Jesus' original hearers vs. Fifteen centuries of church history

George Santayana once said, "Those wo do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I believe there is a lot of truth in that. I do believe we can avoid repeating the tragedies of history if we learn from its mistakes. But I think it is equally possible that we can forgot those parts of the past where they got it right, and in doing so we invent the mistakes of a new day.

 When I look back at the history of the church regarding the issue of divorce and remarriage, it strikes me as odd that for the first 15 centuries of the church, divorce and remarriage appears to be universally seen as a state of adultery. Not an ACT of adultery, but a STATE of adultery that needed to be repented of. And yet, in the last 50 years or so, it seems that even in strong evangelical Christian circles, the predominant view in the church is that God allows for divorce and remarriage under some circumstances, and approves of and blesses those second marriages.

I will not say I understand all of the issues of church history on this issue. But if Stephen Wilcox is correct, then perhaps that was the period in time in the 1500's (by means of Luther and Erasmus) where, on the issue of divorce and remarriage, the camel got its nose under the tent; and what was sowed to the wind then is now being reaped as a whirlwind.

Please follow the link above, and see for yourself what he says. According to Wilcox (as I understand him) it seems that Erasmus was a rather pragmatic and agnostic "theologian" who "approved" divorce to appease King Henry the 8th. And Luther, who was rather frustrated with many of the issues he had with the Roman Catholic church, was perhaps a little too quick to toss the baby with the muddy theological bathwaters of his day. Until then, it seems all of church history records a pretty much clear voice on the issue of divorce and remarriage: remarrying while a former spouse was still alive was always seen as a continuous state of adultery, and was something that required repentence to recognize the original marriage as a covenant which could only be broken by death.

There are many voices that speak today from conservative evangelical circles regarding this issue of divorce and remarriage. They hold all kinds of positions, all with what appear to be strong biblical reasons why they are right and the others are wrong. Bill Gothard would say the original marriage is the only one God recognizes, and a remarriage while the original spouse is alive needs to be undone, because it is not a valid marriage in God's eyes. Jay Adams would say that God allows divorce and remarriage for adultery or for desertion by an unbeliever; Craig S. Keener would say that God allows it for more reasons than these, such as cruelty or abuse. His book, "...And Marries Another" is a very well researched book, which gives perhaps the best defense of this position I have seen. And then there are men like Voddie Baucham and John Piper who would argue that even though the first marriage has a covenant which cannot be broken, and remarriage is not allowed, if a couple is currently in that position, they need to keep the remarriage intact anyway. Their idea is that divorcing the new spouse is wrong; two wrongs don't make a right.

It is no wonder that, with so many dissenting positions by good, God-fearing Christian teachers and theologians, there is much disagreement among Christians today about whether or not God permits divorce and remarriage. The average Christian will notice that there are bible teachers who are well known and effective in teaching people about Christ, and some of these people are divorced and remarried, with God blessing their ministries. So perhaps God is OK with the divorce and remarriage after all?

I have two thoughts on this. First of all, I think that God blesses a ministry, not because the minister always get everything exactly doctrinally correct, but in spite of the fact that he or she does not. God looks for obedient hearts, and I believe any good bible teacher that God is using has, as his or her central theme, the idea that God is always God, and we are not. We need to be totally surrendered to Him, no matter the cost. Doctrine is a means to that end. And if you look at the heart of the message coming from Jay Adams, Craig S. Keener, John MacArthur, Bill Gothard, Voddie Baucham, John Piper and others, it is always this. And because this is their heart, God blesses their ministries because they are surrendered, as best they can be, to the lordship of Jesus Christ.

The second thought I have with it is this. Just because someone is seeking God's heart and is surrendered to the lordship of Jesus Christ, it doesn't automatically mean they will always get it right. And for this reason, you need to compare their ideas one against the other, and against the reference standard of the word of God, praying and seeking God about what He wants you to do. These bible teachers would all tell you the same thing. And in the end, you need to act on what you believe God is showing you. I have learned from hard experience that if you are seeking hard after God, and you are heading in the wrong direction, He has an uncanny abiliity to get through to you about it. And so you need to be careful and much in prayer about an issue such as this one. Because it is also possible to hear clearly from God, and yet be blinded to that truth after not doing what He tells you. And He WILL let you do the wrong thing. And He WILL let the consequences hurt you, to get your attention.

Just because the prevailing opinion in the church in our day leans in the direction that divorce and remarriage are alright by God's measure, doesn't mean God really is alright with it. (It doesn't mean He's not, either. That's just the point - the prevailing opinion needs to be constantly examined and course-corrected.) If you went back in history, many in the church believed slavery was alright, too. Many in the church, who 30 and 40 years ago believed in a pretribulation rapture of the church, no longer do. The idea of a premillenial, pre-tribulation rapture of the church didn't even exist until the later 1800's. In the last 30 years, the "pre-trib" part has fallen out of favor. Opinions and popular concensus change over time. What was considered right in the past might not be now. What the church of the future may find someday is that some of our 21st century ideas were rather unfortunate, to say the least.

When I think back on what I remember from Keener's book (I read it a long time ago; I'll admit I've only glanced again at it lately, and see it differently now, after viewing some arguments from the other side) what I remember is a lot of thorough research which pointed to the idea that Jesus' followers in his day would have all heard his sayings through ears that would have understood the same exceptions to his rules, and so these exceptions weren't even written because they were taken for granted with the original audience. For instance, Keener believes all his hearers would have heard the "adultery" exception on remarriage, though only Matthew records it. But now that I read how all of the early church history spoke of divorce and remarriage, it makes me wonder how the whole church missed it for all of those centuries. Those people in the early centuries of the church, who understood the greek of the New Testament better than any of us likely do - because it was their mother tongue - must have all gotten it wrong, if Keener has gotten it right. I am forced to the conclusion that they better understood what it said, but understood less what it meant. I am forced to conclude that, though they knew well what the bible said, they no longer had a clue what it meant by about one or two generations after Jesus walked among us.

I'm not sure if I can take that ball and run with it. If the bible is our measure of faith and conduct, how are we to have any idea if we have it right, if we don't all have an intimate knowledge of the Hebrew culture to which Jesus spoke? I remember speaking to a Jewish rabbi once, who told me that evangelical Christians know what the bible SAYS, but the Jews know what it MEANS. This seems to be a train that could be heading down the tracks fast...

As always, your thoughts are welcome. And if I've got the history or the positions wrong, please feel free to correct. (in a spirit of grace, though. I want this to be a family-friendly blog.)

A Curious Irony in the "Should I Remarry My Original Spouse" debate

I wouldn't say that this particular observation I've made is a universal thing, by any means. In the whole "should I remarry my original spouse" debate, there are always many sublte shades of differences in the opinions about the issues. They are complex and there are well-meaning, clear-thinking people on all sides of the debate.

But an ironic theme I see when I read the books or visit all the websites that speak to the issue of remarrying an original spouse after divorce and remarriage, is that typically the sites that have an Arminian leaning in their theology (that a Christain can lose his or her salvation) tend to push toward the idea that a marriage is an indissoluble covanent; whereas the Calvinistic sites (those who believe that salvation is eternally secure and cannot be lost) tend to see marriage as a covanent that can be broken.

If a Christian marriage between a husband and wife is a representation of the relationship between Christ and his church, why is it that those who say someone cannot lose his or her salvation see that the marriage covanent can, in fact, be broken? How is it that those who see that Christ could, in the end, divorce us (the Arminians) say that nevertheless, we cannot divorce our mates on earth, because in God's eyes, that covanent is still in place, (though we pretend it's not) and this covanent cannot be broken, no matter how we try to pretend it is?

It's just an observation I've made. And, as always, your thoughts are welcome.

Voddie Baucham and The Permanence View of Marriage

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.

Wading through the issues of Divorce and Remarriage

It always amazes me how good, God-fearing people who love the Lord with all their hearts can come to such different conclusions about so many issues regarding doctrine and biblical interpretation. While good people can differ, I think it is always good to consider the different points of view posed by believers on controversial issues. Obviously, when opinions differ, we can't all be right. We may all be wrong, or all partly right. And even among our differences we can often find common ground. But we need to be "prayerfully careful" that we examine everything in light of the scriptures, properly interpreted.

Divorce and remarriage is one of those issues that needs some careful examination, as the opinions by evangelical writers and teacher vary greatly, with great ramifications, no matter what conclusions are determined. There are good, Godly men and women who believe that divorce and remarriage are permitted for any number of good reasons; there are those who believe divorce and remarriage are permitted only in the case of adultery by a spouse or be desertion of a believer by an unbeliever; there are those who believe that divorce is allowed in these situations, but remarriage is not. And then there are those who believe that any remarriage is adultery and must be repented of by ending the subsequent, adulterous marriage and returning, if possible, to the original one, or remaining single while the original spouse is still alive; and there are yet others, such as John Piper and Voddie Baucham, who believe that any divorce is wrong, including divorcing the "adulterous" spouse to return to the first - their thought is that two wrongs don't make a right.

I have read many dozens of websites, books, blogs and the like on this issue. Some offer opinions that seem more informed than others (on all sides of the various fences, by the way). And although my position has been changing on this issue somewhat over both the past years, and recently in the past few months, I am still trying to discern what God's heart is about the issue. There are many points that are raised on all sides of the debate. There are also many questions which are raised by one side which don't always seem to be addressed by the others (and visa-versa). There is good and bad logic; there is good and flimsy handling of the original languages and the cultural contexts which need to be considered. There are often times where ideas are read into the texts used to prove or disprove positions when the text doesn't HAVE to be saying any of those things at all.

I am undecided on the issue. But my intent here is to start a blog and perhaps a "dialog" with some of you who may read it - as iron sharpens iron, perhaps we can bounce some ideas around about what God's heart is in this matter. I don't expect that everyone will see it the same way; but my intention here is to try to spark some honest discussion about these issues with like-minded Christians who are trying to discern what God's heart is on this issue. I will be posting ideas as I have opportunity to do so, regarding the different aspects of this puzzle. Perhaps between us, we can all come to a clearer understanding of God's heart and mind on this issue.

I will be posting more pages and the like, but in the meantime, any general (thoughtful, honest) comments are welcome.