NOTE: I have just released a book which compiles (and edits and expands) these posts. It is called “Disqualified? What the Bible Says about Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry.” It is available on Amazon.com. The Kindle version will be released in the next couple of days – not sure what the hold-up is there. This book reviews the biblical evidence on divorce and remarriage, beginning with the cornerstone in the Old Testament – the twin principles of God’s intent of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman and the understanding of the brokenness caused by sin. It then lays the foundation with an examination of the passage in Deuteronomy 14:1-4 which necessitates a “grounds” for divorce. Jesus builds the structure in his teachings, reiterating the intent of God’s creation – lifelong covenant – but also establishing the divorce exception as a grounds for divorce. Then Paul puts the finishing touches on the structure with his extensive teachings in 1 Corinthians 7, adding abandonment as a second grounds and dealing with other significant issues. I also address the issue of abuse and how that should be handled. Having surveyed the biblical evidence, I then turn my attention to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, examining what the phrase, “Husband of one wife” means, and give advice both to the divorced who want to serve in the church and to churches dealing with this issue.
If you are reading these posts, I think you will find the book “Disqualified?” helpful.
There is both remarkable consistency and a clear progression in the biblical teaching on divorce. Moses, in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 laid a foundation which Jesus built on in his teaching, presented in Matthew (19:3-12), Mark (10:2-12) and Luke (16:18) . Then, Paul put the finishing touches on that teaching, developing it to its most complete treatment in 1 Corinthians 7. There is a core set of principles that weave through and are developed in these passages.
The ultimate purpose of this study is to deal with the question of whether me who have been divorced are disqualified from positions of service such as pastor, elder or deacon. Before that subject is explored, though, a full understanding of the biblical teaching is necessary, which is why the passages mentioned above were dealt with in such detail.
So, before we get to the thorny issue of divorce, remarriage and ministry, it would be helpful to review the basic principles that have been set forth to this point
1. God intended marriage to be a lifelong covenant. This was the divine ideal from the beginning of time, clear from the Creation accounts in Genesis. God created us male and female and designed us to share a life together – one man and one woman commitment in a lifelong covenant, which would provide pleasure, blessing and companionship from both. Divorce was never part of God’s pre-fall plan and it should not be viewed as an easy option when a marriage gets tough.
The divine ideal had been almost completely abandoned in Hebrew culture to which God gave the law. Gone was the ideal of a mutually beneficial marriage relationship, replaced by a patriarchy that went well beyond what God intended and permitted men to seek divorce on a whim. Moses raised that bar. Jesus reinstituted the highest ideal of marriage – a lifelong covenant. Though he permitted the divorce exception, Jesus made it absolutely clear God had never wavered from the design of creation. Paul may have added another exception under which divorce was permissible, but he also clearly taught the concept of partnership, even giving women rights that had previously been reserved for men only.
The divorce pendulum has certainly swung in the American church. Once, people who had been divorced found themselves treated as outcasts, ostracized from not only leadership but often from full fellowship in the church. Today, many churches have basically relaxed all standards. A type of serial monogamy has been sanctified under loose views of marriage and divorce. Those who would be biblical in their treatment of this subject must never compromise on this foundational truth. God intends for marriage to be permanent. Even in extreme circumstances, it is always to the greater glory of God to seek healing and restoration rather than divorce.
2. God makes allowance for human sinfulness. Sin has done many terrible things to this world. Among the worst is the degrading effect it has had on relationships and marriages. God intended for marriage to be a covenant relationship between a man and his wife which was a blessing to both. While lifelong marriage was God’s intent and is still his desire, the effects of sin sometimes render that ideal impossible. Lifelong marriage is the divine ideal; divorce is a reality foisted on the world by human sin.
Divorce is not commanded by God today, and it is always better to seek to heal the marriage than to end it. But divorce is permitted in certain circumstances when one partner has broken the marriage covenant.
3. The New Testament specifies two grounds for divorce. Divorce is permissible in the New Testament for two reasons. Moses tightened the standards of his culture by requiring that men have some grounds for divorce and give their wives an official certificate. Jesus raised the bar when he declared that there is only one ground for divorce. Paul added another exception; similar in nature to the one Jesus gave but based on a circumstance that did not exist among Jesus’ hearers.
First, Jesus allowed divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. Unless the divorce took place on this ground, the divorce was not divinely approved and remarriage would be an act of immorality. Then, Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, established another exception – abandonment. He allowed divorce when an unbelieving spouse abandons the believer. In this case, the believer is not bound to the marriage covenant and is free to remarry a Christian.
The exceptions actually prove the sanctity and importance of marriage. A husband and wife join together in a covenant before God. The covenant is based on promises and commitments made by both parties to the covenant. Husband and wife agree to be absolutely faithful to one another and to reject all sexual immorality. And they become one flesh, joined together not only physically, but emotionally, psychically, and spiritually. When one member breaks this covenant by a lifestyle of unrepentant sexual immorality or by abandoning his or her spouse, this breaks this holy bond. It is no small sin to break the bond of marriage, but God recognizes that when one partner voids the covenant, the other is released from it.
4. The Grounds for Separation – Paul, in recognition of the authority the husband has in the marriage, and the tendency of some husbands to abuse that authority, gives to the believing wife the right separate from her husband and live as a single woman or to seek reconciliation with her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Women who separate from their husbands on the grounds that he is impossible to live with, that he is abusive of his authority or that he treats her unkindly, have no right to remarry. This same right is not granted to a husband, who has the authority and responsibility to demonstrate the proactive love of God and lead his home in the right ways.
5. There is a distinction made between divorce and separation. Paul, in the 1 Corinthians 7 passage just mentioned, makes an important distinction. Divorce, permitted on the grounds of abandonment (and adultery under Jesus’ teaching) is the end of a marriage. When the marriage covenant is broken by one party, the marriage is ended as completely as if the offending spouse had died. The innocent party, the one who did not abandon the spouse or commit adultery, is freed from that marriage and may remarry. Separation, permitted to women if living under the authority of the husband became unbearable, does not have the same effect. Separation suspends the marriage, but does not end it and remarriage, under those circumstances, is not permitted. Paul recognizes that separation may be necessary for a time to restore the marriage, but the marriage is by no means over.
6. We must remember the redemptive power of Christ in dealing with the divorced. The Bible is all about God’s redemptive work in Christ, taking sinners deserving of hell and making them fit for heaven by the Blood of the Cross. That includes the divorced. Those who have been divorced and repent of whatever sin they committed in that divorce are fully restored to fellowship in the church. We assume the role of the Pharisees and Sadducees when we make divorced persons feel unwelcome in our fellowship, or somehow imply to them that they are of a secondary status in the fellowship.
But the question of whether divorced men are fit for leadership in the church must be established by biblical teachings. Sometimes there are consequences to sin that survive even the repentance for that sin. King David is certainly an example of this. I believe in the redemptive power of Christ, but that, in and of itself, does not settle the issue of ministry.
7. The church must balance two competing truths in handling the divorce issue. We must be careful never to compromise the biblical ideal or forget that it is God’s desire that every marriage last a lifetime. We must also avoid the tendency to add to the Bible’s commands, making them harsher than God himself makes them. This was Satan’s tactic in the Garden of Eden, and this attitude, often thought heroically faithful and uncompromising, is not pleasing to God. We must neither compromise biblical principles nor enforce that which is not biblical.
Now, having set forth what I believe is the Bible’s teaching on this subject, we can begin to look at the specific question, “Can a divorced man be a pastor, elder or deacon?”
Previous Installments
Part 1 of this series “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Does the Bible Say?” introduces the topic and sets forth three different approaches to the topic.
Part 2 of the series, “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: The OT Foundation: Does God Hate All Divorce?”, examines several OT passages that set the foundation of the biblical teaching. It especially examines the Malachi passage that has been interpreted as a general statement, “God hates divorce.”
Part 3 focuses specifically on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the key OT passage on the subject. “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 – Establishing Grounds for Divorce.“
Part 4 focuses on the teachings of Jesus on the subject. “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: What Did Jesus Say?”
Part 5 examines Paul’s teachings on the subject and lays the groundwork for the study of 1 Corinthians 7, the pinnacle of biblical teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage. It especially examines the question of whether Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 7 were just Paul’s opinion or were they inspired scripture. “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Were Paul’s Views Scripture or Opinion?”
Part 6 examines 1 Corinthians 7:10-24, a post entitled, “Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry: Paul’s Groundbreaking Teaching.“
One thing on this that I have never understood…why is it assumed that, just because Paul says that “You are not under bondage, God has called you to peace” (in cases of abandonment) that, that automatically equals a right to remarry?
It seems to me that, given the context, the clearer reading would be that you can “let them go.” Meaning, if they abandon you, don’t blame yourself, and don’t waste your life chasing after them.
But, why does that mean divorce? Why does it mean re-marriage? It seems to me that, given the intimate parallels of marriage to God’s relationship with us…”called to peace” should, more likely, mean something more “Prodigal Spouse”-like.
I guess, given the parallels between marriage and the relationship of Christ to his Church (and the fact that Paul’s statement does not explicitly mention either divorce, or re-marriage…but only “peace”)….its hard for me to see willing divorce (let alone re-marriage) in that statement.
Does Christ divorce himself from us when we wonder away from him? Is his love and commitment conditional? Or, do we see his attitude more clearly in the story of Hosea and Gomer?
Dave,
Thanks for the post. Below, I have posted a link to an excellent paper on this subject by John Piper. Below that link is a work by Tom Elliff. They are not identical, but similar.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper
Divine Viewpoint Regarding Divorce (Tom Elliff)
1. Divorce literally means, “to put away.” When the Pharisees intended to trap Jesus with
the Mosaic Law regarding divorce, He indicated that marriage, not divorce, was God’s plan from the
beginning.
“He said unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another,
commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away commits adultery” Matthew 18:8,9. Also see Mark 10:6-9.
Moses permitted divorce only because of “the hardness of your hearts.” But, Jesus came to give
more than the Law could provide, Grace.
“And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children
after them” Jeremiah 32:39 and “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of
their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh” Ezekial 11:19.
+
2. God hates divorce.
“For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that he hates putting away” Malachi 2:16.
3. When Jesus said “fornication” was the only justifiable cause for divorce, He was making
reference to deceit about sexual purity before marriage (Matthew 5:32, 18:9). In the Mosaic law,
Deuteronomy 22 and 24:1, a husband who discovered his betrothed had premarital sexual relations with
someone else was entitled to collect his dowry, give his wife a bill of divorcement on the grounds of
“uncleanness,” and return her to her father. The word porneia, in the Greek, translated “fornication” in
Matthew actually means wrongful sexual union, premarital or extramarital. It is forgivable and not a
justifiable cause when there is repentance.
4. If a believing individual is the victim of divorce by an unbeliever, the believer is not under
bondage to remain unmarried in the future provided the door to reconciliation has been closed by
death, or by the marriage of the unbeliever to another party.
“But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God has called
us to peace” I Corinthians 7:15.
The word peace, eirene, also means reconciliation. However, if the deserting mate has remarried,
reconciling the previous marriage would be wrong since it would require another divorce.
5. If two have been divorced and remarried before becoming Christians, they should remain
married.
“But as God has distributed to every man, as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk” I Corinthians 7:17.
6. If two Christians want a divorce, they will be operating outside of God’s will if they do. If
Christians divorce, they should purpose to remain single or be reconciled to each other.
“But I say unto you, That whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit
adultery: and whoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery” Matthew 5:32. “And unto the married I command, yet not
I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her
husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” I Corinthians 7:10,11.
7. If a person who has been divorced and becomes a Christian while single, he or she
should recognize and repent of the sin of divorce and purpose to be reconciled with the former mate.
God has called us to reconciliation. Marriage to another (Christian) may be considered if the former
mate has deceased or remarried.
“I, even I, am he that blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and will not remember your sins” Isaiah 43:25. God
has called us to peace” I Corinthians 7:15.
8. If a couple has been divorced and either party marries someone else and then divorces the
second party, it is an abomination to God for the former couple to remarry.
“And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his
house; or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife; Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be
his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD” Deuteronomy 24:3,4.
9. If one party is a Christian and the other is not, this is not a cause for divorce.
“But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother has a wife that believes not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let
him not put her away. And the woman who has an husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave
him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your
children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in
such cases: but God has called us to peace” I Corinthians 7:12-15.
10. Marriage is ended by the death of one of the marriage partners.
“For the woman who has an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she
is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man:
Romans 7:2,3. “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married
to whom she will; only in the Lord” I Corinthians 7:39.
First Southern Baptist Church
Del City, Oklahoma
http://www.fsbcdc.org
Divorce is divorce. Our church uses deacons and yoke fellows (divorced or other wise.) We need to keep the leadership as pure as possible. I am divorced and will not push service off as if it is okay to divorce. We need to determine that purity is the best way to go.
Dave:
Thanks for this posts. It’s heart-breaking that a blog series such as this is even necessary for the church, but, unfortunately, it’s a reality of our time. It’s encouraging to see pastors thinking through these issues and being equipped to provide love, support, and biblical truth when these situations do arise.
I believe this statement is the core problem: that anyone could perceive that there is a possibility of “competing truths” in scripture… well to quote Vasili: “It’s inconceivable!”
There is no competition or conflict here. What really exists is the difference between exegesis and isogesis. When we quite reading into scripture our preconceived notions then we can see scripture can only be complementary to itself.
In 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul uses the phrase ???? ???????? ????? the most straight forward translation is “husband of a woman.” To say this means “not divorced” when Paul could have easily used the phrase ??? ?????? ?? ??????????? meaning “must not be divorced” is illogical. One can only be guilty of isogesis to arrive at that translation.
So, since divorce, which is hated by God (although there are allowances) is NOT mentioned at all in the qualifications for Elder or Servant, then it follows that at the very least I have proven there are no competing truths to contend with on this issue.
I believe the issue regarding divorced ministers has more to do with one’s forgiveness and exercise of grace than with a scriptural teaching. This goes for the divorcees and those outside the marriage: was it a root of biterness or self-centeredness that led to the divorce, cheating, abandonment, jealousy, the list goes on…
But, do they repent (remarried or not)? Do we forgive them? Do they forgive themselves?
Any of those could inhibit our fellowship (or the divorced one from participating in fellowship). And, if they won’t fellowship, and we won’t fellowship with them, then why would we even consider allowing them to serve us as ministers?
Maybe, this is really all a forgiveness and fellowship issue and we are just using scripture to justify our lack of grace… I mean after all, I’m a sinner too, but at least I haven’t been divorced.
Rats, it doesn’t show the Greek…. bummer.
I had that problem once as well–the question marks replace the other language.
For me, that’s highly appropriate if someone tries to type in Hebrew. All I see is “HUH?”
One of the facts that I find in life is that people who have experienced a divorce, regardless of the right or wrong of it, admit that they hate divorce. I know I do. But I hated it from childhood and resolved that what had happened to me at the age of 3 would never happen to my children (the divorce of my parents cost me both parents for 11 years). Talk about a miserable feeling. Try being a child who loses both parents due to divorce. Regardless of my resolve, my children did suffer from divorce. It takes two people resolved to never let it happen…and both might seem that way, but the truth is problems will rend a relationship to pieces, if both are not determined to make it last. I say both, for if one is not determined, then the marriage will inevitably fail. Interestingly enough, God said He hated divorce in Malachi. Could He have been speaking from identification with those who suffer from the problem? In Jer.3 He gave Israel a divorce and sent her away, and He threatened the same to Judah. Divorce is a savage pain, a misery that stays with a person as long as they live, and the children suffer the most. Can God use such in his ministry. I found in pastoring that being divorce and remarried was usually only a problem for ministers. The people did not seem to be bothered by it at all, and some of them felt that they could come and talk to me, because, as they put it, I understood and the other ministers did not. There was never any of that indulgent attitude of its okay, etc. On the contrary, people suffer too much to put up with that kind of goody two-shoes stuff. They are in agony, might even be suicidal, certainly in depression. The person who is not suffering, the violators do not care and do not come seeking counsel..at least not from me.
I would agree with this post, but I would like to add a third allowance for divorce. Physical abuse.
There are cases where the husband never sleeps with another woman (ie commits adultery), but regularly beats his wife. I believe, that in such cases, divorce is more than reasonable. And if the woman chooses to remarry, that is perfectly fine and is NOT adultery. There are times, and cases where the husband will seek and get help, where the wife will take him back, and he never will hit her again. But that is rare. And condemning a woman to a life of chastity because her husband beat her, is in my opinion, one of the must unloving, ungodly responses that any Christian could ever have to the situation.
I will end by saying this. I will not defend this position on here after this post. This is one of my hills to die on, and I am not very good at controlling my temper when it comes to this issue. If you disagree then we have nothing to say to one another, lest I start using very harsh and descriptive words towards you.
I am reluctant to add an exception that the Bible doesn’t add. Beating one’s wife is despicable, but it is not listed as a grounds for divorce in the Bible, regardless of your anger over the issue.
We do not do theology based on your emotions, but on exegesis. To add a third exception because you feel emotional about it is not sound.
I think that physical abuse falls under the separation exception. A woman who is abused has every right to separate from her husband, but as I read scripture, she does not have the right to end the marriage or to seek another spouse.
If you cannot discuss this biblically, then perhaps you should not discuss it at all. Do you have any scripture to demonstrate your point, or are we simply to let your anger guide our interpretation from now on?
Your comment is an indication of one of the things that is wrong with the way we deal with things today. Our authority is God’s Word, not your feelings, desires, emotions or anger. That is a bad way to do theology.
Smuschany,
You stated, ” and I am not very good at controlling my temper when it comes to this issue.”
That is a RED flag. I know many have strong feelings about a woman being beaten. I agree and will defend a woman at all cost, however, that emotion has to be under control, even in a beating event or we are unbalanced. I would suggest that you examine yourself in this area so you can better assist the woman and the man. Keep in mind, Satan is controlling the man the same way the man is controlling the woman but we cannot see what Satan is doing to the man. He needs help, too.
I also agree with Dave 100%.
Well Dave, Your emotions will remain blissfully separate from your theology until the day someone you really care about is physically abused and then divorce will look like a remarkably loving and spiritual answer. Remarriage will mysteriously look redemptive and God-honoring shortly there after.
I am also concerned about Bruce’s comment about ‘purity’ being the way to go. I am pure because Jesus blood purifies me. Divorce is a terrible sin but it can not overcome Christ’s blood. If a divorced person can not be pure then what hope do I or any of us have?
AMEN!!!
Strider,
Being purified from a sin and being being pure (innocent) of the sin are two different things to me, humanly speaking. Crossing the line in disobedience against a command and repenting is what it is all about, but never crossing the line by being obedient to the command and remaining pure is what it is “really” all about. Our leadership need to be the examples of obedience and the people need to know that. We need to preach and promote obedience to the church. In fact, the first thing we teach our children is obedience and it comes with a promise. (Eph.6:1-3) Those of us who have been disobedient to God’s command have experienced the wonderful forgiveness and restoration that only Christ can give. There are too many other areas of service in the church that offer fulfillment in our ministering gifts than a position like pastor, elder or deacon.
The problem Bruce is that you are elevating this one sin to an indelible black mark that cannot be erased by Jesus’ grace and mercy.
You are professing: once sinned, always sinned. And that is not Gospel truth.
I hate to burst your bubble, but we ALL (we meaning every human who has ever drawn breath) fit this description. And, according to your reasoning, NO ONE should ever occupy “a position like pastor, elder or deacon.”
You can’t have it both ways.
I’m sorry that your marriage ended in divorce but that does not mean you are stricken forever. Repent for your part in what happened and forgive yourself as God has forgiven you when you asked. I guarantee He will separate it from you as far as the East is from the West.
Your name in the Book of Life does not read:
Bruce H. – (D)
Greg,
Thanks for your kind words. I know I have been forgiven and everyday I work at living like I am forgiven. I like your example on the Book of Life, too.
I remember my dad telling us not to smoke when I was a kid. Of course, he use to smoke. He told us how he wanted to quit because it affected his testimony and it cost so much (35 cents a pack). He described how that people around him smoked and it was hard to quit. He described how the smoke from a lit cigarette would float to the ceiling and he would watch it. He would say that smoking wouldn’t send you to hell but it would make you smell like you had been there. You know, I figured if dad could start and stop, I could, too. I began smoking at 15 years old and finally quit at 26. I wish I had never started either. The position and influence of a dad is similar to the position and influence of pastor, elder and deacon. If they did it and it turned out okay for them, then, if I did it, it certainly would turn out okay for me. Personally, I don’t think that is the message to send out to the church. Without getting too traditional sounding, I look at those positions as sacred and holy positions. If divorce was acceptable, then many other things would eventually have to be allowed simply because they would be forgivable.
I serve in my church. I can fill water glasses during meals. I can work in the background when events are going on. I can teach those around me as I work by answering their questions. I can help widows and do many other things that are needed in the body of Christ. I can do all of the works that the pastor, elder and deacons do without the title. Just as I can live like I am forgiven, I can serve and do without necessarily having a position or title. There is a humility that comes when we continue to serve. At least for me, I will choose to allow and promote and encourage those who are better qualified than I.
Bruce,
You are such an encouragement to me.
A year or so after I became a Christian, I was in a church that called a divorced man to the pastorate. The man had, by his own admission, chosen “the ministry” over his wife. She eventually left him, and he re-married. He was totally unrepentant in any part he played in the situation (again, he claimed near blamelessness, publicly.) He was re-married.
Even as a new Christian, at the time, I could see that this was a bad idea….even with the little I knew about Scripture, I could see that the man was clearly unqualified. But, we had a large number to people in the congregation who were divorced (for unjust reasons) and re-married, who saw this as their “chance” to be justified.
That business meeting upset me quite a bit. I heard very little discussion of Scripture, almost no discussion of the biblical qualifications of a pastor…in fact, the chruch that I knew and loved didn’t sound like they were concerned about Scripture at all. All that could be heard that day was “well, I’m divorced, and I feel like it was OK, so it’s OK for him as well.” Or, even worse, “I know what the Bible says about all this, but if things just aren’t working out, God’s is OK with you leaving, so it’s fine.”
I so, so wish you had been there that day…it took me months to get over the confusion, and (as a new Christian, with a fledgling faith, still dependent on those around me in many ways) sense of betrayal by the people that were telling me to hold the Word near and dear.
Keep speaking truth brother. You have a voice that, although difficultly and unfortunately gained, can have much power in speaking the truth in a church culture that is increasingly “OK” with divorce.
Again, Strider, you assume that no one I know or love has been abused. And I would ask you to provide some exegetical support for your contention.
I see that argument all the time. “X makes me angry therefore it couldn’t be biblical.” We need to draw our truth and guidance from God’s Word, not from our emotions or outrage.
Moses wrote about divorce. Jesus wrote about divorce. Paul wrote about divorce. None of them mentioned an abuse exception in their inspired writings.
Did they not care?
Do we have a higher ethical sense than the authors of scripture?
Are we going to say that they just didn’t understand the seriousness of the situation when they wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit?
Do you believe that your ethical sense and your moral outrage is a higher authority than the teachings of scripture?
I have trouble accepting that.
Repent (change your mind). Ask forgiveness for what you are not sorry for? You can’t lie to God and you shouldn’t try, it can have terrible consequences. Believe me when an abused woman finally takes her children and herself out of a terrifying situation she is can’t honestly do either one and probably never will. If you only separate there can be legal consequences (his future debt is still her debt, etc.) she already has enough of a financial responsibility.
Which brings me to the church’s responsibility (commanded) to support the widows.
Widow (Strong’ #490- Hebrew) = a desolate house or place. (Strong’s #5503 Gk) = a woman without a husband, period
I personally walked away from God completely for 20 something yrs. I no longer could witness or pray for myself in anyway. Even when I had cancer 10 years ago I did not ask God for anything. After all how could I expect him to answer my prays. I won’t go into how I returned to my loving Father and Savior Jesus. I did it honestly. I told him I’m still not sorry and I haven’t changed my mind. And guess what, my spirit and my Lord’s rejoiced together. Just like the prodigal son and his father my Father did not wait for me to even finish my pray His love washed over me with living waters and I was restored. His grace (Jesus) is my faith, my rightousness, my strength.
May the grace of our Lord Jesus guide you in your counseling of those people who are in mortal danger in their homes. This lifestyle does not glorify God nor is it a Godly witness to a lost world.
Let’s use some common sense here as I think we just took 3 steps back. If a woman is being beaten, to just separate is not going to solve the problem. Divorce is an option and is not the unpardonable sin. If she stays married to this person, he believes in his twisted mind that he still owns her and most likely she will wind up dead. News stories show this. God also gave us a brain and to say no divorce is to go back in time when the woman was told to be a better wife and hang in there for the sake of being right with God. I personally wish this post had not been written, but it has. I just can’t quite believe what I am reading.
Again, could you support this exegetically?
Dave: The Bible is silent. But common sense is also a gift from God for crying out loud. In Biblical times a man divorced his wife for any little thing and abuse happened then as well.
Show me passages where we can quit our jobs if the stress is too much, or that we should take a vacation once in a while to rest and have fun, or that candy is bad for the teeth. Common sense Dave.
Do you know the percentage of women who have previously followed this advice and been murdered?
“Show me passages where we can quit our jobs if the stress is too much, or that we should take a vacation once in a while to rest and have fun, or that candy is bad for the teeth.
Debbie:
Neither employment nor dental hygiene are God-ordained, scripturally-limited, life-long covenants. Dave’s point is that the Bible does specifically speak to the boundaries of marriage and divorce, and that he is reticent to go outside of those explicit parameters. To be fair, he has never made the argument that anything not explicitly allowed in scripture is per se prohibited. His position has at all times been narrowly tailored to the issue of biblical allowance for divorce.
Zack: Look at the question the Pharisees asked and read it in the context of which it was wrtten, asked in First Century context.
The Pharisees asked if a man could divorce his wife for any cause? Notice the word any, which I read as in the context of the First century, or can a man divorce his wife for just any ole reason. If a man in the first century was displeased with his wife for any reason, she had grown older, didn’t fix his meal as he wanted, spoke cross to him, etc. he divorced her.
To say that the Bible doesn’t mention abuse therefore the woman should stay is not only ludicrous, but not how to read this passage. You also have to reconcile passages in the Bible that deal with justice, helping the weaker, helping those who are hurt etc. which are also scripture and more in tune with who we are. Scripture interprets scripture.
I don’t think I have one thing to worry about as far as judgment if I am wrong. Christ took my judgment to the cross. No Christian has to be concerned about that because of who we are in Christ. I don’t think I’m wrong, and would rather err on the side of saving someone from being beaten than to tell them not to divorce the abuser who 9 times will continue the abuse, and the woman will never seek outside help again due to this kind of advice. It will continue, it just won’t be made public, it will be kept quiet. Or the woman will leave and divorce anyway.
That’s a cavalier attitude toward sin and a cavalier attitude toward truth. We ought not use the grace of God as an excuse.
The Bible does speak to this in 1 Corinthians 7.
We ought to be bound by God’s word, not emotions or opinions.
The format of this study was inductive Bible examination. I appreciate those who have engaged at a scriptural level. But I would ask those who are simply venting emotions or opinions to either engage at the hermeneutical or exegetical level.
We are discussing what the Bible says about all of this. Please stick to that.
Dave: It’s not using God’s grace, it’s knowing God’s grace and who I am in Christ. Just because I would get this wrong, which I don’t believe I have but I believe you have, I do not fear punishment from God. That is something the unbeliever should fear, not Christians. I have scripture for that in spades, but that is not unfortunately, the topic here.
To say that a woman being beat does not have scriptural grounds for divorce and remarriage is just not something you can say and have scriptural backing. IF the woman does divorce and remarry, she is not in fear of God zapping her. She will need counseling, but not the type of counsel that has been given here.
And if one does separate the emotion from theology, one does not have the theology of the Bible.
I’ve actually read from some Christian sites that one should avoid abuse by getting to know the one they are going to marry. Problem with that is abusers are very good actors. I know of one woman who did not rush into marriage, dated the guy for a year or more, and he was great. Once she married him however he declared to her that now he had her, she was his. The abuse began until she left and divorced him 13 years later. The sad part is that she had been horribly abused by her father in childhood. How she remained even partially sane is beyond my comprehension.
If nothing else, the passages on who we are in Christ, that we are to protect the weak, want justice should suffice. In this case divorce is justice for the weak, the one being abuse and the children in that home who are changed each time their mom is beaten. It changes who they are. It changes the one being abused as well.
Dave, concerning abuse, I think the imago Dei (image of God) argument comes into play. It’s not a cut and dry situation. If an individual is protecting the image of God in herself and/or her children, then I believe she’s free in Christ to divorce.
First Dave, I want to apologize for what I wrote to you as I once again used a comment like a sledge hammer instead of a conversation. My comment was harsh and I don’t like it.
Now that that is out of the way I need to engage in the discussion. My first point is that I don’t like the way you are using the Bible here. ‘If a specific exception is not mentioned then it doesn’t exist’ is very inconsistently applied and I don’t believe the Biblical writers intended the Bible to be used this way. But in the case we are talking about I think there is more info than we are using.
I keep two things before me on this issue. One: divorce is always a sin. If a marriage is breaking up then sin has happened. Who’s sin? Well, if a man is committing adultery that certainly his sin. The woman? Well, she either sat by and watched a faithful man become an adulterer or she chose an adulterous man. Either way she has issues she needs to repent of and heal from. I know there are those who will quibble on this. They know someone whom they will claim was the completely innocent victim in a divorce. I don’t buy it. In every case – as far as I am concerned – divorce means that both parties have failed- sinned. But what is the Good News? The Gospel? Sin is not the final word, the cross is. The second thing I keep before me is that forgiveness is real and complete. When we repent and lay our lives at the cross Jesus makes us a New Creation. For the divorced person who seeks Christ ‘There is now therefore NO CONDEMNATION. Some say, ‘well, there is no condemnation but there are consequences’ For me, the only consequence of sin is the cross.
The outcome of this is that in terms of marrying again, service in ministry, or anything else the New Creature is free and forgiven to do all that God is calling them to do. When we cry out, ‘but he/she is divorced!’ we condemn what God has declared He will not condemn and we ourselves are found to be in the much worse sin of denying that the cross has power.
I would definitely quibble with this Strider.
1. I do not believe divorce is always sin. Sin causes divorce, but it is not sin if the covenant has been broken. My support for this is in the posts linked to above. Divorce on biblical grounds is not sin, though certainly sin is at the four of what led to it.
2. I strongly disagree about consequences. Yes, the Blood cleansed but consequences remain. My lifelong study of Proverbs leads me to remember that life is choices and choices have consequences.
Jared,
I fail to see how the Imago Dei argument seriously comes into play here. I have never heard it used anywhere else in this way.
You speak as if this is a general concept of theology, but I have never heard the concept used as a reason to get out of a situation.
Ben, we have a responsibility to love our neighbors as ourselves (our children), and to protect the image of God in ourselves (self-defense/civil responsibility). We are members of a heavenly kingdom through Christ, but we are also still members of the civil kingdom on earth. Unless we’re being persecuted for being a Christian, it appears we aren’t required to “turn the other cheek.”
I’m not saying that divorce is always the option, but in some cases, I it is. My main point is that there are other factors to consider other than the marriage/divorce passages. There is other Scripture and commands that need to be considered. It’s not cut and dry.
Jerod, that is true. But in each of those other cases that you mentioned, we have either instruction, or example from Scripture, outside of simple an abstract theological concept.
We have Godly examples of self-defense and civil responsibility in Scripture. We don’t have the same thing here. I just think to extrapolate Imago Dei, without anything else supporting the argument, is probably a step to far.
Ben, would you say that the imago dei argument doesn’t apply to the marriage relationship?
Of course Imago Dei, as a concept, applies to a marriage relationship. It would be hard to find anything involving humanity that it didn’t apply as some level. I just don’t think that I see biblical justification for using it as a catch-all for self-preservation.
Again, I don’t actually have issues with divorce in the case of abuse…only re-marriage. So, I think the case can be made, and perhaps even that Imago Dei can be included as part of that case…but using an abstract concept to attempt to counter a more explicit biblical argument can get to in dangerous waters very quickly.
At least, if that is the ONLY part of the argument.
And, regarding abuse…I can see the case for separation, or perhaps divorce….but not for re-marriage.
Divorce, in that context, can be a legal instrument for any number of things. But, I do think that re-marriage would be un-Biblical.
Debbie, you are making an emotional jump by saying that divorce == justice. I can’t think of any Biblical justification for that. That being said, if divorce is needed to stop the abuse (for example, the abuser is somehow legally exploiting the fact that they are married to continue preying on his wife)…I can see the case of it being needed. I think that the legal instrument of divorce can be used without breaking the covenant made with God concerning your marriage.
But, again, I can’t see how re-marriage would be Biblically justified…as that would be a clear violation of the covenant. But, I believe that re-marriage is never permitted while a spouse is living….which I understand is a minority position, with which many would disagree with me on.
A clear violation of what covenant Ben? The one the man broke by beating his wife? That covenant? I just hope we are not seriously considering these things, because I would hate to go ten and twenty years back in time on this issue. That would be the end of the church age I would hope.
As for your view on remarriage, I would also disagree. I think it’s reading into scripture something that just isn’t there.
Think critically on this, why would Christ allow for divorce in case of adultery which physically is not as bad as beating a woman or emotionally abusing her. So Christ would allow it if one man or woman has sex outside of marriage, but for a beating and a threat to the very life of the woman, possible death, he just allows separation and possibly coming back together? I think that is a total misconception of what Christ was saying.
Ben: Let’s think critically again. Divorce equals justice, man loses family, man loses wife for the act of abuse and it is against the law, so the man is breaking the law, probably is in jail for awhile.
Woman is hopefully safe(although even in divorce her husband may come after her and kill her aka OJ Simpson just to name one of millions of cases) but woman can get on with her life, hopefully find a man that will love her in the way he should as Christ loved the church, and raise her children in a normal environment, although much counseling will probably be needed). Yeah, I’d say that was poetic justice.
Debbie,
Again, I have no issue with divorce…only re-marriage. I think the same thing about divorce after adultery…so to comparison is moot.
So, basically, it is justice because it fits your definition of what you think justice should be?
No Ben, it’s justice because the Bible says it is. Christ did condone divorce in certain situations. Christ treated woman for the first time as human beings, something the Pharisees could never understand nor could certain Jews. He was not doing this for the men Ben, it was for the safety and sake of the women, something unheard of in the First century.
I am speaking of remarriage Ben. It is not a sin to remarry in some instances either. But…as Christians we are free to do what we want to do. We have the Holy Spirit in us. This is just another don’t that should not be a don’t. Not in the case of abuse anymore than in the cases Christ mentioned. Thankfully the churches are changing and actually studying, reading it as it was written instead of “holding up the Bible and saying I am Biblical” as John Reisenger said, they are actually reading it in total. Reading it as it was written to the First Century Christians.
Debby, AGAIN, I agree with you. Divorce is needed in some situations. BUT, it is never for justice, for safety? Yes. For the protection of children? Absolutely. To “get back at them.” Never. Divorce as justice is a parallel found no where in the Bible.
Where did I ever say it was to get back at the person Ben? Is justice getting back at a person, or is justice fair and just punishment?
According to the dictionary, the word justice means a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity. It is also the act of being just and/or fair
Debbie,
Fine, where in Scripture is divorce as justice discussed?
Really? I understand if people disagree regarding the re-marriage concept….but to say it “isn’t there” it just not true.
Have you read the story of Hosea and Gomer? Have you seen the parallels explicitly made between marriage and Christ’s relationship with us? Does he turn away from us forever when we are harlots of the faith? Does he forsake us when we walk away from Him?
Again, I understand why people would disagree with me on this (and I can respect a difference of opinion)….but to say the idea is totally absent from Scripture at all is to prove either ignorance or blindness.
Ben: If someone is threatening your life, beating you to a pulp, I have high doubt that the story of Hosea and Gomer would apply here. Context Ben.
The Bible is about Christ Ben. The Bible was written to first century Christians and has to be interpreted and read as if it were written to first century Christians.
Debbie,
That is why I provided multiple examples. Hosea and Gomer? No, the eternal, unrevokable relationship of Christ to his Church? Still applies.
And, AGAIN, divorce is NOT what I have a problem with….it is re-marriage.
Also, honestly, you are being very curt and disrespectful. I don’t mind having these conversations….but lets have them like adults.
Debbie,
That is the thing…from my study of Scripture….I don’t think that the covenant CAN be broken by anything but death.
If my wife leaves me, cheats on me, stabs me, shoots me, whatever….I might separate physically, maybe even for a lifetime. But, the primary purpose of my marriage is to exemplify Christ’s relationship with his Church. I’m free to abandon my bride, when he abandons his.
Ben: I believe you are wrong in both your thinking and reading of scripture. But the fact remains that Christ was for justice, I believe divorce from a abusive man is justice, right and not sin. The church so far agrees with me. Thankfully, unless we intend to take 3 steps back when ignorance to the situation gave ignorant advice.
Read the Matthew account in the book of Mark as well. Jesus was teaching that marriage did not destroy human rights that God gave us at birth, just because the person married.
“Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry.” Colossians 3:5. Abuse is evil desire, impurity, selfish etc. now read about the passage in Matthew and Mark again. No Christian stays in a marriage with a murderer, a thief, or an abusive hostile mean spouse because he hasn’t committed sexual sins against her. I believe they are also free to remarry. The offending spouse did break the contract of marriage, which most certainly can be broken.
Debbie, this is getting humorous, you CONTINUE to accuse me of something I didn’t say: I NEVER said that divorce was not right in those situations.
The remarriage situation…I’m fine with you disagreeing with me…there is no conflict between a justice-loving Christ and singleness.
We can continue discussing this when provide a reference from Scripture (specific…anyone can say “Jesus agrees with me”…prove it.) I’m not going to try and argue with emotion…it clouds out all reason. Give me a solid, logical argument, and we can continue.
Matt. 19:9 Jesus says “except for fornication” the Gk (Strongs # 4202, harlotry (adultry or incest), figuratively Idolatry – fornicaton)
If Jesus meant only adultry why didn’t He use the word for adultry?
Sorry for the miss spelling of the word adultery.
Of coarse in any close relationships we will have times when we may be short, cross, unattentive, angry, or whatever thus sinning. We repent and go on, thanking God for His grace to do better. But to imply that in an abusive relationship that the victim is always somewhat responsible through sin is ignornant of these types of relationships unless you believe that when someone is say mugged they commited some sin that helped cause that to happen.
Please read on the behavior of abusers. They don’t need a reason in fact they will try to start an arguement so that they can feel justified. Very often the more submissive a wife is the more angry they get. You are not dealing here with the average man/woman. They have emotional and mental problems at least and sometimes I believe, demonic influences.
I agree with you Deborah.
Divorce is better than murder. Abuse involves the profoundest disrespect for the person and for God who ordained marriage. Usually is symptomatic of a deeper pathology, and there have been those pastors and churches who, due to the focus on no divorce idea, have encouraged wives to stay with abusers which resulted in their being murdered. The issue is not oneof emotions as some imagine; it is a matter of being able to discern the presence of a pathology which can lead to murder. Yes, God hates divorce, and probably no one hates divorce more than a victim of such evil. Interestingly enough, God declared in Malachi that He hated in divorce, and in Jer.3 He gave Israel a writ of divorce and sent her away. He threatened to do the same to Judah. It is the problem of our narrow focus, the paralysis of analysis, that leads us to ignore verses which offer the possibility of differing conclusions. We need a method that is more synthetical than analytical. Evidently, God does not mind identifying Himself as being divorced. He says He hates it, but He did it! Some folks read the wives obey your husbands and refuse to consider the idea that mutual submission has a place in the process, but they really need to consider how God told the Patriarch Abraham to do what his wife, Sarah, said about Hagar. God telling a man to do what the woman said. Imagine that! I say folks the Bible is a whole lot deeper than we imagine, and its end result is a healthy, well-adjusted personality for the individual believer and an attractively balanced and affectionate relationship of a married couple. The woman is not a door mat to walk over, and the husband is neither stern law giver or limp noodle. He is a mature, balanced, flexible, creative individual, and the same goes for the wife. Both have some of the traits of the opposite sex. That is why the God-ordained plan for family life is father and mother, male and female, to provide for the balance of the children, be they sons and/or daughters. And because of that provision, some times the woman, say if the husband dies, steps to the fore and takes charge. It was interesting to read that in the case of Dr. John Piper (whose father was an evangelist and away from home much of the time) his mother could exhibit masculine traits and guide her son’s development in the absence of the father and yet yield it up to her husband when he came home without a bit of trouble. Gentlemen, you should have been raised by frontier type people as I was. My grandparents were like the early settlers that I have studied in historical sources. They were born in the 1800s and moved into Southeast Missouri and Northeast Arkansas, an area that the government encouraged settlers to move into around 1900, offering the land at a price well below the surrounding states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, etc. Thanks to Rev. Ben Stratton for supplying me with a bit of info. on that area that I lacked. Anyway, a frontier woman was as tough as they come (they had to be), but they were still truly feminine. I would preach the funeral of both of my grandparents. They were not given to displays of public affection. I remember them kissing one time (during the day of the funeral of my mother’s older sister), and my mother years later saying that was the only time she had ever seen them kiss. They had some terrible arguments and terrible threats between them, but grandpa never struck grandma. And he would not allow a child or a grandchild to strike a sister or a brother. I got the worse whipping of my life for hitting my sister. Abuse is certainly grounds for separation, and, being a person who took training at Liberty University (I received my M.A. in Counseling as a member of the first graduating class in distance learning in Jan.1988.) I can tell you that our professors then said very plainly that violence was a no, no. Get the woman out of there before some gets murdered.
Ben,
You are right. You are in the minority position, but that has not always been the case. According to Gordon Wenham , in the first five centuries after Christ, all Greek and Latin writers except one(Ambrosiaster) saw that remarriage after divorce was adultery. The marriage bond was seen to unite both parties until the death of one of them. When a marriage partner was guilty of unchastity, usually understood to mean adultery, the other was expected to separate but did not have the right to remarry.
I have studied this for years. as have others, and it seems to me that the plain reading of the texts support your position(and the one which I hold). Culturally, it is not easy to hold this position, even within the Church, but I believe that it is the plain teaching of Scripture in spite of the change that has taken place since the years of Erasmus and his propagation of the acceptance of remarriage after divorce.
Ben,
Don’t know if his position has changed, but John Piper agrees with your position in this paper of his….. from a 1986 position paper on divorce & remarriage by John Piper, these are his conclusions….can read full article here…
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper
Conclusions and Applications
In the New Testament the question about remarriage after divorce is not determined by:
1.The guilt or innocence of either spouse,
2.Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or not,
3.Nor by whether the divorce happened before or after either spouse’s conversion,
4.Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth,
5.Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion involved,
6.Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart,
7.Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.
Rather it is determined by the fact that:
1.Marriage is a “one-flesh” relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
2.Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
3.God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
4.The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
5.Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30).
Those who are already remarried:
1.Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness
2.Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)
3.Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God’s eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God’s will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.
Kevin, The end of yourself post is full of grace and kindness.
But once again you instruct, as someone else already did, that me must confess a divorce and/ remarriage as sin and ask forgiveness.
HOW can you ask forgiveness for something you are not sorry for?
Are we to lie to yourselves so that we can lie to God or just lie to God?
There are consequences for everything we do not just sin. Sometimes it’s good consequences and sometimes bad. Because God is who He is He can certainly take our choices and creat very beautiful consequences. ie. I did remarry and we have one daughter. This week she started taking her first classes at bible college. She has the most amazing little boy. When he was 4 yrs old he told me one morning. “Grandma, I saw heaven it was really beautiful. But then I saw a really scary place, it was dark and there were dragons there.” It was time to explain lost souls, satan, and a place called hell.
My point is that God knows our hearts and He shows Himself to each one of us perfectly. At this point in my life I will not fall from grace back into the law.
Wow, Sorry everyone once again I didn’t read over my post before submitting it. I do apologize.
I shouldn’t even be posting in this blog, my beliefs are very different from the SBC.
So I will bid you ado.
God bless each one of you that you should ” prosper even as your soul prospers” Knowing who you are in Christ.
It is very easy to take the strict road on the issue of divorce and remarriage, forgetting the great evils perpetrated by some bent on wicked ways. It is also easy to focus in on only those sayings which seem to favor old Rome’s view of marriage, forgetting that even Rome couldn’t live with that and had annulments for those in the higher echelons of life. If God was so harsh on the issue as some seem to think, why then did He allow David to continue and have him called a Patriarch and a Prophet. Filters that recognize only those understandings that conduce to marriage view advocated will prevent people from being or showing mercy and kindness to those who suffer. Such attitude comes across as cruelty of the worst sort, and it gets people murdered as in the case of the pastor and his church in my first year in seminary. He told how he and his people persuaded an abused woman to go back to her husband…who murdered her. He said, “I told my people we would never do that again.” A little late. Children need two parents, and when one parent utterly decamps who will be the mother or father to that child? Under the OT law Adulterers were supposed to be put to death. Shall we return to that. Having read Piper’s materials, I found it wanting in several regards. And speaking from experience as a child of divorce, I can tell you that I passionately hate divorce as God said He did in Malachi, and that was after He divorced Israel in Jer. 3 and threatened to divorce Judah (same chapter). so now we must exclude God for getting a divorce. Such is the implication of such severe approach to the issue.
Hi Deborah,
Sorry if I miscommunicated…eveything after I gave the blog address in blue was John Piper’s work(ie comment #69). We should not use pragmatism to determine our theology, that is, though God has blessed you with a good life and a great daughter in no wise determines what the Scriptures say regarding God’s standard. I know that there are no winners in a divorce, and I would greatly prefer to take a different stand on divorce + remarriage given the widespread nature of it in this society. Obviously, both positions(remarriage, or no remarriage after divorce) are not correct, so we must each seek to be led by the Spirit and the Word in living and teaching what God’s plan for His children is.
As far as the grace back to law question, all of us break God’s law, but that does not mean the law is bad…it shows our need of a Savior. The law points us to that need of Him.
Dr Willingham,
It is obvious that you are a very well read and studied man. However, to glibly speak of man “excluding God for getting a divorce” in regards to Israel is a comment beneath you and certainly derogatory to our God. We are nothing before Him, and HIS holiness will make all of us fall before him with our face covered as did the prophets of old.
God told all the kings of Israel about accumulating wives, especially pagan wives, but they ignored him and we can see the results. David had eight or ten wives and it seems his family life was not one to be duplicated as we read about it in 1-2 Samuel. David had a heart after God but that does not mean that we see his life as prescriptive but more as descriptive, sin and all.
I got married a little later in life…30s…but enjoyed my life as a single man. I also ebjoy my married life now with my wife and children. I do not think that singleness after divorce is the same as being condemned to the abyss 🙂 I think a single divorced person can be greatly used of God and still have all the fruits of the Spirit without being re-married(love, joy, peace, patience, etc). Otherwise, all the people that God has called to singleness for a lifetime are getting the short end of the stick, b/c they are misssing out. Again, our theology should guide our life choices, not vice versa.
Yes our theology should guide our life choices, but when our “theology” gets in the way of human compassion for a woman who is beaten, condemning her to a life that God doesn’t condemn her to,then it’s the “theology” that’s the problem.
God does allow for divorce and remarriage in certain instances. Deut. 24:1&2 as well as the passage in Matthew say this. God understands and has made a provision for those who have been hurt, abused, and wronged in marriage.
Kevin: Nothing derogatory to God was intended. On the contrary, I was attempting to point out how degrading such a view on divorce is to the God whom we worship, presenting as it does, such a narrow, restrictive perspective on God like that of the Pharisees, knowing nothing at all of His mercy and grace for sinners. God said it was better to marry than to burn. He also said, “Are you loosed (divorced?) from a wife, seek not a wife, but and if you marry, you do not sin.”(I Cors.7:27,28). Some people would condemn people to endless years of needless suffering. Think of those who have condemned people to remain in a marriage which leads to their being murdered as in the example I cited. I notice that such theology does not have any room for variation, but the theology of the Bible is a greater deep than the exclusivists/no divorce/no remarriage people ever suspect. Should a woman remain with a man who sexually abuses a child? Jesus allowed for a divorce in the case of such fornication and even for a remarriage. Our problem is the analytic method of the modern period. We lack a synthetical method like that of the Reformers, namely, that of comparing Scripture with Scripture. Your filters, gentlemen, it is your filters that leads to such conclusions. I like what one old so-called Arminian said about some preacher who sinned in the matter of moral failure: “He had better get back in the ministry.” When I asked why, he answered: “Don’t you believe the Bible. The gifts and callings of God are without repentance on God’s part.” Upon reflection, I had to agree that he had a point.
Consistently on this URL abuse is described as something men do to women and children. Right?
At the time I left Iowa in the late 90’s, Iowa officials admitted that 56% of child abuse, including maiming and death, was committed by women, not men. And, of that 44% done by men, most was not done by the biological father, but by the men brought home by Mommy. I tried to talk to social workers who blamed ‘fathers’ for what was clearly a lover of the woman, not the father, and they said, “Well, to us he served as a father figure.”
In the early 90’s, in response to an op-ed I wrote to the local “newspaper” (it is hard to use that term in reference to that publication) I got a call from an official at the Domestic Violence department in the Vinton mental health institute. He told me in the past when a family came to them, they separated the wife and the kids, and pounced on the man as the total cause. It did not work.
So, they tried an experiment. They screened for mutual violence, and when they found it, they took the kids apart, and separated husband and wife. They told each one while they understood the violence was mutual, they must stop using violence as a tool for anger. The men mostly became sheepish and admitted they realized it was not right to hit even in response to being hit.
The women rejected it, almost universally saying, “If he makes me angry, I have a right to hit him.”
I asked what percentage of cases involved mutual violence. After 20 years, my memory is not clear as to whether it was 70 or 85%.
One phony argument given is, well, women don’t do much damage. I have had smart-alecky men say, “Har har. I’d like to see a small woman hurt a big strong man.”
A brother-in-law worked in corrections for most of his life. I once asked him how many guards it took to control a berserk man, assuming he and the guards were average size men. He knew already, and told me, “Six.”
I then asked him how many guards it took to control a berserk woman prisoner, assuming guards were average size men, and the woman was average size woman. He said, “Four!”
In both cases, that assumes no weapons, no dangerous foreign objects. He said in that case, no number of guards could control her without someone getting hurt or killed. Yet, men who simply don’t know any better assume women cannot seriously harm men.
In the 90’s, a football coach from Marion, Iowa was killed by his wife with a knife. She tried to say it was in response to abuse by her husband, but her own daughter testified her mother had been physically abusing him for years, and that her father had never hit back. It has been noted that his last words are typical for men murdered by their wives, “Hahahaheeheeheehohoho!”
Satan is involved in an attack on men, and it behooves pastors of Christian Churches to know the truth, and not just accept what Satan wants them to think.