—Chris Krycho
PJ and I have written at length on the topic of divorce and remarriage [go to the series home page]. We have also highlighted Jim Elliff and Christian Communicators Worldwide (CCW), thinkers we agree with on many aspects of church life. The two overlapped recently, when the CCW team graciously sent us a copy of their book, Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View, by Daryl Wingerd, Jim Elliff, Jim Chrisman, and Steve Burchett, all elders at Christ Fellowship of Kansas City.
We summed up our own study on divorce and remarriage by saying:
God hates divorce. However, there are times when divorce comes upon you. Reconciliation should be attempted, though sometimes it may prove impossible. As long as the other spouse still lives, remarriage is not permitted and is considered adultery in the eyes of our Lord.
Perhaps unsurprisingly (in light of the title), the book comes to the same conclusions we did. As the authors explain in three summary statements in the first chapter:
- The one-flesh union created in marriage is permanent until death.
- Initiating a divorce is never lawful.
- Remarrying after divorce is an act of adultery if a former spouse is living.
The authors spend the first half of the book capably and thoroughly examining the Scriptural evidence for these statements. I appreciated the God-centered focus of the exposition. Time and again, they circled back to honoring Jesus—both by keeping his commands not to divorce or remarry and by imitating his faithfulness, even to an unfaithful bride (see the Christ hymn in 2 Timothy 2:10-14). The relational consequences of divorce and remarriage are serious: they irrevocably damage many human relationships, and they deeply impact one's walk with God.
In the second half of the book, the team applies these views, answering a variety of practical questions about personal decision-making and the consequences of divorce and remarriage. The questions range from what people who are already remarried ought to do to how pastors ought to respond to people seeking divorce or remarriage. The responses are thoughtful, gentle, and pastoral in tone. The authors demonstrate their passion for doctrinal purity and personal integrity, as well as their compassion and concern for those facing difficult situations.
The great advantage of this book over our own series is its length. The authors were able to grapple with each of the relevant biblical texts in detail. They were also able to deal with some of the secondary texts in a meaningful way, especially the exception clause in Matthew 19:9, something we were unable to do. (Like Pastor John Piper, the authors come to the conclusion that the exception refers to broken engagements, which were far more legally significant in first century Jewish culture than in our own. They also explore some of the reasons Matthew included the clause where the other gospel authors did not. In all, it was a helpful discussion, and complements Piper’s discussion nicely.) The team also dedicated a short appendix to briefly discussing the secondary passages not covered in the book itself.
Since the book was co-written by four men, you might expect it to flow poorly or be overly long. These concerns are largely unfounded: at only 157 pages (including the appendices) it was a quick read, and generally flowed very well. Nonetheless, the exposition portion of the book was slightly too long, occasionally becoming repetitive. I understand the authors’ goal: to cement their point in the readers’ minds with the new material from the chapter as more context. I found the restatements distracting, but I can also see how they might be helpful to readers who have never considered this view before.
The authors adroitly worked through the major theological arguments for and practical applications of the permanence view quite thoroughly. The book is well-written, the exposition is thorough and careful, and the application wise and engaging. The book is well worth its price if you have not already thought through these issues. It would also be a helpful resource for a leading a discussion on this issue in a small group or church. Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View offers solid exposition of the text and wise pastoral counsel for practice.
Review: recommended
17 comments:
I thought this book would take another view; in that mankind was initially in union with God, but rejected God and "married another" god. However, by God's grace He allowed the divorce from idolatry and re-married mankind; hence why Paul instituted (by inspiration of the Godhead) that a person was not in bondage any longer if an unbeliever departed and could remarry (without death). Interesting review though.
AAV,
Thanks for coming to the blog. The verse to which you are referring is 1 Corinthians 7:15. I deal with this verse in our Divorce and Remarriage position Part 2, but our interpretation of it is in light of the rest of Scripture (dealt with in Parts 1 and 2).
I encourage you to read both in order to understand our conclusion (and the conclusion of the authors of this book).
From Part 2:
"Previously, I thought that verse 15 permits an individual to remarry if his or her unbelieving spouse leaves. In light of our discussion above, as well as the immediate context of the clause (divorce, not remarriage), I no longer consider this to be accurate. “In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved” does not mean that one is free to remarry but rather, that one is not required to live with an unbeliever who wants to separate. The peace referenced in this situation is not the peace of marrying another, but the peace of not living in strife."
http://www.pillarontherock.com/2010/05/divorce-and-remarriage-part-1.html
http://www.pillarontherock.com/2010/05/divorce-and-remarriage-part-2.html
Thanks for commenting!
Thank you for responding. I understand your position, just not your exegesis of the passage, and I hope more do not take your position; seeing that re-marriage would then be "an" unpardonable sin (living in continued adultery and rebellion against God, without the possibility of forgiveness). I surely would think this is your position, but inevitably would be the end result. Your thoughts to this solution?
Actually, I do not hold the position that remarriage is an "unpardonable" sin. There is an inherent tension in how the sin(s) of divorce and remarriage should be handled -- as one sin, or multiple sins.
In a (very) lengthy comment, I attempted to deal with this tension by affirming a "state" of adultery (similar to our fallen state). I encourage you to take a look at it.
PJ,
First, I need to correct my previous statement: I meant to say "I surely would 'not' think this is your position," sorry for the grammatical error, on my part, forgive me.
Next, I have read your comments concerning the "state" of adultery; however, this seems to be much like eisegesis, from a small piece of text. Are we creating doctrine from silence? I don't believe there is enough context for the church to banish, excommunicate, or label those re-married as living in a "state" of adultery forever (I know you never stated that, I'm perceiving at an end result).
However, it is interesting that Jesus informed the woman at the well that she "was" married five times. He did not express that she was only married once and the five men were just "states" of adultery (Jn. 4:18), but that the man she was currently committing adultery with, was not any of her husbands. In this case, I can see the use of "state" because it refers to an active, continual, presence (i.e. a person is lying in "state"); meaning, she was in a "state" of adultery, not being married, or in covenant. How would you interpret Christ's response to this woman and the fact that the same Greek word for husband is used here and in Matthew 1:19 (Mary's husband Joseph)? Thanks for your time.
Having the "not" makes much more sense.
The state argument is merely a musing which I consider potentially helpful for wading through a difficult topic. My state theory, however, does not necessarily conclude with banishment, et al. You should note that I concluded my comments with this sentiment: "Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that the state of adultery would not prohibit someone from being a member in good standing in a church. Because one can repent of the sin that caused the adultery, one can be forgiven by God and by the church."
Additionally, I do not disagree with you that remarriages are full covenantal marriages. To quote myself again: "Correspondingly, remaining in his remarriage does not cause him to commit more adultery - it is not sinful for him to remain with his new spouse. He broke one covenant, but he should never break his new one."
The state of adultery does not cause the remarriage to be null, it just means that the prior marriage covenant was broken (on his end) and can not be repaired.
Thanks for the thoughtful questions.
PJ,
I think we basically agree, but perhaps I need some more confirmation on the subject. Are you making the proposition that believers who re-marry, no matter the first circumstance concerning the divorce (i.e. adulterous affair, abuse, or desertion) are in a state of adultery. Let me clarify, if Bob and Mary married, but after several years, Mary commits adultery and leaves Bob for another man; is Bob forbidden to ever re-marry, and if he does is he in, as you claim, a "state" of adultery?
I will await your response.
The "state" question is not terribly important (considering that I'm the only person I know of to use the concept with regards to divorce/remarriage).
I will answer your question in this way:
Scripture prohibits remarriage after divorce, regardless of the cause of the divorce, for as long as the other spouse lives. Therefore, if Bob remarries while Mary is alive, then Bob is committing adultery.
Obviously, this is a tough situation, but I think that scripture is clear, when considered holistically. Specifically, keep in mind Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, both of which are dealt with in my position paper.
The only potential outlier for this is found in Matthew 19:9. However, this verse doesn't really jive with the rest of the passages on divorce and remarriage. I would point you to a position by John Piper (which I summarize here) for a potential interpretation of 19:9.
But yes, if one is considering my theory on the state of adultery, Bob's remarriage would break his end of the covenant, thereby placing him in a state of adultery for the life of Mary.
PJ,
Thanks I think you summed it up for me. Let me humbly respond and with God knowing I am only making a summation, which is not intended to offend any, including Him.
However, I would extrapolate: the Lord Almighty, in divorcing Israel, has committed adultery, since, as you stated, re-marriage is not permitted. Is the bride the Church (Rev. 21), it cannot be, if this is the case, correct? Am I missing something, which you have not addressed here? I suspect Paul should not have stated in Romans 11 that "all Israel will be saved," as God cannot turn back to a previous marriage; but this puts God is a quandary, as He is forced to adhere to His own Law and cannot re-marry anyone. He is either forever alone, or lives in a state of adultery marrying the Church at the great wedding feast. Have you considered this?
Had typos!
I think we would argue (as the authors of this book did, for example) that the divorce being referenced in Jeremiah 3:8 is (1) meant as analogy and (2) distinctly not permanent. We need look only a few verses further (Jeremiah 3:11-13 and especially Jeremiah 9:14) to see that God fully intended restoration of this covenant relationship. Moreover, it does not follow that taking back one's wife is adultery; to the contrary, this is what should be done if at all possible. (This is a point I noted in one of my posts on practical applications.)
Moreover, we would argue that the Church and Israel, though not identical, are much more closely related and connected than your summary might suggest. There are some differences, but there is also a great deal of continuity, and the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in Christ (and therefore in the Church).
Finally, we ought to interpret analogical passages (such as those describing God's relationship to his people in terms of marriage) carefully, and not allow analogies to override clear doctrinal statements. In particular, Jesus' (and Paul's) rejection of remarriage ought to compel us to reject it as well, even if we could interpret the passages mentioned above as you suggest. (For the reasons I already spelled out, I do not believe we can.)
Thank you for contributing to the conversation and especially for doing so gently and respectfully. It's hard to do on a topic with so much emotion involved.
PJ,
All emotion is aside, believe me, my points are based concerning, there cannot be a "state" theory. It is, or is not, continual sin, and I think we must agree that has been the stance throughout the ages of ecclesiastical history, resoundingly so. For if we take, and I assume you do, Christ's words, as not metaphorical,analogous, or figurative, but to level the "playing field" (so to speak) all are adulterers: He said that anyone who lusts after a woman commits adultery. I think "we" would all be in a "state" of sin then: do you see my argument here?
I think the evidence weighs too strongly for new doctrine to be made from silence. I think where the Bible is silent, we too, ought to reserve our judgments, and be silent. Sorry for the continuance, but its a good topic, as divorce is rampant, and high among believers; just not sure this is the answer.
As I implied before, my state theory is a philosophical tool and not a doctrine. I'm not proclaiming it as truth, but merely as, perhaps, a way of thinking about divorce and remarriage.
Additionally, it would not apply to Jesus' statement that all who have lusted have committed adultery. That form of adultery is definitely a one-time sin and there could be no state associated with it (in this context). My philosophical reasoning of "state" only really applies to the breaking of the marriage covenant.
But, as I said, it's only a way of thinking.
I wanted to jump in here and offer a few things to the discussion. I have recently purchased the book Divorce and remarriage, a permanence view and found that it jived quiet nicely with a paper that I have been working on for 7 years. Divorce has run rampant in my family as well as the church and I just found it hard to believe that there was a "loophole" in Christ's words regarding an exception. I have many thoughts, but will not try and voice them all here in this post. I did however, feel that a particular thing I have noticed in God's dealings with Israel were curious in regards to the divorce and remarriage debate. The thought is this, God may have divorced isarel, but if we look closely at the passages where he does this we need to remember two things...
1. God is only BETROTHED to Israel. The Great marriage supper of the lamb has not taken place. The Son has not even come for his bride, yet. If one takes the betrothal view as being the only grounds for divorce, then there is no cotnradictions with the fact that God divorced her.
2. God did not marry another. Israel is still his chosen people and he pleads for her return, even today.
If I have missed something somewhere or someone can show me where this is NOT the case, I am open for correction. I simply want to honor God and promot what is God's will among the church. I have nothing to gain or lose either way. I am not divorced and therefore am not trying to justify anything. I just believe that this is an issue that continues to fuel lots of debate, but the truth is clear. It is easy for us to insert our own personal experiences into how we interpret scripture and this can be dangerous.
Concerned Christian
Concerned Christian and An Amplified Voice: first, thank you for stopping by and offering your comments, all of them in a respectful and helpful way. Second, in the future, do you mind posting under your real name? You can see our comments policy for details, but we generally discourage the use of pseudonyms here. Thanks!
AAV, I'm going to primarily address CC's post directly, as I think it answers your questions as well.
On your first point, that's an interesting view, and I hadn't considered the implication of the future (that is, eschatological) wedding of the Lamb. That said, I would be hesitant to take the argument too far. In the passages where God speaks of divorcing Israel (especially Jeremiah 3:1-10, esp. v. 1-3), he also clearly makes references to Israel as being analogous to a wife, not simply one who is betrothed. So I don't think your first point is one I can agree with in these contexts. There are a number of different analogies and metaphors being used in different contexts, and respect for the contexts should lead us to treat the passages differently.
On the other hand, I wholeheartedly concur with your second point: God has not married a new bride; he has taken the old bride back and purified her. There can be no claim of adultery. The church is a continuation of Israel, a wild branch that has been grafted onto the old vine, not a replacement for it. The promise of prophecies both before and after Jesus' first coming is that Israel will be restored (something we should all faithfully pray for).
Finally (and this goes directly to AAV's question), the passages in question are all analogical in nature. God giving a divorce is not an argument for our doing, because he's using the concept of a divorce to describe his coming punishment on his people. Accordingly, these passages should not inform our view of remarriage. If we want to apply those passages as directly as you suggest, God also speaks of having two wives, Israel and Judah. Obviously none of us are arguing for that! I think we need to understand these passages as descriptive metaphor, or run the risk of some very problematic views.
Thank you again for your thought provoking comments and the respectful tone in which they were offered!
Let scripture speak. It is plain that divorce is not commanded, but permitted in the case of adultery (porneia)and desertion of a believer by a non-believer. Three of the four gospels and ICorinthians make that very, very, clear. Chrisitans are not to divorce each other, but if they do they are to reconcile. If a believer is abandoned by an unbeliever, they are to let the person go and is NOT obligated. Based on the flow from the beginning of the text, the believer is released from the covenant and can remarry. We are called to peace. As fallen,sinful creature we tend to make scripture say things it doesn't.
Al, thanks for your comment. I wholeheartedly agree that we should let Scripture speak. On that note, I'd encourage you to read through the series PJ and I wrote, in which PJ traced through each of the discussions of divorce and remarriage in the New Testament (and several in the Old!) and came to the same conclusion as the authors of this book. The only major point of disagreement between you and us seems to be on the point of remarriage – and I do think that PJ's exegesis (along with Piper's and a number of others') on that point is compelling.
Post a Comment
We welcome your comments—whether you agree or disagree with us—as long as they are polite, kind, and thoughtful. Please supply your name, and if you have a website, provide a link!
Personal attacks, trolling, spam and anonymous posts will be deleted. See our full comments policy for details and clarification.
If you are writing a particularly long comment, you may want to check it against the 4000-character limit.