Thank you for your clarification and thank you for being humble enough to listen to John Piper.

It's refreshing to see a debate on such a contentious issue carried out graciously and without personal attack. I tend to agree with Piper's interpretation, but I appreciate your clarification and further exposition.

While I appreciate the debate, it is frustrating indeed that teaching on an issue as important as divorce can't be more clear and consistent.

I can appreciate that the gospel writers were writing to their first century audience, in the context of the Jewish and Roman culture that they were a part of - I find it perfectly plausible that terminology and references in the text would need to be interpreted historically.

What I can't appreciate is a fundamental Christian teaching being so ambiguous. Why would we be left with a text, supposedly to point our way to the truth, with teaching that would have to be interpreted historically? It defies logic, especially when one considers the pain and suffering that men and women have been made to endure at the hands of traditional, conservative church teaching on the subject.

I am so thankful for a discussion that deals respectfully with the other person and their views. It makes me want to read more about this issue. Thank you both for setting an example. Way to represent!

I am so thankful for a discussion that deals respectfully with the other person and their views. It makes me want to read more about this issue. Thank you both for setting an example. Way to represent!

I am the "Paul" on Dr. Brewer's blog about the comatose wife. My 4 year journey has led me to a few observations. The most critical people who are quick to judge are not the older, not the wiser but the younger idealists who see things through the prism of a life not visited by tragedy. They are the 35 year old and younger ones who are quick to read the words but fail to grasp the meaning.

The are the ones who think they can debate an issue with a man of Dr. Brewer's prominence, education and life time of research and dismiss it because of faulty theological indoctrination and even more so, lack of life experience.

The problem is not with Dr. Brewer's conclusions.. it is with the "sound bite" generation which read his short article, didn't give pause or time to research his biblical exposition and made assumptions based on childhood catachismical indoctrination of what is Scripturally true and what is perceived true.

This is a man who spent a full year with a stranger, incorporated the assistance of many of his colleagues world wide to help me and cared enough to see that someone he never met, was givent he right advice in the midst of a horrible tragedy.

Jeff Russell
Drexel Hill, Pa.

BY the way..did you know that Biblically:

1. A man who is Miising in Action after 2 years is considered dead and frees the spouse to remarry..even if he is not known to be dead.

2. How many of you prayed and waited for a spouse before marrying them? HOw many of you were first attracted to your spouses because of the way they appeared? Did you know that the Sons of God married the daughters of men? This is not the definition of a God-willed marriage....

3. How many of you actually believe God had more to do with bringing youa spouse than your own efforts and physical attraction?

We give God tooo much credit... and I believe that what God brings together let no man put asunder...I also believe that God had almost nothing to do with 96% of all marriages.. so I dont give him the credit for bad matches nor do I pretend we can't divorce in our own will when we marry in our own will...

( Sent to Christianity Today)

Dear CT,
Re: “What God Has Joined…”

Being divorced 4 years ago by my wife I have had ample time to research this volatile subject. May I respond to this unfortunate article. It seems Mr. Brewer and many others have done a terrible disservice to the church…especially the children of those who choose these questionable “abuse/neglect” divorces. Given the controversy over the subject and the far-reaching negative effects of divorce on the spouses, children, the church and society… more responsible editing might have also included the article by John Piper “Divorce and Remarriage… A Position Paper.” www.desiringgod.com The exception clause of “porneia” so liberally applied today is therein contextually clarified.

Since Brewer wants to hear the Scripture from the ears of the hearers… the immediate shock the disciples had over Christ’s view of the permanence of marriage should validate a position quite different from his. Jesus also said divorce was allowed by MOSES (not Him) because of the hardness of hearts. Let’s remember that according to Jesus, hardness of heart (unforgiveness) might lead to Him rejecting them in the end. Our divorce epidemic may be just a symptom of the ‘cheap grace, no repentance required’ gospel. Compassion for hurting spouses should never be elevated above the mandates of Scripture.

Nonetheless, Brewer’s reasonings in arriving at his published doctrines are flawed. Those in his camp view marriage as a contract to be performed on not a covenant. He leaps from then Jewish culture into allowing similar license for today. We do not interpret Scripture in light of Jewish divorce documents or then cultural norms. Christ’s statements are absolute in Mark and Luke and sobering in Matthew. Paul affirms the most powerful witness of marriage as being a picture of Christ and the church. If a divorced Hosea husband remains faithful to his wayward Gomer bride, that indeed is a ‘picture’ of our situation today, isn’t it? Paul affirms remaining single as best. It is quite a leap to say that “you are not bound” to an unbeliever to then giving the green light to remarry. Brewer avoids much other context as well as common sense. eg. Adultery was grounds for execution in the day he researched. Should we permit that today? Also, young children don’t need to see their mother going to bed with a man when their Daddy is just across town. Blended families might appear better than a previous one, but they may be a form of serial polygamy.

The God-honoring mandates of Jesus regarding faithfulness to, service of and forgiveness toward others are ignored when a person chooses divorce and then elects to remarry. I have yet to hear a pastor come at it from this angle, let alone forgo remarriage that causes children to “stumble” just a bit. As followers of Christ true forgiveness is not optional. Divorce is. Yes, in abusive situations, legal divorce is an option. Still the vows and union should remain intact by the violated spouse. Sadly, those who errantly initiate divorce most often are selfishly serving themselves, and hurting their own children, not mention our witness. The manifold rationalizations for divorce/remarriage do our enemy’s bidding…fostering destruction and corruption of the family/marriage God ordained. One thing’s for sure…no marriages in heaven and we will all stand accountable for our lives… divorce-suggesting pastors especially.

JustinTraver@runbox.com, Gresham Oregon

The position of no divorce and its many variants all ignore select passages that fly into the face of their doctrines, worshiping the letter of the law.
Instone-Brewer’s position holds water the best of any views. Both within purely scriptural context as well as within cultural and contextual understanding of the day in which it was written.
To permit divorce forces a number of things to be dealt with that some cannot accept, such as Church Discipline, getting involved, leaving ones comfort zone, dealing with personal sins, shortcomings, and responsibilities. Ministering to the fatherless and the Widow ( Surely a single parent and children qualifies in the spirit of this law) Generally it will not permit the church to be lazy and lukewarm in its responses.
It also forces us to wrestle with one fact that is inescapable regardless of your theology.

GOD DOES NOT HOLD ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FREE MORAL CHOICE of OTHERS TO SIN; I.E. BREAK THEIR MARRIAGE COVENANT CONTRACT.

God gave us minds and wills!!! To attempt to hold one accountable for the other is to say that I have control over your mind and will and can make you do, etc, etc, etc.
A “No Divorce” position does just this and Ignores many scriptures such as these

Ezra 10 Priests ordered to divorce wives
Jer 3 God Divorces Israel
Mat 1 Joseph being a Just Man,,, was minded to put Mary away privately
Jer 3 Putting away of wife
1 Cor 7;27,28 loosed, from a wife, no sin to marry

Instone-Brewer’s position fits within all the overlooked scriptures the No Divorce position ignores. Instone-Brewer’s understanding of Food, Clothing, Love in marriage is correct. God does the same for us, Likewise we are responsible also to do the same.

No divorce escapes this responsibility by their position.

It the hardhearted, that’s the problem.

JustinTraver

Please note, Hosea took back his harlot wife

AFTER she repented of her ways, Read it for yourself, and slowly, I missed this little detail for over 25 years.

This looks a lot like church discipline, RESTORATIVE discipline.

While I respect your right to disagree and to reason the scriptures,
I do know this; When it ( the doctrine ) is right, it fits perfectly with all scripture and walks in harmony with all scriptures.

I still see pieces laying around of the puzzle in light of your position!

to:Rick H

simply put,

TRADITIONS OF MEN and the worship therof

Forbidding to marry see 1 tim 4:3 and Col 2:8

To Jeff Russell who says that people who are more conservative have not been visited by tragedy, don't be so quick to judge us. Many of us are well over 35 and have lived through great tragedy, and we have lived through the errors of liberal thinking and teaching. We are so grateful for pastors and teachers who stand up for Biblical truth.

I read both articles and I think John Piper is scriptually right. I don't see how his views are non-traditional because they are scriptural. Jesus said in Matthew 5:31,32- It was also said, "Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce." But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.ESV. I used to be a physically abused wife and I researched every passage I could find and the conclusion I came to was God hates domestic violence but hates divorce more so I should have seperated from my husband but NOT divorced him which I did and now hes a christian and I'm not an abused wife anymore! This was very hard for me to do mainly because I was only 19 and another man knew what was going on and offered to take the place of my husband if I divorced him which was very hard to resist because the other man was everything I wanted. I'm 24 now and we've been married almost 6yrs and I'm glad I didn't give up on Christ. For anyone going through this I suggest going to Dr.Dobsons website. He is against divorce over abuse also but there is biblical advise on what to do about the situation.

What grace God has given you Natalia and I praise Him for his faithfulness and the testimony he has given you! You definitely have a leg to stand on in this conversation!

To Jeff Russel, I would agree that you should not be quick to judge the young. I am 26 years old. I have had lots of tragedy in my life and it is through those that the Lord has brought me continual hope and more understanding of him and of how sinful I am. My family's story is way to long to post on this blog, but I would be happy to share it any time because of the testimony of God's faithfulness to me and my family despite sin and hopelessness.

My wedding vows say, "For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health." I pray and trust that God will give me all of the grace and mercy I need to live out my wedding vows. We have been married for almost five years and I am certain we will continue to face "tragedies" or opportunities to trust God. We are two imperfect people who are saved by God's grace! Praise the lord He holds us by that same grace. And I am thankful for a teacher so faithful to God's truth as John Piper is. I think that God will bless our efforts of being more "conservative" in our interpretation of God's word.

I agree with Piper's interpretation, based both on the merits of his argument, and on the fact that over the years, he's demonstrated that he's a sound and humble expositor. The one truth that jumps out at me in the midst of this argument is the sober seriousness that a couple needs to have when considering entering into a marriage covenant. There are unforseen challenges in every marriage, but there are also many problems that time and pre-marriage christian counseling can uncover, not to mention fervent direction-asking prayer on the part of the couple.

Every married believer must understand, at the onset, that they're about to enter into a covenant that will be under the persistent attack of the devil. Marriage is no place for passivity. It takes faith in God's sustaining and restoring grace.

And to answer a prior post, if "GOD DOES NOT HOLD ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FREE MORAL CHOICE of OTHERS TO SIN" then none of us needs a Savior, because God doesn't hold me accountable for Adam's sin. If such was the case, then divorce wouldn't exist at all.

There seems to be so much debate on the subject of divorce and re-marriage. The question is why?

God simply states His commands. A believer follows the commands of God. The word of God tells us to forgive those who offends us. Why is it so difficult for forgiveness to take place in a marriage between two people who was once in love with each other? Faith then is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not yet seen. If we really have faith in God He will change the heart of the adulterous one.

This is for anyone who is tempted to give anyone information that is not scriptural. Please remember what the word of God states. "What He - God put together let no man put assunder". There is very grave consequences for those who are not speaking (thus says the Lord). No one knows what marriages were put together by God. Therefore, no one should take it upon themselves to speak for God. Also please think of what divorce does to the children. Not much is spoken of about the children. Why is that?

Earlier this year John Piper preached a series of 13 messages on marriage that reached deep into my heart with more awe and wonder for God on this subject than I have ever had before. The resolve and perspective his "high view" of marriage has been transforming for me.

When I saw the cover for CT this month, I was extremely curious to know what would be written. Would it further encourage me? Would it bring more awe and wonder? Sadly, I came away with the "low view" of marriage that almost led me to walk away from my own marriage 3 years ago.

Our marriage is to reflect Christ and His bride, the church, not the whims of our society. The most amazing thing Piper said in his messages was this, " To the degree that John Piper is not amazed by his salvation, Noel (his wife) pays!" Wrap your mind around that for awhile and see if it doesn't change your thinking about marriage.

If anyone wants to read a thorough exposition that deals with basically the same position that Piper holds----read a book by David Engelsma called "Marriage-the Mystery of Christ and the Church." You can get it from amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Mystery-Church-Covenant-Bond-Scripture/dp/0916206599/ref=sr_1_2/105-5500896-0253238?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193159511&sr=8-2

God Bless his church to rediscover the importance of marriage and the sanctification that comes as a result of a proper view of it.

Well, for my young brothers and sisters in Christ.... your youth is a stumbling block to increased wisdom. Dr. Piper is wrong is his assessment of what SCripture says. You all have forgotten one thing.... the most famous biblical divorce is when God Himself divorced His people Israel for their hardness of heart.

For my young friend that has been married 5 years, you are still fresh and at 26 years old you have many more years to live before you can truly appreciate the sufferings of life.

For those that disagree with my earlier statements I'd like to know your ages and your tragedies you've suffered with respect to marriage and divorce and abuse and rage and domestic violence and all the darkness that many people live through in marriage.

There are women who are guilted by the church to staying in a marriage and becoming a punching bag hoping for change. For every one that does there are 99 that dont.

Christian marriage presumes a Christian value system. A man who beats his wife is not emulating or loviong his wife as Christ loves his church. Paul states that no man hates his body.. well I disagree... every man who sticks a needle in his arm, has sex with other men and gets HIV, who drinks himself into sclerosis indeeds despises his own existence....

Paul also said a man to be a pastor has to be married in Timothy.. so every single pastor is in violation of the requirso eement for the office... I will take it one step further....a pastor is expected to have children and his house be in order....

But every one of you will make an arguement over this...that it is about context.. and indeed it is.....

So is divorce.... and there are reasons for divorce...

Someone asked: "Also please think of what divorce does to the children. Not much is spoken of about the children. Why is that?"

The answer is simple: Lots of people care more about themselves than their children.

To Justin: I absolutely agree (see below)

To Decree.Info: I think you're just the sort of person Justin was talking to (also see below)

Too often I have seen scholars, theologians, pastors, and most importantly, divorcees, digging through the Scriptures for that ONE LINE that they've missed for 25 years that finally puts to rest their nagging conscience and the feeling of un-rightness with God. People! Please look at the spirit of the law and not merely the letter of it!

Jesus says God wants worshippers in spirit and in truth and looking at the spirit of the Hosea passage and Christ's symbolism of marriage to the church it is obvious that the marital vow is meant to overcome...everything. Read 1 Chorinthians 13 with an open mind and let the initial impact of the statements sink in. Don't view the commands on love as an exclusive list but more of an example the various authors of the Bible used to say "And if that doesn't show you how big and awesome this is, nothing will."

Think of it from God's perspective: what brings Him more glory, a Christian who gives up in the face of great adversity or one who gives Him the public credit, gives up his life for his (or her) spouse, and overcomes? Which is a greater witness to an unbeliever?

Why are we trying so hard to be just like everyone else instead of firmly standing apart as sanctified for God? I know I will come to a place in my own marriage where it will seem hard to continue and easy to divorce. Heck, I already have. For God's glory I must press on. For my own benefit, I must become more like Him and do whatever it takes to overcome, whether that means changing my habits, my character, my attitude, or anything else He sees fit to use my wife to change in me.

God hates divorce, perhaps not because it is against the letter of the law, but because it is a tragic failure when joyful triumph was available.

To Cory:

I know the passages you're referring to about God divorcing Israel. They are Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3:8.

With those in mind, let me ask you about how God treated His divorced bride. Did he find another bride? Did he forget her? Did he sue her in court? No.

He died for her to get her back.

Israel spent nearly a thousand years prostituting herself and sacrificing her children to other gods before God "sent her away" into exile. By comparison, a few short verses later God is talking about how He will save her (Isaiah 51:3, Jeremiah 3:14). Show me one spouse bent on divorce who will first of all put up with constant rejection for a thousand years, and then die to make their spouse whole (even while they are still imperfect), considering them "without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." (Ephesians 5:27)

Sorry, that last one was in response to Jeff.

Jeff - I am sure your years of experienced have taught you many valuable spiritual and life lessons--with the noticeable exception of humility.
1) How is it that you can purpose that "God had almost nothing to do with 96% of all marriages" when "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will."
2) Also, was it not Paul who instructed Timothy to "Let no one despise your youth"? Yet, you would demand tragedy resumes from all who would differ from your opinion. (BTW, the last I looked Dr. Piper had passed 35 some time ago)
3) Finally, Sola Scriptura would mandate that believers stand upon God's word over our feeble experiential understandings.

Let me conclude by saying, I am very sorry for your losses. I, in no way, mean to demean the difficulties you have endured. Being past the age of 35 myself, I can commiserate with you in the complexities of life.

To Etienne:

I can purpose that well over 96% of msrriages are not entered into prayerfully because that is the truth... very few men pray for a Godly wife... as Genesis is quick to point out..men would rather marry daughters of men than daughters of God....

When a man pursues a woman it is the wrong order and God is not a God of chaos. The only person in Scripture who as a man was commanded to seek a wife was Hosea.. in every other instance the men who pursued wives ended up with broken lives..becuase as man is the Christ head, his call is to first seek the kingdom of GOd.. and then all things are added...

Abraham pimped his wife, David took bathsheba, Jacob insisted on the wrong choice of the 2nd daughter....

Biblical marriages were arranged for starters... dating is a western concept... so if you want to do it Biblically..then mom and dad should be picking your spouses.

Next... for those who think that reading the English translation is 100% accurate you are mistaken... Dr. Brewer as with all seminary trained ministers are trained to read in hebrew and Greek. Dr. Brewer is a biblical scholar and fluent in the ancient languages....

which is why Strong's COncordance is soo stinking thick....

Next, God didnt just reconcile with Israel, they were tormented for generations befor being reconciled. Israel took to spiritual harlotry.

Another thing.. only a woman could commit adultery not a man until Christ's teachings...

There is so much that the lay person will not be able to appreciate unless they are students of SCripture in its original language.

False humility is what is wrong with the church... Christ said, "why do you attack me for saying, "ye are as gods" for the AScripture so says"...and then he says people pick and choose the Scriptures they desire to follow.

Next, Jesus did not come to do away with the law, he came to fulfill it... and the teaching in Matthew 18 has to be appreciated in its context... they were trying to get Jesus to deny the law....it was a trap set up so that they could accuse him of heresy... the teaching was done to confound the Pharissees... for the law said a man could divorce for any reason...

Here is something Dr. Brewer ommitted... there is a reason that Christ said to divroce causes a woman to commit adultery... and perhaps if he illucidated on it it would make better sense..When a man divorced his wife, without a writ of divorce the sons were the backbone of the agrarian society in which they lived... no sons.. no crops... So if a woman was divorced and lost her sons, she wasnt allowed to work, all she could do was prostitute herself to earn income....

NOw, take this perspective and use it as a framework for revisiting Dr. Brewer's assertions.

For the person who posted "GOD DOES NOT HOLD ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FREE MORAL CHOICE of OTHERS TO SIN; I.E. BREAK THEIR MARRIAGE COVENANT CONTRACT", I think these verses might be of relevance.

Ezekiel 3:18-21

18 ?When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.? 19 ?Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.? 20 ?Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. ? 21 ?Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.?
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Eze 3:18-21).

bout Sola SSCriptura..ok let's examine it.. it says that a disobedient son is to be put out of the city walss and his parents are to disown him and he is to be stoned to death

If a husband injuries his pregnant wife and the child dies he is to be killed never mind divorced.

If any person commits adultery we are to be stoned.. so which Sola Scriptura are you talking about...?

Funny thing about New Testament Christians, they forgot Christ came to fulfill the law.. and by the way.. he never told the crowd not to stone the adulterous woman... he simply said.. he who has no sin.....so he was affirming the steadfastness of the law.. or he could have taught it was no longer lawful to stone wone to death...

You see i also believe in Sola Scriptura... all of it....I dont pick and choose.. I also study Scripture from the light of how the culture of the times shaped the teachings..which is something some of you are not considering.

David--I met you back in 2001 during the Tyndale House summer program with Bruce. I enjoyed your teaching then, and your insights into rabbinical backgrounds. I just want to commend you for an incredibly gracious response. I'm glad I know you. Grace brother. Jim

Arthur:
I am well versed in that passage, have preached it often.

points for your consideration.

we are commanded elsewhere in the scriptures to preach the gospel, share the good news, provoke and encourage one another unto good works , Etc, Etc.

We all have a Duty before Christ and God to excercise many things towards our brothers and sisters in faith, ONE of which is church discipline, when a professed believer is negligent in fulfilling their wedding vows, we as a church are responsible to excercise that discipline WITH A GOAL OF RESTORATION first and foremost.

Now QUESTION? we are to do what according to the verse,

Answer: WARN, be a mouthpiece for God.

Counter Question: Is this not our duty to be doing anyhow!!! and once accomplished ( provided we have been instructed by the HOLY spirit to say such) where is our accountability for whatever choice they may or may not make.

CAN we be responsible for the Hard Hearted once they have been warned

Please see Proverbs 29:1, he that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed , and that without remedy

God has not changed nor has his word, whether or not you argue from the old or the new testaments, I have not read where God rescinded divorce as a way to deal with the hardhearted,
Moses permitted it, Why! HARDHEARTEDNESS, You see Divorce is not for the Hardhearted, it is not for the innocent of the Hard Heart, It protects the Innocent and Faithful to their vows. Divorce in no way enables or accepts the twisted reasoning and justifications of the Hardhearted. In all truth, addressing these faith claiming Hardhearted characters is a responsibility of the Church through Church Discipline.

So let us review your verse again, Are we accountable to distinguish who is hardhearted and who is not and warn accordingly?

Jeff...I really don't mean to be rude, but I'm having a very hard time following your thoughts as you're writing them here. Perhaps try sticking to a main point, throwing in some punctuation now and then, and slowing down.

Your comments from Genesis about "marrying daughters of men rather than daughters of God" are way off topic and out of context. I can't even respond to them because I'm convinced you completely missed the point of that passage, which has nothing at all to do with divorce or God's thoughts on it.

The stuff about women being the only ones to commit adultery...

And "arranged marriages"...? Just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean we have to do it. Many things are there for historical reference or as lessons of what not to do. The Bible specifically talks about murder and lists one perpetrated by none other than King David himself. Should we do that? Oh, never mind that it also says "you shall NOT commit murder...".

Jeff, perhaps a message board isn't the appropriate place to try to wrestle with all these disparate topics. Feel free to shoot me an email if you want to chat more: ehardre at hotmail dot com

Etienne:
In reply to your post, I do not see the discovery of the minute fine detail about the circumstances of the return of Hosea’s wife as any justification for anything ,,ON THE CONTRARY, I find it is a twisting of facts by those who would seek to condemn the innocent in a divorce by using proof texts to justify their actions.

I also seem to remember some of Job’s friend who thought they were giving good advice were harshly corrected by the Lord when all was said and done.

I have been looking at the spirit of the law.

Let me give you a great verse in which to discover just that spirit. Matthew 1:19

let us approach this verse in light of the prevailing legalistic and judgmental views posted on this site saying “No Divorce”

Legal points,
Letter of the law says Mary should have been stoned,
Joseph was to be stoned for aiding and abetting her deception,
I even think the family might also be in jeopardy.

The Fly in the OINTMENT
Mat 1;19 Then Joseph her husband, being a JUST MAN, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to PUT HER AWAY ( another word for DIVORCE) privily.
How can Joseph be considered as being just and breaking Gods law ( by the interpretation of the NO DIVORCE crowd)
How can he also be considered as being JUST when his intention was to PUT HER AWAY ( another word for DIVORCE)

Remember OUR God is not a author of Confusions, Lies, nor of changing, He is CONSTANT.

I unpacked this verse over a time of a month, Boy was I amazed when I came to the truth, Please look at my site and the Moralism article, It bears relevance on this passage.

Aaron

I may err here but I will assume that you are familiar with the original sin argument made by Augustine, unfortunate for us all, some of his incorrect reasoning was accepted , while some of his good reasoning was ignored.

He basically said you and I are guilty because Adam was guilty, inherited sin or guilt by birth. I have a sticky problem with this in that the scriptures tell me we are guilty for our own sins and learn the sin habit and ways from our fathers, NOT INHERIT THEM.

Now in no way am I saying that anyone is sinless save for Jesus himself. But it is my understanding that our corrupt nature and proclivity to adopt such behavior is a fact of life.

We all still need a SAVIOR, and as long as we are in the flesh we will always need one.

But your last line Escapes me somewhat, but I will attempt to address it.
“If such was the case, then divorce wouldn't exist at all.”

Divorce exists because of Hardhartedness, Jesus explains it quite well

Matt:19:7-8: They say ( pharisees ) unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith ( Jesus ) unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

the beginning,,, when was that, PRIOR TO THE FALL IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN.
Before sin came into existence. Divorce is because of SIN but God does not condemn the innocent of sin in the marriage but rather the Guilty of hardheartedness.

Again as I have said before, should this hardhearted party claim faith, they are a candidate for church discipline.

In fact, come to think about it, do you think the churches who fail to do church discipline and condemn both parties of a divorce, will escape judgement at the judgement day??
We will see one day!!!

Kristina
I applaud you for your faith and faithfulness in marriage, your statement
"For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health."
Has a rich heritage, might I encourage you to review Dr Brewers writings about the progression of the marriage vows, it is quite humorous as well as informative. Myself and my wife, used the language of some of the wedding vows Dr. Brewer discovered dating to the time of Christ. We use vows patterned after some of the very text of marriage vows and contracts made at the time the NT scriptures were written.

“conservative” requires wisdom, thought and reason. I know preachers who under the banner of “ conservative “ have preached error. The fundamental Baptist faith tends to claim conservative, but some have preached error. I.E, King James Only, it was good enough for Jesus , its good enough for me!

( Hint: 1. Jesus not only didn’t have a copy, he didn’t need it, HE WROTE IT ALL)
( 2. Which revision of the King James!! Their have been 4 if you count the traditional styles, and 5 if you consider the New King James version as a valid version.)

Might I suggest a look at Dr. John Mc Authur, I find him Conservative, but I also find him a Biblicist, a biblicist clings only to the scriptures and faith and the working out of that faith.

Please look at my site under the article titled “boundary markers” and “Moralism” I think it may have relevance here.

Final note, God does not care about what we think or say but only with adherence to his word and his will, he blesses those who righteously speak his truth and places no stumbling block in the way of the sinners path to himself.

The tradition of NO DIVORCE and the great failure of church discipline is a stumbling block to many, both the victims of divorce and their children, Barna documents it

Blessings

For Decree:

The points are relevant. How we enter into relationship often dictates how we end or grow into our relationships. If the teaching about the daughters of men is confusing I think I have clearly stated the point. Divorce doesn't start at the point of seperation it starts at the conception of the relationship. Hardness of Heart includes men who choose wives for their outer beauty instead of inner Godliness. There is a saying: " Awoman should be so lost in the heart of God that it is impossible to see her without first seeing God"... and that is what a Godly man should desire in a wife.

next: For those of you who believe NEVER divorce:

1. A man comes home and is beating his children.
2. A husband is physically beating his wife
3. A wife witholds her covenential duties from her husband indefinitely
4. A husbad is both doing and dealing drugs in the household in front of the family
5. A husband forceably takes sexual favors from his wife (O Wait, that is biblically impossible... a woman can not withold sex from her husband without mutual consent..so rape is not possible)
6. A man is not providing the 3 covenential expectations towards his wife....(Clearly a grounds for a woman divorcing her husband)

The danger with those who say "Stay married at any cost" don't have to suffer the cost and you are endangering women and children in homes where physical harm and even death is a reality.. you have no right to JUDGE those who's lives are in imminenet danger... )
4.

"biblically, divorce is only allowed for serious and specific grounds."

In your clarification, this statement is very wrong headed. It is not honest to the text of Scripture. What is clearly stated is that there is an exception for divorce when there has been adultery, not when there are "serious grounds" (abuse, neglect, etc...).

Decree.Info

Thanks for your response. Just to clarify my previous statement, I was speaking in a very general sense: Divorce exists because of the presence of sin. I wasn't making an argument for why divorce is or isn't warranted based on original or imputed sin.

I'm interested in a statement you made:

"[Augustine] basically said you and I are guilty because Adam was guilty, inherited sin or guilt by birth. I have a sticky problem with this in that the scriptures tell me we are guilty for our own sins and learn the sin habit and ways from our fathers, NOT INHERIT THEM."

Could you give me a scripture reference for that statement? I'm not rejecting your comment out of hand; I'd just like to see the passages that support your view.

I lean heavily on Romans 5:12-21 which says that "many died through one man's trespass" (v15) and "the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation" (v16), and "because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man" (v17), and "one trespass led to condemnation for all men" (v18), and "by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" (v19).

The problem with the human race is not that everyone does various types of sins, which is true (and those sins warrant condemnation). Paul wants us to see the deeper connection. We, being in Adam, are already condemned. He disobeys; I'm constituded a sinner.

So, regardless of whether I inherited a sin habit, or was taught a sin habit, I am condemned without any possible opportunity to avoid it. God holds me entirely accountable for a sin habit that I had no ability to resist. I think a lot of people have no category for that truth in their thinking.

Taking the whole discussion a step further, my viewpoint and not representing my denomination or church, the truth is many of the “unions” we deem to be marriages, are not marriages. The concept of “marriage” is not merely the vow made in itself, it’s the state of mind of the person vowing, the purpose of the vow and certainly what happens after the vows are taken.

Many vows are taken in falsehood, some partakers knowing lawful impediments, and others certainly not intending nor committing to either love, honour, keep, comfort, protect nor forsaking all others. Therefore, I can only assume that God did not do the joining together seeing he is not present in man’s falsehood (though the guests might have had a good time and assumed so). Stemming from that, it therefore implies that such marriages can be “put asunder”, seeing God hasn’t in reality “joined”.

A growing phenomena exists in many communities where people go into marriages for different reasons, other than “leaving, cleaving and becoming a flesh”, hence they might have left (or not left in some cases - constant family interference as an example), certainly not cleaving or seeking to cleave, consequently they parties end up not being a “united flesh” – the ultimate purpose of a marriage, but operate in antagonism or at best, parallel lines. This would imply there isn’t a marriage anyway (at least spiritually), as there was no cleaving. In these cases, what we might be seeking to do is actually annul a marriage (because in some cases there was never one), as opposed to sanction a divorce.

Coming back to the case at hand (grounds for permitting divorce), considering Gods graciousness exemplified in Christ, it would seem inconceivable that the party who has been “fooled” into such a union, (which inevitable would exhibit the emotional, physical, and all other neglect that some “liberals” agree is a grounds), is doomed to remaining in it, suffering a life filled with misery, because in the eyes of the “conservative” theologian adultery has not been committed and is deemed the only grounds for divorce (despite the harshness, the long term effect of abuse on the children, etc). Where then does grace come to pay? Furthermore, it is impossible to bind two people (or one willing person and an unwilling one) in a union against their resolve. The marriage being brought into a state of “divorce”, by default. Marriage and divorce are not necessarily about the paper given at each, but the state of the heart of both parties to each other.

A couple of years ago, I studied Counselling. On one occasion the class was treating “Endings”. We got to the issue of Marriage Ending. A student had made a comment that endings were a sad time. A fellow student took off some of her upper clothing to buttress her arguments that some endings were a relief, revealing the stab scars she had received from an alcoholic husband, and went on to narrate his attempts at throwing her out from a high rise building in a drunken stupor in an attempt to murder her. A friend’s sister suffered countless stabs from a partner who suffered a severe form of possessiveness, she died on the scene, so also their baby son. On numerous occasions, she had been asked to leave, but was bent on making her relationship work. I have heard of many other similar situations.

It becomes inevitable, that based on my experience of these scenarios, rather than engaging in never ending theological argument, we treat each case on merit. The church can’t be seen to be leading people to untimely death, psychiatric hospitals, and endless depression pills, in its attempts at being theologically right. Christ was practical in demonstrating and dealing with issues. We should be to!

The true question is what would Jesus have done, if he was on the scene of the specific marriage?

One issue I require an exposition on is the issue of remarriage in church leadership in light of Titus 1. An elder being required to be the husband of one woman. I ask this in light of the fact that many argue that marriage is for life and only death can “do part”. Some carrying the argument further, that if a man remarries, it still implies that he has more than a wife.

Margaret O. Elliott

Decree:

You said that you were looking to the spirit of the law and then outlined the letter of it. Joseph wasn't yet married to Mary when he thought to "put her away quietly", only betrothed. Beyond that, even if Joseph did consider divorce, nothing in the entire Bible says he was given a green light by God. In fact, he was visited by an angel to tell him NOT to do whatever he had been considering.

Besides that, the LETTER of the law says to stone women for marital unfaithfulness. Since Mary was not actually unfaithful, despite the evidence, she should therefore not be stoned.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not God endorses divorce under any circumstances. If you want to argue the fine points of obscure passages, please see my invitation to Jeff and send me an email.

It is so indeed sad to see so many Christians here so judgemental of people who divorce . Mary Margerat you really have a skewed view of life and relationships. Im glad you have an ideal for marriage.

Your positions are completely acadmeic and suitable for a classroom debate. Beyond that, life is full of suffering. What all of you who forbid divorce.. (and by the way, adultery as you define it is your lack of understanding.... it is not limited to physical adultery .. Its original meaning is from the Hebrew and Aramaic) has much more to do with spiritual adultery than anything phsyical...

Mary, God judges the inner man not the outer vessel. Those of you who are spending... ney wasting time trying to judge outer behaviour chooses to ignore heart motives...

Your pride is gettting in your way....

One final note ....

Christ said to the Pharisees, you seek life in the Scriptures but you fail to see that the Scriptures point to me... in me there is life...

FOr those who want to defend "til domestic murder do us part"... God help youre souls... and please feel free never to give advice to a battered woman to stay in their marriage and go home to their husbands....

Jeff

I too have espoused the idea of the original courtship model of preparation for marriage and a distaste for the thing we know of today called " Dating"

Part of that process is the ability to recognize character and virtue, versus the typical approach of sexuality and a bad boy or girl to fix. Basically a Dysfunctional approach.

one gets to know the person, the other only the physical,, last I read, sow to the flesh , reap of the flesh, sow to the spirit reap of the spirit, this explains the dating term, "Crash and Burn" from the fleshly side of dating quite well. I like to call it stupid tax and its interest rate..

But one thing that bear notice is recent research on the divorce rates and the prevalence of Women filing for Divorce more than men. I have also read where much of it is a result of unrealized expectations on the part of the women. I have met far too many who are clueless and unrealistic in expectations of marriage, and I see where much of the arguments on this matter also are generated from the same mind set.

PS JEFF, our civil laws do recognize such a thing as Marital rape, know of a few cases that served time for it.

Aaron
Time permitting I can give you some insights on the position. but my text escapes me at present. It’s a deep thing to study you know,

Sin nature is a corrupted nature we have inherited / or learned from Adam, some call it Inherited sin, while others sin nature, while still others original sin. I like to term it sin nature. Where I may vary with this guilt of sin from birth comes from the condition of a infant and age of accountability, While I have difficulty conceiving of a newborn committing sin. I have no problem with a child doing so and being very evidently infected with a corrupt nature hell bent on committing sin. My difficulty lies in whether we have inherited or imputed sin, I lean towards Imputed sin

This understanding is not perfect, and is the state in which I am in presently on the matter, it is by no means settled, BUT I will wholeheartedly support the fact we all are sinful and not one of us are righteous, nor will ever be until we enter heaven, and for the most part, we knowingly sin, which is punishable by many stripes See Luke 12;47-48. We are all POST FALL or AFTER the BEGINNING as spoken in Genesis

Our present righteousness if we have faith is one of imputed righteousness, the corruption leaves us when we escape these bodies. Now back to subject in detail. some of the differing views which might be confusing me are Pelagius and Jacobus Arminius, I cannot accept Lelio Socinus / Faustus nor Neoorthodoxy.

.Some of the verses I have been able to find are Hosea 6;7 Psa 51;5 Gen 4;1 Rom 5:12-19 6;20 7;20 1;28 1;21-26 Titus 1;15. While Augustine had some very clear and good doctrines, some of his other doctrines have implications beyond themselves. this is why I tread lightly in this area somewhat. Let me illustrate how a doctrine can have after effects if not totally accurate and balanced.

I.E. Calvin claimed we are predestined for salvation, While I personally know of a few Calvinistic people who WILL witness and will preach we have a obligation to witness, ( Daniel Akin, Albert Mohler both of the SBC ) some go so far to say it is predestined and not our affair. Primitive Baptist and hyper Calvinist hold views similar to this although not consistently . The bug in the mix is the varying degrees to which different groups adopt positions according to their doctrines. they are either Accusing or Excusing in thoughts their practices, SEE Romans 2:15

Augustine wrote a lot and thus affected the foundations of our faith today, but take a look at his contemporary,
John Chrysostom they bantered in their day, just as Luther , Calvin and Balthasar Hubamier were contemporaries. FYI Chrysostom recognized divorce as legitimate for broken vows, where Augustine i think did not.

You can get a good insight as to what led to the modern developments of mans thoughts on the matters by reviewing history.

Blessings, Hope this helps, AND Makes sense, Its early and Im tired.

LOL..Yes I know there is such thing as marital rape.. I was being sarcastic to make the point.....ouch!!! Thank you. I also believe that most people here don't appreciate that the seeds of divorce start from the very first time 2 people are attracted. THe desires that plant the seeds for a building relationship are the seeds which lay the foundations.

Sons of God who pursue daughters of men makes this point quite clear.. and visa versa..Daughters of God who pursue sons of men... and sons and daughters of men will reap what they sow.

While western culture teaches men should pursue women in a Godly relationship it is the exact opposite.. because men should be busy pursuing the kingdom of God while God works out the helpmete...

Western dating actually is a ritualistic process where we learn to end realtionships not build them.... (try on a pair of shoes before we buy)... What we learn later as adults with our own children is that Godly parents know better the kind of person deserving of our children in marriage than we do...(Here comes the criticism) I have 3 daughters and I was the man I am afraid my daughters would bring home (not that they would stand a chance)....lol....

No man will love my daughters as much as me...

Anyway, thanks for the supporting posting..I appreciate it.

Jeff Russell, M.A.
Chaplain PPS,ACCA
jar61@integrity.com

Etienne

sorry to be so slow in replying to you,

Actually I have researched the customs of the betrothal.

Harlotry in either her own family's house or her husbands was punishable either way.

that evidence is pretty clear in the OT alone

The point of the passage is the research, JUST WHAT DID GOD MEAN BY JOSEPH BEING JUST, because by the standards many here have judged that divorce is wrong and unjustified. Joseph certainly would not meet that standard.

I am afraid that the concept of being just in mans opinion versus what God intended is missed by many, Once aware of the truth of what God intended, It changes a legalistic interpretation to a spirit filled legal interpretation.

Please let me know what you discover about Gods idea of being JUST means!

Decree.Info

Decree.Info:

Great post. Thanks for the reply. I'm a calvinist who believes that God supplies both the ends and the means, and evangelism is the means by which He sovereignly calls. Actually, I heard Mohler speak at my church. Mohler, as well as Piper, Sproul, and Packer believe that evangelism is essential, all calvinists. As to imputed righteousness, it's a great and true doctrine, and under attack by some in the church these days (some arguing in err that our faith IS our righteousness).

I'm going to look at the passages you listed and do some thinking and research on the comments you've made. Thanks again for taking time to respond.

If the Bible is the inspired word of God, and Moses allowed Divorce, how can God contradict himself by reversing that in the NT? This is the problem I see with the no-divorce position. If it is true that no divorce is the teaching, then in a sense, it is also true that it is good for men to be alone, and that all can recieve the gift of celibacy. And in fact, the teaching of scripture says it is not good for man to be alone and that not all men can recieve the gift of celibacy.

Brady,

God never contradicts himself. As someone else on this board already mentioned, Jesus says in Matt 19:8 that Moses only permitted divorce because the people's hearts were hard and that God never desired divorce from the beginning. Jesus's words were a reinstatement of what should have been all along.

We shouldn't live in the deviation from God's plan as Israel did for so many years. Jesus died to make us new creations with the power to live righteously as God originally intended. If we deny that power and go back to what was then his sacrifice does us no good.

Decree:

I still don't understand why you are concerned with Mary and "harlotry" in the same sentence. Regardless of the law on marital infidelity, no crime was committed by Mary as she was not unfaithful to Joseph.

Furthermore, Joseph is considered a righteous man for not wanting to subject her to public disgrace, not for deciding to divorce her. God obviously intercedes as soon as he contemplates it.

Brady,

And if you look at Paul's teaching that it is better not to marry (1 Corinth 7), the logical question is: why? A married man instantly divides his resources, time, energy, and focus from what Paul considered the utmost importance: ministering to unbelievers. The married man now must put his wife first, give his life up for her, work to support her, raise children and all the things that go along with them that eat away time and energy.

Paul knew the time is short and that people are dying everyday without salvation. If men were disciplined enough to control their sexual desires, which they're not (1 Corinth 7:9), then they can be so much more effective tools for spreading the Gospel. However, with the added responsibility of a wife and family, they necessarily spread their limited resources over more goals resulting in fewer resources toward each goal.

Thus, it is better for the unbelievers that Christian men not marry. More of them are likely to be saved. Also, it is better for the Church at large that they not marry because more work can be done by the men and women completely focused on that work.

In the Garden, Adam performed a massive amount of work for the Lord without the distraction of Eve. However, he was not satisfied and God, being loving, desired not only for the work to be done, but for Adam to be satisfied as well. So he created Eve and Adam was satisfied! (Gen 2:23)

Jeff,

I wanted to respond to a comment you made early on that I missed before. You said,

"We give God tooo much credit... and I believe that what God brings together let no man put asunder...I also believe that God had almost nothing to do with 96% of all marriages.. so I dont give him the credit for bad matches nor do I pretend we can't divorce in our own will when we marry in our own will..."

Let's apply that logic to the real world. Say my wife and I were not meant to be married and that another man was supposed to marry her. However, he has also married someone else (since my wife is no longer available) and his wife is not the woman he was supposed to marry (my wife is). That means his wife was supposed to be another man's wife. That poor man must also be married to the wrong woman who, you guessed it...was meant to be another man's wife!

Keep going with that until you realize that it goes all the way around the world to the woman who WAS supposed to be my wife. With 96% of the marriages in the world being with the wrong person, either we serve a powerless God or it's completely irrelevant who I was "supposed to marry". God has promised to use even our mistakes for ultimate good. (Rom 8:28)

Etienne

I must reply to all that you are espousing here. In your words to brady, when God permitted divorce because of the peoples hearts were hard, he was not permitting the hardhearted to seek divorce and seek satisfaction somewhere else, but rather the writing was for the innocent in the marriage, protecting them from the financial ruin and destruction of what a divorce did in that culture. It appears that God understood the depravity of the unsatiable and dissatisfied mind of the unfaithful spouse. He knew they would continue to sin against his word until they came to the realization of the error of their ways. The Divorce decree was to enable the innocent to seek financial, marital, and material support elsewhere without the stigma and condemnation.

God permitted it for the innocent to free them from the consequences of the errant partners sin.

And it is true just what you said God never contradicts himself..

Well is the whole complete bible Inspired by God or is it corrupted, Which one is it???

Yes God never intended it from the beginning, but he also does not intend his innocent to suffer because of the sinful heart and nature of their herd hearted spouces. The rights to seek divorce reside in the innocents hands and NOT WITH THE GUILTY OR HARD HEARTED.

What i was trying to get you to see in the Mary and harlotry sentence is if you research the culture and UNDERSTAND IT from a JEWISH perspective you would see just how serious of a situation Mary was in. ALL IT WOULD TAKE IS A ACCUSATION and unless she could prove rape, she would by the O.T. law be subject to stoning. END OF STORY. Yes the law was that strict, Any good history student of that time can tell you.

What Joseph had in his heart was this.

Mic:6:8: He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to DO JUSTLY, and to LOVE MERCY, and to WALK HUMBLY with thy God?

Now where can you get mercy and justice on the single mother, and her children who have been deserted by their unfaithfull husband / father by condemning the innocent.

Also with your adam and eve understanding, God allowed adam to name ALL of the animals in the garden, and for a purpose, he named pairs of twos all day long. to bring him to the realization that he was alone.

to; Etienne

and should you believe that marriage disqualifies a man and hinders his ability to serve that being single is a better option, Might I suggest you join a monastary and real quick. I have spent some 40 of 46 years as a single, working within singles ministries for over 20 years of that time. It is a gifting from God to be a eunuch, and brother, not everyone has it, and THAT IS GODs INTENTION for it to be so. To suggest otherwise resembles Job's buddies advising him during his trials. I think you can read the rest of the story from there and learn the ending.

Etienne You are going in circles in your defense of NO DIVORCE, Man in accepting divorce is not putting what God brings together asunder, it is the hard hearted unrepentant spouse that is putting asunder their marriage. So if you really want to do something about Divorce, lets utilize the scriptural guidelines in the bible and address unrepentant hard hearts, Might I suggest Church discipline, its biblical. Secondly maybe we could address the elders teaching the younger women to hold realistic expectations in marriage, likewise the elder men to the younger men, From what I have seen the most neglected and downright ignored group in any church is single adults, Exactly the category that are the parties making these “Poor” decisions you comment on.

So what are you doing to address this travesty other than condemnation of the innocent parties to a unrepentant and hard hearted spouse in a marriage???

And it is true, just what you said, God never contradicts himself..

Within your argument Etienne you are saying the bible which was Inspired by God IS corrupted.

Show us all with more than a proof text where God, Paul - Gods inspired writer, any of the 4 gospel writers who are also inspired have rescinded what God ordained through Moses some many many years ago.

I am well aware of the “In the Beginning, It was not so” as well as I am aware that “In the Beginning” their was also no sin present in man nor woman. I think what has escaped this discussion is that we live in a fallen world, I think the other writers of this forum will acknowledge this fact as well. I believe our God understands that this is a Fallen world, and accordingly provided us a means of escaping it out of the love of his heart.

Did ya ever feel like all the world is a fast revolving ferris wheel and ya just wanted to get off? Im thinking we've beat this issue to death....

Let's thank Dr. Brewer for really getting us to look at what we believe and why we believe it....

For Etienne.... stay away from giving advice to women who are being battered and sexually assualted by their hard hearted husbands.. and may you never be cursed with such a marriage.....

even if you believe God brought you together with a violence prone drunken heathen...

Jesuswas contrasting the hard hearts of the Pharisees with the high purposes of God. He said, "If you have lusted in your heart you have already committed adultery." (paraphrase) We have all sinned. If we believe God and accept his mercy, we can forgive one another. The person (the Samaritan woman comes to mind) who has been divorced many times has the same access to the grace of God as the couple who have lived fifty years in hate and misery because they were in bondage to law and had not experienced the power of the Cross. It is by the grace and mercy of God that our marriage has lasted over sixty years.

My comment is not about the argument itself, nor is it directed to any of the commenting correspondents. I myself have been blessed with a long and happy marriage to my first and only wife (48 years), and I have no words or thoughts of judgment on those whose pathway has not been so blessed.

First, I recognize and rejoice in the deep scholarship and dedication to Scripture and to Scripture's God that David Instone-Brewer, John Piper, and Andreas Korstenberger all bring to the subject at hand. I would rather have dedication to Scripture than scholarship (for its own sake), but when we can read through these discussions and studies and find both, we are edified and drawn closer to God and more able to discern His purpose. Finally, I'd like to say that it is refreshing to see how Christian scholars (pastors, teachers, other gift-ministry men) can address each other and "argue" with class, style, and gentility, yet each passionately committed to his understanding of what God is saying and what He means. I have not see enough of those attitudes in my long Christian experience. Disagreeing without being disagreeable is refreshing and helpful to behold in Christ's body.

Years ago, Dr. Ryrie wrote in the introduction to The Basis of the Premillennial Faith that (and I paraphrase) it is given to each generation to fight its own spiritual battles. But to do so with one's allies (when necessary) without shedding blood or going for the proverbial jugular -- well, that prompted me to write. Let us each work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and let us keep the bar as high as we can (I tend to agree with Dr. Kostenberger but love John Piper in so many ways and for so many reasons) in a day when the real tragedy is how easily and readily Christians are too often eagerly looking for divorce justification (and apparently finding it).

I haven't read all the posts - my apologies to the later respondents.

Subjecting children to abuse within a marriage is not an appropriate price to pay for so-called biblical truth.

As a committed Christian, growing up in an evengelical home with loving (and still happily married) parents, I had every expectation that I and my Christoan wife would "make it."

When she went to the extent of fabricating gross accusations not only against me, but against my father, and even my mother, and involving the children in "proving" the accusations, I could not remain living with her.And nor could the children - a decision made and enforced through the legal system on professional advice of the damage she would cause.

Neither I nor the children can live with her, and in no way would it be safe for me to in any way meet the biblical obligations of marriage, even if she had any inclination to reciprocate (which she has none).

In this situation, Dr Instone-Brewe's detailed book (which his summary article skims so lightly over that I regard he unfortunately does himself a disservice) was almost literally a life-saver.

My marriage was over. To pretend otherwise would not have served my children, or my God.

I do not regard escape for a living hell to be an opening for easy divorce. But a refusal to allow (let alone insist, as the contemporary Rabbi's did) on divorce for gross abuse is not in keeping with the love and forgiveness, let alone the justice of God.

Anyone who has had a divorce will tell you that no matter how bad the marriage was you lose part of yourself in the divorce. Divorce is always destructive, but sometimes marriage is worse. Just as a surgeon might cut off a limb to save a life, sometimes divorce is required, though always to be deplored.

Jim,

It is a point that we are not accountable for a person's choice after warning them; but, the gist that I get from these words are to be quiet and not even bother saying anything:
_______________
"GOD DOES NOT HOLD ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FREE MORAL CHOICE of OTHERS TO SIN; I.E. BREAK THEIR MARRIAGE COVENANT CONTRACT.

God gave us minds and wills!!! To attempt to hold one accountable for the other is to say that I have control over your mind and will and can make you do, etc, etc, etc.
A “No Divorce” position does just this and Ignores many scriptures such as these"
________________

It should be noted that holding a "no divorce" position does not necessarily mean a person is trying to control someone's mind or will. If I say it is wrong to steal and warn someone not to do it, I assume that means I must be trying to control that person's mind and body. This attitude is something I have been noticing more and more in this postmodern culture.

--------------
Proverbs 29:1 (NKJV)
He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy

(NASB)
A man who hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy.
--------------

We are only accountable for giving warning and not determining who is hard hearted or not. The verses in Ezekiel mention both the wicked and the righteous turning to wrong.

Has anyone considered the fact that whatever the cause of a divorce, it is not only because of sin but because of the stress of human relationships? Under duress, even Christians make poor decisions. Once people are remarried after a divorce, can't the blood of Jesus clean everything up once they realize the gravity of what has transpired? The Bible says that if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleans us from all unrighteousness. It also says that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. Grace is a lot bigger than our failures in marriage or anything else.

Hey, what do you guys believe about gay marriage?

Just kidding!

"Flexibility on divorce may mean that evangelicals could also rethink their position on such things as gay marriage, as a generation of Christians far more accepting of homosexuality begins to move into power. (The ever-active Barna folks have found that 57% of "born-again" Christians age 16-29 criticize their own church for being "anti-homosexual.")"

That was an excerpt taken from an article on Yahoo. That is so sad. This is where the body of Christ is walking towards. Remember, Christ said we are to enjoy his inheritance, but only if we join in His suffering. God was cruel to Jesus on that cross by allowing Him to die such a merciless death. The bible even says that it please God to make Jesus suffer for our sakes. Are we any better than Jesus that we think we can go through life skipping out on sufferings and then planning to partake in inheritance. It doesn't work that ways brothers and sisters. We need to open our eyes. All of this will one day pass and it will all be forgotten, but God and His Word will never pass.

Mr Instone, I don't believe you have meant any harm, but we really look like a joke to the secular world. My heart is broken. Just imagine God's.

Mr Instone, I don't believe you have meant any harm, but we really look like a joke to the secular world. My heart is broken. Just imagine God's.

I'm more concerned with what Scripture actually says about divorce and other issues than how the rest of the world views us. Open and honest discussion and debate are healthy for Christianity.

We do have to care what the world thinks of us, though not to the point where we stop doing the will of God because of them, because those are the ones we are left on this planet to reach. Not to marry or remarry or any of those other things that will just vanish with this life. If our Christian morals are shaky then our witness for Christ will be.

Of course open and honest discussion and debate are healthy, but some things are just as clear as water.

"So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Matt. 19:6

Thats what Scripture says. Except for sexual immorality. Plain as day. We try and find loop holes in the Word, but there are none.

Dogwood, does it concern you when the secular world seems to think even we don't believe the Bible for what it plainly says?

Steve, I highly respect your contribution to the issue. Though I disagree with the Instone-Brewer interpretation and favour the traditional view of the Matthew passage, I have respect for someone who has been divorced and has not raised it up as their salvation, but rather as the lesser evil in a bad circumstance wherein greater evil would have followed imminently if not pursued. I believe it is called graded absolutism.

That being said, I am still a believer that there are "living hells" we are meant to redeem. It's not something you can force someone to do, but the Christian should know that however badly one is treated in marriage pales in comparison to how one treats God. Jesus says we should be willing to forgive someone seventy times seven times. Some Christians will give up under little persecution, while others will endure under more. Some will endure to the very end. For those who don't, God's forgiveness is even greater than their own, but we should make a point that repentance is required.

It might seem cruel to ask someone to repent who is the obvious victim of a bad relationship, but I think it is appropriate so long as they understand it is because of the covenant they made before God during the wedding. While any personal effort may not have made a significant difference, I find it hard to believe anyone can be perfectly innocent in these situations. Jesus' disciples aptly observed that it is better not to marry, since God's expectations for marriage were very high. Jesus did not refute them. I think this is a very important point.

Any marriage can be saved by the grace of God and the intervention of caring friends. It's not easy, but I see it happen all the time.

John Piper and David Instone-Brewer are getting caught up on the question of when divorce is permissible. Piper believes that divorce always involves sin, and that divorce is always sinful. He believes that Christ's "hard teaching" is that divorce and remarriage always involves adultery.

It's a sensible argument that Jesus is making. You can't have sex with someone, then divorce them, then be "pure" and have sex with another person. What's done is done. So, divorce and remarriage involves adultery. Period.

But let's grant that argument. That still misses the point. The point is that all have sinned and that all are in need of God's grace. David Instone-Brewer rightly points out the fact that divorce has been "permitted" as an option because of hard-heartedness and pride - it's better to let a woman or man out of an abusive or adulterous situation than to tell them to go back to the marriage and continue suffering. And Piper and Brewer would both agree that an abusive marriage is not godly, involves sin, and should not be tolerated.

This doesn't mean the marriage should end. It means that the abuse, neglect, and adultery should end. You don't have to divorce just because you were abused or neglected. There is another option made possible through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. That option is forgiveness and reconciliation.

This is where Piper's argument wins over Brewer's. Brewer says in the article that divorce "should never happen" in Christian families because forgiveness and repentance are key components of the Christian life. But Brewer would "allow" divorce and follow the 1st-century Jewish rabbis, while Piper argues (quoting Jesus' own words) that divorce is still sinful and creates a situation where you've committed adultery. In other writings, Piper reminds us that all sin is sin, and all sin is forgivable. He specifically states that divorce is NOT the "unforgivable sin". But divorce creates a bizarre situation where an old behavior (sex with your spouse) turns into something sinful (adultery). And Piper would never, as a pastor or a brother in Christ, encourage anyone to sin. Kudos to John Piper and thank God for the gift of His Son. Amen.

In reading I-B works, one must question the concept of ‘any cause’ divorce of Mt 19:3. I-B and several authors before have noted that the ‘any cause’ divorce was a debate between two schools of Pharisees on the meaning of ‘indecency’ in Dt 24:1. Note that Jesus was being tested on the Law in 19:3. That is Mosaic Law rather than whether is it righteous. Mt 19:9 would imply that Jesus sided with the school advocating for adultery only as the true meaning of ‘indecency’ rather than ‘any cause’.

The ‘any cause’ divorce and the Dt 24:1 debate appears in the Talmud, Philo, and Josephus, something that biblical scholars missed until the 20th century. Whether you think that scripture should harmonize with history or stand by itself is perhaps a valid debate. I believe that scripture was often written in response to the problems of its day, i.e. in this case the 1st century Pharisaical debate on Dt 24:1. If you don’t think that the NT was sometimes written in reaction to 1st century events consider the situation of the tax collector. Look up instances of the tax collector in the NT then extrapolate to modern times. Should Christians be involved in the collection of taxes, e.g. a sales tax? The tax collector in 1st and 21st centuries has different positions in society. The Christian operating a small store can collect a sales tax with a clear conscience. On the other hand, theft, fornication, and homosexuality have the same meanings.

This leaves the rights of the slave wife in Ex 21:10-11. Rabbinical interpretations always held what is good for the slave is good for the free. Jews always accepted these rights. The Pharisees never debated this Ex passage. Does Jesus abrogate these as well in Mt 19:9? Apparently not, as Paul uses the Ex concepts in 1 Co 7. Note that Paul says ‘no longer enslaved’ in verse 15 in the proper Greek translation. This is in reference to the slave wife going free in Ex 21. Paul was a former Pharisee and would have been well aware of the Dt. 24:1 debate.

As for when a divorce is righteous, Jesus gives us instructions in Mt 19:8. The cause whether, it’s abuse, adultery, or abandonment must be persistent and the offending party unrepentant, hence “hardness of heart”. I-B doesn’t advocate easy divorce.

Yes abuse, abandonment and/or adultery should end, but what if the offending party should persist? This is where Piper’s teachings fail. Piper’s and the traditional Roman Catholic teachings of ‘separation but no remarriage’ goes against Jesus’ advice in Mt 19:12 that celibacy is optional and to Paul’s that the unmarried in 1 Co 7 (as opposed to the widows and virgins) should marry so that they don’t burn with desire (v. 9). We know that Paul was speaking to the divorced as the he used different Greek words for the ‘unmarried’, ‘widow’ and ‘virgin’. The idea of ‘separation but no remarriage’ also goes against Paul’s advice in 1 Co 7 and to Moses’ in Ex 21:10-11.

Well done Ben Vos. Succinct, accurate and well articulated. I'm not even going to try to add to it. I've posted 6 or 7 blogs here in support of your position. You are correct. Scripture was indeed used to address and transform the culture of the times and serve to set the example of what is expected of man in conforming to the kingdom of God on earth in future times.

How are those of us behave who have undergone the misfortune of divorce?

How is a Christian congregation to treat the divorced who are repentitent and are trying now to live a truly Christian life? Should she write her/him off as forever doomed? Or should we bring her/him into our midst and help in Christiaan ways to assist her/him in healiing and repenting?

I believe that women have the right to divorce due to a lack of
food, clothing or duty of marriage when it is clear that the husband has the ability to provide such. The example of Exodus 21 demonstrates that the man has the ability as he is taking a 2nd wife. I do not believe that a man has the right to divorce his wife is she does not supply him with food, clothing or sex. However, I believe that a man has a right to divorce his wife for sexual immorality but that she does not have the right to divorce him for such. If a woman would have the right to divorce her husband for sleeping with another woman other than herself, then the Exodus 21 passage should read, "if he take himself another wife, then she (first wife) shall go free without money".. but it doesn't read that way.

Yes CT Readers,
Easy divorce is wrong. Easy remarriage is even more wrong.

I trust this will not be digressing. But picture is worth alot.
Let me personalize this and give you a pastoral case study, if you will.

Anyone out there want to marry my former wife? She's hot. A smaller version of Cindy Crawford. She'll tell you she was neglected and God told her to divorce me. She is the innocent one. As was her mother, now on her 3rd questionable marriage. Let's assume you are divorced, looking for a second redemptive chance in God's abundant graceland. You're now FREE and there is NO SIN in REMARRIAGE. So you fall and with mixed motives do the legal marriage to my ex...without any consultation of me. It's OK, I understand.

Keep in mind...You'll be having lifelong 'fellowship' with me as a Christian 'brother'. We'll attend frequent events together.
You may have it made legal, but you might be defrauding me as a brother. (Please See:1 Thess 4:6)
You'll be violating and entering the most sacred place on earth to me...the very place where my children were conceived. You'll be usurping my role as a father and cutting in on my two young daughters' fatherly affection. You'll also be receiving money from me that you didn't work for. You'll be sleeping in my former bed, just a hollow wall away from my innocent daughters. You'll enjoy middle-class assets that took me years to earn. You'll get to see me once a week in a local church, that emphasizes grace and tolerance. In this church repentance is not required, always optional. Why not, brother? If God approves of your remarriage, there's no problem on my side. Maybe we can carpool it.

Later on, I'll get to pay for the counseling of my daughters' anger and confusion over what their mother did and is doing to them.
You and I will jointly have to agree on how to handle their sexual promiscuity and rebellion. If it gets a bit uncomfortable, then make sure you read a book and "set your healthy boundaries". But you and I will somehow model true Christian unity for my children. All men will know we are His Disciples as we just have sincere LOVE for one another. And you loving my former wife, too! You eventually realize you will have taken away all possible opportunity for the Holy Spirit to bring about repentance and a reuniting of the original intact family...this of course being God's best redemptive story.
You decided to create another one.

Is this what we believe God approves of and blesses?
No sin? 73% of 2nd marriages fail. The writing is on the wall.
Remarriage is adulterizing/corrupting/complicating. Their is grace for all. but let's just call sin what it is: Wrong.

You foolish Americans! Who has bewitched you?
Forgive the sarcasm, but it is used by the Biblical authors to get points made.

Justin

Justin brings up another point, rather in the fabric of his response: Marriage itself in the West is defined in completely unrealistic terms, and is incredibly individualistic. We could go up rabbit trails about Courtly Love, Hollywood, and Barbie dolls, or about the current therapeutic (he/she completes me) approach, but one basic problem is that the family and the community are recognised only for invitations, if at all. Neither party knows the other beyond what the other says about his/her self, the main cause for the union becomes little more than the emotional buzz that is called "love," and neither is left with much reason to stay around when those two factors wash out. Just preaching "GOD HATES DIVORCE" often does no more good than add more guilt to the already tense lives of so many people who are already trying desperately to hold their marriages together when their partners are trying just as hard not to held. We don't just need a fresh approach to marriage: We need to rediscover the meaning of the word, "Community." We grow up in non-existent communities either in bedroom-community suburbs or anonymous apartments where our self-understanding comes from thousands of class hours of TV and Cinema, and expect to build a new life with somebody based on little more, really, than a personal attraction. Maybe it's time to leave off with some of the marriage psychology "enrichment courses" and find out what it means to be the Body, to be Jesus together, in this world. Broad generalities, yes: Idealism, not a chance.

I am in a marriage where there has been child abuse, physical and emotional. My husband stopped the physical abuse, but no matter how hard he has tried, the emotional abuse has continued. He does not know any other way of interacting, it seems.

Also, in this marriage of 12 years, I woke up to him having his way with me in my sleep. He's held me down to force himself on me, threatened to use scissors to make me comply, held a candle lighter (unlit but with his fingers on the trigger) to me when I tried to confront him one time.

I separated from him 4 times for safety, hoping he would repent. We are back together now, but the emotional abuse against me and the kids continues. What makes it worse is that I get my hopes up that he is changing because he acts better for a time and then the old nasty cycle of abuse starts again.

I feel the marital bond has been so completely broken. Trust has been shattered. Yet, I hold on, hoping for a miracle from God. But how long should I hold on. At what point do I say, it is better to live separate? Do I stay just because the physical abuse stopped? Or is emotional abuse just as damaging--maybe more damaging?

It is my understanding that porneia in Matthew 19 is referring to idolatry as well as sexual perversion (to include adultery, incest, persistent lustful acts (could marital rape be included here?)) In domestic abuse, the abusing spouse so idolizes the abused spouse. They want to control that person just like an extension of themselves. They try to meet their needs exclusively from the abused spouse instead of looking to God. When they are frustrated that the spouse can't meet all their needs (as they see them) the abuser lashes out in angry or controlling actions. Any thing or any one put before God is an idol. So I believe physical and even persistent pattern of emotional abuse would qualify as porneia because of this. Physical or emotional abuse or neglect would also, in my opinion, qualify as abandonment. If the unbeliever (and you can't say someone who consistently abuses another is a believer) is "pleased" to live with the believer. I believe "pleased" here is key. Is someone who is pleased to dwell with the believing spouse going to be consistently abusing her/him--or the children?

For those who read the above comments, please note that the capital punishment brought out in the Bible took 2 or 3 witnesses to bring about. That was the reason Christ let the adulterous woman go, because there were no more witnesses. See the question he asked.

great debate.
I may be going off topic here but please consider my experience. My apologies if much of this is remedial. I pray this may find you and speak to you.
Were you in a broken state prior to marriage or was Christ"first" for both you and your spouse? The best foundation to begin with, no doubt. Let us examine ourselves and allow God also to shed light on our spouses condition prior to the marriage union.
Did you know the "skeletons"in our and your spouses life before uttering the words "I do". Was there unrepented, uncleansed prior sexual unions &/or false motives for marriage ?(unfulfilled expectations some call it.. otherwise known as selfishnesses).
I had them. Consider the following should it apply to you...If you or your spouse or both are broken prior to marriage vows (broken hearted that is)- will this foundation not need to be washed away before another could be built - That is Christ. & how so? your way?...uhhh, I think not. Will not the unbelieving spouse be " changed" by the believing one?
What I found good from some comments above(the clearification) was the issue of an unfaithful spouse dealing with their adultery. Once repented,does the other still have a claim for divorce ? I think not. It may seem hard for the other to forgive and forget...but please remember you can't forget until you forgive.
The word hard in the sentence above relates to hard heartedness. Like the recovering alcoholic this may be a very long process. Some people have a hard time forgiving especially if this "runs" in the family - reference to generational sin here.
Remember, sin is contagious.Goodness is not. Don't allow your heart to become hard in response to your spouses.
In my experience, The Lord has given my wife all she wanted and He has told me ( at great financial and personal expense) to let her have it...
does not the Lord give us meat if we want it ohhh so badly?(Exodus)
Listen to the words of God to Hosea. He told him to marry a prostitute, Hosea must have thought he was joking. I am a prophet !!
Do it, God said. He did, good choice too... God's all about happy endings ( In His time).What is the cost you may have to endure for your spouse and children? Might you have to remain unmarried ( and sexually pure - no self gratification/sexual impurity of any kind) for an unknown number of years while you "Seek First His Kingdom"? Do you remember the reference about Paul and how much Christ said he ( Paul) would have to suffer for Him? She ( Gomer) was getting - like the Prodigal son, exactly what She wanted. God gives that, I believe to people who's hearts are not tunrned towards Him...ones not being Spiritual Regenerated - in order to get their attention
(their Hearts). Also consider what Hosea was going through ( learning), in other words... the"wirk" going on in Hosea while his wife fianlly left. Read about how he waits and reclaims/rescues Gomer.
At the right time & I am not the best with timing...let go & let God. Consider "Soul Ties" issue. Have they been broken? Do you understand them? What do you need to allow the Lord to do here?
Keep at Him in persistent prayer. The prayers of a righteous man/woman avail much.
I bet if some of you knew your Spiritual prophetic gifts and your ability to receive the necessary strength to endure, you would look at this "wrong" marriage ( "from the get go") from God's perspective a little differently. If God knew one day you were going to be His child (slave to Christ that is), He'll use you when you do and do not know it.

a couple of pints to note....

Biblically...(in my understanding)

Sex = Marriage (however there may not be a life long committment to go with this) - many live in this pain or in the brokenness of a marriage ( Spiritual state) strewn with premarital relationship(s)

Marriage is consentual - divorce is merely a state whereby marriage is no longer consented to. Perhaps the divorce paper just makes
in the physical correspond correctly what is already true in the Spiritual.

A house divided will not stand.

Our God is a God or order...get things out of order and here I am referring to Sex before marriage and expect pain and disfunction
to follow at some point until this is corrected.

Got Loves giving us Wisdom, yes? Ask Him,
he'll tell, lead, show you exactly what you need to do,
where you need to go.

On kids....
Please keep in mind, whatever pain your children experience through all this, you can suffer with them, not for them.
Get it out though ( out of them), even if it's not your thing. Tell them you know how they are feeling.

Most importantly perhaps,

God Hates Divorce.
God Bless

Excerpts from Divorce and Remarriage -- Why Didn't We See This Before? By Myron Horst
http://www.marriagedivorce.com/horst.htm
Although divorce can end the legal aspect of a marriage, it cannot end the "one" aspect of the marriage which God has joined together. Once divorce occurs, a person is not single again in God's judgment, and therefore not free to marry another person even if their first spouse has remarried. The "one" union with their spouse can only be ended by the death of one of the marriage partners.
God also clearly states that after divorce the marriage is still binding "yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." (Malachi 2:14) Divorce does not end the "one" aspect of the marriage that God joined together when they were married.
What is significant about adultery in remarriage?
When Jesus said, "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:9. When Jesus made that statement, He was stating that divorce does not end the first marriage. The sin of adultery can only occur if one or both of the persons involved is married. If neither of the persons are married the term adultery cannot be used. When Jesus said that "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery", He was stating that when a man marries a divorced woman he is living with another man's wife and therefore is guilty of adultery. Divorce does not make a man or a woman single again. Divorce does not end a person's first marriage. That is why a person commits adultery when they marry and live with a divorced person.
Do you get the significance of Jesus' use of the word adultery? Adultery could not occur in remarriage if divorce ended the first marriage. Adultery can only occur in remarriage because the divorced spouse is still married to their first marriage partner in Jesus' judgment
The significance of the sin of adultery in remarriage is that divorce does not end a person's first marriage! God has joined the husband and wife together as one. Man's civil action of divorce in the court system of this earth, does not end the "one flesh and one spirit" aspect of the marriage that God has joined together.
Adultery in Remarriage: An Act or a State?
God states that the sexual intercourse of a divorced and remarried couple is adultery. Therefore each time they have sexual intercourse they commit an act of adultery. As they continue to have sexual relations and there is no repentance, it becomes a state of adultery. Therefore, adultery in remarriage is both an act each time it occurs, and a continuing state of sinning
Both an act or a state of adultery, is sin. Either one bars one from fellowship with Jesus and from entering Heaven. One is guilty of sin before God until they have repented of the sin and stopped the sin. One cannot repent of the "act" adultery but continue in it and expect God to ignore the fact that they are continuing to commit adultery.
The interesting illustration of God and Israel's divorce
Both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament God uses the analogy of marriage to describe His relationship with His people - in the Old Testament with Israel, and in the New Testament of Christ and the Church.
In Jeremiah 3 God states that He gave Israel a certificate of divorce. However at no point did that annul or end the covenant that He had made with the ten northern tribes of Israel even though Israel had married other gods. Jeremiah 3:1 says”return again to me, saith the LORD." In spite of the command by Moses in Deut. 24:1-4 that a divorced woman could not return to her first husband, in Jer. 3:1 God says to Israel, "Yet return again to me."
God infers that the instruction given in Deut. 24:1-4 on divorce and remarriage is not a command that He gave to Moses. God says in Jer. 3:1 "They say" not "I said" in referring to Deut. 24:1-4.
Jesus also implied that divorce and remarriage in Deut. 24:1-4 was something that Moses permitted because the people demanded it, but it was not a permission that God gave. Jesus said that from the beginning it was not so. Jesus at no point indicated that Deut. 24:1-4 was a command that God gave to Moses.
God asks Israel to return. He says in v. 14 "For I am married unto you" (even after divorce and remarriage!) God's covenant with Israel was not ended by divorce and remarriage
How remarriage does not end the first marriage
There is not any example or teaching in Scripture that the act of remarriage ends the first marriage. Nor is there any place in the Bible where the making of a covenant with a second person ended the covenant with the first person. Jesus clearly stated that remarriage does not end the first marriage when He said "Whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." The first marriage is not ended by remarriage. A person can commit adultery only with someone else's husband or wife. If both of the persons involved in sexual immorality are single it is fornication not adultery.
To say that remarriage ends the first marriage is to say that remarriage is the "divorce" from the first marriage. There is nothing that Jesus said that would indicate that remarriage was "divorce" from the first marriage. Romans 7:3 states clearly that remarriage does not end the first marriage and that only death ends the first marriage. "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be 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." I have not found any place in the Bible that would indicate that remarriage is the "divorce" or an event that ends the first marriage.
What does God say can end a marriage?
God clearly says that the death of one of the marriage partners ends their marriage and frees them to marry another person. "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress God also says: "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth.
How the marriage vow of a remarried couple does not supersede God's law
The first marriage vow is still in effect and they are still obligated to fulfill that vow. Making a second vow does not nullify the first vow. A person cannot have two covenants in effect at the same time that promises the same thing to two different people. The vow that a person makes in a remarrage situation will never nullify the way God's law applies to his life. If we say that a remarried couple should continue to live together and have sexual relations together because of their marriage vows in the remarriage, then we are saying that their remarriage vows have precedence over God's law. God's law about divorce and remarriage no longer applies to them. This is wrong.
What if the Remarried Couple has Children by the Second Marriage?
The fact that a couple has children in the second marriage does not end the first marriage. The responsibilities that they have to their children in their second marriage does not change the fact that if they continue in the remarriage situation it is adultery. In addition, the responsibilities they have to the children in the second marriage are not more important than the vows and covenant that they made in their first marriage and the responsibilities they have to any children in the first marriage.
Why a remarried couple needs to separate
Jesus' command to the woman caught in adultery after He forgave her was "Go and sin no more" (John 8:11). Because remarriage is the living of one or two married persons with someone other than their spouse (in God's judgment), the remarried couple needs to separate. They need to repent of their sin and they need to remove themselves from their sinful adulterous situation if they are to obey God's command to go and sin no more. To look at it from a different perspective, it would be wrong for a man to live with and care for another man's wife while the other man is still alive. A man has no business making commitments to another man's wife and providing for her needs. It would be a violation of her marriage covenant to her husband to live with and care for another man even though they did not have sexual intercourse.

Does God forgove all our sins?

I often wonder what marriage is in terms of at what point are you married. Are you married when you decide to get married? When you make a verbal commitment to each other? When a physical relationship is entered into? The Bible never mentions a formal wedding ceremony to make a man and woman married. So...it's not as clear as I once thought.

Myron Horst is a marriage wrecking false teacher, Im afraid....utterly horrible fallacy he preaches and his refusal to debate publically is proof that this man knows he cannot defend his unscriptural nonsense.

The only comment I would like to make is that I joined a growing church, and I found out one of the reasons it was growing so much is that it allows so much divorce and remmarriage.

My experience with divorced women is that they are always faithful to their ex husbands when things get difficult they will always go for counseling to these "cold hearted husbands"

Which makes me wonder why they got divorced in the first place. If they had found out that I had gone to an ex girlfriend for counsel they would have put my head in a chopping block.

I still want to know why the early church fathers taught no remmariage after divorce were they ignorant of Brewer's new scholarship? Were they in error?

I just believe there is just way to many people looking for and exception-then and now-to get a divorce.

I am divorced and extremely happily remarried...

BUT if I could turn back the clock, I would sacrifice the personal happiness I now have, to honour God and to maintain His standards amongst believers.

I was in a physically and emotionally abusive marriage for 10 years but instead of divorcing I wish I had followed Paul's advice (actually his command) in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and left my husband but remained single or be reconciled to him.

In fact Paul is bold enough to say this is not his own command but the Lord's!!

Staying single seemed so unfair, but actually life is unfair, ask those who are persercuted for their faith or suffering a degenerative illness. God's ways are higher than our ways and He looks out for the good of the church not just individuals. Of all the many scriptures on divorce, only Matthew gives the potential "out clause" and the use of porneia for the word adultery makes it extemely debatable.

We have so many scriptures against divorce and remarriage but we as Christians choose to ignore those and focus on finding a way to satisfy our own wills.

I don't think God dislikes divorce and remarriage to make individuals miserable. I think for the overall good of all His people He longs for marriage to remain the covenant He ordained it to be.

Divorce generally makes one person happy and the rest of the family so hurt that they carry life long wounds. The more we accept divorce for this apparently legitimate reason and that apparently legitimate reason, the more it spreads like wildfire injurying so many.

If the prospect of church sanctitioned remarriage did not exist, couples would be a lot more motivated to work on their current marriage.

I have prayed earnestly that God will forgive me not only for breaking my covenant with my first husband but also for my example of divorce and remarriage, making divorce a potential option for others in struggling marriages.

God Bless you

Don't know whether this point has been made but it's always struck me that the ones Jesus was talking to in Matthew 19 where the "exception clause" was referred to were the unsaved - the Pharisees or the hard-hearted ones - ones who were used to pre-salvation Law and argued with that! Surely, as Christians, we are not to be hard-hearted and thus Matt 19: 10 -11; Mark 10: 10 - 12; Luke 16: 18; I Cor 7: 10 -11 etc make sense - that Christians - the apparently soft-hearted ones - don't have divorce as an option as distinct from separation in certain circumstances (violence, abuse, cruelty, etc) pending possible reconciliation.

Also, David Instone-Brewer's book says that there are only 2 (in his view) scripturally maintainable views that are "internally consistent and consistent with the cultural context of the New Testament" - his, that 4 bases for divorce exist and therefore re-marriage is available "while emphasising that divorce should be avoided whenever possible and that believers should go the extra mile in trying to maintain a marriage" and the other view that "Jesus condemned all divorce and that the exceptions were not part of His intended teaching" - see Page 299 of his book.

He holds his view because the other view - no divorce - is just impractical - see page 272 - 273. I like his sensitive reasoning but not his conclusion. I just don't accept that because something seems impractical that it therefore isn't God's will. Some of the other writers in this series have referred to the sacrificial basis for no divorce in favour of children, wider family and society benefits as well as accurate portrayal of God's sacrificial love for the Church. I agree with that. A complete understanding of Covenant as against the completely erroneous "marriage is a contract" thinking of western society is also helpful.

Bernie

There is a lot of fuss made about the fact that the Bible refers to marriage as a "covenant". The simple fact is that "Covenant" is the old english word for "Contract" thus it is right and proper to refer to a marriage contract. Secondly there is a fuss made about marriage "Vows" for which we have little or no biblical support. Then there is the marriage ceremony which is unknown in the Bible. Lastly we have no support for the minister being involved in any kind of officiation. He does not have any authority divinely ordained or otherwise to pronounce anyone as man & wife ie: married

Well first of all, the attitude that "accepting what Johm Piper says" is somehow equivalent to being humble is utter nonsense. John Piper has taught a lot of error. He doesn't even know what a Covenant is, nor that Covenants can be broken. They have CONDITIONS. This is seen all throught Scripture. The problem is CALVINISM. Since it teaches Once Saved Always Saved, the mentality is Once Married Always Married. These premises are false from Genesis through Revelation. Of course, I do not expect much sympathy for my remarks here, but it is the foundational error.

Christ taught exceptions, as did Paul. God Himself divorced Isreal. The teaching is plain.

Whether or not Instone Brewer's third ground for divorce-emotional, physical and marital neglect is valid is irrelevant. The Bible teaches the innocent party can divorce for fornication or desertion. Period. The desire to force people to live with adulterers, or alone "waiting" for their spouse to return--to become eunuchs, is cruel and unBiblical.

Hey AP, dimwit God called Israel back after his "divorce".

God Himself divorced Israel.

"I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery." Jeremiah 3:8

God did divorce Israel BUT then He made this statement...
"Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I AM MARRIED TO YOU." Jeremiah 3:14

Wow, after a divorce He goes on to say...for I am married to you.
People like to say, "Yes, God hates divorce, but God is divorced."
Most people do not study what comes after the divorce, where God says He is still married, the divorce did not dissolve the marriage.

The Lord says, He is still married AFTER He has given her a 'certificate of divorce,' a certificate that many people say DISSOLVES a marriage. Divorce does not dissolve anything. God was still married after a divorce.

The Lord is not confused about what effect a 'certificate of divorce,' has on a marriage, but we are. A civil divorce has no power to dissolve a marriage. The laws of this land and God’s laws are not the same. We are to follow His doctrine on marriage, not the worlds. What this world is doing with marriage, divorce and remarriage is evil in the sight of God, for marriage represents Christ and His Church.

Another verse showing that divorce does not dissolve the marriage is Luke 16:18.

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

ONLY divorced people commit adultery when they marry. Why is that?
Divorced people are not single. People who are truly single do not commit adultery when they marry.

Divorced people are still bound in their original marriage, the divorce did not free them or the charge of adultery would never be put to them. Adultery is something that can only be committed by a person who still has a living spouse.

Real single people are never charged with adultery when they marry because they have no spouse to commit adultery against. Divorced people still have a spouse to commit adultery against.

The definition of adultery is someone having a sexual relationship outside of a marriage. So, according to Luke these remarried people are having a sexual relationship outside of a marriage. How is that possible? The divorce did not dissolve the marriage covenant they are in, just like God’s divorce did not dissolve the marriage covenant in Jeremiah 3:14.

Divorce does not free you from a spouse. Yes, the government can say they dissolved the marriage, but shouldn’t we look into what God says about this matter?

http://www.cadz.net/tony.html

I have to say this was a great debate... Marriage should be taken seriously because it involves everyone..including the children. I think when two individuals exchange vows..that moment becomes and (should be considered) special and a joyful one.

My history ...

I was put into a marriage by a dominating pastor, and at the time I didnt have the economic or social resources to flee the situation. So I was trapped in an abusive church and now in a marriage, where my wife did not want sex, but yes, she wanted my money. And the pastor reaffirmed her: if you had sex too often, you were considered to be a sex-a-holic. (I think at present they have put the limit at 2-3 times a month in that church, and the leadership supplies the condoms).

Now I have fled the "marriage" and fled the church. How a relief to see the words in Exodus 21,10 and know that these words made my freedom (so-called divorce) valid, and I didnt need to think in cryptic ways of getting out of the situation. Thank God that he provided with this straight way to get out of a living hell.

For those who think that everybody must wait for "God's choice", let me tell you that I waited 10 years, and then I was put into this, a living hell. I abstained for 10 years, and then was put into a marriage, that included further abstaining, daily mind controls, my wife being the spy of the leadership etc.

Why not just call a crime a crime? I am so happy that Instone-Brewers teaching has restored my sense of right and wrong, and the feeling that God does not condone evil practises. But yes, this was very hard for me, because until I saw Instone-Brewers interpretations, I also held the traditional view, that divorce does not exist. So I had a hard time understanding why God was robbing me of my life in this way. Never really had a marriage, but now condemned to never marry ... oh yeah.

When you need help going through divorce and

children are involved you should check out

http://www.dadsdivorce.com They offer lots of

parenting

divorce advice.

To everyone who looks at someone who is divorced as someone who has sinned because they are divorce, you are missing one important detail. When someone's spouse divorces them, they have no choice in the matter and should not be judged or held accountable.
Also, I do not believe that a loving God such as we have would ever condone abuse over divorce. God does not desire that a woman live in fear for her life.
The view that many take on a wife separating herself in such instances does not understand that at the heart of physical abuse is control. separating without divorcing gives the abuser continued control over the woman, and she is never free from it.
Anyone who knows anything about Biblical intrepretation would know that it includes looking who wrote a specific passage, the audience they are writing to and the purpose they are writing it, so it is important to consider the history behind what the Bible says to obtain proper interpretation of His word. David Inston-Brewers view on divorce is by far the most Biblical view that exists. He backs up what he says by evidence. Why do we desire to have evidence for Christianity or anything else, but so many scholars aren't concerned with weighing the evidence for Divorce?
We believe and rightly so that the dead sea scrolls validate the Scriptures as being the Word of God so why don't more people validate the Jewish marriage certificates in examining the principles for divorce?

One of the things I have seen with this issue is that people have very strong beliefs (personal) regarding it. My interest, as a Christian, is what the Word of God says regarding divorce and remarriage. Period. Quoting a verse that says divorce is not allowed when there are exceptions clearly given (adultery, abandonment) in that same Bible is wrong. If you are speaking on the topic, you MUST include those exceptions. The fact that it's in another part of the Bible does not disqualify that exception or mean that you can exclude it from the discussion. To do that would imply that only certain part God's Word is correct. Have you ever seen someone who's never had an experience judge another who is going through it? For instance, a childless person talking about how another person is raising their children. People have the right to their opinions but the truth is unless you have had the experience, you will NEVER truly know what it feels like. When I married a "Christian" woman, I never knew she would cheat, leave, and take my child with her to continue her relationship. The bottom line is that you can't have a marriage with a person who insists on repeatedly sinning like this. It's like trying to have a conversation by yourself or shaking a person's hand when they refuse to extend their hand out to you. It's impossible. If you have never had an experience such as this, consider yourself fortunate. Pray that your children don't have to go through it either. I have seen people who held John Piper's views change their mind when the shoe was on their foot. Someone who has gone through this needs the love and support of the church and not their negative judgements. God bless

I agree with many comments here from people who have experienced horrible things in their marriages. I am one of such people.

The discussion on the issue of divorce sometimes reminds me of how the discussion on the issue of Sabbath went on between Jesus and the Pharisees. The parallels are rather obvious and I am yet to see how they can be dismissed. Interestingly, Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around.

A lot could be said about this, but consider - how many instances can you find of Jesus reinforcing "fast&hard rules" for human conduct? And how much was He dealing with the state of a human heart? Oh how that complicates everything, for those who may wish to divorce, but also for pastors, who may feel, perhaps justifiably, that they need some clear-cut rules for all important issues, lest their congregations end up in all sorts of troubles.

"He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?". My own experience was that some pastors would rather see the proverbial sheep dead, but married, than alive, but divorced. It is also my experience that Jesus cares about the sheep in a way that these pastors don't approve of.

I married when I was 17 and unsaved. My husband abused me and cheated on me all the time. Finally, I left him.

Two years later I got saved. Married again after my new Christian husband told me "It was God's will and if you don't you are disobeying God." As a new Christian, I listened to him and married out of fear. But my gut was telling me not to.

He abused me and divorced me after 4 months, saying he had missed God. Huh? After that I prayed and fasted for years, only to find out that he had remarried and divorced twice since.

It's twenty years later and I'm still single. Why? I'm afraid of making another mistake, afraid of who's right Piper or Brewer?

I am now past child bearing age, stuck in a prison of can I remarry or can't I?

Either way, you never divorced people are mostly judges and proud. Read Brewer's book. Does the heart of God really condemn innocent parties to singlehood? Life happens. God allowed remarriage in the OT. He created marriage for us, not us for marriage. I don't believe in divorce and think it is wrong, but am I unable to marry again after both my ex's are remarried? Why am I the only one alone all the time? They both abused me! God is a God of commitment, but He is also a God of mercy. Sometimes divorce happens for many reasons. Don't make divorced people the pariah of the church. We've all sinned even as Christians. You married once people, some of you have just been blessed by God's grace. It is what has held you together. Sometimes a spouse is divorced for no good reason, and that person should be free to remarry. If my spouse leaves me for another woman, I am free. It's his sin and why should I suffer for his sin all my life?

This is why I hate the church. I hate it. The letter of the law is foremost, not the truth.

At the end of the day, Piper is nothing more that a successful pastor at Bethlehem Baptist and a highly effective communicator. Piper is neither a gifted Greek language scholar or Judaic cultural expert. There are scores of Biblical academics who do that stuff. And none of these are unanimous on the definition of "porneia". This is about one issue only - can the genuinely betrayed and innocent victims of a divorce remarry and get on with their lives? Is Piper a clever scholar who suddenly discovered something noboby knew? I don't believe so. Rather he is a well connected communicator who stumbled upon some old rhetoric which got some traction again . The fact is that for a topic so important; Piper is flimsy. In fact Piper is merely a case of someone being wrong the loudest. The more things seem new, the more they are actually the same.