a difference. We've had no "way out" except to work things out... together.
Now I'm compelled to lament a minute (but nothing like last time!) in regard to children. Today's kids have grown up around divorces. My own kids have gone from being shocked and teary-eyed over the first divorce of our dear family friends to (seemingly) becoming quite hardened to all subsequent friends' and acquaintances' divorces to which they've been exposed. How tragic that is. It's become so commonplace that the lives of nearly all of their friends are complicated by which weekends and holidays they will be at their dad's house, which they'll be at their mom's, adapting to their parent's series of boyfriends and girlfriends, multiple sets of grandparents, stepparents, stepbrothers and sisters, phone numbers even beyond the usual number, etc., etc.
The thought of staying with the same person "until death do us part" must seem more daunting than ever before to today's young people. I get concerned about kids losing hope and stifling their dreams out of fear in these times. Many of our kids are in college working very, very hard toward degrees in hopes of landing jobs they know may not even be there when someday they are finally done. And now... I'm done with that bit of negativity! We need to show them they can still have hope in God's provision.
Thank you, Stan, for taking on some of these more difficult topics. I find your daily posts and responses to always be in line with God's word. Your postings are always insightful, interesting, and, gosh, you're quite a patient guy, too. Won't it be fun when someday we can all meet? All those who follow your blog. The dialogue between you and Dan Trabue has been very interesting to follow these last few months. Thanks guys!
Oh, man! I'm usually much quicker on the uptake on those types of humor. Missed that one, didn't I?
Congratulations on 30 years of marriage. My mom (Mom and Dad have been married for ... let's see ... 56 years?) told us kids, "Don't worry ... after 20 years or so it starts to get better." Of course, my parents are the happiest couple I know, so ...
I am a bit surprised that no one lobbed any tomatoes on this. But I figured it was a Saturday and not as many read it. Or maybe the title threw them off enough not to read it. You know ... if I titled it "What's wrong with divorce?" or something ... who knows?
Does Anyone Read the Bible these Days?
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery."
---Jesus Christ
In light of Jesus proclaiming that after a divorce, adultery will take place if someone remarries, does that sound like they're free from the marriage? It sure sounds to me that in God's eyes a divorce does NOT dissolve the covenant of marriage.
How can a minister perform the wedding of a divorced person when Jesus said that very night they commit adultery?
Most people have no idea what the Bible truly says about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. Many people try to outwit the Lord on this one and declare their remarriage legal in the sight of God when Jesus calls it adultery.
Think about it...
At 6:30 p.m. the minister pronounces them husband and wife. After the minister claims that God has joined them together they go on a beautiful honeymoon and according to Jesus they commit adultery? Huh? Yes, that is what Jesus said, after a divorce and remarriage the parties are committing adultery against their spouse whom they thought they ditched at the courthouse. If you are committing adultery on your honeymoon...how can you be married?
No truly married people commit adultery in their own marriage bed, people in the wrong marriage bed commit adultery. Remarriage puts people in the wrong marriage bed and that is why they are charged with adultery. Why did the minister pronounce them husband and wife if that very night they will be committing adultery I ask you?
They can not be husband and wife. You can not commit adultery with your own wife!
Civil law may recognize this couple as a husband and wife but God does not. If God recognized this couple as a husband and wife, Jesus Himself would not be calling their honeymoon adultery!
After they are remarried that is when the adultery kicks in...everyone who divorces their wife and then remarries...commits adultery. God calls married sex PURE but He calls remarried sex ADULTERY, unless your spouse has died. Romans 7:2-3
Are remarried people married according to God? If you say yes, then why is God charging them with adultery? Why doesn’t God see their marriage bed as pure? God calls their remarriage
bed...adultery!
"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God
will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."
Hebrews 13:4
The only people that are charged with adultery when they marry are divorced people, not single people, not widowed people, only divorced people. If someone thinks a divorced person is freed from their spouse, why then are they committing adultery when they have a sexual relationship with a new spouse? Divorce does not make you single.
So the question is this...
Do you believe a civil divorce dissolves an original marriage covenant according to Jesus? If it does, then Jesus has to stop calling their honeymoon adultery!
"A wife is married to her husband as long as he lives."
1 Corinthians 7:39
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/mdreform2.htm
Rose,
While I agree with you for the most part (as this post indicates), I am not in favor of urging someone who has remarried after a divorce to go through the process of tearing apart that new family as their form of repentance like the sites you mentioned suggest. I explain why here and also show a biblical problem with that position of "never, never, never allow remarriage" here.
However, I think if people understood Jesus's words about divorce like His disciples did -- "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10) -- then the question would be of far less significance. In other words, far too few people who call themselves Christians today read their Bibles and take them seriously.
Post a Comment