How Long Does Marriage Last?
We have fundamentally erred in our thinking if we accept the cultural position that divorce is the termination of marriage.
A careful study and understanding of Scripture will reveal that God instituted marriage as a life-long covenant between a man and a woman. Period. When a man and woman are married and physically consummate their marriage, God joins them together for life. God specifically instituted marriage because of His creation of the two sexes. We see God’s institution of this union immediately after His creation of Eve:
“And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
Genesis 2:21-25
In God’s covenant with Israel (and then Christ’s covenant with His church), which is set forth as a model for marriage, we again see the permanent nature of this union. It is critically important to our understanding of the marriage covenant that we don’t miss this important foundation of God’s covenant with Israel: The covenant was based, not on the faithfulness of both parties, but on the faithfulness of God. This becomes distressingly clear as we observe Israel’s behavior in the years to follow as she plays the harlot and prostitutes herself with the gods of the heathen nations.
“The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks…Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.”
Jeremiah 3:6-9, 14
This is critical because the prevailing mindset in our society is that if a husband or wife is unfaithful, the other spouse has just cause to end the marriage. This is not the example that God has given us. (We see in the above verses that even after God had given Israel a “bill of divorce,” he still claimed He was “married unto [her].” Thus, the bill of divorce did not terminate the marriage.) And this is not the standard to which God has called us to live. A marriage covenant must be entered into with each party vowing to be faithful to the other unto death, regardless of the faithfulness of the other spouse.
15 Comments:
Interesting post. I'm sure I agree when you say marriage is meant to be a life-long covenant. However, I must disagree when you say "This is critical because the prevailing mindset in our society is that if a husband or wife is unfaithful, the other spouse has just cause to end the marriage. This is not the example that God has given us." I think it is true that if a spouse is unfaithful, the victim has the right to end the marriage, but is not obligated to do so. There can be forgiveness; adultery is not the unforgiveable sin. For Scriptural evidence as to why divorce is allowed in the case of unfaithfulness, see Jesus' teaching on the topic, and also I Cor. 7. My pastor spoke on this very topic just this last Sunday, and he also said the same thing. I think we must avoid two extremes; one is to think that marriage is a highly temporary thing (what the world thinks), and also that the wedding vows are completely unbreakable by any circumstances whatsoever, like the Catholic position.
Those are my two bits.
In Christ.
One thing I forgot to address: I think your exegesis is a bit faulty in the Jeremiah passage. The first problem is that this is God we're talking about here; the God who keeps covenant even when we break it. That analogy breaks down in a merely human marriage. No one keeps their marriage covenant perfectly, though that is undoubtedly their calling. Secondly, and related to the first, because we are not God, we have hardness of heart. It may be that the victim is unable to forgive the offending spouse, or perhaps the offending spouse is not willing to seek forgiveness. What if one spouse is an unbeliever and the other is a believer? If the unbeliever wants to leave the marriage, Paul says the believer is not bound in such a circumstance. This is the same language he uses to describe widows. I think it's rather evident that the dissolution of the marriage is in view.
Again, I'm talking about extreme cases here. Exceptions make bad law. If two Christians get married, they should not do so with one foot in the door, ready to leave at the slightest provocation. Romantic love is not the basis for marriage: the vows are. Feelings come and go, and thus cannot be expected to serve well as the foundation for a future life. But a vow is a vow, and cannot be unmade. It has a permanence which is quite fitting as the basis for the marriage. Another way of saying this might be that it is agape love which serves as the foundation for marriage. You choose to love someone, therefore you love them.
Probably a good bit of this, you already knew. It's just a further clarification of my views on this quite interesting subject.
In Christ.
Adrian~
Thanks for your comments. You bring up some excellent points - I'm actually planning to specifically address several of your points (the I Cor. passage and Jesus' teachings) in my future posts in this series, so I won't go into great detail here.
You said you disagree with this statement:
"This is critical because the prevailing mindset in our society is that if a husband or wife is unfaithful, the other spouse has just cause to end the marriage. This is not the example that God has given us." With which part do you disagree? You actually lend support to the first sentence by stating that that is the position that you yourself hold. And in your second comment, you agree that God "keeps covenant even when we break it."
Is not God's covenant with Israel a Divine picture of the earthly marriage covenant? Of course we will never be able to perfectly honor such a covenant. But we will never be able to perfectly keep any aspect of God's Word. This does not invalidate it as truth or as the standard to which God has called us to live. Are you saying that because of a human hardness of heart and an inability to forgive, that God would release someone from the marriage covenant whereby he has enjoined a man and woman to each other for life? (Since you said you agree that "marriage is meant to be a life-long covenant.") Does God base His laws and principles and covenants on what we can live up to as sinful creatures?
My main objective is to point out that God instituted marriage to be a life-long covenant between a man and a woman. We can, in practice, issue as many bills/certificates of divorce as we want, but nowhere in Scripture is a bill of divorce an end to the marriage covenant. Release from the marriage covenant takes place upon the death of one of the parties. We have been conditioned by society to believe that divorce is the end of a marriage and that a divorced man or woman reverts back to an unmarried status. This is inconsistent with what Scripture teaches.
BTW, on what basis should we avoid extremes? Seems to me that a lot of what the Bible teaches is pretty much the extreme opposite of the philosophies of the world.
I disagree with the statement "This is not the example that God has given us." I do agree with the statement that "the prevailing mindset in our society is that..."
When I say I disagree with the statement "This is not the example that God has given us," I mean that God allows the dissolution of marriage in the case of infidelity, and the other very specific examples I mentioned. I do not mean that God Himself provides an example of anything other than perfect covenant-keeping. I guess I am objecting to the idea of juxtaposing your first sentence with the second. I think you must distinguish between the example God gives us (and going with that, the analogy of Christ and the church), and what God allows in a merely human marriage. You seem to be using the second sentence as a way of deploring the attitude described in the first sentence.
Your logic appears to go like this: 1. The prevailing mindset in our society is that adultery warrants divorce. 2. God never divorces His people. 3. We are to follow the example of God. 4. Therefore, this prevailing mindset is deplorable and we should abandon it.
The problem with this logic is the third step: "we are to follow the example of God." This is true as far as it goes; however, not all God's attributes are communicable. There are certain things we are unable to do, that God does. In fact, there are certain things God knows and is that we never will be, even in glory. We will never know everything, for example, and we will never be sovereign, and we will never be omnipresent. Therefore, there are aspects of God's character that we shouldn't even attempt to emulate, because it is impossible.
Therefore, we should not assume that absolutely, positively everything God does is something we should do. There are several ways of avoiding this assumption. We might A. assume that everything God does we should attempt do unless proven otherwise by Scriptures, or B. assume that we shouldn't attempt anything God does unless specifically commanded in Scriptures. I think ultimately, if we could see everything as it truly is, these two options must amount to the same thing. However, because we don't see everything clearly, these two viewpoints will produce different mindsets, with further attending dangers to avoid. The first will have a tendency to tread lightly on holy ground, and the second will have a tendency to be too timid.
A picture is not the same thing as the thing pictured. I think you would agree that in general, the picture is not as good quality as the original. So I would say that it is more accurate to say that earthly marriage is a picture of God's covenant with Israel or the church.
You are right in that God's standard is His standard, and it is not dependent on our ability as sinful human beings to keep it. I think I would say that God's law does not require the impossible out of perfect human beings. I am saying that "because of a human hardness of heart and an inability to forgive, that God would release someone from the marriage covenant whereby he has enjoined a man and woman to each other for life." I am also saying that "because of a human hardness of heart and an inability to repent, that God would release someone from the marriage covenant whereby he has enjoined a man and woman to each other for life." Both of these are really subsumed under the following: "because of a human hardness of heart and an inability to be reconciled after adultery, that God would release someone from the marriage covenant whereby he has enjoined a man and woman to each other for life." Adultery happens; it is a fact of this fallen world. The question is, what do you do now? If you can be reconciled (the offending party truly repents, and the offended party truly forgives), GREAT! Be reconciled, and sin no more. However, Christians and non-Christians alike sin. If one party, because of hardness of heart, refuses to repent, or the other party, because of hardness of heart, refuses to forgive, then there can be no reconciliation (and here I'm assuming that if one party is not hard of heart, they're doing everything they can to resolve the situation). It is in precisely that circumstance that I believe Paul's words and Jesus' words come into play. And thus I'm looking forward to your ideas about them.
I disagree with you when you say that "nowhere in Scripture is a bill of divorce an end to the marriage covenant." I think a bill of divorce is by definition an end to the marriage covenant. What you're really saying is that valid bills of divorce do not exist. I don't happen to agree here, but neither am I going to come down hard on what seems to be a highly debated issue, even amongst Reformed scholars of unquestioned orthodoxy.
I think I would also disagree with your statement "We have been conditioned by society to believe that divorce is the end of a marriage and that a divorced man or woman reverts back to an unmarried status." Again, it is the second part with which I disagree: I don't know of anyone who thinks someone is "unmarried" after divorce. The two conditions are certainly not the same thing. So your lumping the two together is something along the lines of the logical fallacy of the "complex question." The solution to this fallacy is to "divide the question."
I don't think the Bible is extreme very much at all. Almost every philosophy ever invented has some truth in it; if it didn't, no one would believe it. Time and again, I find the Bible taking the middle road between two extremes. As an example, take all philosophies and religions that argue that in some way you can save yourself. I would call this legalism. Example: Stoicism. Then take all philosophies that argue that your actions don't matter at all. I would call this antinomianism. Example: Epicureans. What saith the Scriptures? Something in between: you must be justified by works, but not your own: those of Christ. Furthermore, after you are justified, you have no option but to follow the law to the best of your ability and naturally with God's strength.
If you want to call this balancing act an extreme that virtually no one even attempts, I don't suppose I can quibble with your definition. To some extent it's all in your point of view: you can see lots of half-truths out there with the Bible in between at the exact truth, or you can see lots of pure error out there with the Bible at the opposite end with the exact truth. Of course, either way the Bible has the exact truth; I don't think either of us disputes that. :-) The analogy I think of when examining these two views is to take a flexible ruler that is 12 inches long. The error is at the 0 inch marker, and at the 12 inch marker. The truth is at the 6 inch marker. If you lay this flexible ruler out on a flat surface, then the truth is half-way in between the errors, and we think of it as balanced. But you could also fold the flexible ruler in half: now the 6 inch marker is at one extreme, and the errors of 0 inches and 12 inches are both at the other extreme. You see this analogy? Either way, though, we don't compromise on the truth: the Bible has it, and others have it only so far as they agree with the Bible and biblically based logic. You can probably guess that I tend to see the ruler as laid out flat. Although, come to think of it, I do also see the folded view sometimes as well. There is an antithesis in this world between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.
Ah, well. God knows everything, praise Him. I'm only a creature, and a highly imperfect one at that. But I am saved by grace through faith, and not by my own works. That will automatically give me some boldness.
I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation; I hope you are, too, and are not getting annoyed with my habit of speaking my mind so directly. I thrive on constructive criticism, and not on praise; for a long time I thought everyone else did, too. I have since realized my mistake. In any case, please know that I regard you as a sister in Christ; these matters of debate are not matters of orthodoxy, and they are not central to our faith, even if they are important.
I also recognize that this discussion is rapidly turning into a... book. If you're not interested in saying anything further, please just say so. I can totally understand, and I guarantee you I won't take it personally.
In Christ.
Adrian~
I don’t mind you speaking your mind directly at all – I quite prefer it. I appreciate you taking the time to contribute your comments. And, the following, uh…installment, should provide sufficient evidence that I am “interested in saying anything further.” :-)
I agree that there are certain attributes of God (His omniscience, sovereignty, omnipresence) that we will never attain and are not commanded to strive for. However, the example He sets for us as the God who keeps covenant falls into a different category. Because He is always faithful (attribute), He keeps His covenant (outward manifestation). We will not always be faithful, but we can, by His grace, keep our covenants. In the same way, He is all-forgiving (attribute); therefore, He chooses to forgive us (outward manifestation). We will never be all-forgiving, but we can, by His grace, choose to forgive. Indeed, He commands us to do so.
“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48 – This immediately follows impossible applications Jesus had just given to the laws that His listeners had heretofore, no doubt, claimed to keep. Interestingly, this would include Jesus’ teaching on marriage, divorce, adultery, etc…
“But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” I Peter 1:15-16 (emphasis mine) – Our entire way of life is to be a reflection of the holiness of God. It seems that an area as important as marriage would certainly fall under this command…
“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:” I Peter 2:21 – What example did Jesus leave for us? He suffered enormously even though He “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” and “when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” A husband or wife whose spouse commits adultery could definitely fit into the same category as this example that Jesus left for us, don’t you think?
You said:
“…it is more accurate to say that earthly marriage is a picture of God's covenant with Israel or the church.”
Agreed. Good point.
You said:
“I think I would say that God's law does not require the impossible out of perfect human beings.”
Not sure that I understand what you’re saying here…
You said:
“because of a human hardness of heart and an inability to be reconciled after adultery, that God would release someone from the marriage covenant whereby he has enjoined a man and woman to each other for life.”
Basically, then, you’re leaving the standard contingent upon the willingness of the parties involved to adhere to it. I agree that there may be situations where reconciliation does not take place because of the hardness of heart of one of the said parties. However, I would submit that this hardness of heart does not dictate whether the marriage covenant remains binding. God is the one who institutes the life-long covenant of marriage and only death will terminate it.
You said:
“What you're really saying is that valid bills of divorce do not exist.”
Actually, that’s not what I’m saying. Valid bills of divorce do exist. God Himself issued one to Israel. (Jeremiah 3:8) However, as I present in this post, Scripture makes it clear that a bill of divorce is not an end to the life-long marriage covenant. We have been conditioned to accept society’s definition of divorce. But instead we must ask, “How does God define divorce?”
You said:
“I don't know of anyone who thinks someone is "unmarried" after divorce.”
Again, society has created this separate category for those who are divorced. But, logically, if someone is not unmarried, then they are married. And if someone is married, then they are not free to marry anyone else. In order to marry someone else after you’re divorced, wouldn’t you have to consider yourself unmarried?
I see what you’re saying as far as extremes, however, the problem I see with your ruler analogy is that it makes the truth subservient to the extremeness of the error. Thus, the content of the truth itself would alter based upon the extremeness of the error on either end of the ruler. The error must be defined by the truth, not the truth defined by the error. Practically speaking, then, we must not reject something that we perceive to be extreme based on that criteria alone. We must diligently search the Scriptures and obey them regardless of how “extreme” the position may be viewed. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to live a balanced life (I advocate this frequently!), however, that balance must be achieved through application of God’s Word, not through some arbitrary halfway point fixed between two identified extremes.
Reply to Natalie.
Thank you for your kind words. I'd say you were interested in continuing! Let me further say that you appear to use biblically-based logic better than many people with whom I have come into contact. That's a compliment to you, even if it is not for the vast majority of people I meet. The consequence of your logic: I've got to work hard to disagree with you! Not that that's necessarily a goal or anything. ;-)
The statement "We will not always be faithful, but we can, by His grace, keep our covenants." puzzles me. If we're not being faithful, are we keeping our covenants? After some thought, I would agree that covenant-keeping is an attribute of God that is communicable, not incommunicable. But even that statement must be qualified.
Covenants that God makes with His people are never symmetric. That is, what God requires of Himself, and what He requires of us are two very different things. Whereas, in a marriage covenant, the two parties are being required to do more or less the same things (and yes, I will buck feminism vigorously and admit the wife's duties and the husband's duties differ; those, however, seem slightly more peripheral than the faithfulness, love (including the sexual relationship) and respect both parties are called to have.) I recognize the argument I'm making here is not the strongest. However, I would claim quite confidently that covenant-keeping looks different for us than it does for God. In that sense, there are even aspects of covenant-keeping that are incommunicable.
I'll explain my comment, "I do not think God requires the impossible of perfect human beings." What I mean is two things: man before the Fall was able to keep the Law perfectly. Alas, he decided against doing so. Secondly, God does not require the impossible of human beings in glory: they will perfectly keep the law in heaven. What I'm saying is that God is not requiring of us something beyond our original created nature to perform. Example: God does not require us to know everything.
Incidentally, I would disagree that God is all-forgiving. That statement needs to be qualified, I think. God never, ever just up and pardons sin. There must always be a price to be paid for any sin, great or small. For the Christian, of course, Christ pays for it. Thus it can be that the Christian is forgiven for his sin, after he repents. The ability to repent is a gift from God the Holy Spirit, so that we still can't boast about it. We cannot presume on God's grace, though we may be bold in approaching the throne of God after Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. Our God is a God of wrath as well as love.
That said, I would ask you to clarify the word "impossible" in your statement, "This immediately follows impossible applications Jesus had just given to the laws that His listeners had heretofore, no doubt, claimed to keep." Do you mean 'impossible for a fallen human being to keep on his own?'
I would certainly agree that marriage should fall under the holiness command.
In some ways, the offended spouse can act like Jesus; in other ways, they can't. One thing they can't do is sacrifice themselves to save the other person. And when I say save here, I mean the analogous bringing back into the marriage covenant. In other ways, they can. It is possible, with God's grace, to threaten not, and quietly to try to win them over, as Paul says. But Paul also says not to beat yourself up if you don't manage to save the other person. You don't know if you can do that, only God does.
Again, I'm very curious to know your interpretation of the 1 Cor. passage.
You're really making me think here. *that's good*
You said: "Basically, then, you're leaving the standard contingent upon the willingness of the parties involved to adhere to it." I don't think I would go that far out of context. As your sentence stands, you seem to be saying that I'm saying that it doesn't matter what the occasion is, the parties determine whether or not they stay in, not God. I wouldn't go that far. This reconciliation and offense I'm talking about must be understood in the context of unfaithfulness to the covenant.
Here's a more complete statement: suppose there has been covenantal unfaithfulness. Then, if there is hardness of heart and inability to be reconciled in this matter of unfaithfulness, God would release the offended spouse from that marriage covenant. I need to think about the status of the offending spouse.
To some extent, even you would have to agree that in some respects the marriage covenant standard is contingent upon the willingness of the parties involved to adhere to it: they have to want to take the vows in the first place! However, I also realize that we're talking about what happens after the vows and, I would argue, what happens after consummation. I define marriage the same way Douglas Wilson does: a sexual relationship inside a covenant commitment. I think both of those parts of the definition are important.
Ja, the definition of divorce is important here, and I do mean God's definition. If you say that the marriage covenant is for life no matter what, then what does the Bible mean by divorce? What would be the use of having the term at all? If you say the marriage covenant is for life, then of necessity there can be no valid bills of divorce. I do not think the Bible makes it clear that a bill of divorce is not an end to the life-long marriage covenant (or, as per below, what ought to be a life-long marriage covenant.)
Perhaps one distinction to be made would be helpful: the distinction between imperatives and indicatives. Indicatives tell us that which is, imperatives tell us that which ought to be. For example, Paul says that a husband is the head of his wife. He does not say the husband ought to be the head of his wife. This means a husband cannot successfully refuse to be the head. It's like arguing with gravity, again as Douglas Wilson would say: "Marshall the arguments on the way down, you will come to a messy refutation at the end." He may be a bad head, but he is the head. (Ja, and the wife is the neck, right? ;-))
Applying this distinction to the divorce idea, if we live in the imperative world for a second, we can certainly say that there ought to be no divorce. There is no doubt that in any divorce, there is sin involved. We ought not to sin, therefore we ought not to divorce. Simple to state, difficult to execute. However, if we move from the imperative world to the indicative world, we see that sin does exist, and divorce does exist. It is a sad fact of life in this fallen world.
Now, because of the imperative, it is also quite clear that we should attempt to move the indicative world closer to the imperative world. That is called sanctification.
When I said "I don't know of anyone who thinks someone is 'unmarried' after divorce.", I meant that no one thinks someone is the same after a divorce as they were before the marriage.
Your paragraph beginning with "Again, society has created..." was a bit confusing to me. What is the precise definition of "unmarried" that you're using here? Does that word have the same definition throughout that whole paragraph?
About the ruler analogy: let me further explain. The truth is not subservient to error, even in my analogy. The truth is at the 6" mark, and it's not moving. You could think of error as having to start at the 6" mark and move away a certain distance. If I say that truth is at the mathematical 6" mark, then it's at a point sharper than any knife edge; stray but a little and you will fall. (Misquote intentional from Fellowship of the Ring ;-)). If it helps any, you could change the ruler to a centering ruler: truth is at 0" right in the middle, and error is at the 6" mark one way, and at the 6" mark the other way. In any case, in the world God has made, there can be at most one truth: 6.01" is error.
However, as my Sunday school teacher is fond of saying, "The world is black and white, but we see in shades of gray." Although the truth is hard-edged, indeed sharper than any two-edged sword, our perception of that truth is flawed. Therefore, it pays to be charitable towards others with whom we disagree. I do not agree with the charismatics on the matter of eschatology or of spiritual gifts. On the other hand, it would surprise me not a bit to find them at my right hand in heaven. The best example of this kind of humility I've ever seen is Karl Barth, with whom I would probably disagree about most things except a mutual rejection of liberal theology. He said something like this: "I dreamt that I was walking in heaven, and pulling a wagon behind me with all the books I had ever written in it. And all the angels were pointing at me and laughing."
I agree that extremeness must not be rejected or accepted simply because it is extreme; the Bible is the answer to any answerable questions. (Example of unanswerable: how can God be one God in three Persons? Or how can Christ be fully God and fully man at the same time?)
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; may the fellowship of the Spirit be with you.
You said:
“I've got to work hard to disagree with you! Not that that's necessarily a goal or anything. ;-)”
Could have fooled me… ;-)
That is the point, you know. Eventually you’re supposed to recant your position and agree with me. :-)
You said:
“If we're not being faithful, are we keeping our covenants?”
I said we will not always be faithful. I meant this in a wider sense than applied solely to marriage. However, the fact that there will be times when people do not remain faithful within the marriage covenant does not negate the command to be faithful to the covenant itself, which is what I am advocating; That divorce and subsequent remarriage to another is an intentional violation of the marriage covenant.
You said:
“However, I would claim quite confidently that covenant-keeping looks different for us than it does for God.”
The point, though, is that God has commanded us to be perfect as He is perfect; to be holy as He is holy. Of course it will always look different for us than it does for God. But that does not mean that He has not called us to that standard. It just means that we are failing to live up to that standard.
You said:
“What I'm saying is that God is not requiring of us something beyond our original created nature to perform.”
Okay, I see what you’re saying now.
You said:
“Incidentally, I would disagree that God is all-forgiving.”
You are correct. Perhaps the better way to state what I meant is that God is a forgiving God in the sense that He is always ready and willing to forgive.
You said:
“Do you mean 'impossible for a fallen human being to keep on his own?'”
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. In the sense that those listening would hear what he was saying and think “but that’s impossible!”
You said:
“Again, I'm very curious to know your interpretation of the 1 Cor. passage.”
It’s still coming… :-)
You said:
“Here's a more complete statement: suppose there has been covenantal unfaithfulness. Then, if there is hardness of heart and inability to be reconciled in this matter of unfaithfulness, God would release the offended spouse from that marriage covenant.”
Even if one spouse is unfaithful and commits adultery, the life-long marriage covenant is still binding. Thus, for the offended spouse to marry another would also constitute committing adultery. The adultery of one does not legitimatize the adultery of the other.
You said:
“I define marriage the same way Douglas Wilson does: a sexual relationship inside a covenant commitment. I think both of those parts of the definition are important.”
I whole-heartedly agree.
You said:
“If you say that the marriage covenant is for life no matter what, then what does the Bible mean by divorce?”
I addressed this in my next post. Based on what Scripture teaches and the words it uses, I would define it as “a separation initiated by man.”
You said:
“Perhaps one distinction to be made would be helpful: the distinction between imperatives and indicatives.”
Aha! I think you have hit on something here. I think this is the root of our disagreement. I would say that the marriage covenant is in the imperative. God defined it in the beginning – marriage is a life-long union between a man and a woman. Nothing except death causes the termination of that union. If I have correctly understood you, your position is that the marriage covenant is in the imperative – that it should be a life-long union between a man and a woman but that there are certain things we can do to prematurely terminate that union. If that is your position, what is your basis for that position?
You said:
“What is the precise definition of "unmarried" that you're using here?”
Someone who, in God’s eyes, is not presently united in a marriage covenant. Either someone who has never been married or someone who was married, but whose spouse has died, thus releasing them from their marriage covenant. Only an unmarried person is free to marry.
You said:
“In any case, in the world God has made, there can be at most one truth: 6.01" is error.”
Agreed. I think we’re on the same page with this.
You said:
“Although the truth is hard-edged, indeed sharper than any two-edged sword, our perception of that truth is flawed. Therefore, it pays to be charitable towards others with whom we disagree.”
Very true. I guess that means I have to keep being nice to you even if you refuse to agree with me, huh? :-) Thanks for your complimentary words. I continue to pray throughout this discussion that the Lord will guide my understanding and my writing so that it reflects His heart on this important issue of marriage, so praise to Him for any “biblically-based logic” that is making its way into these comments. It is a testimony to the power of His Word upon me and within me – without it my logic would be as flawed as any other.
“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:” (I Corinthians 1:26)
GRR!!! I think I may have accidentally 'x'ed out of the browser in which I was writing my reply to you. My reply, which took about an hour to write. *sigh* I'll have to re-do it later. I've got to focus on my oral preliminary exam.
Reply to Natalie.
Whoa, there! Let me quote this whole paragraph:
"I said we will not always be faithful. I meant this in a wider sense than applied solely to marriage. However, the fact that there will be times when people do not remain faithful within the marriage covenant does not negate the command to be faithful to the covenant itself, which is what I am advocating; That divorce and subsequent remarriage to another is an intentional violation of the marriage covenant."
Granted, Christian couples are involved in more than one covenant; I think it is also true that no one is completely faithful to either covenant. That is why your original statement, "We will not always be faithful, but we can, by His grace, keep our covenants." didn't make sense to me. I agree that the indicative fact that people break covenants does not negate the imperative command (commands are imperative by definition). I would probably also agree that divorce is an intentional violation of the marriage covenant. However, the "subsequent remarriage" bit depends, though I recognize you don't agree. Who is getting remarried? The offended or offending spouse?
Let me provide an example: H (the husband) and W (the wife) get "married" and have five kids. H decides that W bores him, so he commits adultery. H is unrepentant, and therefore W is unable to forgive him. They get a "divorce," whatever that means; it becomes apparent that H shows no sign of being a Christian, so the church excommunicates him, but not W. W shows every sign of being a Christian. It also appears that she has done nothing that could be construed as a direct cause of H's adultery, even in the marriage bed. So H is really without excuse. However, they "divorce." H does not feel obligated by any biblical rules of divorce and remarriage; he finds someone else and marries her, whatever that means.
Now, you can see that I've intentionally left the words "marry", "divorce", and essentially "remarry" up for grabs in terms of definition. That is for us to discuss. Here's a question: is H still married to W? Furthermore, let's say that W wants to be a conscientious mother: she stays at home and raises the kids. So there's no income directly from her. She needs financial support, and protection, and all the rest of it. Surely you can see that if remarriage is biblically allowed for her, it would be by far the best option. Wouldn't God have a plan for helping such a woman out? She needs a man, a real man, obviously not like H. I realize this is a weak argument; it is basically ad misericordium, an appeal to emotion. This situation has occurred all too frequently, unfortunately.
Let me see. Going on in your last comment. Agree, agree, agree... looking for disagreement... ;-)
The paragraph:
"Even if one spouse is unfaithful and commits adultery, the life-long marriage covenant is still binding. Thus, for the offended spouse to marry another would also constitute committing adultery. The adultery of one does not legitimatize the adultery of the other."
Well, as you can imagine, I disagree with every sentence in that paragraph except the last one (taken out of context). That is our debate.
As I said before, I don't like the definition of divorce as "a separation initiated by man."
Let me perform an interesting experiment. You would agree, I think, that in 1828, divorce did not have the modern idea of "I'll-just-divorce-whenever-I-feel-like-it." Right? In that case, it might be instructive to see what Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary has as a definition for divorce.
Divorce, n. 1. (Law) (a) A legal dissolution of the marriage contract by a court or other body having competant authority. This is properly a divorce, and called, technically, divorce a vinculo matrimonii. "from the bond of matrimony." (b) The separation of a married woman from the bed and board of her husband -- divorce a mensa et toro (or thoro), "from bed and board."
(2) The decree or writing by which marriage is dissolved.
(3) Separation; disunion of things closely united.
To make divorce of their incorporate league.
Divorce, v.t. 1. To dissolved the marriage contract of, either wholly or partially; to separate by divorce.
2. To separate or disunite; to sunder.
It [a word] was divorced from its old sense.
Earle.
3. To make away; to put away.
Nothing but death
Shall e'er divorce my dignities.
Well, there is Webster's 1828 definition. As you can see, even then there is that connotation of dissolving the marriage contract (or covenant, I would argue).
I think you made a typo, or maybe a thoughto. (sic) You wrote "I would say that the marriage covenant is in the imperative." I think you meant, from the context, that "I would say that the marriage covenant is in the indicative." Right? Blond moment? ;-) Ja, I'm blond too, have those all the time. Don't worry about it. I mean, you should feel anguish of soul because you made a mistake and all... Ok. I'm even making me laugh now. The correct response for you at this point is, "That doesn't sound too hard."
For the basis of my position, see my comments on your latest post: The "Exception."
I thank you for your definition of "unmarried." All I have to do now is untangle your paragraph:
"Again, society has created this separate category for those who are divorced. But, logically, if someone is not unmarried, then they are married. And if someone is married, then they are not free to marry anyone else. In order to marry someone else after you’re divorced, wouldn’t you have to consider yourself unmarried?"
Something doesn't quite ring true here, but I don't know what it is. I'll have to think about it a while. Get back to you later on that.
Well, actually, I meant that I need to be charitable towards anyone with whom I disagree. If you say the same for yourself, I won't deny it. But it's much more my problem to examine my own uncharitableness than condemn it in anyone else. Please understand that I've not read even one word from you that was uncharitable, so please do be at your ease.
Well, I've probably left something out, but I have to finish getting my prelude together for worship.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ; may the fellowship of the Spirit be with you.
Okay, let me see if I can clear this up. In the original context, we were discussing the attributes of God. My point was that we will never have the same attribute of faithfulness that God has. God is always faithful. He cannot break His covenants; He cannot break His promises; He cannot act in any way that is inconsistent with His character. We will never always be faithful in this way. We may break a promise that we have made to another; we may break a covenant that we have vowed to keep. However, I do not believe that it is inevitable that everyone will break their marriage covenant at some point. I think that, by the grace of God, we can keep a marriage covenant. Keep it in the sense that neither party commits adultery, either by means of engaging in an immoral relationship with another outside the marriage, or by enacting a divorce or subsequently remarrying another.
You said:
“Surely you can see that if remarriage is biblically allowed for her, it would be by far the best option.”
The situation you present is an all-too frequent one. I know several women personally who could be the “W.” The important consideration here, though, is that since God instituted marriage to be a life-long covenant between such a woman and her husband, then “by far the best option” is for her to remain faithful to that marriage covenant, regardless of the adulteries committed by her husband. Yes, all hope is past for reconciliation to her husband. But who is to say what incredible blessing the Lord will pour out on her life and the amazing ways He may be enabled to provide for her in the absence of a husband? And who is to say what a profound impact her faithfulness will have on her wayward husband? Truly her greatest reward will be received not in this life, but in the heavenly home that awaits her.
You said:
“As I said before, I don't like the definition of divorce as ‘a separation initiated by man.’”
This is what I believe to be the Scriptural definition of divorce, as Jesus Himself indicated in Matthew 19:8. Do you have another Scriptural definition for divorce? So Webster provides a definition of divorce in 1828. But the real question is not “how has man defined divorce previously?” The real question is “how does God define divorce?”
You said:
“I think you made a typo, or maybe a thoughto.”
Ah, horror of horrors! A mistake! I hereby sentence myself to write “I believe that the marriage covenant is indicative.” no less than 1,000 times before the day is over. (Is that enough anguish of soul for you? :-) )
You said:
“Something doesn't quite ring true here, but I don't know what it is. I'll have to think about it a while. Get back to you later on that.”
Okay. It really all comes back to the definition of divorce. Society accepts the definition of divorce as the end of the marriage. Therefore, a divorced person is unmarried and is free to remarry. However, God defined marriage from the very beginning as a life-long covenant that is unbreakable by anyone or anything, except death. Therefore, a divorced person is still married in God’s eyes and is not free to remarry.
BTW, thanks for taking the time to retype your comment. I'm so sorry you lost it the first time! I always type lengthy comments in MS Word first and then copy them over for that very reason.
Reply to Natalie.
You do not think it inevitable that everyone will break their marriage covenant? I must disagree with you here: Jesus said unequivocally that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. I don't know of even one married man who has never lusted after a woman not his wife. Therefore, because of what Jesus said (though, really, the seventh commandment always meant that), all married men have committed adultery. It does no good to say that people keep their marriage covenant by not physically engaging in adultery; the laws for covenant-keeping have always been both internal and external. The Ten Commandments, for example, have always included the heart issues; every single one of them. Just read the WLC questions on the Ten Commandments for a treasure trove.
Yes, I appreciate what you say about the possible W's, and their reliance on God for all their needs and desires. It's all very true, but there are immediate earthly needs, such as food. She may be utterly unable to provide that for her children. But the children need to be satisfied in that need, as in other needs. You don't know whether the wife will be a good influence on her wayward husband or not. It is not always the case that she will be.
The question of how men have defined divorce in the past is not unimportant in discovering what God's definition is. The idea is this: if men have, for many many ages, defined divorce in the same way, and those ages are not affected by the same problems and weaknesses but vary, then our confidence rises that their interpretation of the Scriptures is correct. Naturally, I'm not saying anyone is infallible; 10,000 Frenchmen can still be wrong. However, when opinion and belief have not changed over the ages, there is most certainly reason to take that opinion seriously, and to give that opinion a good deal of weight. My purpose in bringing up the Webster definition was simply that his was an age not affected by feminism and all that junk. It was not affected by a low view of marriage, as is ours. The point was important, because you had claimed, at one time or other, that the modern definition was affected by modern notions of marriage, which both of us agree are defective. However, since Webster defined it the same way, and his age cannot similarly be accused of a defective view of marriage, your assertion lacks weight. The fact that they defined divorce in the same way most modern people do gives strength to that definition, more than it would otherwise have if they had not.
Yes, I think writing that sentence out 1,000 times would be penance enough. ;-)
Though, as you know, I wouldn't agree with that sentence.
Neither does the WCF. In Chapter XXIV, Paragraph V, we have the following:
"Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the 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."
Proof texts: Matt. 1:18-20. Matt. 5:31-32.
So, this definition of divorce, as that of dissolving the marriage covenant, goes back to the 1600's, with the Westminster divines.
I would warn you against something, rather like Mrs. Gardner warning Lizzy in Pride and Prejudice. She says something like, "You are too sensible to fall in love simply because you have been warned against it." My warning is this: society undoubtedly has an inferior model of marriage. But it does not follow that everything they think about marriage and divorce is wrong. There is no merit whatsoever in being a rebel simply for the sake of being a rebel. In fact, it has problems of its own. I don't know your mind, naturally. I'm just saying it.
In Christ.
You said:
“You do not think it inevitable that everyone will break their marriage covenant?”
I need to think through this some more…
You said:
“It's all very true, but there are immediate earthly needs, such as food.”
God is able to provide for these earthly needs as much as for any other needs. In fact, He promises to do so for all of us. (Philippians 4:19; Matthew 6:25-34) Our responsibility is to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness. This applies to all believers, including the woman who has been mistreated and left to provide for her children. This is the essence of what faith is – the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen – believing in the promises of God even when we don’t see how it could possibly be accomplished.
You said:
“The question of how men have defined divorce in the past is not unimportant in discovering what God's definition is.”
The problem with this is the starting point. Rather than accepting what men have believed over the years and using that to define the terms, we must start with Scripture and allow it to be the measure of what is true and what is not.
You said:
“My purpose in bringing up the Webster definition was simply that his was an age not affected by feminism and all that junk.”
“…there is no new thing under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9 We might like to think that we’re dealing with issues and problems today that those before us did not have to deal with, but in reality the same sins plague our world today that have plagued the world since the Fall. That is why we must appeal to the unchanging Word of God as our only standard for what is true and right.
You said:
“‘In the 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.’ (WCF quote)”
Interestingly, if Old Testament law was being observed, the spouse who committed adultery would be put to death, thus releasing the innocent spouse from the marriage. In that case, they would be free to marry another. Really, though, either someone is dead or they’re not. I don’t see where in Scripture the idea comes from that an offending party should be treated “as if [they] were dead.”
You said:
“There is no merit whatsoever in being a rebel simply for the sake of being a rebel.”
Hmm. That’s a first. I’ve been called a number of things before, but never a rebel. I have been sincerely searching out the Scriptures on this matter and everything I have written has been the result of that. Additionally, at the outset of this discussion, I asked my Dad to follow along to keep me accountable for the things I wrote, both in my posts and my comments, and to call me on anything that he felt did not line up with Scripture. I have talked extensively with him (and my Mom) on this subject and have sought to represent to the best of my ability what I believe to be true from Scripture, including insights gained specifically from discussing this with my Dad. It has been an exciting study and I appreciate your comments (and disagreements!) that have further challenged me to delve even deeper into Scripture to explore this issue.
Oi. I'm too tired to reply fully right now. But I will say this: I meant rebel as in rebelling against the world, which certainly needs rebelling against. Take it as a compliment, if you like. To further explain, I'd say this. And I observe it because I'm sorely tempted to it: I often see an error in the world, and I want to correct it, or at least do what I can to correct it. So far so good. But then if I try to overcorrect, I probably end up doing more harm than good. In addition, if I get into a permanent mindset wherein the world is wrong simply because it is the world, I commit the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Unfortunately, that doesn't get me anywhere.
Nope, it's Bible plus biblical logic only that should govern my beliefs. I believe the Holy Spirit works through those. But to say that the world is never right ignores common grace. The world doesn't get everything wrong.
If someone convinces me by Scripture and/or by plain reason, I will not only change my beliefs, but I will alter my behavior to match. I hope I am always open to this form of persuasion, so help me God.
More later.
In Christ.
Second reply to Natalie.
Hello, again. Here are a few more thoughts.
Your statement, "The problem with this is the starting point. Rather than accepting what men have believed over the years and using that to define the terms, we must start with Scripture and allow it to be the measure of what is true and what is not." is a bit simplistic, to my mind. The issue is that Scripture is not always clear, despite your many comments about "clearly Jesus was saying this..." or "Paul was clearly saying this..." Actually, it's not so clear; not to me, and not to many many Reformed scholars in the past. You know I think differently on the divorce issue. Scripture itself teaches us that there are Scriptures hard to understand. What is necessary for salvation is most certainly easy to understand, but there are other portions that are difficult.
I agree that, to the greatest extent possible, we should not bring our assumptions to the Scriptures, and allow those assumptions to dictate our interpretations. (Probably no one can avoid this error fully.) However, in no way does that principle of Bible interpretation (which, together with the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture are the most important principles of interpretation) exclude a wise use of the wisdom of men who have gone before us. The problem with your statement is that you are issuing a false dilemma. You are claiming that starting with Scripture is inconsistent with consulting lesser sources, and that's simply not true. You will never hear me say that Calvin is on a par with Scripture in terms of authority. I would probably disagree with him on a few minor points. But there have been few exegetes more careful and incisive than he, and I would probably need some good reasons to disagree with him. At the very least, his opinion carries weight with me; the way Lane put it is this: "You can never ignore Calvin." He is one of the standard people you consult on an issue of interpretation.
Your statement assumed that I did not start with Scripture, and that is not true. I have already dealt with loads of Scripture passages, and it was only later in the debate when I brought in other merely human perspectives. Should I "accuse" you of consulting with your father (as if that was ever a bad thing!), when he's only a mere human being, and saying that you didn't start with the Scriptures? Of course not. But you have admitted to me that you did consult him. As it turns out, I have consulted my father, and of course my twin brother Lane on this issue. But none of them are infallible, only Scripture is.
In short, I think it unwise to limit ourselves to Scripture only as a source of truth. I fully accept the following propositions: 1. Scripture alone is infallible. 2. Scripture alone is the ultimate authority for faith and practice. 3. All other authorities exhibit truth only insofar as they agree with Scripture and with Scriptural principles deducible by valid argumentation.
Those propositions leave plenty of room for consulting other sources.
In some ways, truth can be like diamonds: multi-faceted. Sources other than Scriptures can bring into focus other facets of the same diamond. The truth is not thereby changed, but our perception of it can be, often to the good.
I think your statement, "We might like to think that we’re dealing with issues and problems today that those before us did not have to deal with, but in reality the same sins plague our world today that have plagued the world since the Fall." is again too simplistic. There is much truth to the statement, but it doesn't go deep enough. It's quite true there is nothing new under the sun, but that statement is not a blanket statement. All the sins have been before us. However, certain sins are more prominent and are treated differently in certain ages than others. There is no way anyone is going to convince me that feminism as it is now existed in Noah Webster's day. There may have been bits and pieces of it, but not the movement. People's thought patterns change over the years. For example, in the 1800's and going back a bit further, as C. S. Lewis said, "People knew when a thing was proved and when it wasn't, and were prepared to alter their behavior as a result of a chain of reasoning." That's an inexact quote from Screwtape's first letter. Nowadays, this is certainly not the case in general. Logic means very little to most 21st century people. So I would claim that it is a different sin from what might have been the chief sin of the 1800's.
Do you have little regard for the Westminster standards? In my denomination, the PCA, the Westminster standards are held in high regard. Elders and deacons must subscribe to them with few and minor exceptions allowed. Several times I have found myself at odds with the Standards, only later to find out I had been making an error, and those Westminster divines were more careful exegetes than I thought. In that sense, they're like Calvin. I would hesistate to differ from them.
Let me ask you a question: are you a theonomist?
As I see it now, the crux of this debate centers around the word porneia in the Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 passages. Most of the rest of this discussion I see as peripheral.
You're certainly most welcome for the challenges I have given you to dig deeper into the Scriptures; rest assured you have done the same for me.
In Christ.
As per my comment on this post, I regrettably must discontinue my part in this discussion. But I did want to make it clear that although I have almost no familiarity with the WCF, I do place a great deal of importance on the wisdom and Biblical teaching of other Godly men and women, both present and past. However, not having been raised in a church that placed any emphasis on doctrine or church history, I have had very limited exposure to what others might consider indispensable pillars of the Christian faith. For many years, the Bible and concordance have been my almost exclusive tools for Bible study.
I do not intend to discredit other sources absolutely. However, if in my study of Scripture, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I am led to an understanding that is different than what others - either past or present - teach, I must adhere to what I believe Scripture teaches.
Post a Comment
<< Home