Quick question
If Jesus allowed divorce for unfaithfulness, why doesn't He give a similar statement to Paul's in 1 Cor. 7:15 asserting the release of the brother or sister from the marriage covenant?

__________________
Jaymin Jordan-Allen
Student, United Reformed Church
Ontario, CA

This is one of the reasons why Piper takes the interpretation that he does. If Jesus taught that there is a cause for just divorce, we would expect other parts of the NT to either reiterate this or at least not contradict this. But reading the other parts of the NT that mention divorce and remarriage, I notice that they all seem to be absolute condemnations of divorce. That is, unless they are read through the lens of the Matthean exception.

Another answer though, for the people who believe that divorce in some scenarios is biblical, would be that many of the epistles assume that their recipients know certain things. In Acts, every time someone responds, it doesn't have to include language that implies irresistible grace, because we have the Epistles that point that out very clearly. So in 1 Cor. it may not have been necessary for Paul to lay out the obvious reasons for divorce. If it was, like the other view on divorce here teaches, taught in the Law and then reaffirmed by Jesus, we could say that the audience had knowledge of it, and didn't need to be reminded by Paul.

Not sure which answer is right, yet.

__________________
Andrew Clerebout
Joy Baptist Church, IFB (Westland, MI)

"Let us never forget that truth, distorted and exaggerated, can become the mother of the most dangerous heresies." - J.C. Ryle, Holiness

Does forgiving one's partner and returning to the marital state necessarily involve the obligation to resume a sexual relationship as per the command not to deprive one's partner sexually? What if the partner fornicated and acquired the HIV infection, in which case resuming the sexual relationship would be suicidal? An HIV positive partner presumably could be selfish enough to insist on not being deprived, in spite of the consequences to his/her partner and offspring. Actually, this is not merely a modern problem because the same situation would have prevailed in Paul's day, the pre-antibiotic era, as regards syphilis--not quite as deadly as AIDS but still a nasty disease.

__________________
Mary Vanderkooi
Kale Heywott Church (KHC)
Soddo, Ethiopia

I think that's a fair analysis of Piper's position. By contrast, the Christianity Today article and Ray Sutton book I cited above both treat pornea (Matthew 19:9), usually translated "fornication," instead of moicheia, usually translated "adultery." The WCF position does not deal with these words, but takes "Adultery" as the KJV gives it to us in 19:9.

Sutton's position is that the "pornea" envisioned in Matt. 19:9 includes any serious moral uncleanness that deserved any O.T. death penalty offense. So it is not a "liberal" position that he takes. He reasons that, under O.T. law, the offending spouse would have been stoned and thus the marital covenant broken by death.

My concerns are and have been over issues of administration in a permissive culture with few if any death-penalty offenses and with church sessions who have little or no competence in dealing with legitimate Biblically-based offenses.

__________________

HaigLaw, ruling elder
Grace PCA, Shreveport, LA
http://www.xanga.com/HaigLaw

I think this is a very important hermeneutical point. The Bible is not written as a thesis on systematic theology, with all the doctrines conveniently organized.

This is a point the Christianity Today article I cited above makes, and is very critical to his analysis on abandonment including abuse; that is, that when Paul mentioned abandonment, he already knew about the other grounds, and wanted to make sure that abandonment was a type of neglect, when neglect per se was already covered.

I think our hermeneutics for discerning these exceptions needs to contemplate these kinds of real-life situations.

It's all fine and good to say -- God hates divorce and so should we, therefore we do things not fine or good when we make rules tighter than God's and leave people in their misery.

I've always held to the PRCA's position on divorce and remarriage... A sample of a PRCA sermon on it can be found here: The Word on Divorce and Remarriage.

That said, I remain a member of a church that upholds the WCF position. For other reasons, I would not join the PRCA (one of the least being that there isn't one within 100 miles of me). I will adhere to my church, for it is the best that I can find. But this teaching, well...

"No-fault" divorce is one of the worst things that state legislatures ever hit American society with. It's little different from the old practice of a husband "saying three times," "I divorce you," and the divorce being final.

If a circuit court in this state were to grant my husband a divorce on the "no fault" language in MI, which is "there has been a breakdown in the marital relationship to the extent that the goals of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved," would I feel as though God accepts that and considers that what He has joined together has been put asunder? The State of Michigan trumps Him? No. Would I consider myself free to find another man? No...

But that's JUST ME. (Please, please, do not take any of this personally!)

Margaret

__________________
Margaret
Free Church of Scotland [Continuing]
Michigan

"He must increase, but I must decrease." - John 3:30

Is someone here advocating "no-fault" divorces?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Not that I've seen. But since a member has said that "no-fault" divorce is not legitimate, it may be fair game to say that many of these would constitute grounds for abandonment, in the Biblical and WCOF sense.

Otoh, I knew of one case over 25 years ago in Dallas County in which the husband left the wife and said he had become homosexual, and filed for no-fault divorce.

This woman had a lot of faith, and contested the divorce and demanded a jury trial. She told the jury that she did not believe the marriage was irreconcilable, and the jury believed her, so his request for divorce was denied.

They reconciled, and were back as husband and wife, the last I heard. I have not kept up with them in recent years, however.

I would have to say, though, that in over 99% of the cases of no-fault divorce, the divorce is granted on the word of one spouse only.

I read the sermon cited. The bottom line, interpreting Matt. 19:9, was, "Couples can live separately--although they should not, except in the case of fornication." That is, he construes the "porneia" exception allowing separation but not divorce or remarriage.

I think the Christianity Today article I cited above is a better example of the grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics.

Folks,

Piper's argument has NOTHING to do with being a baptist. There are a number of very good exegetical cases to be made for several of the divorce/remarriage views (e.g., betrothal, prohibition of incest, etc.). Inerrantists (and NOT just baptists) have argued for a number of views other than the Erasmian one.

James Boice, a Presbyterian, commented:

Even though I once wrote 450 pages on the subject of marriage and divorce in the NT back in the day, I have no dogs in this hunt. However, it doesn't seem fair to Piper to blame it on his denomination, nor to act as if the exegesis is crystal clear; it isn't.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I don't recall anyone criticizing Piper for being a Baptist, or saying these passages are easy.

What is your view, Dennis? Or do we have to read all 450 pages?

Hey, how come Joseph didn't have Mary stoned? Roman rule I guess? Also, I'm interested in your in-depth study (from back in the day as you say) and your current view now that it has fermented a bit over the years.

__________________
Bryan Wiley
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, Kentucky

On criticizing Piper as a Baptist . . .

On saying that these passages are easy . . .

My view has changed a bit over the years. I will try to explain later tomorrow.

OK, Dennis, fair enough. I suppose I'd read all that, then slept a time or two.

and to Bryan, the issue of Joseph's recourse to stoning Mary is a critical issue in the article cited. So you might read the article and get the answer your asking for. OK, I see, you already did; sorry. I find the way members use acronyms sometimes confusing, and it's hard to keep track of who's who.

"No-fault" divorce is legitimate under the civil law, but just as there are a lot of things that are legal but morally wrong, so is "no-fault" divorce.

In Michigan, complaints for divorce are boiler-plate and contain, as "grounds," only the language that I cited above (I goofed: it's "objects" of matrimony, not "goals"). As a legal writer and researcher, I used to draft them from computer macros: you just fill in the names of the plaintiff and defendant, the date that one or the other officially left the marital home, whether there are minor children or whether the wife was currently pregnant, draft the summons, have a check cut for the filing fee, get it filed and have the process server serve the defendant. That's literally all there is to it. Whatever one puts in the complaint, the divorce is automatically final within six months without children and within a year if there are minor children.

There is no way to allege fault in this state until it's time for the property settlement to be adjudicated. Only then can one spouse say, "(S)he cheated on me..." whether it's true or not. Sometimes even Christians will allege that for the sole reason that they want the judge to look more favorably on them as to child custody or the division of the marital estate.

No-fault divorce statutes are legitimate civilly, but they must be a stench in God's nostrils. They're just one more way that the devil is undermining one of God's most beautiful institutions, the one that symbolizes and is a picture of the union between Christ and His Church. Can that union ever be severed and another union entered into? For any reason whatsoever? I've just been reading an interesting article by David Engelsma in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal in which he argues these points from Jeremiah 3...

(If anyone thinks, well, she's had a good marriage, she doesn't know what she's talking about, uh, no... Both of us have had "grounds" against the other - temporary though they may have been - to have thrown in the towel at many points over the past 35 years. But we meant what we said: "...till death do us part." Most things, with God's grace, can or should be worked out.)

I applaud states in which it's possible for a complaint for divorce to be contested and/or denied, and I applaud spouses who contest such complaints and are willing to fight for their marriages. That's a wonderful story you cited, HaigLaw... Thank you so much for posting it. May God bless you.

Margaret

Ephesians 5:22-32...

Since there is disagreement amongst serious Bible scholars, it seems cruel to impose, with Piper, the most restrictive of the interpretations as if the issue were, indeed, crystal clear. It's not crystal clear. Hence the disagreements. Nevertheless, guys with happy marriages sit on their high and mighty thrones making ex-cathedra pronouncements on real-life situations that the scriptures don't address. There are other scriptural principles that apply in some cases--like one's body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; therefore a woman has a moral obligation to do whatever she needs to do in order to avoid being beaten. I know of a woman who locked her intoxicated husband out of the house in the winter time--it taught him a lesson and dried him out. She was not being submissive. Separation with gradual renewed contact, with each parameter negotiated can be healing to a relationship. There is also the HIV issue. Scriptural ethics are meant to be followed. One extreme is obedience only as long as it doesn't cause inconvenience--not legitimate. The other extreme--rigid absolutes with utter disregard of consequences is also not legitimate. Is there not some middle ground, some room to discuss the various ethical principles that bear on any particular case?

No worries. If I used an acronym PAMA (please accept my apologies). I can't remember Piper's answer on Joseph's decision not to have Mary stoned based on the evidence he had. I'll re-reread it.

Acronyms! I meant to say -- pseudonyms; sorry! And I had to look back 3 times to see if in fact, Bryan is "staythecourse."

Yeah, I think Joseph's option of having her stoned was critical to Piper's exegesis of Matt. 19:9. I tried to follow his argument, although I tend not to agree.

I think you have some excellent points, Leslie. And I think our exegesis and hermeneutics need to be consistent with the fact that the gospel is redemptive.

One of the hardest points in Piper's position is the notion that, if you have entered into a second marriage when you shouldn't have (and I didn't see any exceptions other than death of the first spouse), then you should repent of that, yet still be faithful to your current spouse.

I remember, years ago, dialoging with a guy on a Christian BBS sponsored by a publishing house out of Nashville, who was so strict on this that he actually said that it would not be Biblical for him to divorce and remarry if his wife committed adultery on him, but that if he killed her after such adultery, it would be OK to remarry. God could forgive the murder, but not the remarriage after adultery, somehow.

Go figure!

Booo. Hogwash, fiddle faddle, and insanity.