Thinking to Believe

Having completed the OT data last week, I start my examination of the NT data concerning divorce. I cover all four of Jesus’ teachings on the subject as found in the Synoptic Gospels. 

I concluded that Jesus prohibited all divorce, except in cases involving sexual sin. I also address the meaning of porneia in Jesus’ exception clause, and why the exception clause is only found in Matthew’s Gospel. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I cover the remaining OT passages pertaining to divorce: Ezra 9-10, Hosea 2, Jeremiah 3, Isaiah 50, and Mal 2. 

Ezra 9 demanded divorce for immoral marriages. Since this was a form of repentance, this divorce is not just morally justified, but morally good.

Hosea 2 and Jeremiah 3 make it clear that God not only allows others to divorce, but He Himself participated in divorce when He divorced Israel. 

In Jer 50, God denies having divorced Judah as He did Israel, and finally, in Mal 2 God expresses his anger at those who divorce without just cause. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

This is part 1 of 2 parts addressing the OT teaching regarding divorce. I cover Gen 21:9-12, Ex 21:7-11, Dt 22:13-19,28-29, and Dt 24:1-4. Most of my time is dedicated to an examination of Dt 24 given the central role this passage played in Jewish debates regarding divorce, including the debate Jesus had with the Pharisees.

In Gen 21, God commanded Abraham to divorce Hagar. Since God can't command evil, clearly not all divorce is morally wrong. 

In Ex 21, divorce was required when a polygamous husband deprived his first wife of her basic necessities.

Dt 22 prohibits divorce in special circumstances, implying that it was allowed in all others.

The case law in Dt 24 involves divorce, but is not about divorce per se. It's about prohibiting past spouses from remarrying after an intervening marriage. Nevertheless, this passage does not condemn either husband for divorcing their wife. It also demonstrates that from God's perspective, the first divorce truly ended the first marriage. The woman was not deemed an adulteress, and she was prohibited from remarrying her first husband. Such a prohibition only makes sense if her first husband is no longer her husband. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

What better place to begin my extended series on divorce and remarriage than by examining the nature of marriage itself. 

Whether divorce and remarriage is ever permissible depends, in part, on one's view of the nature of the marital union itself. There are two competing views of marriage: (1) Marriage is a permanent spiritual union; (2) Marriage is a covenant. 

The PSU view holds that marriage is a mystical and permanent union of two human spirits. This union can only be ended by death (and some would add sexual immorality). In contrast, the covenant view of marriage holds that marriage is a covenant made between two people and ratified by God. A marriage can be ended if the terms of the marital covenant are violated by one or both spouses. 

While both views would typically allow for divorce and remarriage following sexual sin, the two views differ on how they view remarriage following an unjust divorce. The PSU view considers any remarriage following an unjust divorce to be a legal fiction. In God's eyes, they are still married, and thus the second "marriage" is no marriage at all, but an act of adultery. The covenant view agrees that it is morally wrong to contract a new marriage after an unjust divorce, but nevertheless, affirms that the divorce ended the first marriage and the second marriage is a bona fide marriage in God's eyes. 

I argue that the Bible supports the covenant view of marriage rather than the PSU view. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

In this 1-N-Done episode, I summarize my research on the Biblical teaching regarding divorce and remarriage. I’ve structured the episode around four principles:

1.       Marriage was intended to be a life-long union between one man and one woman.

2.       Divorce is always due to human sinfulness, but is morally permissible in certain circumstances

3.       The death of a spouse justifies remarriage

4.       A justified divorce justifies remarriage (for the innocent spouse). An unjustified divorce prevents remarriage (for both spouses). 

Here is my condensed summary of the position I articulate:

The OT teaching on divorce and remarriage is instructive (Genesis 21:12; Exodus 21:10-11; Deuteronomy 22:13-19,28-29; 24:1-4; Ezra 10:2-12; Jeremiah 3:8; Hosea 2:2; Malachi 2:13-16), but Jesus’ teaching supersedes all regulations contained in the Mosaic law because Jesus’ teaching returns us to God’s intention for marriage rather than the law’s concessions for divorce rooted in the hardness of human hearts (Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9). Jesus taught that God intends for marriage to endure for a lifetime (Matthew 19:4-6). All divorce is prohibited except in cases involving sexual sin (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). In such cases, the innocent party has the moral permission to divorce the sinning spouse and remarry (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). Divorce for any other reason is morally wrong, and remarriage following an unjust divorce is considered adulterous (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). The sin of remarriage does not constitute actual adultery any more than the sin of lust constitutes actual adultery (Matthew 5:27-32). The sin of remarriage is lesser than, but similar to the sin of adultery. We might call it adultery-lite. 

Jesus’ teachings apply to everyone, including the repentant and new converts. God will forgive those who wrongly divorced, but that forgiveness does not give them moral permission to commit the additional sin of remarriage. They must remain single or reconcile to their spouse. Those who have committed both the sin of divorce and remarriage must confess both sins to God, but can and should remain married. They were morally wrong to contract the second marriage, but once contracted, it is a real marriage and it would be morally wrong to end it in divorce.

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

In part 2 of how to test religious claims, I start by offering some ad hoc thoughts on the intellectual life. Then, I finish up the test of observation, specifically looking at whether religious claims fit our moral experience and whether they can make sense of our deepest longings for the future. Christianity passes all of the tests whereas other religions fail. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

In the prior series I argued that religious truth can be known and religious claims are testable. In this first installment of a two-part series, I explain how we can test religious claims to find religious truth. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I complete my critique of religious relativism and deconstruct two popular metaphors of religious relativism: all roads lead to Rome, the blind men and the elephant. This concludes not only my sub-series on religious relativism, but my series on relativism. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

I finish my discussion of why people subscribe to religious relativism, pointing to pragmatic concerns and the desire to be inclusivistic. Then I begin my critique of religious relativism, detailing a number of reasons it is an incorrect analysis of religion and religious truth. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve

This episode begins our final sub-series in the relativism series, focusing in on religious relativism; a.k.a. religious pluralism. I lay out the three main forms of religious relativism and discuss the impact religious relativism has in the debate over religion. I started discussing the reasons why people are led to believe religious pluralism is true. Epistemology is a big factor. Pluralists reason that the best explanation for the vast differences in religious belief and the fact that religious beliefs tend to be geographically isolated is that religion is a human invention. Either there is no spiritual realm to be known, or it is not possible to have genuine knowledge of that realm. I argue that neither conclusion follows from the observation that religions differ from each other. 

Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com
Email: [email protected]
Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve
Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ
Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve
Parler: @thinkingtobelieve