I just added the manuscript of a message I preached several months ago to our church on the subject of divorce and remarriage here. I hold to the view held by James Boice's church, Piper, and others that the marital bond is permanent and cannot be broken except by death. No local judge has the authority to break a bond that God has created. One implication of this view is that remarriage in any situation (except the death of your spouse) is adultery. For many this is a painful message to receive; for others its very controversial. I'd be interested in hearing your comments, criticisms, etc. of this view of marriage, but also your thoughts on how to preach painful and controversial truths in a loving way.
Justin N.
Also - anyone interested in having dinner with Dr. Lawrence Saturday night at Golden Corral (6pm) is welcome to come - we've reserved the back room.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Justin, I like the new website.
I need to study the issue of divorce and remarriage more carefully.
I have heard Piper's arguments.
However, the plain reading of Matthew 5:32 and 1 Cor. 7:15 seem to indicate that there are two conditions for "Biblical" divorce:
1. Marital Unfaithfulness and
2. If an unbelieving spouse leaves.
Now, that is a separate issue from the remarriage question (although connected). Jesus clearly states that remarriage after divorce is sin.
Tough issue that we all have to deal with in our churches.
A related issue is what Paul means by "husband of one wife" and the qualifications for elders/deacons.
justin childers
I had Dr. Heimbach for Marriage and Family class. He did a pretty good job of convincing me that the most straight-forward reading of the Matthew passages weren't necessarily the best.
He argued that Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, was referring to the Jewish betrothal period in these passages (which is why Mark and Luke don't include the exception clause).
My question would be about the 1 Cor. 7 passage. To me, this appears to be a legitimate exception clause for Biblically permissible divorce. I would then argue that if there is such a thing as Biblically permissible divorce, it would imply that there could be a Biblically permissible remarriage (I acknowledge that this is a logical, not Biblical conclusion).
Jim - I would actually argue the opposite (and do). I would argue that First Corinthians passage does allow for separation (and maybe even divorce) - but that this is only in extreme cases so that peace may be preserved. However, this does not mean that the separated (or even divorced) spouses are free to remarry. If First Corinthians does teach this, it contradicts the teaching of Jesus and the Old Testament. It seems to me that the one-flesh union created in marriage is a spiritual union (with a portion of the Spirit - ala Malachi) and therefore remarriage in any circumstance is in effect committing adultery or even polygamy. I'd encourage you to look at the second half of the message linked to above - I deal specifically with the Corinthians passage.
Justin N.
I feel I must weigh in on such a subject as important as this. I honestly have not listened to Justin Nale's message on this, but I think I agree with him on the divorce and remarriage issue. It is important to realize that only Matthew gave an "exception" clause when it comes to divorce. Not only was Matthew writing to a Jewish audience, but he stated in Matthew 1:19 that Joseph "was a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly." The same word here for divorce (a different form) is used in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. I would argue that Matthew is making the point that if there is unfaithfulness during the betrothal period, then a man can divorce his legal wife legitimately before God. I think a good study of the way Matthew wrote this in Greek makes this more clear.
As for the First Corinthians passage, I think Paul is making it clear that unbelievers might possibly leave and not be reconciled to their spouse. Nowhere does Paul say that remarriage is an option. Rather the context is that if the unbeliever leaves, then the believer is to pursue reconciliation. But if the unbeliever will not be reconciled then the believer is not enslaved to the pursuit of reconciliation. Again it does not teach anything on remarriage.
I would argue (I think Biblically) that the only place that Scripture allows for remarriage is in the death of a spouse.
Now on the subject of the "husband of one wife" issue we can take up later. I personally still hold to a disqualification if one has been divorced and remarried. I know some of my dear brothers here disagree, and I admit that I am open for persuasion. But as it stands right now, I view a second marriage as an adulterous marriage and so I conclude that while God forgives the sin by His grace, there are still life-long consequences to some sin. I know I am not in agreement with at least 2 of you guys (since we talked about this after everyone left on Tuesday), but that is my stance for right now.
I think these are major issues that our society and our churches are facing today. Going back to Justin N.'s question on teaching, I say openly, honestly, boldly, compassionately, graciously, and with fear and trembling. I think it is one of the most difficult places for a pastor to be. We will offend people with the truth of God's Word, but we must do it graciously. Paul told Timothy to correct his opponents with gentleness. While I know these were not your typical church members, our church members have been influenced by the culture and need to be corrected with gentleness. But either way, at the end of the day, we must face God and give an account for the ministry that has been entrusted to us. So to that I say we must do it with fear and trembling.
Post a Comment