Changed By Glory

"And we all… beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another." II Cor. 3:18



5 Lessons My Dad Taught Me

Over the past couple of months I have had the amazing opportunity to work side by side with my Dad on a couple of construction projects for my small business. I am always super less stressed when he works with me, simply because his life experience makes navigating how to get a job done much easier. The process of “figuring it out” goes much smoother when he helps! It is also just a plain privilege to get to spend time with him and it causes me to reflect on the many years of working alongside him growing up and I am reminded of how much of an impression he has left on me. 

My dad and I are a lot alike, we are both very imperfect, we both view the world in a very “black and white” manner. But many of our similarities have to do with the lessons that my dad has taught me over the years. And by that, I don’t mean he set me down and gave things to me as lessons, but I mean those things he taught by example, by emphasis and by discipline – things that have stuck with me and shaped me, both what I am and what I one day aspire to be. And as I reflected today on the lessons he taught me, there were five that stood out as fundamental and formative in my life.


  • Scripture is the highest authority – While my dad and I disagree on some points of theology, we disagree precisely because he taught me all throughout my life that the Bible is the final determiner of reality. He never said those exact words and he didn’t sit me down and give me a class on the doctrine of revelation, but the way he handled Scripture, spoke Scripture, and approached Scripture throughout my life spoke loud and clear “This has the ultimate authority in our lives.” His reverence for the word of God was the greatest gift he gave me, it is a grace from God which gave me “wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15)


  • “You do what you gotta do” – Another way of saying this could be “do your duty”. Again, my dad never said those words, but his pattern of life and approach to work and caring for his family always said, no matter how hard things got “you do what you gotta”. For most of my life, my dad had no hobbies, he didn’t spend money on himself, he didn’t feel a need to be constantly entertained. This doesn’t mean he didn’t have things he enjoyed, things that made him smile, but his life was marked by doing what needed to be done and without a whine or a complaint. He is the hardest worker I have ever met, a hard worker who then feels no need to unwind in some frivolous way. We had times of great want and times of great plenty over the years, but through it all, without a gripe, my dad would simply get out there and do what needed to be done. And he does so to this day. 


  • Don’t live for the approval of man – One of the disappointments of being in ministry was seeing so many holy men that I admired bogged down in the opinions of others. I have found myself in this place too often! But my dad communicated through his life that what God thinks of us is what really matters. The thought of my dad trying to strut and preen for the applause of his fellow man is almost laughable. Now I am not naive enough to think that my dad has no human or prideful influence on his performance in life, but it is remarkable to me how little of that is there and how simple that has made many aspects of life for him. My dad communicated to us a fear of the Lord and a concern for eternity that bred an awareness that the Eye that sees all is the one that counts and this was huge for me when I came to Christ and it has echoed down to today. The fear of God that I was taught led to an awe that the God who knows my every thought loved me and sent his Son to suffer to bring me to himself. 


  • Don’t whine about hard work -or- hard work is a good, noble thing – This is almost the same as my second point, but it bears repeating with an emphasis on work. My dad is in his sixties and he still can work harder than most men a third of his age. He will put in the hours, he will strain the muscles, he will wear himself down – not to get rich, not to earn man’s approval, but to simply do his duty in providing for his family. Beyond his wage he does not ask to be applauded, he does not ask to be pampered, he just works, showing through it that work – hard work – is a good and noble thing. 


  • Love is best shown through a life of sacrificial service – My dad has not been perfect. At times he could be rigid and harsh over the years. He has not been one for “sappy” language. But. None of us children in his home ever had the slightest doubt regarding the intensity and steadfastness of his love for us and the reality of it has only strengthened as we look back. And his love has been always expressed through sacrificial service. Doing the things mentioned above, working so hard, not seeking to be pampered or to make a name, but year after year showing love by doing the hard, and the messy, and the mundane with little thanks and little reward, over and over and over again simply because he was devoted to us. I have come to believe that this is the best and loftiest kind of love. It is a love that has echoes of the gospel in it, or one further, pictures of the gospel. So many of his shortcomings are shuttered by the depth of conviction that I have of his love for me which he has shown over a lifetime of sacrificially living to love his family in the deepest way possible – doing his duty no matter how hard it got. I see men who are affectionate, kissy, always joking and saying the right words – but they are lazy, worldly, immature, petty, selfish. The love my dad has always shown us is real love, because the grit behind it, because it has substance. 

Much of who I am, the good and the bad, are traces of my dad. Like him I am a sinner. Like him I am saved by Christ. And it is my hope that one day my children will be able to look back and say that like him I loved them by sacrificially doing what needed to be done day after day, working hard without man-pleasing to the honor of my Savior and Lord revealed in the Scriptures. 

God bless, Jay Jennings. For I have been blessed through him. 


Divorce & Remarriage In Light of Redemptive History & The Perspicuity of Scripture

  1. Introduction & Thesis

The topic of divorce and remarriage is not new to the Church but it has perhaps never before been so relevant as it is now. With the rise of individualism and the erosion of the authority of Scripture, particularly in the west, divorce has become accepted and remarriage celebrated within the Church. It is time for an honest assessment of our reasoning and exegesis as we approach the relevant texts. The pressure of culture has led to truncated arguments and complicated exegesis in what appears to be a constant quest for exceptions. Much of the research in favor of allowing remarriage fails to see the trajectory of redemptive history in regards to marriage under the new covenant, employing a somewhat pessimistic retrieval ethic. Those in favor of remarriage seem to imply that though divorce and remarriage is not what should be, it is what must be at this time. Such capitulation to the world has led to a church plagued with divorce and remarriage. And how did the church get here? By failure on the part of pastors and teachers to hold to the Scriptures when it was difficult. As should be expected this has led to much harm to the institution of marriage in the west.

The thesis of this paper is simply this, that considering the clarity of Scripture[1]and the trajectory of redemptive history, the teaching of Jesus and Paul on divorce and remarriage should be taken with the simplest reading, which is to say that Christians may never instigate a divorce, and in the case of divorce remarriage is never allowed, except by the death of the spouse.

  1. Commentary on the relevant texts in Scripture

As evangelicals the Holy Scriptures, not culture or bare reason, are the authority for all of life. This should be especially true of the institution of marriage which God set forth as his good design for mankind in Genesis 2. Marriage is portrayed as the final, crowning touch to a good creation and for God to declare something to be good it must be good. I will speak more on the subsequent fall and its effects on marriage later when dealing with the trajectory of redemptive history, but it is sufficient to say this matter is of no small importance.

The importance of the divorce and remarriage issue should strike us considering that the Gospels address it four times, twice in Matthew, once in Mark, and once in Luke. There are so many things that could have bee recorded and the fact that there is so much on divorce and remarriage in a relatively small canon, should be of note.

In Matthew 5, Matthew 19, and Mark 10, Jesus speaks on divorce and remarriage in direct connection to Moses’ allowance in Deuteronomy 24. Jesus brings up the subject on his own in Matthew 5 where he is the middle of contrasting the application of the Law under Moses with the application of the Law in the Kingdom. Matthew 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”[2]At first glance this text seems to provide an easy out, but a couple of problems arise. One that is worth noting is the Jewish audience and the use of the same Greek root in Matthew 1:19, when Joseph contemplated divorcing Mary because of here supposed sexual immorality. Proponents of this view would argue that Jesus is allowing a dissolution of the betrothal in the case of sexual immorality, but not after consummation of the marriage.[3]It is pointed out that Jesus uses the porneia, meaning sexual immorality, instead of the more exact term moicheia which he uses elsewhere for “adultery”. This view is interesting and possible, but not necessary when the text is considered closely.[4]

Notice that Jesus says that the man who divorces his wife for a reason other than porneiacauses her to commit adultery and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Therefore,“whether she became an adulteress by her own volition or by the situation forced on her, the man who married her also committed adultery.”[5]This statement by Jesus, taken prima facie, nullifies the claim that an innocent party who is put away is free to remarry. It behooves anyone looking into this debate to feel the weight of that wording in the text.

In Matthew 19 Jesus is tested by the Pharisees. They want to know if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause. Quoting from Genesis 2 Jesus reveals the absurdity of divorce in light of God’s created order, exposing the ignorance of his interrogators. Their error was rooted in the fact they had taken permission from Moses and turned it into a command[6], for they said to Jesus, “Why then did Moses commandone to give a certificate of divorce and send her away.”[7]Moses did not command divorce, but permitted divorce, and the only reason he did this was because of the hardness of their hearts. It was “sin-management” you could say for a covenant community that was mixed with regenerate and unregenerate people.

Jesus ends his Matthew 19 encounter by restating the standard set in Matthew 5. And it would appear that the “loophole” of remarriage after divorce on proper grounds might stand, until you read on and see the disciples’ reaction. If Jesus allowed remarriage then his view would not have been much more radical than that of many Pharisees of the school of Shammai[8], but the response of the disciples leads us to believe that Jesus has a higher standard in mind. “The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.”[9]Jesus did not relieve their anxiety with some quick qualifications, instead he implied that if a man cannot imagine such enduring faithfulness, then it is better for him not to get married, thus Jesus launches into his discourse on eunuchs, most likely not referring to castrated males[10]but to those who choose a celibate life or as Wenham asserts[11], considering the context, Jesus is likely including those who are divorced and must not remarry. Considering the reaction of the disciples and the context, this appears as a compelling interpretation.

In Mark 10 we have the parallel to Matthew 19 and Jesus once again roots his prohibition against divorce and subsequent remarriage in God’s original design for marriage rather than in Moses’ sin-managing permissiveness. But here we see a new wrinkle introduced that we do not see in Moses, where the woman is now the instigator of the divorce. Again, Mark’s account gives no indication of an allowance for remarriage. Notice thus far that divorce is its own sin which precipitates, in the case of remarriage, the sin of adultery.

Luke is the strictest of all of the accounts. It is worth quoting the Lukan passage in its entirety because it is so direct and succinct. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”[12]What catches our attention here is the inclusive language “everyonewho divorces his wife and marries another….” Even more astonishing is the assertion that “he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”[13]This seems to say that in a remarriage there is no innocent party. Counter to the appeals to reason made by John Murray[14], whatever the cause for divorce, subsequent remarriage is portrayed as adultery from every angle.[15]

Now we get to the Pauline discourse on this issue and the so called “Pauline Privilege” found in I Corinthians 7. Having just addressed the rampant immorality in Corinth and perhaps the tendency to react with asceticism, Paul lays out expectations for marriage and encourages singleness. After stating his desire, but not command, in verses 8-9 that the unmarried and widows remain unmarried, he gives direction to those that are married. He reflects here the teaching of Jesus that marriage is indissoluble. He says in verse 10 that the “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.” The words for “separate” and “divorce” are different in the Greek here than in the Gospels, in fact Paul employs two different words here[16], but it is well within the same semantic range. Verse 11 is especially important, for it implies a time when divorce might be allowed, but clearly forbids marriage to another man.

In verses 12-16 Paul deals with a mixed marriage. His address of this issue makes two things clear: first, divorce between Christians is sin and unacceptable. Second, Paul clears an innocent party in a mixed marriage of the shared guilt of divorce, while not necessarily allowing that innocent party to remarry, rather the instruction given in verse 11 should still be considered as applying.

Finally, in verse 39, Paul says that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives and after he dies she is free to marry. You would think that he might insert a caveat like “as long as they are married she is bound.” But he makes no such qualification in this final word of his discourse on marriage.

  1. Two options given by the relevant texts

Considering the texts that we have briefly, and admittedly in a very cursory manner, examined, I want to consider two of the most likely interpretations.

  1. Divorce allowed in some circumstances, remarriage allowed in those circumstances

This has been the predominate view in much of the church since the Reformation. The reformer John Calvin[17]held to this view and some Puritans such as Richard Baxter agreed.[18]However, it is worth noting that those closer to the culture of the day, men such as Augustine[19]and Tertullian[20], both North African church fathers, held to a strict permanence view, which we will address soon.

This view, in its narrower interpretation posits that in Matthew we see that adultery effectively breaks the marriage covenant, which frees the innocent party to remarry. In response to the relevant texts in Mark and Luke, proponents of this exception clause would say that the clause is implied. “It goes without saying”, as it were, that adultery breaks the covenant, freeing the innocent party. In defense those that hold this view will sometimes appeal to places in the Old Testament where God expresses his intention to divorce Israel for her spiritual adultery[21]. In those cases, God is the analogical “victim” in a marriage relationship and will therefore leave his adulteress “bride” and be joined to another.

Furthermore, in favor of this view you could argue that the exception clause in Matthew is shocking as it appears because it is more narrow than Moses’ allowance. For Moses allowed divorce for “indecency” which could be more broadly interpreted, whereas Jesus said sexual immorality alone was reason, thus narrowing the Mosaic permissiveness. Also, whereas the conservative rabbinical school of Shammairequired divorce for porneia, Jesus merely allowed it.[22]There are problems with this view, which we will see shortly.

The second ground for divorce and remarriage is the “Pauline Privilege” of I Corinthians 7. In this case, if a believing brother or sister is abandoned by their non-believing spouse most take the words “is not enslaved” to implypermission to remarry “in the Lord”.[23]Meaning they are free to marry another believer.

So there are two grounds for divorce in this view, adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. And both of these, it would be argued, imply the freedom to remarry.


  1. Divorce allowed in some circumstances, remarriage never allowed[24]

Admittedly this has been the minority view since the reformation, but this would not be the first time a crucial truth was a minority view.[25]As Wenham points out, “The early church, up to AD 500, maintained that Christ allowed separation but not remarriage.”[26]The Shepherd of Hermas, a second-century writing that was circulated widely enough in the church that it was a disputed book when considering canonicity, directly addresses the matter of divorce and remarriage, forbidding remarriage even in the case of adultery.[27]  In American evangelicalism few have dared to take this position, but most notable among the proponents of it would be John Piper.[28]Church history is not our authority, but when the relation of the Markan and Lukan texts with the Matthean record is in question and two possible interpretations are before us, we should give weight to church history.

In defense of this view, first it must be clear that saying that divorce is “allowed” must be qualified. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever give permission for pursuing divorce, rather they clear the innocent party of guilt should they be divorced.[29]It may be argued that Matthew allows the offended party to instigate divorce, but it could also be argued that the unfaithful spouse is the de factoinstigator of divorce, especially if Paul’s instruction to seek restoration has been followed. As F.F. Bruce says, “For a Christian husband or wife divorce is excluded by the law of Christ.”[30]Furthermore, the Christian victim of divorce is given no reason to believe that remarriage is allowed in any case, because though the marriage bond be violated it is not dissolved, for it can apparently only be dissolved by death.[31]For Jesus clearly does not command divorce in the case of sexual infidelity, but rather allows it. If the marriage bond was truly broken by adultery, then any sexual relations between the husband and his wife after adultery by either party would then be fornication because their covenant would be dissolved.

Furthermore, Luke says “he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery”. If a woman divorced by her husband is truly separated from her husband, why is it adultery to marry her? Or why, in the case of Matthew 5, is a woman wrongly divorced committing adultery if she remarries? It is adultery because the pronouncement of man cannot dissolve what God has established. And as Romans 7 and I Corinthians 7 make clear, it is only by death that God ends that bond.

The conclusion is that what God has joined man cannot separate. So in a sense one must say that divorce is never allowed, though there is exemption of guilt for divorce for those that are divorced by another.[32]And if divorce is never allowed, then remarriage is never allowed. Paul seems to make this expressly clear in I Corinthians 7 when he says that if a woman is separated from her husband she is to be reconciled or remain unmarried. This instruction in light of Matthew 19 and Luke 16 makes this position the most acceptable.

This leads us to consider why this view is such a minority in the church today. We want to take care here because we all see that to be a loner theologically is never a good idea, but the reality is that until the time of Erasmus in the 16thcentury permanence was the predominant view in the church and vestiges of this reality remain in the Roman church to this day.[33]


  1. Egalitarianism, homosexuality, divorce, and remarriage: Cultural pressure on exegesis

Many of the arguments for the majority view sound like the same arguments made today for egalitarianism, homosexuality, and other such hot topics. Too often the question that is being asked of the texts is “When is this allowed?” Rather than asking the question, “What does God intend?” Many in mainstream Christianity look at the passages on homosexuality and by digging deep into cultural nuances and semantics, they attempt to remove stigma from homosexual relationships. As we look at much of the material on divorce and remarriage, it seems that this same approach is being taken to soften the statements of Jesus and Paul on divorce and remarriage. Perhaps it is time for us to consider that the pandemic of divorce and remarriage in the church is simply a forerunner to the sexual revolution overtaking us; a revolution that cannot be stood against as long as cultural forces are allowed to spawn unnatural readings of Scripture and complicated exegesis. This matter directs us to the next point.


  1. Divorce and remarriage and the perspicuity of Scripture

The doctrine of the perspicuity, or the clarity, of Scripture seems to have been left out in the cold in most dealings with this highly sensitive and culturally explosive issue. Those that hold to perspicuity of Scripture should affirm that knowing what certain rabbinical schools believed or what Roman divorce law was should not be required to understand the text before us. The same God who has supernaturally preserved his word is able to preserve it in a way which is clear, timeless, self-interpreting, and self-authorizing. To assert that extra-biblical data is needed to understand Jesus’ teaching on divorce is to undermine the doctrine of the clarity of the Bible. Complementarianism, as an example, is a clear issue when one reads the relevant texts naturally and in light of all of Scripture. Even egalitarians scholars agree with this.[34]If we accept Paul’s appeal to the created order as the foundation for complementarianism, why don’t we do the same with Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage?

The Scriptures do have a cultural context, but they are also timeless and preserved by God in order to be revealed to the simple, even to children. Knowing the Scriptures well is needed for good exegesis of them, but knowledge of Scripture alone seems to be in favor of the permanence view.

The complicated arguments should be avoided, especially when the result of those arguments could be giving license to adultery. An appeal to safety must be made here. Singleness damns no one. Paul even encourages it under the New Covenant.[35]Adultery is another story. Taken prima facie, the relevant texts forbid divorce except perhaps in special cases and they always forbid remarriage. To make the text say anything different requires some measure of eisegesis. At the very least, considering the texts, it is disturbing how confident most evangelicals are with their permissiveness.

Furthermore, a clear view of the scope of Scripture points us both back to a good creation and forward to a restored creation of which the church is to be a reflection, which leads to consideration of the next point.


  1. Divorce and remarriage and the trajectory of redemptive history

Genesis 2:18-25 sets forth the “good” design of God for the marriage covenant. It is this design which Jesus later appeals to. After the fall the immediate result of sin is a fracture in relationship between husband and wife, something God said would be characteristic of their fallen state. In the generations that followed perversions of God’s good design followed, such as polygamy. After God makes his covenant with Israel at Sinai, in Deuteronomy 24 we find permission being given by Moses for divorce in certain circumstances and Moses forbidding it in others. But what Moses established was not normative. It was sin-management in a community mixed with regenerate and hard-hearted people. By the time Jesus arrived the Pharisees had come to see Moses’ permission as a command to be followed, rather than a sad indictment of the state of humanity under sin. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus got to the heart of the matter. Then in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 he directly addressed why Moses allowed divorce, but unlike Moses, Jesus did not come to manage sin, but to do away with it. As those belonging to the kingdom inaugurated, the church is not to bow to the tyranny of sin and settle for sin management, but cry with life and lungs against the tide of rebellion, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

If one considers the new covenant in Ezekiel 36 with the promise of new, soft hearts, a change in marriage should be expected. Relationships that reflect more fully the restoration to come. Jesus brought up Genesis 2 because the kingdom standard for marriage is the original standard for marriage. As those united together already in Christ believers reflect as a people the work of reconciling all things together in Christ. And “all things” includes marriage.

Under the old covenant a retrieval ethic was employed by Moses, but Jesus wasn’t interested in retrieval, he was interested in restoration. The current reality of sin does not demand that we bow to sin’s tyranny, but that we fight the good fight, even if it means being single. Sadly, the church has been content to manage sin by providing for its constrained exercise – namely through marriage that is at best disordered and possibly not even marriage of any kind.

Under the New Covenant we see a new dignity to singleness not found in the Old. So if the question is asked whether or not there is a retrieval ethic in the New Covenant for victims of divorce the answer is the glory of singleness outlined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. The ruin of marriage here in this age does not change the marriage to come, to Christ our betrothed. In the new heavens and earth we will be “neither married nor given in marriage, but will be like the angels in heaven.”[36]Marriage for Christians is a good thing, but it is not ultimate.[37]Our identity as Christians is not ultimately found in our status as married or single, but in our status as “in Christ”[38]. A union which God has joined and no man can separate.


  1. Pastoral implications and conclusion

The permanence view raises an array of pastoral questions, some of which may be answered by the previous paragraph. All of these questions are difficult, as a pastor I can testify to this. But when pastors are not faithful in one generation, they inevitably make the job more painful for the next.

If the problem of divorce and remarriage in the church is going to be changed it has to start with pastors proactively teaching on it and raising the next generation with the view that marriage is for life and that divorce is never an option for believers. For those that are divorced, there is a need for biblical teaching on the dignity and purpose of singleness in the kingdom of God. For children that are victims of divorce the church needs to compassionately shepherd them, giving them a vision of something greater.

In the meantime, we face the most difficult pastoral situation. Is there a retrieval ethic for those that have already been divorced and remarried? The answer is an uneasy “yes”.  Entering into the illicit union needs to be acknowledged as sin, but the union is still a union. Jesus still refers to the adulteress union as a marriage. It is a disordered union, but still a union, somewhat akin to the “one flesh” union that occurs when a man is joined with a prostitute.[39]Therefore, they should repent and not do it again. This is admittedly an unsatisfying response, because it could be argued that they are continuing in adultery and that a more radical repentance, such as separation may be required. Such a response is not beyond the realm of possibilities and would admittedly appear to be the more consistent, though much more harsh, view.

A clear implication is that pastors should never perform weddings for people divorced for any reason. Furthermore, if a member of a church engages themselves to a divorced person they should be warned and disciplined if they continue.  For those divorced prior to becoming Christians and wanting to get married as a believer, we must acknowledge that as the Bible treats it a marriage outside of the household of faith is still a marriage.[40]

This issue certainly raises a number of moral and pastoral quandaries. But generations of compromise always do.[41]Doing faithful pastoral ministry in an environment that has abandoned or never had the authority of Scripture is going to lead to sticky situations. So the clarion call should be for a return to faithfulness while praying desperately for wisdom. Pastors should take every case of people who are already divorced and remarried with great care and have a determined vision for the future of marriage in the church as permanent.

In conclusion, attempting to be aware of cultural pressure, in light of the clarity of Scripture, and the trajectory of redemptive history, the Bible teaches that New Testament marriage is for life, a believer may never be the instigator of divorce, and remarriage is always forbidden. Looking to Jesus and to Paul, this means that if one cannot embrace this truth they should not get married, if you are married you are in it for good, and if you are currently divorced your identity is not found in a spouse, but in Christ. May Christian marriages reflect the exclusivity and the permanence of our eternal bond with Christ.






Baxter, Richard, and J. I. Packer. The Christian Directory. Vol. 1. (Soli Deo Gloria Ministries, 1996)

Bruce, F.F., Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977)

Calvin, John, and John Pringle. “Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Grand Rapids(2010).

Eden, Kathy. “Rhetoric in the Hermeneutics of Erasmus’ Later Works.” Erasmus Studies11, no. 1 (1991): 88-104.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and David Wayne Jones.God, marriage, and family. Crossway, 2010. 2ndEdition

Plumpe, Joseph C., and Johannes Quasten. Ancient Christian Writers: the Works of the Fathers in Translation. Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1946.

Murray, John. Divorce & Remarriage, RPM, Vol. 11, Num. 9 (March 1, 2009) accessed November 9, 2015,^^^articles^joh_murray^joh_murray.divorce.remarriage.html/at/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage

Pierce, Ronald W. Rebecca Merrill Groothius, Gordon Fee, Editors, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, (IVP Academic, 2005, Kindle Edition) Location 1989

Piper, John. “Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper.” Pages: Desiring God(1986).

Augustine, Aurelius. “‘On the good of marriage’.” Nicene and post-Nicene fathers, first series3 (1997).

Warden, Duane. “The Words of Jesus on Divorce.” Restoration Quarterly39, no. 3 (1997 1997): 141-153. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed November 10, 2015).

Wenham, Gordon J. “May Divorced Christians Remarry?”(1981): 150-161.


[1]An objection often raised to my appeal to the clarity of Scripture is that if the issue were so clear it would not be so debated across the history of the church. I believe that the reason for the debate is not so much an issue of clarity as it is our tendency to respond to the Bible’s teaching on this in the same manner that the disciples did in Matthew 19.

[2]All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (Crossway) unless noted otherwise

[3]John Piper, Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper, Desiring God (1986) 10

[4]I personally do not consider this to be an airtight argument. I think there are clearer, more compelling arguments to be made, but this one is worth recording for consideration.

[5]Duane Warden, “The Words of Jesus on Divorce.” Restoration Quarterly39, no. 3 (1997 1997): 143. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed November 10, 2015).

[6]As a command this would have been in contradiction with God’s revealed pattern for marriage

[7]Matthew 19:7

[8]A rabbinical school which interpreted the indecency in Deuteronomy 24 as being sexual in nature only and required divorce if discovered

[9]Matthew 19:10

[10]Considering the law of Moses, celibacy rather than castration is what Jesus clearly has in mind; see Deuteronomy 23:1

[11]Gordon J. Wenham, “May Divorced Christians Remarry?”(1981): 158.

[12]Luke 16:18

[13]For those that address the all-encompassing language in Luke 19 with the appeal to consider Luke in light of Matthew, could it not just as easily be argued to consider Matthew in light of Luke? Is not the general rule in exegesis that the simpler, more clear text interprets the more ambiguous text?

[14]John Murray, Divorce & Remarriage, RPM, Vol. 11, Num. 9 (March 1, 2009) accessed November 9, 2015,^^^articles^joh_murray^joh_murray.divorce.remarriage.html/at/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage

[15]If it be argued that adultery breaks the marriage bond therefore creating the one allowance for remarriage would this not mean that divorce is required? Also, that that there would be more freedom for those than commit adultery?

[16]χωρίζω to divide, separate; αφιημι send away, dismiss

[17]John Calvin and John Pringle, “Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.”Christian Ethereal Library (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) Vol. I

[18]Richard Baxter and J.I. Packer, A Christian Directory. Vol. 1(Soli Deo Gloria Ministries, 1996) pg. 444

[19]Aurelius Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, I in NPNF3:406.

[20]Joseph C. Plumpe and Johannes Quasten, Ancient Christian Writers; the works of the Fathers in Translation, (Westminster, MD: Newman Pres, 1946) 13:93

[21]Jeremiah 3:8

[22]Andreas J. Kostenberger and David Wayne Jones, God, Marriage, & Family, (Crossway, 2010) 229.

[23]I Corinthians 7:15, 39

[24]John Piper, Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper, Desiring God (1986)A possible variation of this asserts the Matthean betrothal theory.

[25]Example: Justification by faith alone

[26]Gordon J. Wenham, “May Divorced Christians Remarry?”(1981): 151.

[27]Trans. Lightfoot, 29:7. I recognize of course that this is not canon and therefore not binding on conscience. However, because it was so widely read it does give an indication of the early church’s understanding of the issue.

[28]Andreas J. Kostenberger and David Wayne Jones, God, Marriage, & Family, (Crossway, 2010) 230. Note: Piper holds to the “no divorce, Matthean betrothal view”

[29]Granted, Hermas, which I just mentioned, required divorce in the case of ongoing, known adultery while forbidding remarriage after the fact.

[30]F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 267.

[31]I Corinthians 7:39

[32]The topic of lawful, celibate separation for the sake safety is another issue.

[33]Kathy Eden, “Rhetoric in the Hermeneutics of Erasmus’ Later Works.” Erasmus Studies11, no. 1 (1991): 88.

[34]Ronald W Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothius, Gordon Fee, Editors, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, (IVP Academic, 2005, Kindle Edition) Location 1989

[35]Pastorally speaking, if I take the permanence view and require that divorced people remain single, I have led no one into sin. If the mainstream permissiveness is wrong, then the implications for many pastors are devastating who will be held to a stricter measure of judgment. James 3:1

[36]Matthew 22:30

[37]For those that would retort to this with 1 Corinthians “it is better to marry than burn” offers a retrieval ethic for those divorced, they need only consider what such an argument would imply for those who burn with homosexual desire? Clearly there are some cases where celibacy is the only faithful option.

[38]Ephesians 2:6

[39]I Corinthians 6:16

[40]We do not require married couples to remarry each other when they become believer and Paul’s instruction to people with unbelieving spouses in 1 Corinthians 7 makes clear that marriage is not dependent on being in the church. However, the strict expectation of permanence or celibacy is only holding on Christians. We cannot expect unbelievers to be held to “soft-heart” standards, the permissiveness under Moses makes that clear.

[41]As an example, think of missionaries dealing with the issue of polygamy in new converts

“We’re like a family!” <- Really?

Many churches make it their philosophical aim to be like family and when that reputation is achieved it is thought to be a sure sign of health and unity. They want a place where people care for each other, praying for one another during difficult times, checking in on one another, greeting everyone that comes into their gathering with warmth and gladness. When people say that their church is like this, they will usually gladly declare, “We’re like a family!”

But the question that needs to be asked sometimes is, “Really?”

Let me start by saying that a church should be like a family. It should be a place where we genuinely rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep, where we bear each other’s burdens, where we take care of each other, where the needs and longings of others are a concern to us, a place where when we gather there is warmth and palatable love and commitment. To this every church should aspire.

The problem, I think, is that often when we say that a church is like a family or that it should be like a family, what we really have in mind is an idealized, Hallmark-channel, Ward-and-June-Clever-esque family. We want our church to be like a family without the messiness and tough-love of a real family.

A church member may believe that their church is like a family until real discipleship begins to happen. It feels like a family until individual sin is confronted. It feels like a family until someone speaks difficult truth into your life – telling you something you don’t really want to hear. Then it is no longer a family in the idealized sense. It is divided. It is uncomfortable. People avoid each other. The “dinner table” is tense.

The problem is that what was just described is real family life. In a real family there is warmth and love, but there is also messiness, there is confrontation. In a real family you find the people that love you enough to risk relationship for your greater good. In family is found the few people on earth who can speak hard truth to you, because they love you, because they care more about your long-term security and joy than momentary ease – yours or theirs.

Family life is wonderful, but it is also very hard, because we aren’t perfect. The same translates to the church. It is a wonderful thing to be a part of a church, but it’s hard, because we are sinners and the Word we speak to each other confronts that reality with imposing light.

Imagine a family where everyone is allowed to do their own thing. Destructive behaviors are never challenged, the father passively sits in the arm chair with beer in hand as chaos unfolds, mother is careful not to say anything to her rebellious daughter lest she upset the balance, the son is making some poor decisions, but challenging him would just upset the peace of the moment. The family is gathered, everyone is smiling, there is a kind of peace and togetherness, but it is actually kind of creepy. Because no one is being real. There is a terrible selfishness at work as the members of this family care more about the comfort of the moment than they do the good of one another.

Now imagine a family where one sister sees that her sibling is becoming more and more distant, getting into relationships that could be harmful. She so badly just wants to let it go, to let there be a kind of “peace”, but she loves her sibling too much for that. She loves her sibling enough to sacrifice momentary comfort for lasting good. A father sees his son showing signs of destructive behavior, he gets along well with him and he doesn’t want to mess that up, but his love for his son motivates him to speak to him. The son’s initial reaction is to run out of the house and slam the door, but perhaps over time he begins to see that his father was right. The point being, a real family is a place where the individuals love each other so much that they are willing to risk comfort and approval for the sake of each other’s good.

In Ephesians chapter 4, we are told that we grow up in Christ and are protected from harm as we speak the truth in love to each other. Sometimes when looking at that verse people take “love” to be the manner in which we speak, when I think it is more about the motivation. In his writings, Paul had some very harsh and difficult things to churches and individuals, but he was speaking the truth motivated by love. Sometimes in the church when uncomfortable truth is spoken people call it out as unloving not because it is unloving, but because it doesn’t fit into our idealized view of love – because what is being said challenges our self-love.

So before you boast that your church is like a family, consider whether or not it is actually a community of loving accountability under the authority of Christ and directed by his Word. Will your “family” atmosphere hold up to the rigors of discipleship? If it will, then you are blessed and you have a true family dynamic, but if not, then your idea of family is likely idealized and skin deep.

In the church we are supposed to be like a family, because that is precisely what we are in Christ! But during this age in redemptive history the reality of sin means that we can only truly be described as being like a family if our loving dynamic includes both tender love and tough love.

So strive by God’s grace, anchored in his love displayed in the Gospel, to give love and receive love in both forms. By doing this we will be able to move from cheesy clichés about what it means to be a family and onward to an authenticity that leads us to lose sleep, risk relationships, weep, pray, plead, and rejoice until the whole family is together with Christ their head – safe and sound.

Blog at

Up ↑