WAYNE GRUDEM - WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

[@annah2350]

Excellent! Praise God for this. Thanks for doing the interview and putting it up. I have his first systematic theology and recently read the section on prophecy and found it super helpful.

[@ritaloeding8900]

Superb! Loved every minute of the interview. We are doing a book study on Systematic Theology and have truly been blessed by your writing. Thank you for your thoroughness and commitment to your writings.

[@danielsell7598]

In Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, he writes: "The clarity of Scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God's help and being willing to follow it" (p. 108). He further adds, "We should never assume...that only those who know Greek and Hebrew, or only pastors or Bible scholars, are able to understand the Bible rightly" (p. 110). But Wayne's "new" discovery of the meaning of the phrase "in such cases" in 1 Corinthians 7:15 contradicts what he says about the clarity of Scripture. When an individual "discovers" something that has been obscure in Scripture for two thousand years, we must use extreme caution in adopting his interpretation.

[@philipbuckley759]

evidently something is wrong here, because his two exceptions, are not Biblical...

[@wildcatfarms5371]

@@philipbuckley759 There's 4 causes of divorce. These have been accepted since Moses. Was accepted during Christ and Paul and Now. It's not a new theory. Just new to the recent Church. This is important because the discussion is always from pastors. A pastors goal is to keep couples married. So their study is skewed and eisegetical

[@jk6653]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGKTkHZnipWBb6s There are many views on divorce and remarriage, even among Christians. This particular view is not very well received, but never the less, it is what Scripture teaches. (Part 1 of 5)

[@scherfcom]

Grudem makes some very good points on the topic of grounds for divorce as e.g. certain long-time addictions which qualify as abuse and justify divorce as it's in the category of desertion of a spouse. Next to grounds of divorce such as adultery, regular desertion, no spouse should ever suffer for an extended period through such abuse, and it wouldn't be Christ-like "suffering" anyway. It's better to face the music so to speak and file the paperwork as the spouse has deserted the other spouse. God is giving the innocent spouse not only a way out of a horrible situation, but also the opportunity of a biblically guilt-free and clean start. It's good that this viewpoint is getting out there in a broader sense. The only thing that I may take issue with is Grudem's statement that he was supposedly the first to discover/find this interpretation of Scripture regarding abuse in e.g. 1 Cor. 7:15, because anyone who seriously studies the Bible and therefore learns about the nature of God as well who studies this topic will come to the same conclusion like Grudem which e.g. I already did over a decade ago when I was confronted to specifically study this topic due to such situations brought directly to my attention. And I'm sure that over the centuries plenty of other students of the Word discovered the same meaning of Scripture in this regard. There's nothing new under the sun as we read in His Word, ... it just takes diligent study and submission to Him letting the Holy Spirit teach us the depth of His truth in specifics. And btw, while on earth we all only know in part and see through a mirror dimly.

[@childinchrist7335]

Nonsense. It doesn't say you can divorce, it says you can separate but you must remain alone or be reconciled. God says to become one flesh and no one can separate. Christian are busy looking for people to tell them they can go against the bible and live on sin. Unless your husband or wife is dead you are not free.

[@Gud2B_Blessed]

Exactly.

[@ajlouviere202]

Yes. The Lord is actually commanding an abandoned husband not to divorce his wife, in 1 Corinthians 7:11. This is too often overlooked when discussing this topic.

[@katyaonuoha7290]

1 Corinth 6:16 states Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh". These words must have been spoken to both married and single men. I'd like to know what the difference is between becoming one-flesh with a prostitute and becoming one-flesh with a wife? Is one situation "one-fleshier" than the other? If no can separate a one-flesh relationship with a wife, does that mean no one can dissolve a one-flesh relationship with a prostitute

[@MrsJFJ]

Or you could go ahead and employ God’s civil law that stones adulterers. Then the innocent would be free to remarry.

[@Chupie77777]

It does not say that noone "can" separate it. It says "LET not man separate." It also says "whoever divorces, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery." The clear and explicit teaching of this, is that there IS a case in which someone CAN divorce and remarry without committing adultery. The debate is around what the exception is. Some say it is only premarital sex, others say adultery, others say other things. But the debate SHOULD NOT be over whether or not Jesus is giving some type of exception, because He is clearly giving an exception here. I understand that we should all be very careful to understand what this exception is, because we don't want people commiting adultery, however, we should not be careless with the Lord's words, and we should be careful to not condemn the guiltless, like the Pharisees did. I'm not saying that we should teach that people can remarry if they are divorced; I'm simply saying we should be careful to understand what Jesus is actually saying. And it is clear in this text that He is indeed giving an exception to the remarriage-adultery teaching. We simply need to understand exactly what that exception is; whether it is discovering a premarital sexual relationship in the Jewish betrothal period, whether it is anyone discovering some extra-marital sexual activity including during the marriage, or whatever it means. Regardless, we need to be very careful. Sometimes, the most strict and unrelenting view is not the most Godly. Take the sabbath for instance, the Jews were commanded not to work on the sabbath, yet when Jesus healed on the sabbath, the Pharisees were angry at him and tried to condemn Him, yet Jesus was angry at them because of their hardness of heart, and them forbidding people to do good on the sabbath. A similar situation took place when the disciples picked wheat on the sabbath to eat, and the Pharisees got angry at them for doing something "unlawful." Jesus reminds them of David eating the showbread, which by law he was not allowed to do, and yet in this circumstance, where David's life was threatened, God had given him His blessing to eat the showbread. If these same Pharisees were around to see David eating the showbread, they might yell at him and start citing Leviticus 24:9, demanding that he is not truly submitting to the LORD and he is breaking the law, which he was according to Matthew 12:4, yet Jesus clearly teaches that there was an exception made for him. We have to be wise and discerning when we read scripture.

[@annah2350]

Oh, and also the clarification on divorce. It is what I thought, but it is great to have a more educated perspective on the meaning of 1 Co 7:15

[@philipbuckley759]

more educated.....now does not under bondage equate to not being bound....

[@Seafarer62]

@@philipbuckley759 Sure wish you would get off your KJV high-horse.

[@Manofwar7]

Excellent biblical teaching sir!

[@darthjedi99]

He fails to use scripture like Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor 7:11 and even Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9 all say the same thing marriage is for life and if you divorce you cannot remarry. Matt 19:9 fornication is different than adultery and means the betrothal period and when you take your vows you even say to death do us part. You cannot remarry while your spouse lives.

[@EdwardThe2nd.]

17:04 mark. So same sex relationships are contrary to the moral standards of the Bible, but adultery is not (Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11-12)?

[@ajlouviere202]

The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32, and Matthew 19:9. However, the example of a wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ's death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39. Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel. The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death. The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ's death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ's death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus's fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses's precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15. Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod's brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife. Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one's unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15. Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16. The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let's look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions. The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God's law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24. Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ's teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark's Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew's Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.

[@Gud2B_Blessed]

AJ AMEN AMEN AMEN we know beloved. We KNOW the truth.

[@ajlouviere202]

@@Gud2B_Blessed praise the Lord!

[@philipbuckley759]

the Bible uses fornication.....not adultery......they are two separate words....and I am sure you can look it up...

[@ajlouviere202]

@@philipbuckley759 Amen, as cleary stated in my unedited post above.

[@jk6653]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGKTkHZnipWBb6s There are many views on divorce and remarriage, even among Christians. This particular view is not very well received, but never the less, it is what Scripture teaches. (Part 1 of 5)

[@laidback1.0.1.2]

There is error in understanding here There is no exception to divorce for adultery or desertion anywhere in the bible. This is called leaning to your own understanding

[@punishednomorefreetoprotec2165]

Couldn’t be more wrong There is NO divorce clause Matthew speaks of betrothal and pornia an un married sin And adultery is no where allowed as a form of divorce in scripture Even when Jesus God said that he would divorce he said come back to me now returned to me.

[@MrsJFJ]

Explain God’s divorce with Israel.

[@evetennent3321]

This is so good thank you

[@philipbuckley759]

two exceptions......the Matthew account got it wrong saying the exception is.....not one of the exceptions is.....and adultery is not it....as there is another word for that it is fornication....which is different....there is even an example in Matthew of Joseph and Mary....the other one desertion, by an unbeliever is off because not enslaved is not akin to not being bound.....and if it were true then the writer would be contradicting what had just been written....a wife is bound.....etc....so you dont even get started and you are off on both of your statements....

[@MrsJFJ]

Recommend Second Chance by Ray Sutton. Best resource out there! Covenant matters.