One sermon that has gotten a lot of traction in Christian circles lately is one by a very gifted preacher by the name of Voddie Baucham, regarding the "permanence view of marriage" - a view that says the bible allows no exceptions for divorce and remarriage, and that no matter the marital state one is in, he or she should remain in that state - the current marriage is ended only by death; anything other than that is adultery in God's eyes.
You can hear the sermon here
Sermon Audio Download of the sermon
He begins the sermon by quoting from a book titled, "Divorce and Remarriage: a Permanence View" by Jim Eliff (a book also getting a lot of discussion regarding this issue) where he quotes the author as saying...
Divorce and wrongful remarriage are forgivable sins. We want to start here, at the heart of our faith in Christ. When Jesus died, He did not fail to atone for the misdeeds of His people in this critical area. Even the person who has acted as wrongly as possible in this matter may be fully forgiven, and may have a fulfilled life of service to God after repentance. Also, God mercifully blesses many second marriages that began sinfully. This is a mystery for which we can all be extremely grateful.
Voddie then expounds his case for why marriages should never be undone; and even if you find yourself in a marriage after divorce, you should not undo the second marriage to restore the original one. He has many valid points to make in this sermon, and he does so with much grace and love toward those who might find themselves in such a situation.
For those of you who have not heard this sermon, you can go to it at this link:
While I appreciate Voddie's heart in this matter of how to handle a person who is divorced and might be remarried while the original spouse is still alive, and while I appreciate so many good points he makes along the way, I find what I believe is a bit of a hole in his logic near the end of his sermon.
Toward the end of the sermon, he addresses this issue of whether or not a second marriage should be redone to put the first one back together. I am not here saying that I subscribe to the position that an "adulterous" marriage should be undone to put the original one back together. (I'm not saying I don't hold it, either. Perhaps it should; but my jury is still out on that one.) What I am saying is that Voddie's argument at the end of this sermon to make this case is flawed in my opinion. Because I find it a flawed argument, I am posting my opinion about it here to get some good discussion going about this point.
Here is what Voddie's argument is. He starts out making the statement that Jesus never says that to stay in the second marriage is a continual act of adultery. Voddie states that the remarriage is an ACT of adutery, not a state of adultery. The ACT of divorcing and then the ACT of remarrying and then the ACT of intimacy is the adultery - he says we don't see anywhere Jesus saying that every act of intimacy in the new marriage is another act of adultery - he says that only the original remarriage is adultery, and after that (I suppose?) God now blesses the new marriage, and we should stay in it. He says that continuing in the new marriage is not a continued act of polygamy or polyandry.
To prove this presupposition, he points to the passage of scripture where Jesus is talking to the woman at the well, and he says to her, "you have had 5 husbands." not "you currently have 5 husbands." He says that Jesus never said to her that you currently have 5 husbands because you're married to all of them and so you're committing polyandry."
Here is where I think his argument is flawed. My first problem I have with his logic is that the greek Jesus uses when he says "and whoever divorces and marries another commits adultery," in the Greek, is implying it IS a continuous state. For Voddie to state that it is an ACT of adultery rather than a STATE of adultery is a theological conclusion rather than a textual one. While the Greek here doesn't HAVE to imply it is a continuous state of adultery, it is the first sense one would get from a reading of the Greek text; therefore, the conclusion he draws is to argue for the non-obvious interpretation of the text in Matthew rather than the obvious one. Every theologian has to do this to a greater or lesser degree, but it is a weak argument when the text leans toward arguing something different.
Secondly, reading this conversation with Jesus and the woman at the well, and reading all of that into the conversation expects that Jesus would have talked to her with a paragraph instead of a sentence so that others would not later misread this conversation as a doctrinal treatise. You see, the woman was familiar with Jewish law at the time. The Jews allowed for divorce and remarriage, even though Jesus said it was adultery to do so. But in this conversation with her, his point was simply to let her know she had been married 5 times so that she knew he was a prophet; not to expound to her with great detail why what she did was wrong so that she would know she was a sinner. (She already knew that).
While Voddie's point might seem valid from his side of this fence, it is a weak argument from the side that sees it as a continuous state of adultery. From that perspective, this conversation was not intended to make a statement about divorce and remarriage; it was a conversation to show how Jesus interacted with a particular person at a particular time, without getting into exactly the type of conversation the Pharisees were constantly trying to draw him into. This point should not be missed.
The third logical mistake it seems he makes is this: he says, "NO. NO. To divorce and remarry the original spouse is wrong - you don't recommit a sin in order to demsontrate your repentence for the first time you did it." But those who see it as adulterous don't see it as doing something wrong to end a marriage that God never blessed because it was adulterous from the start; they see it as necessary obedience.
Voddie says that Jesus never accused her of having 5 husbands currently, and he never accused her of being in polyandry. What he seems to miss is that those who do say you need to undo the new ones to redo the first wouldn't say that either. He is attacking the absurdity of an argument from the other side that the other side would already agree with him about. They never said it was polyandry. They merely said it was adulterous.
The power to define the terms is the power to win the debate; especially when the other side is not there to defend itself. Those who say the adulterous marriage should be undone would not say the woman currently had 5 husbands. They would say if her first one was still alive when she married the others, then each of the other marriages other than the first would be illigitimate and adulterous, and she should return to the first because she was committing adultery against her first husband.
In my opinion, neither side should take a hard doctrinal stance on the implication of this particular verse on this particular issue, as Jesus' statement was not meant to point out to the woman the particulars of how badly she had sinned in her life, but to make her realize who Jesus was - the man who knew her life, her sins, and was willing to speak to her anyway. And it's all this verse is about.
If we are to come to solid conclusions about these issues, we need to be careful to let each side define its own terms as they use them in their own arguments; otherwise, though we speak the same words, we've lost the ability to communicate.
Your thoughts on this discussion are welcome.
No one can say that they are free after a divorce because Jesus charges them with adultery AFTER they have obtained their divorce.
ReplyDeleteJesus said we can still commit adultery after a divorce--but the divorce papers say--"we are no longer married"—those divorce papers are lying to us. God does NOT recognize divorce as ending a first marriage. This is proven in Scripture.
Jesus said you will be committing adultery while on a honeymoon with a “new person” after a divorce and a remarriage ceremony. If you are committing adultery AFTER a divorce and remarriage ceremony your divorce did NOT work (it did not end your marriage). Most people refuse to accept the TRUTH.
If you can commit adultery on your spouse AFTER you divorced them--the divorce failed to do something...it failed to DISSOLVE YOUR MARRIAGE!
A marriage covenant lasts until the death of one of the spouses according to God. People would never even go to the courthouse to obtain a divorce certificate if they knew the truth. Those divorce papers do not end their marriage. The papers say the “State of Colorado” has dissolved the marriage--NOT GOD!
God says, “A wife is married to her husband as long as he lives.” 1 Corinthians 7:39
Jesus said if you get a divorce and then remarry you will be committing adultery with this new person AFTER you marry them. AFTER you marry them!
Divorce papers do not dissolve the marriage in Gods sight if He is charging you with adultery AFTER you obtained your divorce. Those papers did not make you single again. Remarried people are committing adultery with each other...Jesus said that!
A REAL husband and wife cannot commit adultery with each other. That is why this is NOT your spouse. Jesus was saying you are not free AFTER a divorce. Divorced people are not eligible for remarriage because they are still married according to God. There is just no way around it. The church today is afraid to tell people what Jesus said.
Jesus calls remarried sex--ADULTERY. Why would anyone believe that new person is “their spouse in God’s eyes” if God says you are committing adultery with them?
Jesus said they are committing adultery AFTER they had their remarriage ceremony so how could that person possibly be their spouse? They were remarried by “the state” not by God.
No one reads their Bible--they listen to pastors tell them God forgives them and they do not have to give up their adultery partner, their so called “new spouse.” If Jesus says you are committing adultery with this “new spouse” how can you claim that this is your lawful spouse in the eyes of God?
We need to stop listening to everyone around us and listen to Jesus. Divorced people have no right to remarriage. Their divorce did not make them single.
The ONLY people in the Bible who commit adultery when they marry are divorced people, not single people, not widowed people, ONLY divorced people!
Why is that?
They are NOT FREE to marry. Their divorce did not make them FREE because they are committing adultery AFTER a divorce, like Jesus said.
Most people won’t flee this kind of adultery because they have been deceived by many people to stay in it even though God’s Word is clear. They are living in Adultery.
Remarriage is the greatest DECEPTION of our time.
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
I know nowhere in scripture where the meaning of divorce has been sidestepped as it has in this rant. If we agree with this man we would have to conclude that divorce does not effect a divorce and remarriage does not effect a marriage. Luke 16:18 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
ReplyDeleteThis type of interpretation means that we cannot take Jesus words as meaning what they mean. If divorce doesn’t mean divorce and marriage doesn’t mean marriage, does adultery mean adultery? When anyone starts inverting the words of Christ so that they don’t mean what they mean, disallowing them, the Word of God will turn against itself as it has in the conclusions of this man. Marriage does not survive divorce. Divorce the antonym of marriage in its very definition means - the dissolution of a marriage. The very thing Jesus was prohibiting were these dissolutions of marriage which resulted in a state of existence in what the apostle Paul called unmarried (1 Cor. 7:11). The greater question to ask is, if marriage does end when divorced, then what remains in order for a second marriage to be adulterous?
In biblical culture the agreement between the framing parties formed a covenant and if it was a marriage covenant it began the engagement period, followed by a betrothal ceremony and then sometime later (often lengthy) a marriage ceremony. Covenant obligation (fidelity) preceded the marriage and bore the same retribution for infidelity as within marriage itself (Deut. 22:22-23). Marriage is predicated in a covenant and a covenant is predicated on an agreement, and this constitutes a moral obligation. It is the violation of this moral obligation of fidelity that results in adultery.
We need to understand the reason why a subsequent marriage is adulterous. To understand what really constitutes adultery and how it can end is extremely important to proper function within Christ Church. It is not because they are “still married” but because both parties remain under the moral obligation of covenant loyalty. The marriage was dissolved but the moral obligation of fidelity was not for it precedes and transcends the marriage. Covenant responsibilities are not negated merely because a marriage has been. A legal severance (divorce) will not annul the moral obligation of covenantal faithfulness, consequently a subsequent intimate relationship results in adultery.
You can be legally unmarried (1Cor. 7:10-11) but still bound by covenant obligation to remain faithful. A marriage can be terminated as they were in both Old and New Testaments while not terminating the moral obligation of fidelity. The adultery that Jesus spoke of in the gospels was not focused on sex but rather the formation of the second marriage relationship itself. Marriage is predicated in an inviolable covenant that is prohibited from being broken. Jesus is saying that remarriage itself is adulterous. Adultery can result in remarriage even if sex is not part of the equation.
To enter another intimate relationship outside of the primal marriage covenant constitutes adultery because of it‘s exclusive nature. Remarriage itself is adulterous. It‘s at this point that reconciliation was prohibited by God (Deut. 24 1-4). Covenant obligation survived divorce but did not survive remarriage. Consequently one should stay in the marriage their in. Only God can absolve sin and not some extra-biblical instruction to break another marriage.
I have to start by saying I really enjoy Voddie Baucham's preaching on almost anything I have heard from him. That said, I have listened to his sermon on the permanence of marriage many times, and I find flawed logic also. I agree with him when he repeats several times that marriage is a one flesh bond, and a covenant that is only broken by death - not adultery, not imprisonment, not drug use - nothing but death. However, he then goes on to say that one single ACT of adultery (his words) by remarriage make a new marriage and the original covenant is no longer in effect. How can repeated adultery, abuse, etc not end a covenant, but a single ACT of adultery end that one flesh bond? He needs to admit that he either believes that a single ACT of adultery ends a marriage or that adultery does not end a marriage. He can't support both views. Another respected preacher, John Piper, holds this same permanent until death (but not really) view.
ReplyDeleteFor clarity my first post was in response to Luke’s post, not to pastor Voddie‘s message.
ReplyDeleteAll Christians should be enamored by the idea of permanent marriage for it is obviously Gods intent for it. This is what makes the permanence view of marriage so appealing, it seeks to honor and hold to Gods intent for marriage, consequently an opposing view strikes as being hostile to God‘s will. Those who believe in provisional recourse for divorce and/or remarriage under certain conditions are seen as opposing God’s standard. Although “permanence view” is a great title for one’s position on marriage there are elements of the view that adds to and consequently subverts scripture. In order to arrive at objective truth we have to be able to differentiate between those who read into scripture from those who read out of it.
Many interpreters look at the words of Christ, (“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery”) and concludes that “divorce” doesn’t mean divorce and “marry another” doesn’t mean marry another. An interpretation that doesn’t allow a marriage to end inverts the words of Christ and must be defended with additional idea’s that exceed Christ teaching. Ultimately it leads to the idea of indissoluble marriage.
It’s beneficial for everyone to understand where the idea of indissoluble marriage comes from. If we can understand why one has come to believe marriage is indissoluble, we can better assess if the idea is true or not. The idea is central to the permanence view, especially those who would carry the belief all the way out to is logical conclusions. The idea emerges when giving an explanation of how adultery occurs in remarriage. To be consistent with the perceived, the memory definition of adultery that our mind defaults to, (sex between a married person and another not the spouse) it necessitates the advocacy that a divorced couple is somehow still married. Consequently, arguments and conclusions are based on the belief that divorce does not actually terminate a marriage, which in turn leads one to advocate that the one flesh union survived divorce and is permanent until death.
A significant error that can be found in almost all position on divorce is the failure to differentiate between marriage and covenant bondage or covenant obligation. It is imperative to understand in sequence when these things end or become invalid in the divorce and remarriage process. Because there is common ground in the different positions found in the Old Testament, it is the best place to start. There, there is mutual consent that God tolerated divorce and remarriage even though it was not His will. The fact that remarriage resulted in a binding marriage then should not be overlooked now. This is the point of contention in the opposing views. This is where the mutual road of understanding forks. (continued in next post)
As the permanence view developed in the Church it caused an historic change in how divorce and remarriage was viewed. In biblical history divorce and remarriage actually changed the marital status of the individuals involved. Conversely the permanence view advocates began to reason that if adultery resulted in remarriage after divorce then the first/former marriage must not really be dissolved. Consequently they began interpreting the words of Christ as saying that a marriage doesn’t end when divorced. This in turn created a new dilemma for the remarried couple, they were still married to their first spouse.
ReplyDeleteRemarriage had both legal and moral obligation. It resulted in a subsequent covenant of marriage in which those who entered therein where bound. The point I’m making is remarriage was not only a legal marriage but one that resulted in a moral obligation to remain faithful. Covenant responsibilities ensued in remarriage. These facts are either set aside, denied or unknown by some in the permanence view when it comes to New Testament interpretation. Some believe that Jesus changed remarriage possibilities by making it adulterous where it hadn’t been before. They stumble at the fact that remarriage can be both binding and adulterous. An adulterous remarriage for them necessitates the belief that remarriage has no covenant bondage. Only one’s first marriage now is a covenant marriage. For them remarriage is merely a legal procedure that needs to be undone.
The New Testament text in which Jesus addresses divorce does not address a solution after the fact of remarriage. It doesn’t even prohibit remarriage but rather exposes it’s consequence. It revealed to the Pharisees and the nation of Israel that their obstinacy had always been sinful. That was Jesus’ point, for hundreds of years God’s people had been adulterating the covenant of marriage. The only solution He gives is, to stay married. He doesn’t compel those remarried to divorce yet again. It is imperative that the Church and for Christians in general not to offer solutions that add to God’s Word. We mustn’t impress upon the conscience of those who come to realizes their sin that they are to follow a new formula for forgiveness as some do in the permanence view.
Remember that the text in Matthew 19:9 is addressing marital divorce. Notice the very words of Jesus, "Except it be for fornication and shall marry another." Look at the words “marry another.” The words “marry another" is consistent with the context and fit’s the text, it’s usage in Luke’s account is the same and undisputed, meaning “marry again” “ marry a second time” “marry someone else” “to enter a second marriage.” The exception is not about betrothal divorce as some persuade, for marriage has yet to occur. To interject one’s own idea’s into the text is to subvert it. The permanence view is guilty of eisegesis interpretation.
The idea Jesus conveys is quite simple if we limit it to what He actually said. To “marry another" is to be guilty of infidelity against the former. The divorce prohibition He issues is the solution to this type of adultery. He says nothing about resolving adultery after the fact of remarriage. He says nothing about changing the laws on divorce and remarriage. We only have reason to believe that Jesus left the indelible impression on His hearers that marriage is to be permanent. To divorce one’s spouse and “marry another” is sinful. No new remedy is given to cause us to believe that if remarriage has occurred the only way to be forgiven is to divorce yet again. God’s mercy and grace is the only thing that can absolve sin.
I must admit that there are many things in the Bible that we (at least I) may never fully understand until everything is made clear to us by Him. I believe what we (again, I) must do in those situations is to examine the whole of scripture to do our best to discern what it is He would have us do in certain circumstances. The bible does not clearly state what we should do as repentance in other areas where we may find ourselves in sin. The bible does not mention illicit drug use, but I think we are correct in advising an addict that he should abstain from future heroin use after his conversion. I also believe we are not out of order to tell a homosexual couple (legally “married”, possibly) that they need to separate from their partner and even renounce any oaths they have made towards each other regarding lifetime relationship commitments. Does God recognize those “vows”? I would suspect He does not, as they are vowing themselves to sin. I don’t believe God would be pleased for us to keep a vow that commits us to any sinful situation or organization. God himself, as he walked the earth, said remarriage after divorce was sin. Why would we think He holds us responsible to keep our commitment to the sin of adultery, but not to the sin of homosexuality? The repentance required for forgiveness of these sins is not specified in the New Testament, but I think acts worthy of repentance are required.
ReplyDeleteExamining the whole of scripture is the right Idea. Therein we find two relevant facts to your comments. Homosexual behavior is an abomination to God, therefore He would not recognize homosexuality as legitimate in marriage or out, it’s the very opposite of what He intended. He created a woman for a man, He created heterosexuality. Your example does not compare apples to apples. Second, God recognized a subsequent marriage as legitimate even though adulterous and that’s the only biblical precedents we have to answer whether or not if it should be broken. The fact is, it was a binding marriage and a prohibition had been issued for the first one to be reconstituted.
DeleteYou ask, “Why would we think He holds us responsible to keep our commitment to the sin of adultery, but not to the sin of homosexuality?”
The two relationships are antithetical. The heterosexual marriage is not about being committed to adultery, it’s about being committed to one’s current spouse and family, that’s a world of difference.
You write, “The repentance required for forgiveness of these sins is not specified in the New Testament, but I think acts worthy of repentance are required.”
“acts worthy of repentance “ require different things for different people. We shouldn’t exceed God in the things we suggest. You are dissatisfied with God’s biblical response to remarriage, the answer is to not be.
What should we tell a man, if he should come to faith in Jesus Christ, that is living with multiple wives (women) as a part of his previous faith, and believes that he is not wrong in doing so? Let’s use Joe as an example. Joe married his first wife, Sue, when he was 21 years old. Two years later, he added to his family when he “married” Sally as well. He had children with both women. At the age of 27 he “married” Sarah and fathered a child by her. Finally, at age 30 he “married” Sophie and had a child with her a year after that. He remained in his situation until, at age 36, he believed the true gospel and came to saving faith in Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThe new testament, to my knowledge, does not specifically address the repentance that must take place in this case. Some might say that Moses allowed it in the Old Testament, so its practice was acceptable to God all along, and He has always recognized it. Some might remind us that the Mosaic law even regulated the practice and it was never specified as wrong, so God must have thought that way about it as well (Deuteronomy 21:15 for example). Some might say that Jesus would be violating the Law of Moses had he suddenly come up with some new teaching that said that what Moses allowed was not allowed any longer. Some might say that no word from Jesus on that issue means that advising such a man that he must cease living with multiple women as wives is adding to scripture. Some might say that his most recent “marriage” to Sophie is the one he must continue in, since that “marriage” is the one in which he most recently made covenant promises, which supersedes previous promises and are the ones binding.
If “It is imperative that the Church and for Christians in general not to offer solutions that add to God’s Word”, what would be the solution one would offer to Joe? Would one be able to offer any solutions that are specifically addressed in scripture?
I would think that, regardless of viewpoint, Sally (wife 2) and Sarah (wife 3) are suddenly without a husband, unless one supports the view that all of these “marriages” are if effect concurrently. Otherwise, either Joe either a) entered a life-long one flesh covenant with Sue (wife 1), and all subsequent “marriages” were not recognized by God and are considered adulterous relationships against his marriage to Sue, or b) Joe’s most recent “covenantal bondage” took place when he married Sophie, and he is held to those obligations. While wrong to enter this situation, and even adulterous towards one wife or another, they are his current obligations and he should remain in a marriage relationship with her. He must cut off all relations with Sarah, Sally, and Sue.
Again, if this man came to you and asked what he should do, what would be your response? Please qualify that response with solutions that are specifically provided by the Word of God.
I would instruct him not to follow someone’s advice that can’t be proven biblically. To stay in the marital condition he’s in at the time of his conversion.
Delete1 Cor. 7:20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
Polygamy is not God’s idea for marriage, but like divorce, God held a man responsible to the women he married and the children he father. He never instructed these families to be broken. I would stay with biblical precedents as far as any counsel.