Divorce: The Sin Preachers Nod & Wink At

[Ransom]

I have a question. In Matthew 19:6, Jesus said, "what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." What if two people, completely against God's will, go to the courthouse and get married? Did God have anything to do with it? Does God decree something based on fleshly acts of people living in sin?

This would be an issue if we believed in marriage as a sacrament, which is why the Roman Catholic church forbids Catholics from marrying outside of the church. They are then in a state of mortal sin until the marriage is rectified (that is, receiving the blessing of the Church with a second, Catholic marriage ceremony).

But we do not believe that marriage is a religious sacrament. Rather, it is a creation ordinance: an mandate instituted by God before the fall. The prototype marriage is that of Adam and Eve: the first man and the first woman, given to each other for life and producing offspring. It's not a sacrament, but part of human nature, to marry and start families. Nonbelievers are married, although imperfectly.

Paul in 1 Cor. 7:12-16 tells the Corinthian Christians not to seek to divorce an unbelieving spouse if the spouse is content to remain married. Paul doesn't tell them they aren't really married. Perhaps some of these people sinned and married non-Christians after their conversions. Probably most of them were already married before one of them became a Christian. In any case, their marriage is real and ought to be protected, as far as it depends on the Christian partner.

A marriage between unbelievers might be, in some sense, sinful (they are not rooting their marriage in God's purposes for sexuality, for example, or modelling the relationship between Christ and the church). However, an imperfect marriage is not no marriage at all.

To go back to this part of your question:

What if two people, completely against God's will, go to the courthouse and get married?

Well, that depends. What do you mean by "completely against God's will"? Did God send an angel to tell them to get married in the church? Almost certainly not, so they're not disobeying a direct divine command. In Scripture, marriage is a fact, but it doesn't lay out a specific procedure for doing weddings. So they're not going against the revealed will of God, either.

They might have sinful reasons for avoiding a church wedding, such as a personal tiff with the pastor. But on the other hand, maybe their reasons are perfectly reasonable and pragmatic, such as not having a lot of money to spend on an elaborate ceremony and reception that aren't the point anyway. A $10,000 wedding at church and the community centre later isn't more godly or lasting than the no-frills, $300 ceremony in front of an officiant at city hall.

 

[DoctorDuck]

This would be an issue if we believed in marriage as a sacrament, which is why the Roman Catholic church forbids Catholics from marrying outside of the church. They are then in a state of mortal sin until the marriage is rectified (that is, receiving the blessing of the Church with a second, Catholic marriage ceremony).

I would say it’s pretty much a mortal sin to marry a divorced person who did not meet the exclusion clause of the Bible.

 

[Ransom]

I would say it’s pretty much a mortal sin to marry a divorced person who did not meet the exclusion clause of the Bible.

I don't believe in the Catholic distinction between venial and mortal sins. I regard it as a theological prop for their sacramentalism. Even the Roman system acknowledges that the marriages of non-Catholics are real and valid. They're just jealous of their members marrying outside the club.

 

[biscuit1953]

Your demand for pastors to capitulate to your (wrong) Scriptural interpretation is duly noted. Hopefully you read what I gave you for reference in the other thread. If not, here’s some more info, from none other than Phil Armenik (a former FFF poster.

That is a very good article. It is becoming obvious that he is attempting to defend homosexual marriages by diverting everyone's attention to the other exceptions given in scripture as found in 1 Corinthians 7. There is no question that Jimmy Carter was one of the reasons homosexual relationships were normalized to what we see today and he is defending Carter's statement that Jesus would approve of such "marriages."

 

[DoctorDuck]

That is a very good article. It is becoming obvious that he is attempting to defend homosexual marriages by diverting everyone's attention to the other exceptions given in scripture as found in 1 Corinthians 7. There is no question that Jimmy Carter was one of the reasons homosexual relationships were normalized to what we see today and he is defending Carter's statement that Jesus would approve of such "marriages."

Incorrect. I’m not defending gay marriage and I don’t think Carter was correct. But an inappropriate marriage by divorced people is no more edifying and biblical than a gay marriage. Don’t get mad at me, I’m the messenger. Talk to Jesus about this. He said it in the book of Matthew.

 

[DoctorDuck]

I don't believe in the Catholic distinction between venial and mortal sins. I regard it as a theological prop for their sacramentalism. Even the Roman system acknowledges that the marriages of non-Catholics are real and valid. They're just jealous of their members marrying outside the club.

Sure, I get that in the literal sense, but in terms of the marriage itself, I’d consider it a null and void marriage, same as a gay marriage. The state may legally recognize both types of marriages, but not God.

 

[Ransom]

Sure, I get that in the literal sense, but in terms of the marriage itself, I’d consider it a null and void marriage, same as a gay marriage. The state may legally recognize both types of marriages, but not God.

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "types of marriages," and which type is "null and void."

 

[DoctorDuck]

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "types of marriages," and which type is "null and void."

Here’s a copypasta of what I’m referring to:

• The "No Remarriage" / Permanence View: Some Christian traditions (such as traditional Roman Catholic and some conservative Protestant teachings) hold that a valid marriage is a lifelong covenant before God. Under this view, divorces and subsequent remarriages—unless the former spouse has died or the divorce strictly followed specific biblical grounds like porneia (sexual immorality/infidelity)—result in a state of ongoing adultery. [1, 2]
• The Exception Clause View: Many scholars and theologians emphasize the phrase "except for sexual immorality" (or porneia) found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. They argue that if a divorce occurs because of unfaithfulness or betrayal by one spouse, the innocent party (or the person marrying them) may be free to remarry without committing adultery.

So, “null and void” indicates that, at least biblically speaking, the heterosexual marriage amounts to nothing more than a couple of consenting adults “shacking up” in the eyes of God (unless the marriage is based on the “exception clause” mentioned in Scripture). The same will be true of the homosexual marriage, which God doesn’t recognize, even though the state does.

 

[AverageJoe]

This kind of horse crap thread is NOT something that is productive. All of my parents have been divorced. This kind of discussion amongst the church people led to a lot of things in my family, and nearly caused my mom and adoptive father to divorce. The church stopped them from serving, yet when they had the Western Wear store these vultures wanted discounts, the use of our home because it was large, and donations above the tithe the BUSINESS and my parents gave. I find it fruitless and dangerous to Christians who made mistakes before, or even after they came to be Christians. Just my opinion, and the rant is over. Carry on with your STUPID conversation!

 

[DoctorDuck]

This kind of horse crap thread is NOT something that is productive. All of my parents have been divorced. This kind of discussion amongst the church people led to a lot of things in my family, and nearly caused my mom and adoptive father to divorce. The church stopped them from serving, yet when they had the Western Wear store these vultures wanted discounts, the use of our home because it was large, and donations above the tithe the BUSINESS and my parents gave. I find it fruitless and dangerous to Christians who made mistakes before, or even after they came to be Christians. Just my opinion, and the rant is over. Carry on with your STUPID conversation!

Personal emotions aside, do you care to respond from a theological perspective? From what I recall, you did attend a Bible college and were involved in the ministry.

 

[Bruh]

To marry a divorced person seems like you’d be marrying someone with a lot of baggage.

 

[DoctorDuck]

To marry a divorced person seems like you’d be marrying someone with a lot of baggage.

It’s easy for some of these people on here to beat their war drums about gay marriage, liberalism, etc., but when it comes to their own lives, it’s suddenly crickets in the night.

 

[DoctorDuck]

Your demand for pastors to capitulate to your (wrong) Scriptural interpretation is duly noted. Hopefully you read what I gave you for reference in the other thread. If not, here’s some more info, from none other than Phil Armenik (a former FFF poster.

I’ve read your link, but it seems weak (no offense). It seems like Phil is taking a few verses and then extrapolating a lot of “Phil-isms” into them. In matters of this kind, I’ll just stick to what Jesus actually said in red letters.

 

[Ransom]

So, “null and void” indicates that, at least biblically speaking, the heterosexual marriage amounts to nothing more than a couple of consenting adults “shacking up” in the eyes of God (unless the marriage is based on the “exception clause” mentioned in Scripture). The same will be true of the homosexual marriage, which God doesn’t recognize, even though the state does.

The thing is, both your views have an "exception clause"--only the "permanence view" uses the word "unless" instead of "except." Is there any meaningful difference between "except for sexual immorality" and "unless the divorce followed specific biblical grounds like sexual immorality"?

In other words, virtually everyone recognizes that there are valid biblical grounds for divorce in specific circumstances: generally, infidelity (Matthew 5:32) or desertion by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:15). Specifically, in the latter case, Paul says the remaining spouse is not "bound"--in other words, free to remarry. So it's not just "shacking up."

The Old Testament implicitly affirms the validity of the second marriage when it forbids a woman's first husband from taking her back after her second husband has divorced her or died (Deut. 24:1-4). The law underscores the seriousness and permanence of marriage, and ought to encourage her first husband to seriously consider the consequences of his actions: he cannot casually divorce his wife and expect to win her back later. This is Jesus's concern, as well, that marriages not be easily or casually broken up. The second marriage is legally protected, just as her first one was.

Many of the questions the Pharisees pose for Jesus are rooted in controversies between the competing rabbinical schools of thought of Hillel and Shammai. As a general rule, Shammai was the more conservative and strict teacher, while Hillel was more lenient and progressive. This was true on the subject of divorce. Generally, Jesus sides with Hillel, who taught that the Torah permitted divorce for any reason; but on this specific subject, he follows Shammai--and even surpasses him in strictness.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I’ve read your link, but it seems weak (no offense). It seems like Phil is taking a few verses and then extrapolating a lot of “Phil-isms” into them. In matters of this kind, I’ll just stick to what Jesus actually said in red letters.

I have very thick skin and rarely have I ever been offended on the fighting forum and that was years ago.

Would you care to point out where you disagree with Phil, using his own language or citations from the article?

 

[ALAYMAN]

The thing is, both your views have an "exception clause"--only the "permanence view" uses the word "unless" instead of "except." Is there any meaningful difference between "except for sexual immorality" and "unless the divorce followed specific biblical grounds like sexual immorality"?

In other words, virtually everyone recognizes that there are valid biblical grounds for divorce in specific circumstances: generally, infidelity (Matthew 5:32) or desertion by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:15). Specifically, in the latter case, Paul says the remaining spouse is not "bound"--in other words, free to remarry. So it's not just "shacking up."

The Old Testament implicitly affirms the validity of the second marriage when it forbids a woman's first husband from taking her back after her second husband has divorced her or died (Deut. 24:1-4). The law underscores the seriousness and permanence of marriage, and ought to encourage her first husband to seriously consider the consequences of his actions: he cannot casually divorce his wife and expect to win her back later. Her second marriage is legally protected, just as her first one was.

It seems to me that for Dr Duck this issue is one of seeking to interpret this matter by some sort of letter of the (Mosaic) law, rather than the spirit.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It seems to me that for Dr Duck this issue is one of seeking to interpret this matter by some sort of letter of the (Mosaic) law, rather than the spirit.

He’s our resident theologian…and Jimmy Carter fanboy.

 

[ALAYMAN]

He’s our resident theologian…and Jimmy Carter fanboy.

Dr. Duck likes Jimmy? Really?? how do you get that?

 

[ALAYMAN]

It is becoming obvious that he is attempting to defend homosexual marriages by diverting everyone's attention to the other exceptions given in scripture as found in 1 Corinthians 7.

I am not sure exactly what Mr. Duck’s angle here is, but I suspect it has more to do with the stirring of scatological FFF material than it does with any genuine convictions, lol.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Here’s another link with some good food for thought, using the 1 Corinthians 7 passage…