To me, divorce is a big issue. I've written before that I don't think it is possible to find a valid reason for divorce in Scripture. I am, without a doubt, thoroughly and completely opposed to it. God said He hated it. Jesus said, "From the beginning it was not so." The only reason it is allowed at all is "because of the hardness of your hearts". It's really pretty clear that the Bible is solidly opposed to divorce.
In that essay of a couple years ago, I stated as clearly as I could that I did not consider divorce and remarriage the "unpardonable sin". (That idea in itself created a 2-month argument.) Indeed, I cannot say with absolute certainty that all remarriage in the case of divorce is sin.
"Now, wait a minute, Stan. Aren't you talking out of two sides of your mouth? You say there is no valid reason for divorce, and yet you say that maybe there is a valid situation that would allow remarriage? Make up your mind!"
I've made the case before against divorce. However, I would like to point out that in our society today (and in all societies before) sometimes divorce happens. What I mean is that sometimes a person gets divorced. They didn't intend it. They didn't want it. They may have fought against it. They were opposed to it. And, yet, they find themselves divorced. He didn't divorce her or she didn't divorce him, but he or she finds him/herself outside a marriage. So, does that equate to "permission to remarry"? I'm hesitant.
In the well-known 1 Cor. 7 case, Paul writes about a believer married to an unbeliever. He concludes, "If the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not bound" (1 Cor 7:15). Not bound. Not tied up. It's not the end. What is it? Paul goes on to say, "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned" (1 Cor 7:27-28). Now, see? Here we have an exception. Assuming the connection between verse 15 ("not bound") and this text, we see a person who finds himself "free from a wife". That is, he was married (you can't be "free from a wife" if you never had one), but is not now. Paul's recommendation? "Do not seek a wife." Fine. But he goes on to say that for such a person to marry would not be a sin. So, I have real difficulty suggesting that all remarriage after divorce would be classified as sin ... you know ... since Paul says it's not.
There is one other catch in my "solid stand" on divorce and my mostly solid stand against remarriage. As it turns out, I can find a clear case of one very godly person who divorced and remarried in Scripture. Who might that be? Well, it was the godliest person there is, because it was God Himself. In Jeremiah 3:8, God says that He divorced Israel and would divorce Judah. The reason was "whoredom" which was His way of saying "idolatry". We also know, however, that we will be "the Bride of Christ". So God (the Father) divorced Israel and God (the Son) will marry the Church.
I don't know of too many Christians these days that take a really serious view of divorce. It's bad ... unless the other one cheats ... or the other one leaves ... or the other one is mean ... or the other one makes you unhappy ... well, not a lot of rules at all, it seems. We've moved from Christ's stand -- "What God has joined together let no man separate" -- to a more popular principle -- "If it feels good, do it." Most Christians I know fall on that continuum someplace. Me? I'd never get started. I would never suggest to anyone (myself included) that divorce was a good option ... ever. Divorce happens. It's possible to be divorce without divorcing someone. It's even possible that there might be an "innocent party" in a divorce. As such I can see possibilities that not everyone who is divorced committed sin and not all remarriage is banned. But we've come way too close to mimicking the world in our perceptions on the subject and no Christian should be comfortable with that position.
33 comments:
What about Matt. 19:9 where Jesus allows divorce for "marital unfaithfulness" (NIV)? Other translations say "adultery" or "sexual immorality." Your stance is very Romanist.
I think David Instone-Brewer has made an excellent exegetical argument demonstrating that abuse and abandonment are biblical reasons for divorce in his book, "Divorce and Remarriage in the Church."
I have studied this subject quite a bit over the years and agree that God hates divorce, but He is also merciful and does not force a couple to remain married when one is adulterous, when one has been abandoned or if one is being abused.
I recommend other books such as Spiros Zodhiates' "May I Divorce & Remarry?" and "What About Divorce?"; John Murray's "Divorce"; Guy Duty's "Divorce & Remarriage"; and Jay Adams' "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible." There was also a very interesting "Exegetical Study" done by the Lutheran Church (LCMS) in 1987 titled, "Divorce & Remarriage."
Except for Romanists, I have never seen anyone claim that divorce for adultery was a sin.
You need to finish the analogy. In the several places where God is said to have put away Israel, it is also said that He will take her back again.
I was going to respond there, but the comment thing is a bit full.
Not sure if you covered it, but the penalty for adultery during betrothal is also death.
But the penalty can only be administered with two witnesses, and where both of the adulterers are executed. Joseph would have had no witnesses, obviously, to any adultery.
Otherwise not a bad analysis :)
Except for Romanists, I have never seen anyone claim that divorce for adultery was a sin. Someone isn't up on his reading. Stan's view here is not unique among protestants.
"Adultery" is popular there ... but it's not in the text. More to the point, Matt 19:9 is not about divorce, but remarriage. Jesus didn't say divorce for adultery (or, if you wish, sexual immorality) was right. He said it was "because of the hardness of your heart."
And I think that Dr. Dan Heimbach made an excellent biblical case against divorce, explained in his book, True Sexual Morality.
"Adultery" is popular there ... but it's not in the text
Huh? Who are you responding to? What does this mean? I'm lost.
does not force a couple to remain married when one is adulterous, when one has been abandoned or if one is being abused.
Huh? The 'couple'??
I think what you mean here is that you believe that God allows a woman to break her covenant with a man if he does any of these things.
I wonder how Glen would do with the accusation of Tamar after her rape?
That response about adultery was to Glenn's "What about Matt 19:9?" question.
I think that in biblical perspective marriage is the most fundamental human-human relationship. A wife is a best friend, a true companion. Marriage is the image and the most straightforward thermometer of our relationship with God. He makes she a gift if we are a gift for God, and He makes she a true companion if we are a true companion for God. Divorce is an indicator of a big big trouble in our relationship to God.
So, lets move beyond the theoretical for a moment. How do we deal with a Christian who has been in a marriage for 20 years in which there has been real and consistent mental abuse for the bulk of that time.
How do you help in dealing with the struggle between "I know divorce is wrong" and "I don't know if I can put myself back in that situation again".
I just had dinner with a friend in that situation and it's tough. I guess the most critical is prayer, which I'd ask you all to do. But I'm really struggling with what to say, how to say it, or if I should say anything.
Any thoughts from a "pastoral" perspective?
Oh, sure, skip right to the tough stuff. The "This is what the Bible says, so this is true" part is easy. "How does that work here?" is the hard part. I suppose, in fact, that a lot of people change "this is true" because of that hard part.
I would note that the Bible does not forbid separation. I have also interacted with several situations where illegal activity (drugs, spousal abuse, etc.) was going on. I have suggested in these situations that the normal course of the law be brought to play, that the authorities be informed and the justice system take its course. Oddly, while the people in these circumstances are willing to defy God, they're not too keen on pressing charges. Can't figure that out.
Ultimately, of course, prayer is the best course of action and the necessary course of action. Support is critical. And if there is any accountability structure available to take on the abuser, that should come into play, Matt 18 style.
I would note that the Bible does not forbid separation.
That depends on what you mean. I Cor 7 both allows and forbids separation. The Christian is forbidden from separating from their spouse, but allowed to allow their spouse to leave... their non-believing spouse.
For a listing of the places that the Matt 19:9 word is used, see here:
The Greek word in Mathew 19:9 is also used here:
http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/2011/09/list-of-ways-word-fornication-in.html
(too long to post as a comment)
Stan,
You say “‘adultery’ is popular there...but it’s not in the text.” I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, because it definitely IS in the text. I pulled the versions I have on my shelf and found these:
“adultery” Beck, Norlie,
“sexual immorality” ESV, NKJV, HCSB, JNT
“immorality” NAS, NET
“unchastity” RSV, REB, NRSV
“lewd conduct” NAB
“fornication” KJV, Darby, Jay Green
“been unfaithful” NLT
“marital unfaithfulness” NIV
“unfaithfulness” GWN, TEV, Phillips, New Berkeley Version
“terrible sexual sin” CEV
“has sexual relations with another” NCV
Now, only two versions use the word “adultery,” but all the others describe the act. Yes, Matt 19:9 is about divorce, but when Jesus says that there is an exception that does not result in adultery in remarriage, you can’t just ignore that and say it’s not there. He certainly is allowing divorce for reason of sexual immorality on the part of the partner.
You say separation is okay, but then how would the partners conform to Paul’s command to not deprive one another of their sexual needs?
One thing I have found interesting is that I have never read or heard of women being against Biblical divorce - it is only men. It seems there might be some sort of control thing there: gives power to abusive men.
Von,
“I wonder how Glen [sic] would do with the accusation of Tamar after her rape?”
Please explain what you mean.
Craig,
Scripture says:
2Sa 13:14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
2Sa 13:15 Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.
2Sa 13:16 And she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not hearken unto her.
My question for Glenn would be if he agrees with Tamar? That, after raping her, the right thing to do for Amnon was to marry her... keep her with him... and not send her away. Whether the sin of not marrying was worse than the sin of rape?
Glenn, here's the text: "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). First, it is in regard to remarriage, not simply divorce. In other words, a person who divorces his wife and remains single does not commit adultery. Second, the word is porneia, which references sexual sin. Adultery is sexual sin, but adultery, in biblical times, was not punishable by divorce; it was punishable by death. Third, in biblical times, the only way to break an engagement was divorce (or death). An engagement in those days was a betrothal, and these had the force of a marriage in terms of commitment. Thus, Joseph planned to divorce Mary before they were married because she was pregnant. So I wouldn't be too quick to assume that porneia is the equivalent of "adultery" (moicheuo). Finally, regardless of the meaning of the word, Jesus said, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." Personally, I wouldn't like to stand on "because of the hardness of your heart" as an endorsement or excuse.
Now, if God said "I hate divorce" and Jesus said, "From the beginning it was not so" and "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" and that classifies as sexism, I'd be a bit cautious about such an accusation. (And, by the way, although they are rare, I know of a few women who are 1) opposed to divorce just like the Bible teaches and 2) opposed to women leading the church just like the Bible teaches and 3) in favor of wives submitting to their husbands' authority just like the Bible teaches. They are, indeed, in a minority. But so is just about anyone who actually believes what the Bible teaches on these points.)
Von, you're quite good at taking stances on these issues and apparently quite clear on what you believe about them. Craig asked about a specific case, a (presumable) wife who is being abused by her husband. Standing on "wives submit to your husbands" is commendable, but what do you tell the wife who is being abused by her husband? "Submit, woman! Just take that beating and pray a lot." Maybe. I don't think so. What is your advice to such a person? (I'd also be interested in your advice to a husband being abused by his wife.) Like Craig said, the theoretical is fine, but how do you deal with the practical?
Stan,
Sexual immorality covers much more than adultery, and I have always understood that to be the case here (which is why I include being an imbiber of porn to be in this category).
Again, even though the subject is divorce, Jesus makes it plain that divorce for that cause does not lead to adultery for remarriage. It is plainly an exception to the rules about divorce. It plainly says that if one is divorced for this cause they are not guilty of a sin to remarry (what sin would it be?).
A divorce legally ends a marriage. God permitted divorce even though He hated it and it was not his intent for marriage. No where does Scripture say it is no longer permitted, only that any divorce other than for sexual immorality leads to adultery if the people remarry.
Stan, and Craig,
The problem with the practical is that it is specific. The specific has specific details. Details which, in my experience, take hours to work out of the people concerned, and involve private details.
We cannot, in this blog post, discuss or even imagine some of the issues that we have all dealt with, personally, I'm sure. Therefore, IMO, we cannnot successfully discuss the specifics. We have to get the theoretical right and then, carefully, plunge into the depths of the individual, specific, practical situation.
But if we get the theoretical wrong, then all of our 'practical' may well go for naught.
Glenn,
I'm keeping in mind that Jesus said, "What God has joined together let no man separate" and "From the beginning it was not so" and that the reason for divorce is "the hardness of your hearts". With all that in mind, it is difficult for me to tell a woman (or man) "Look, your spouse is addicted to porn, so you should divorce them based on Jesus's words in Matt. 19."
There is the other side of the coin as well. As I said in my post, I can see room for remarriage after divorce, so I'm not the one who will clobber someone over the head with righteous indignation because they ended up divorced and remarried. I'd want to know the circumstances, perhaps. I'd be most interested in their "self-defense", so to speak. I have real problems with "We weren't happy, so I divorced him and married this guy and now we're happy and God's okay with it." And, to be fair, Jesus did say that "because of the hardness of your hearts" divorce happens, so it is not something I would ever recommend, but, as I pointed out in the post, neither is it some unforgivable sin.
So, von, your response to my question about what you would advise Craig in the situation he asked about, apparently, is "I wouldn't."
Stan,
It is... I would do my best, after long hours of listening and finding out what was going on, to give my best biblical advice, keeping firmly in mind the principles we have already agree to biblically.
Right. And in this venue where Craig has asked a question your response is "We can't do that here."
Not here, yes. I'm sure you can imagine the kind of details that might be involved...
Stan,
Without going into too much detail, I will clarify.
In this case it is the wife who has engaged in what can only be considered (mental/emotional) abuse for a number of years. She "admits" this and has sought treatment.
My "pastoral" concern as a friend is how to keep hope in the conversation, while acknowledging that damage done. Further how do I say "She's getting treatment, you need to trust her" while the evidence is still overwhelming that this is not necessarily the case.
Let me be clear, I have and will continue to encourage him not to give up, to fight as long as possible and too leave room for God to work.
I don't see an upside to bailing on the friendship if the divorce happens, I also firmly believe that anyone can repent of any sin.
It's just tough to see the toll it's taking on him, her, the kids, their relationships etc.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Well, this adds a little more detail. I would begin talking to him about spiritual and other leadership in his home. Again, this would involve a lot of detail that we can't go into here, but that would be where I would, given the info so far given.
No, I get it, Craig. It's tough. And, worse, I'm opposed to counseling people to "trust her because she's getting treatment." I think that people who do what is right because they anticipate pleasurable results are failing to do what is right, because we are above all else to do what is right for the glory of God, and that doesn't happen until ... how did Jesus put it ... "men cast insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely." It is doing good at those times that men see our good works and glorify God.
As a husband, I was stunned when I saw what Paul commanded of husbands. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). (It goes on; don't stop there.) How did Christ love the church? He loved her by dying for her when she hated Him.
I would want to walk alongside this brother and encourage him to do what is right (husbands are supposed to be the head of their house and he might need to work at that) for his wife and his children (fathers are responsible for their children, and he might need to work at that). But I wouldn't ask him to do what is right in order to obtain a more favorable outcome. I would ask him to do it because it is best, because God commanded it, because it shapes him more and more into the character of Christ, because it brings greater glory to God. That's where I would go.
Craig, I would think to apply 1 Cor 7 to that situation. Separate for the purpose of reconciliation, for prayer, for help. Though, this is not a separation that would lead to divorce, but for the purpose of mending the relationship. It doesn't mean "dating" other people, or "seeing" other people, or anything other giving the wife time to work out her problem without the daily stress of doing "married" things. Just have to be clear that the separation in no way precipitates divorce. Separation isn't the "last step" before divorce.
It really is a shame that divorce is even thought of as an option in Christian marriages.
What he said :)
I Cor 7?? It says the Christian is forbidden to seperate!!
Stan,
Thanks, I think his fear is that this is an act to "get him back" then once he's back things will go back to what they were. That's pretty much what I've been doing is trying to be a voice for the right thing.
David,
They've been in that type of separation for quite a while and, individual and couple Christian counseling but there's just not much change from her. I've seen him go from really hopeful to just shot down.
Again, thanks for the advice.
1 Cor 7:5 references a temporary separation, but not much of one. Very short, and likely not geographically separated.
1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
A temporary sexual (not physical) seperation, for a short time, for the purposes of fasting and prayer, after which we are required to come back together sexually again.
Somehow I doubt t his is what David was talking about.
Post a Comment