Remarriage Issue

Larry said:

1. You should be more precise and say that they do not include the exception clause. Why they didn't is a matter that is not conclusive.

2. IF your interpretation is correct. Most agree that it is not.

3. No really debatable at all. He does allow for the divorce.

4. If you rule out the other legitimate explanations.

5. You are according Matthew less weight

6. I agree. The question is, How do they fit together?

7. porneia includes adultery

DD replies:

1. No, I shouldn't have. A straightforward reading of Mark and Luke DO NOT allow remarriage. How do you miss the force of that Larry? If the "exception" clause was SO important, why didn't Mark and Luke include it?

You also need to stop writing off the disciples' reaction to what Christ said in Matt. 19. Their conclusion was that Christ was SO strict that it was better to NOT marry.

2. Wrong. My view has the pre-eminence and near exclusivity throughout the church history prior to Erasmus. Further, there is alot of discussion regarding this. To simply say that most disagree with me is just a blanket statement without warrant.

Further, do you really trust evangelicalism as a whole on this issue when they can't even get Open Theism right? I think we both agree that O.T. is a little bit more important.

3. The debate is the kind of divorce Larry. There are all kinds of views regarding just the divorce issue.

4. Please point out the allowance for remarriage with the other spouse alive in Romans 7 and I Cor. 7, Larry. That is the ONLY time Paul mentioned it.

So Mark, Luke, and Paul don't allow for remarriage. Oh, here comes Matthew to gun them all down. Classic.

More likely that Matthew was referring to a specific kind of divorce from a specific kind of marriage Larry.

5. False. You know my position on inerrancy as well. What I am proposing is that Matthew includes additional information that is so specific that it does not contradict with Mark, Luke, and Paul.

6. Well my friend, my puzzle is already put together.

7. That is correct. It is a subset of sexual immorality. Adultery is a different greek word. Why didn't Christ say that?

 

But a straightforward reading of Matthew does. How do you miss the force of that?

The same reason they don't include many other things that Matthew has ... because they weren't inspired to include it.

I haven't written it off. I understand it. But I don't think that overrules the point. Since Mark and Luke don't include this, should we think it is an addition particularly directed to Jews? Or perhaps with Craig, we should call it a scribal gloss and ignore it. Do you want to apply your logic to this synoptic problem and solve it?

Your view, in this day, is the undisputed minority view. That doesn't make it wrong. But it does make my statement both right and warranted when I say that most disagree with you.

Evangelicalism as a whole does get open theism right. There is a very vocal minority who no longer have claim to the evangel who deny it.

There are some who say absolutely no divorce.

Romans 7 is a different issue. 1 Cor 7 says you are not bound. Many, including myself, believe that "not bound" means just that ... you are not bound to that marriage and you can therefore remarry.

I disagree.

Becuase porneia includes it and is broader ...

 

Larry said:

Becuase porneia includes it and is broader .

DD says:

So then Christ could also have meant something else, right? I guess that does remove alot of your dogmatism.

As far as I Cor. 7, you have yourself quite the contradiction.

1. Paul says to stay with the unbeliever.
2. If you must leave, REMAIN SINGLE or RECONCILE.
3. If the unbeliever leave, you are not bound (to remain with him). You are to let him depart and live in peace.
4. It isn't until the END of the chapter that Paul brings up remarriage.

You have Paul as some sort of schizo who is just jamming a bunch of jumbled statements together.

How you (and other) make the leap of "not bound" to include the idea of divorcing the person and then remarrying ought to get you a gold medal at the hermeneutical gymnastics competition.

 

No, I have not alleged that.

 

I posted:

I subsequently posted:

Larry posted:

I replied:

Larry replied:

Notice that Larry did not “post it again, providing us with an exact quote in context along with the author’s name, the work in which it is found, and details as to where in the work it is found.” But he did provide the name of the author, or at east the pseudonym of the author (the author in anonymous). I suppose that the “quote” that Larry is referring to is the following (or part thereof).

On 1 Corinthians 7,10-11. “ ‘A woman may not leave her husband. If she has left him, she may not remarry.’ This is the Apostle's advice, that, if she has left her husband because of his bad behaviour, she remain unmarried. ‘Or she should be reconciled to her husband.’ In case she cannot contain herself, because she does not want to fight against the flesh, she should be reconciled to her husband; for it is not permitted to the woman to marry (again) if she has divorced her husband because of (his) fornication or apostacy . . . . .
If however the man has apostacised, or seeks to change the use of his wife, the woman may neither marry another man or return to him. ‘And the husband should not divorce his wife.’ Understood however is: except in the case of fornication. And therefore the Apostle does not add, as in the case of the woman, that he should remain as he is when he has divorced her. For to a man it is allowed to take a (new) wife if he has divorced a (previous) wife who sinned since a man is not restricted by the law as the woman is; for the husband is the head of his wife.”

Notice first of all, that Ambrosiaster does not allow a divorced woman to remarry for any reason whatsoever, but he does allow a divorced man to remarry if the divorce was because of “fornication.” Notice secondly that the interpretation of Ambrosiaster is even stricter than the interpretation that I presented. Therefore, the interpretation of Ambrosiaster is much closer to the interpretation that I presented than it is to Larry’s interpretation of at least two grounds for divorce for both the woman and the man. Larry is correct, however, that for the first five centuries the church was unanimous, with the exception of Ambrosiaster, in forbidding remarriage after divorce REGARDLESS of the reason for the divorce. Ambrosiaster did not allow the women to remarry, but he did allow the men to remarry if the divorce was because of fornication.

 

A Statement on Divorce and Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church

This statement on divorce and remarriage is the product of several years of study and discussion by the Council of Deacons of Bethlehem Baptist Church. The final approval of its present form was given May 2, 1989. It should be read as the official statement of the ruling Council of the church beneath the authority of Christ and the congregation. While there are aspects of this statement that some deacons and pastors do not hold as personal convictions, we all assent to this statement being the church guide for membership and discipline. Ideally it should be read in connection with the paper entitled "THE MEANING OF MEMBERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH."

Below is an excerpt from the above document (the emphasis in bold type is mine):

Diversity of Viewpoints in Bethlehem and the Wider Church
Among the membership of Bethlehem in 1989 complete unanimity does not exist concerning the question what divorces and what remarriages are Biblically permissible. This lack of unanimity is a reflection of the evangelical church worldwide.
Devout evangelical Biblical scholars disagree. John Murray has written a standard work on the topic called Divorce, (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1961). In this book he defends the view that divorce and remarriage are Biblically permitted when a partner is adulterous or when a partner deserts willfully and irremediably.

On the other side William Heth and Gordon Wenham have written a book called Jesus and Divorce (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984). They defend the position that while divorce may at times be unavoidable, all remarriage while the partners are living is wrong. There are many other books on both sides. [1]

This contemporary lack of agreement among evangelical Christians also reflects historic positions that have been taken for centuries. The historic protestant position that John Murray was defending was enshrined in the Westminster Confession of 1647. The pertinent part reads like this:

In case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead. (Article 24, paragraph 5) [2]

Interestingly, when the Baptists of England adapted the Westminster Confession to their own use in the Second London Confession of 1689 this paragraph permitting divorce and remarriage was deleted from the section on marriage. [3]

Even more startling and convicting is the following fact: "In the first five centuries (among Christians) all Greek writers and all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce for any reason is adulterous. The marriage bond was seen to unite both parties until the death of one of them." [4]

This is all the more startling in view of the fact that both the Jewish and Roman culture of the time allowed divorce with remarriage. The followers of Jesus stood over against this culture with their radical prohibition of remarriage. In spite of this extraordinarily high, counter-cultural standard the church grew like wildfire for 400 years.

[1] For example, on the side of leniency toward remarriage there is Larry Richards, Remarriage: A Healing Gift from God (Waco: Word Books, 1981); and on the more rigorous side there is J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981); and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, God and Marriage (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980).
[2] Found in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 656.
[3] See William Lumpkin, ed. Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1959), pp. 284-5.
[4] . The evidence for this is compiled in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, pp. 19-44. The quote is taken from p. 22. Some of the writers in view are Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Tertullian, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, etc. The one exception was Ambrosiaster.

 

James Strong (the compiler of Strong’s Concordance) had this to say,

 

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,(porneia) causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (moichao)

--From the Online Bible Lexicon, which uses Thayer's

From these definitions we can see that moichao always refers to adultery--illicit sex outside the bounds of one's own marriage. It specifically deals with the married person.

Fornication may include adultery, but is not usually translated that way since the word moichao is the usual word used for adultery. It's usual meaning is sex before marriage, but may refer to a number of other things, as noted.
The question is obvious. If Jesus was specifically speaking of adultery ("except for the cause of adultery, why didn't the Holy Spirit of God inspire it that way? He could have used the same word for adultery (moichao) both times. But he didn't. He used another word (porneia), meaning fornication, or something other than adultery, for a good reason. He wasn't speaking of adultery, as the KJV translators rightly translated. He was speaking of fornication, or sex before marriage as demonstrated in the life of Mary and Joseph. See how Scripture harmonizes with Scripture. Thus the exception clause does not apply to us today, for we have no such custom as the Jews did, in their betrothal period.

Quote by Larry

I stick to my original statement. God never condoned divorce. You have failed to demonstrate in the Bible where he did. The passages that you have used are either out of context or are for the wrong reason.
God allowed divorce; He did not condone it.

Answer this: Did God condone polygamy? I have asked you that before. Did God condone polygamy? He allowed David, a man after God's own heart, to have many wive's. If such a Godly man like David could have many wives then shouldn't that be enough justification for you or me, or the Mormons?? Taking your illustrations from the Old Testament does not bode you well.

God allowed divorce; never condoned it. "From the beginning it was not so."
When you refer to the Deuteronomic laws concerning divorce and remarriage to prove your case, you have immediately failed. Christ already stated to the Pharisees that God gave them allowance for divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. If the laws concerning divorce were given for that reason, then it becomes evident that the further laws concerning remarriage were also given because of the hardness of their hearts. God has never condoned either divorce or remarriage--never!
Has he ever condoned polygamy? Why or why not?
What about homosexuality?
These are sexual sins. God calls divorce and remarriage adultery--another sexual sin.
DHK

 

Rather than continuing this interminable discussion in which both sides are continually repeating what they have already said, I will make several final points and then I will bow out.

First, porneia indisputedly includes adultery. It means more, not less.

Second, the exception is there and should not be written off to a scribal gloss. IMO, as well as many others, hte exception applies to both divorce and remarriage. Those who differ must do with with a clear conscience in their exegesis.

Third, serious exegetes can arrive at differing conclusions on this matter. They both may not be right, but ultimately, Scripture is not explicity.

Fourth, an appeal to the OT is not a failure. It is called such, perhaps because it so clearly illlustrates the factual basis for our position. Any admission of the OT truth immediately refutes the other side.

Fifth, to hold the position that I do does not require that one condone or encourage divorce. I, and many others, do not. We detest divorce and call people to live in harmony and forgiveness no matter the situation. Divorce is not a way out to move on to a new relationship.

In the end, good men can and do differ, and none must deny the accuracy of Scripture to maintain their position.

 

One last comment I meant to make to Craig. As I said, I did not post the exact quote or reference to Ambrosiaster's comments because, as I said already, I did not have it in front of me. But you said, "Ambrosiaster did not allow the women to remarry, but he did allow the men to remarry if the divorce was because of fornication." This is what I said and it shows that your position that the early church fathers never allowed divorce and remarriage is not exactly accurate. His position, accurately represented in your above circumstance, shows that some in teh early church did allow for divorce and remarriage.

 

That has never been my position and I never posted such a thing! In 375 A.D. divorce was rampant through the Roman Empire. The emperors had been trying to stop it, but their efforts were not met with success. The wealthy people found legal loopholes in the constantly changing marriage laws and the poor people were killing their spouses. The Church was under enormous pressure to back down, but it did not. Yes, one anonymous writer did back down, but only in the case of men. The Church as a whole, and the Church Fathers as a whole, continued to maintain their position that both divorce and remarriage after divorce were not allowed in the Scriptures. On most issues, the Church and the Church fathers were divided; on the issue of marriage and divorce, however, they were not divided (unless you are going to argue that one single individual who dissented amounts to a division in the church during a period of 500 years ).

 

More than a few years ago I was called upon to teach Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. I shared this with my colleagues, and they told me that I wasn’t ready to do that. My colleagues were all older and more experienced than me, and I knew that they were probably right, but I knew in my heart that the opportunity had come through the sovereignty of God and I accepted the challenge.

At that point in time, however, about all that I could teach my students was what others had written about the Epistle because I did not know it well enough to have very many solid opinions of my own. I knew very well that the opinions of others violently clashed with one another, and I did not want to turn my classroom in a war zone, so I began to diligently pray that God would teach me the truth and protect me from error. And I began to teach Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, a two semester course.

It soon became explicitly clear that without very much help from God, I was going to miserably fail my students (and I am not speaking of their grade for the course), and I sought God all the more for His help. And God not only opened up for me Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, He also manifested to me that all the study in the world was worth nothing without divine intervention through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the anointing of the mind to receive the wisdom that comes only from above.

I didn’t stop studying, indeed, I studied all the more, praying and fasting for God to separate for me the chaff from the wheat. And over the period of more than a few years I have learned a little bit about how to distinguish the chaff from the wheat. But Satan never slumbers, and he knows all the tricks of his trade, and without continued fasting and prayer for God to teach me the truth and protect me from error, I could still become a victim on one of his snares.

My dear readers, the truth if a most precious thing; and learning the truth is not a matter of simply reading books and theology journals. Without prayer and fasting, the truth can be a very elusive thing. Prayer and fasting, and the study of and obedience to His word are all essential to learning the truth.

Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Phil. 3:12

 

Just a brief response to your assertion that “[the church fathers never allowing for divorce and remarriage] has never been my position and I never posted such a thing!”

The following citations from you all seem to indicate that you believe that the position allowing divorce and remarriage is only a modern one (since 1500) and did not exist prior to that.
_________________________________

The interpretation provided in these two threads by you are strictly modernist and uneducated views July 23, 2004 03:09 PMJuly 23, 2004 03:09 PM

Larry believes that prior to 1500, everyone resorted to an "abnormal" reading of the text, July 23, 2004 04:09 PMJuly 23, 2004 04:09 PM

And this is not just my interpretation; it is the interpretation of the entire Church for 1500 years, posted July 22, 2004 04:14 PMJuly 22, 2004 04:14 PM

Is the interpretation of the scriptures that I am presenting here a new interpretation from modern theology? No, it is the teaching of the Church for 1500 years, (emphasis yours) posted July 21, 2004 02:47 AMJuly 21, 2004 02:47 AM
_________________________________

The fact remains that at least one person in church history allowed for the remarriage of a divorced party, which means that the essential position I hold existed throughout church history (which seems to be one of your qualifications for being true). It doesn’t exactly constitute a “division” but I do not believe that I ever said it did.

I don't think you and I disagree in principle on the solemnity of marriage or the fact that divorce is bad.

I think none of us should stop studying. I know I certainly won't. I have, even this week during this discussion, reviewed my own position by doing some reading and thinking on the subject. I hope that you have done the same.

 

Oh! I'm sorry, Larry. I was not aware that Ambrosiaster lived and wrote throughout the history of the Church . Nor was I aware that the view of Ambrosiaster was “the essential position” that you hold to . Or did you mean to write that the view of Ambrosiaster was essentially the position that you hold to, that divorced women CAN NOT remarry regardless of the circumstances, and that the divorced men CAN remarry ONLY if the divorce was based upon fornication? I DO NOT RECALL READING ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN ANY OF YOUR POSTS!

 

Come on, Craig ... Why do you do this? The essential position that I, and most others today hold, is that remarriage is possible after divorce. Ambrosiaster believed that in the 4th century BC, and thus, that view has existed for at least 3/4 of church history. The fact that remarriage was limited to "innocent males" does not contradict the point that there were some (I presume Ambrosiaster was not alone) who believe that remarriage was not always forbideen following divorce. This puts Ambrosiaster in line with Moses, Jesus, and Paul, not to mention the host of scholars who defend that position. ... (You see I can't draft them for my position without actually proving it just has you have).

I think you know what the implications of Ambrosiaster's comments are, and they refute your apparent position that "remarriage after divorce" is limited to a modern day position.

 

Larry,

I have not, in any of my posts, said that remarriage after divorce is necessarily wrong. It is only wrong if the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 is an addition to the teachings of Jesus (the details of which have not yet been discussed). But you have strongly argued that Paul provided us with another exception, i.e., abandonment. You have also strongly argued that even if a man or a woman gets a divorce for an illegitimate reason, and remarries, if they confess their sin of divorce, the new marriage is not an adulterous relationship. These are the teachings that I have labeled modernistic and licentious, and they certainly are that.

I fully realize that the majority of the popular preachers and teachers TODAY (and you have used the same word yourself in the same context) are preaching and teaching the same (or very nearly the same) liberal, licentious message that you are defending, and that message is a lie from hell, plain and simple. Ambrosiaster condoned none of that licentious filth, and to bring his name and teaching into the debate to defend your position is absolute foolishness, if not worse, because his teaching was radically different from yours. The message that you are defending was unthinkable prior to 1500; and prior to 1960, those who taught that message were castigated by those Christians who love God and His word.

Anyone who thinks that he can defend the historicity of his theology on the basis of one single, anonymous individual who believed only one of his many tenets, and disagreed with all the rest, is, at best, delusional. I hope that you do not fall into this category!

 

I think "liberal, licentious teaching" is an unfortunate and incorrect misrepresentation of my position. I seriously doubt whether you and I disagree about the seriousness and permanence of marriage. We disagree on several other things, like what application of forgiveness applies here, and whether or not a second sin (second divorce) makes things better ...

 

An adulterous relationship is always created when one violates God’s will. Adultery in the truest sense in the OT and NT is when one violates God plan and will.

Mt. 5:32, “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

I would take the position that anyone who causes another to deviate from God perfect plan causes that person to commit adultery. When a man divorces his wife he causes her to commit adultery against her will.

Look at what was written in Mt. 5:27,28, “You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Certainly this kind of adultery is not necessarily a physical act but rather a heart attitude. It is not God’s plan for a man to have great passion for a woman not his own wife.

I believe adultery covers more than the physical aspect of a marriage but the plan of God.

 

Hmmmm........in reading through some of this it seems that God has a double standard in dealing with this issue of divorce. I believe this is the first time I have ever come across a double standard in the Bible that was created by God. Maybe someone can explain it to me.

If I have read some of this correctly it appears that if a man catches on to his wifes adultry/fornication he is allowed to divorce her and remarry. However if SHE catches HIM she can divorce him but must remain single. I get the idea that this is also what was allowed in the history of the church.

I would also like some clarification on just how all this applies to unbelievers. I don't know of any other sin to where what we've done before our salvation brings us to sin after our salvation. After salvation our sins are gone. RIGHT???? So if before we were saved we ran around wild, slept with whomever, married and divorced as it suited us, did drugs, killed someone while driving drunk etc. as far as God is concerned it is gone.

So where do we get the idea that once saved anything we did beforehand affects our lives now? How can you tell someone(man or woman) that because they married and divorced BEFORE they were saved they now can't remarry? Is there any other sin that affects a Christian in this manner?

I understand how there might be a difference for people who are already saved. Those of us who are saved know how marriage is supposed to work. We know that if we are going to enter in to marriage there are rules for us that don't apply to unbelievers. But that brings us back to the double standard. If a Christian man who finds his wife in an adulterous affair can remarry after divorcing, why can't the Christian woman who finds herself in the same position remarry? It seems like the woman is being punished justly and I don't think God can/will do that.

Ya'll don't start arguing again over the use of porniea now. I don't really care what sexual sin the other partner was caught in. Nor does it matter when they were caught doing it(before or after marriage).

 

If the second "marriage" is an adulterous relationship, ending that relationship by separation is the only answer. If one believes that a separation a vinculo matrimonii is a sin, a separation a mensa et thoro is the solution. Remaining in an adulterous "marriage" is not just a second sin, but a lifetime of continuous sinning.