Permanency of Marriage

[bearbear]

I am reading a book on the permanency of marriage by the late renowned preacher David Pawson titled "Remarriage is Adultery Unless ..." and after reading it, I feel like I've been deceived on this topic my whole life.

Currently the permanency of marriage is the minority view in evangelical Christianity but it was actually the unanimous view for the early church continuing for 1500 years until the reformation.

This view says that marriage is permanent until the death of a spouse just like the words of the common wedding vow "until death do us part" and that abandonment, abuse and adultery are only grounds for divorce or separation but not remarriage.

A major point of confusion in modern interpretations of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is the assumption that porneia (sexual immorality) includes adultery.

Matthew 19:9
“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [porneia], and marries another, commits adultery [moicheia].”

But this fails linguistically and logically. Greek has a distinct and precise word for adultery: moicheia. In the same sentence, Jesus says remarriage results in moicheia, thus distinguishing it from porneia. If porneia meant adultery, the sentence would be needlessly repetitive:

Matthew 19:9
"Whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another, commits adultery."

Such redundancy would make no sense, especially in a legal context with Pharisees present so clarity matters. Rather, Jesus likely meant for porneia to refer to premarital or unlawful sexual unions, such as fornication during betrothal (see Matthew 1:18-19, where Joseph considers divorcing Mary for suspected porneia) or incestuous marriages prohibited in Leviticus 18.
Further, the exception clause appears only in Matthew—a Gospel written to a Jewish audience familiar with betrothal practices. The stricter teachings in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 omit any exception, reinforcing the interpretation that porneia is not general adultery but something unique to Matthew’s context.

Interestingly, the King James Version is closer to this interpretation by rendering porneia as "fornication" (premarital relations).

Also if Jesus had intended porneia to include adultery, then presumably a man looking at a woman with lust would qualify for divorce and remarriage according to Matthew 5:28 in the context of giving the same prohibition against divorce and remarriage four verses later in Matthew 5:32.

Yet Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage was so shocking that His disciples responded, “If such is the case… it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:10). It makes more sense in this context that Jesus only allowed for divorce and remarriage if the original marriage was invalid to begin with. In this scenario, a man whose wife left him would therefore be forced into celibacy rather than remarry while the spouse was still alive and this is exactly what Jesus goes on to describe in Matthew 19:10-12.

The Apostle Paul also had the same understanding of the permanency of marriage according to the following verses:

Romans 7:2-3:
“A married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.. if she marries another man while her husband is alive, she shall be called an adulteress.”

1 Corinthians 7:10-11:
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

1 Corinthians 7:39
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

For those interested in doing more research, I recommend Pawson's book. I also came across a website with testimonies and more scripture related to marriage permanency:

https://cadz.net/olga.html

https://cadz.net/Final%20Booklet%20SEPT%202017.pdf

[Nell]

What did Jeremiah have to say about divorce in the Old Testament? Does this mean that God himself divorced the Northern Kingdom?

Israel's and Judah's Unfaithfulness

6The 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. 7And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8And 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. 9And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Nell

What did Jeremiah have to say about divorce in the Old Testament? Does this mean that God himself divorced the Northern Kingdom?
... (Jeremiah 3:8) 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;

This could be a good argument for why separation or divorce could be permitted. However, Jesus seemed to be more focused on forbidding divorce and remarriage together rather than divorce itself.

Luke 16:18
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Paul also seemed to strictly oppose remarriage much more so than separation.

1 Cor 7:10-11
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Even after divorcing Israel, God remains faithful to Israel and calls for Israel's return in Jeremiah a few verses later.

Jeremiah 3:12 (ESV)
“Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, ‘Return, faithless Israel, declares the LORD. I will not look on you in anger, for I am merciful, declares the LORD; I will not be angry forever.”

Jeremiah 3:14 (ESV)
“Return, O faithless children, declares the LORD; for I am your master; I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.”

In Hosea, God declares that one day Israel will call God "My Husband". So God never "remarried" another and Israel will be reconciled to God.

Hosea 2:16 (ESV)
“And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will you call me ‘My Baal.’”

[Nell]

Bearbear,

I think this topic may lend itself to a closer look at "logos" and "rhema". This was helpful to me:

https://search.brave.com/search?q=lo...77e9a79dd0dee2

Logos vs Rhema
In Christian theology, logos and rhema are two Greek terms often discussed in the context of understanding the Word of God. While both are translated as "word" in English, they carry distinct meanings and applications.

Logos: This term refers to the universal, written Word of God. It encompasses the entirety of Scripture and is often associated with divine reason or the person of Jesus Christ, who is described as the Word (Logos) made flesh in John 1. Logos represents the foundational truths of the Bible that are applicable to all believers.

Rhema: This term denotes a specific, living application of the Word to an individual or situation. Rhema is often described as a "spoken word" or a divine insight that the Holy Spirit imparts to a person's heart, making the general truth of the logos personally relevant and actionable. For example, while the logos may contain the promise of salvation, the rhema might be the moment an individual feels the assurance that this promise applies directly to them [3]. Some theologians emphasize that logos is like a well of water, representing the complete Scriptures, while rhema is like a bucket of water drawn from that well, representing a specific truth made alive in a believer's life.

Others argue that the distinction between logos and rhema is not always clear-cut, as both terms can overlap in meaning depending on the context in which they are used.

In summary, logos is often seen as the objective, written Word of God, while rhema is understood as the subjective, living application of that Word through the Holy Spirit.

Key: Living application of the word through the Holy Spirit. It's important to have a living relationship with the Lord, i.e., the Holy Spirit. That is, the written word does not cover all life situations. Much has been written about divorce, but still the Holy Spirit has something to say to your heart. This is why Paul prayed, in Phillipians 3, "that I may know him". It's likely that at the time Paul spoke this, there was no "Logos" but the believers relied on rhema until there was logos.

Just my thoughts--
Nell

[bearbear]

Jesus said in John 12:47-48 that his words will judge us in the day of judgment:
“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

And that heaven and earth will pass away but his words will not (Matt 24:35). And it was in this context (Matt 5:18) that Jesus gave his prohibition on remarriage (Matt 5:32) also warning that not many would receive this word because it would imply forced celibacy if the other spouse left (Matthew 19:11-12).

There are a lot of testimonies where this rhema word was active in divorced and remarried couples where verses like Luke 16:18 would not leave them alone "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." and they were driven to repent of remarriage adultery and make efforts to return to their covenant spouse. (Source: https://cadz.net/olga.html)

One reason remarriage while the first spouse is alive is not allowed is because the marriage covenant is sacred. The common wedding vow today contains the words "til death do us part" not "til divorce do us part". A remarriage vow would contradict the first wedding vow while the first is still active and hence would be invalid.

God takes covenants seriously just like he did with Joshua and the Gibeonites. When Saul killed the Gibeonites, God would not heal the land until seven of Sauls sons were hanged. It was not enough for the Israelites to feel sorry (2 Samuel 21).

In Malachi 2:14, God speaks to Israelites who divorced and remarried as if they were still married to the their original wife, referring to her as the "wife of your covenant". If this is the case then someone in a second marriage would be living in adultery in God's eyes since God still views the husband as married to their first wife.

Malachi 2:14-16 [Amiplified]
But you say, “Why [does He reject it]?” Because the*Lord*has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously. Yet she is your marriage companion and the wife of your covenant [made by your vows]. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. “For I hate*divorce,” says the*Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong*and*violence,” says the*Lord*of hosts. “Therefore keep watch on your spirit, so that you do not deal treacherously [with your wife].”

Romans 7:2-3
For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

Dr. Joseph Webb writes in more detail on the seriousness of the marriage covenant in his book "Til Death to us Part?" and in this video series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeXF...OEYPBH5LeSXL6G

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Jesus said in John 12:47-48 that his words will judge us in the day of judgment:
“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.

I feel you are touching an important point on the marriage covenant.
Question I have, why in the local churches is the marriage covenant considered secondary to loyalty to Lee's ministry?
I'm sure there are many cases of divorce in the local churches that occurred because one spouse was absolute for Lee's ministry and the other spouse wanted no part of it any longer.
If the marriage covenant is truly regarded as sacred, a husband and wife would place their marriage above Lee's ministry.
How many elders in the local churches have you known that were divorced? If they were elders, I had known three.

[PeterG]

Originally Posted by Nell

Bearbear,

I think this topic may lend itself to a closer look at "logos" and "rhema". This was helpful to me:

https://search.brave.com/search?q=lo...77e9a79dd0dee2

Logos vs Rhema
In Christian theology, logos and rhema are two Greek terms often discussed in the context of understanding the Word of God. While both are translated as "word" in English, they carry distinct meanings and applications.

Logos: This term refers to the universal, written Word of God. It encompasses the entirety of Scripture and is often associated with divine reason or the person of Jesus Christ, who is described as the Word (Logos) made flesh in John 1. Logos represents the foundational truths of the Bible that are applicable to all believers.

Rhema: This term denotes a specific, living application of the Word to an individual or situation. Rhema is often described as a "spoken word" or a divine insight that the Holy Spirit imparts to a person's heart, making the general truth of the logos personally relevant and actionable. For example, while the logos may contain the promise of salvation, the rhema might be the moment an individual feels the assurance that this promise applies directly to them [3]. Some theologians emphasize that logos is like a well of water, representing the complete Scriptures, while rhema is like a bucket of water drawn from that well, representing a specific truth made alive in a believer's life.

Others argue that the distinction between logos and rhema is not always clear-cut, as both terms can overlap in meaning depending on the context in which they are used.

In summary, logos is often seen as the objective, written Word of God, while rhema is understood as the subjective, living application of that Word through the Holy Spirit.

Key: Living application of the word through the Holy Spirit. It's important to have a living relationship with the Lord, i.e., the Holy Spirit. That is, the written word does not cover all life situations. Much has been written about divorce, but still the Holy Spirit has something to say to your heart. This is why Paul prayed, in Phillipians 3, "that I may know him". It's likely that at the time Paul spoke this, there was no "Logos" but the believers relied on rhema until there was logos.

Just my thoughts--
Nell

If the Logos is the eternal Christ, he is more and greater than the written word. In the Bible, God speaks to us, explains his plan and instructs us on what we should do. Therefore, the Bible is rather rhema.

[bearbear]

Came across a very interesting PDF on the history of divorce and remarriage in the church:

http://www.danielrjennings.org/ThisH...Remarriage.pdf

Conclusion from the paper:

A. Our journey through 2000 years of Christian teaching regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage can be summarized as follows:

1. The Christians who lived closest to the time of the New Testament understood Jesus teachings on D&R to mean that remarriage after a divorce was a sinful lifestyle.

2. When Roman emperors started going to church they passed legislation that contradicted what Jesus taught regarding D&R.

3. Those Christians/Churches in the eastern empire who were most under the sway of the emperors bowed to accept this legislation. Those Christians/Churches in the western empire and outside of the influence of the emperors, more or less, maintained the early Christian interpretation.

4. The Reformation brought with it a new reevaluation of the early Christian interpretation in this western area of nations.

5. The latter half of the 20th century in the United States brought about a renewed reevaluation that led to most churches seeking an accommodating position, rather than a Scriptural one when it came to dealing with D&R.

6. This renewed reevaluation has opened the door for churches to reevaluate same-sex marriage.

It is an example of culture and the world changing and influencing the church. Yet God does not change and the words of Jesus will never pass away.

[Raptor]

I see lots of errors with this view. First of all, you erroneously define fonrication as,

"Fornication is defined as pre-marital sex which is different than adultery which means sex outside of marriage."

What constitutes fornication is to have s.r. (sexual relations) with a person you are not married to. It´s sex between people that are not married to each other. Each one is commiting the sin of fornication. Obviously pre-marital sex is fornication, but that is just one way or type of fornication. If you introduce this idea of "pre-", the element of time, you just confuse the matter, and will apply it wrongly.

Let´s say someone has been married for 20 years, then the spouse dies. Later, the remaining one has s.r. with someone he´s not married to. That´s fornication, because they had s.r. and are not married.

Let´s say someone is married for 10 years. He has s.r. with someone other than his spouse. That´s fornication, because they are not married. Each one is commiting the sin of fornication. And in addition since he is married to his spouse, it is adultery. He commits both fornication and adultery. He commits fornication with "the other" (because he is not married to her), and in addtion, adultery against his spouse (because he is married to her and was unfaithful).

Adultery includes fornication. Adultery is worse than fornication alone. So obviously, if you are married and you commit fornication, you are commiting adultery. So everyone that is married and commits fornication is commiting adultery. And everyone that is married and commits adultery commits fornication. But not everybody that commits fornication commits adultery.

[PeterG]

Raptor: Well explained!

[bearbear]

You could be right about the English definition of fornication & adultery. I was looking at it from the lens of the Adultery vs Fornication debate of Matthew 19:9 where the terms are more tightly defined.

But the NT was written in Greek so let's bring back the discussion to that. Porneia can be an umbrella term to include all kinds of sexual immorality but it can take on a specific meaning depending on the context that it's used as explained in other threads. This interpretation of porneia to include adultery in Matthew 19:9 is popular among evangelicals but it originated from a Catholic priest and a Christian humanist by the name of Erasmus in the 16th century.

Prior to that, the early church always interpreted the exception to be relevant to the bethrothal period of a Jewish wedding. This explanation would be consistent with Jesus not giving an exception for remarriage in Luke and Mark which were written to Gentiles.

Luke 16:18
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mark 10:11-12
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Matthew also appeared after Luke and Mark so there was a period of time in the early church where the exception was not known.

https://www.danielrjennings.org/This...Remarriage.pdf

[bearbear]

Chapter 5 of "Til Death do us Part?" by Dr Joseph Webb

The Historic View/Erasmian View The fifth historic view, not written until the 16th century, is called the Erasmian View (or Traditional Protestant View). It teaches that the innocent party is allowed to divorce and subsequently permitted to marry another in the case of adultery, desertion, or any “moral uncleanness.”

Today this view is called the Matthew and Pauline Exception Theory or the Traditional Protestant View. Disiderius Erasmus (1467-1536), after whom this doctrine was named, was otherwise known as Erasmus of Rotterdam. Today he is recognized in our university libraries as the prince of humanists. This same man was declared a heretic by the early Roman Church, and most of his writings were banned or burned. The Protestant Reformation occurred under the leadership of Martin Luther, who declared justification was by faith alone.

Erasmus, translated the Latin New Testament into English and at first welcomed and encouraged the Reformation. When Luther studied Erasmus’ writings, he adopted some of his positions but eventually disfellowshipped Erasmus and declared him to be a skeptic and a rationalist. Later, Luther learned the truth about this very intelligent and talented man’s aberrant lifestyle. Upon Erasmus’ death Luther said: “He did so (died) without light and without the cross...I curse Erasmus, and all who think contrary to the Word...Erasmus is worthy of great hatred...I warn you to regard him as God’s enemy...He inflames the baser passions of young boys, and regards Christ as I regard Klaus Nerr (the court fool).”

In his treatise, Erasmus introduced the idea that any marriage was capable of being dissolved. It seemed monstrously cruel to him that a couple should be compelled to stay together in the flesh when they no longer and perhaps never were united in their spirits. In his notes on the New Testament, he introduced long excuses for divorce from such texts as I Corinthians 7 and Matthew 5 and 19, saying that Jesus approved of divorce due to the hardheartedness of the people and that those whose marriages are already on the rocks should be granted divorces, and be permitted to marry again. These were his conclusions regardless of what the other clear scripture verses taught.

[PeterG]

Dr. Joseph Webb: Erasmus translated the Latin New Testament into English

Certainly not, since Erasmus didn't speak any English. He translated the then-known Greek text into Latin.