February 21, 2009
A question about Piper’s view of divorce
I’m not satisfied with John Piper’s dismissal of Jeremiah 3:8 as evidence that divorce is not necessarily intrinsically sinful because God Himself divorced. John Piper claims, despite what most of my commentaries say, that God never really did divorce Israel, His wife. He reminds us of Hosea who depicts God as faithfully wooing back his wife. However, Jeremiah 3:8 is not talking about the Nation of Israel; it’s talking about the Northern Kingdom. Clearly there is a distinction between the people of Judah, “her treacherous sister,” and Israel, the Northern Kingdom that was captured by Assyria and never seen again. He divorced the one sister and we’ve never seen her since. Sounds radical and permanent to me.
My point is simply this: divorce is not intrinsically sinful or God would not employ that language for Himself. In other words, does God say at any time, “I almost adulterated, but in the end I really didn’t.”? Does God say, “I was about to murder you, but in the end I really didn’t.”?
I’m simply not aware of any place in Scripture where God employs language for Himself of things that are intrinsically evil (i.e. lying, adultery, murder). In fact, as horrible as divorce is, God legislated it. Does God legislate anything that is intrinsically sinful? Has God said, “Because of the hardness of your hearts I have allowed you to murder on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but in the beginning it was not so.”?
Francis Turretin seems to make the same point on the discussion of the lawfulness of usury. Usury can be lawful at times, he said, “because it was lawful under the Old Testament to take usury from strangers (Deut. 23:30), which could not have been done if it had in it intrinsic baseness; for what is by itself and by its own nature evil cannot become lawful in relation to any object.”
Strong proponents of the view that divorce is never legitimate have to admit, I think, that it was lawful. If it was lawful, could it be intrinsically sinful all the time?
I ask.
Piper’s remarks below:
How should God’s willingness to divorce in Jeremiah 3:8 affect our view of divorce?
Well, we referred to that in an earlier question.
I don’t think God ever did divorce. The language of divorce in Jeremiah, I think, is used precisely to take it back. In other words, when he writes his wayward wife a “bill of divorcement” and sends her away into exile, he goes to get her.
So I don’t think God ever divorced his people.
There was a legal separation of seventy years, during which he punished his people. But the language of cutting off or ending the relationship was used only to take it back again and say, “I’ll never let you go.” This happens most clearly in Hosea, where the language is, “I’m done with you,” and then in chapter 11, “My heart grows warm. How can I let you go, O Ephraim?”
So I think it should affect our view of divorce by saying that God never divorces and we shouldn’t either, if we can help it.
Not all Christians can stop a divorce from happening. I’m not going to lay that on every Christian. I’m dealing with a guy right now in our church—I spent an hour with him yesterday—and his wife is on him so hard for a divorce, and he doesn’t want one. And he’s wondering what to do. And it may go that way, you know?
You can refuse to sign the papers, and then it will take 18 months instead of 3 weeks to get it done. But you can’t stop divorce from happening in our culture if somebody wants it to happen bad enough.
So when I say, “Don’t do it,” I don’t mean that it won’t happen to you.
Posted by Bob Bixby at February 21, 2009 06:10 PM | eMail this entry! | 641 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories:
very interesting. i was just thinking about the topic of divorce yesterday. i used to be of the mind that you should “never” divorce. But living in Ukraine has really affected my views on that. and now i’m in a ministry to women who this issue really touches. we basically have to make women able to live financially independent of their husbands (if they have one) and be able to provide for their kids as well. and they come from relationships it’s hard to even call “marriage” except for a signed paper. it’s actually more like “destruction.”
dallas willard views the gospel passages about divorce as more a description of what it was then, not really a prescription of how we are all to believe/act.
sheesh, it’s a hard thing. i don’t want to advocate divorce, but in these worst-case scenarios, i honestly do want to advocate for it, kwim?
Posted by: anne sokol at February 22, 2009 12:46 AMI agree with your reasoning. The fact that God allowed divorce—even for the hardness of human hearts—indicates that it’s not intrinsically immoral. God doesn’t allow homosexuality because people want it or are doing it anyway.
Actually, I think divorce is very consistent with God’s just character. Does he hate it? Yes—just like He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But both are sometimes necessary. My understanding of divorce for perpetual adultery (the exception clauses) is essentially this: God hates divorce; He hates unrepentant adultery even more. There’s a time when God’s justice is mocked by unrepentant sin and even He says “Enough!” It’s analogous to excommunication, IMO.
Finally, in the case of adultery and abandonment (presumably after genuine efforts to reconcile), I’d argue that divorce isn’t the breaking of the covenant, but the legal recognition that the covenant has already been broken by the unrepentant abandoning/adulterizing spouse.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at February 22, 2009 12:54 PMBob, Chris and Anne
Good thoughts on a tough topic. Bob I think you’re right on this. Another way of saying this (And Chris you’ve sort of already said this another way), is God hates divorce but He hates the habitual mockery of the covenant of marriage even more.
My guess is the other side will show up here soon enough Bob…..Hang in there. Of course you do this to yourself. You know that’s right?
Straight Ahead!
jt
Bob, Chris and Anne
Good thoughts on a tough topic. Bob I think you’re right on this. Another way of saying this (And Chris you’ve sort of already said this another way), is God hates divorce but He hates the habitual mockery of the covenant of marriage even more.
My guess is the other side will show up here soon enough Bob…..Hang in there. Of course you do this to yourself. You know that’s right?
Straight Ahead!
jt
While I am not endorsing one position or another (I’m still wrestling with this issue myself), I do have two quick questions:
1) Didn’t Hosea minister to the northern kingdom? How does that affect your comments about the two sisters? Personally, in a Biblical theological sort of way, I’m not sure I would make a strong distinction between the two nations. In one sense, they were still the ‘people of God’ even though they were divided politically.
2) You say that “divorce is not intrinsically sinful or God would not employ that language for Himself” (a common argument in regards to this passage and divorce). However, would you say that getting someone drunk is sin? Because God says that he made the nations drunk with the wine of His wrath.
Answers to these might help me in my thought process.
Posted by: Matthew at February 23, 2009 10:01 AMHey, God allowed polygamy also.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I’m not sure it’s an accurate comparison, Don. God overlooked/tolerated polygamy, though it was sin. But He didn’t legislate it in any way like He did divorce (Deut 24:1-4), unless I’m overlooking something. So we’re not just talking about sins God tolerated without clear judgments, but something in divorce for which He actually made allowances via OT and NT commands.
I do enjoy seeing you agree with Piper, though. Good for you. :)
Posted by: Chris Anderson at February 23, 2009 11:36 PMIf he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. (Ex 21.10-11)
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. (Dt 21.15-17)
And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. (2 Sa 12.8)
~~~
Yes, I think you are over-looking something.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I stand corrected. Thanks.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at February 24, 2009 07:25 AMOk, so now let’s make a comparison.
The argument made here, as I understand it is that divorce isn’t intrinsically wrong because God wouldn’t employ that language of himself if it was and that it was lawful.
However, the same argument can be made of polygamy. We have established that God made provisions in the law for it. We can also establish that God uses language of polygamy in describing his relationship with Israel and Judah (Search on Aholah and Aholibah).
What does that do to the argument proposed here and seemingly enthusiastically adopted by the commenters in this thread?
As for agreeing with Piper, I am not sure I am entirely comfortable with his reasoning as quoted, but my point is not about Piper, but about the view expressed in this thread.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Bob said, “Strong proponents of the view that divorce is never legitimate have to admit, I think, that it was lawful. If it was lawful, could it be intrinsically sinful all the time? I ask.”
I think it’s a valid point (or question), though I acknowledge upon further consideration that your citing of polygamy laws gives me pause, Don. At the very least, I need to give it more thought.
Still, though the comparison is helpful, there is a significant difference between the two (divorce and polygamy), and that is that the New Testament doesn’t list cases in which the latter is permissible.
I appreciate the discussion, but probably won’t be able to continue it further. I apologize that my earlier response was ill-informed.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at February 24, 2009 11:36 AMI’m not even debating at this point, just asking questions. I have my thoughts, but I like the feedback. So, here goes..
Is polygamy expressly forbidden? I’m not denying for one second that it is unbiblical, but is our view of the sanctity of monogamy based upon our fuller understanding of the gospel, an understanding that the patriarchs obviously did not have.
I know that Deuteronomy forbids kings from multiplying wives, but that is a bit ambiguous. I don’t think this necessarily precludes the possibility of him being a polygamist. Also, it is interesting to me that David was told by Nathan that if God had given him “wives” (plural) and that if he had wanted he could have asked and God would have given him more. One has to assume that David understood that “more” to include, among other things, wives.
This leads to my question for you, Don (or anyone)…
You are right that there is legislation for both polygamy and divorce in the OT (that’s essentially the same point I have made), but in the case of divorce anyway there is nothing that is stated that shows it to be intrinsically sinful. It’s the attendant circumstances that make divorce sinful or not sinful. My case is weakened if it can be shown that polygamy was positively forbidden in all circumstances like adultery, murder, and lying (because divorce is clearly not positively forbidden).
To further explain my point, Peter Masters makes an interesting point, I think, in his book on drinking alcohol that some actions “switch categories” over time or with increased revelation. For example, slavery is immoral now, he says, but it clearly was not always an immorality. Just because the Mosaic law never condemns slavery and Paul the Apostle never condemned it doesn’t mean that it is not now immoral. We must realize, he says, “that some activities change from one category to the other dependent on the circumstances.”
Warfare, he says, is a great illustration. Sometimes it’s just. Other times it is “blatant mass murder.” War is not intrinsically sinful. My question is this:
Is divorce intrinsically sinful? Or is it feasible that this action too could “switch categories depending on the circumstances”?
Posted by: bob at February 24, 2009 04:32 PMAs far as Master’s argument, I am not so sure that the category has switched as that the question has changed. He is making a point about alcohol, but the question today is not exactly about the exact same substance as was available in ancient times. But that is another debate, and I think it is one where you and I are in total agreement, Bob.
As for slavery, well… has that category changed? I am not sure. I am certainly not advocating FOR it, but it is unclear that it is intrinsically wrong.
But our question in this thread is whether divorce is intrinsically wrong, and I have thrown in the idea of polygamy as an added wrinkle.
In my view, yes, divorce is intrinsically wrong because Jesus said so. Remember, he said, “from the beginning it was not so” and cites the creation documents in Gen 2. It seems to me that monogamous marriage is part of the image of God when God created man “male and female.” This is what makes sexual sin so abhorrent to godly people, and to God, because it is an attack on the whole concept of the image of God as created in man, male and female. The further you deviate from the image, the more grievous it is: divorce, polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality… So for this one, the founding documents of creation and the authority of Christ close the case on the question.
There are circumstances where divorce is allowable, even in the NT. But it is still a grievous violation of God’s creation, nonetheless. It carries with it profound damage and innocent people (relatively innocent, that is) often do get hurt in the process.
Does that help?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
i don’t know, don, i am just putting out some rough thoughts. if marriage is the first step, seems like . . . there has to be some meaning in what that is and how people got into that condition. like, is it first a sin to marry a guy who you’d have to leave or divorce in order to be rescued from him?
like, we have a lady now, pregnant, has little girl, husband drinks and beats her, there’s no food, no money, she’s not a citizen so can’t work, and marital fidelity on his part is not even a question. so ….
don’t know. sure, she sinnned a lot getting into it and now she has to sin to get out of it.
seems like the question, if you want to go back to Genesis, is that the issue is a lot deeper than the marriage contract or vow. God created a marriage with man/woman becoming one flesh, caring for each other, etc. granted, that looks different in different cultures, but . . . . there seems to be certain assumptions there other than a contract?
if that whole idea of what God says marriage is is nonexistant . . . . where does that leave us? i don’t know.
is telling her to stay married more in line with God’s will?
Posted by: anne sokol at February 25, 2009 03:13 AMi don’t know, don, i am just putting out some rough thoughts. if marriage is the first step, seems like . . . there has to be some meaning in what that is and how people got into that condition. like, is it first a sin to marry a guy who you’d have to leave or divorce in order to be rescued from him?
like, we have a lady now, pregnant, has little girl, husband drinks and beats her, there’s no food, no money, she’s not a citizen so can’t work, and marital fidelity on his part is not even a question. so ….
don’t know. sure, she sinnned a lot getting into it and now she has to sin to get out of it.
seems like the question, if you want to go back to Genesis, is that the issue is a lot deeper than the marriage contract or vow. God created a marriage with man/woman becoming one flesh, caring for each other, etc. granted, that looks different in different cultures, but . . . . there seems to be certain assumptions there other than a contract?
if that whole idea of what God says marriage is is nonexistant . . . . where does that leave us? i don’t know.
is telling her to stay married more in line with God’s will?
Posted by: anne sokol at February 25, 2009 03:14 AMIn a fallen world a lot of bad stuff happens. Regardless, God’s truth is the same yesterday today and forever. Situational ethics changes nothing.
Jesus said that the laws of divorce were added because of the hardness of hearts. In the situation you describe, it seems there is plenty of hardness to go around. It may be that a woman in such a situation will be forced to divorce and has grounds for divorce according to Jesus. That doesn’t change the fact that God hates divorce, and that it by itself is a violation of God’s will, both before and after the fall. Nevertheless, even Jesus allows divorce in a fallen world.
I am just saying that divorce in itself is intrinsically evil, because God said so.
BTW, divorce in the case you describe might gain protection from physical abuse, but if the woman can’t work in your country, she will still be in poverty. It is highly unlikely that her derelict husband will provide any support post divorce if he isn’t providing it now, even if he is ordered by a court to do so. So divorce may grant relief from some of the problems but not all.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
well, if you’re willing to talk about this more, i’d like to. i’m having to think about it.
i guess on one side, you could say that divorce is intrisically wrong, though i’m not sure i agree with that entirely yet.
but i think, perhaps regardless of that, divorce can also be a for good purpose. like the laws of divorce in deuteronomy were probably also a form of protection for women, giving them a way to be free to remarry and have a place to live and food, etc.—because they couldn’t be polygamous like men could legally be, and where would they go, esp if her dad was dead already, i don’t know.
and, if you are saying it’s intrisically wrong, are you thereby saying that it’s always sin to initiate divorce?
about this lady, sheesh, we need to pray for her. he’s kicking her out tomorrow. and in her situation, actually, she probably needs the marriage license to apply for citizenship. another legal sticking point is if she should put “elemyent” on him, like alimony, and if he doesn’t pay, he goes to jail. is it even worth it? is that right to do? or just better to leave him alone? it’s a jungle.
Posted by: anne sokol at February 25, 2009 02:58 PMHi Anne
Well, I was thinking about what I said in my last post and am going to do a little ‘thinking out loud’ here:
Is it possible that there is such a thing as a “just divorce” as there is a “just war”? That is to say, divorce as such is evil, but it is possible that it is not sinful to divorce if the case can be seen as lawful according to God’s Word.
So… intrinsically wrong, maybe not the right term. Intrinsically evil, yes. Always sinful? (i.e., if I do it I am accountable to God) Maybe no.
In the case you are describing, there are probably a host of problems that need sorting out. I don’t have any idea what the relevant laws are in your country or other factors. Sometimes separation can be used in a way to work on hard hearts, and sometimes the law can force an unsupportive husband to be responsible (but not always). You will have to gain a good deal of understanding of all the factors before you can give advice with complete confidence.
I generally don’t think it is wrong to put legal pressure on a husband to be responsible, even if it doesn’t produce the needed support. It will at least be punitive in some way.
In the meantime, I’d say that such a situation will call for a lot of wisdom and support from the local church.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I have a question for Don, since he brought up polygamy. This is sincere, too, as I have struggled with this kind of situational ethics.
What if a man sinned, and married multiple wives. How can he make that right? Should he sin again, and divorce all but one?
Bob, I understand your dilemma, and am interested to read more. You know how it pains me to take a more conservative opinion than yours!
Actually, I have no opinions, just small snippets and less eloquent thoughts.
First, would be the simple fact that in one sense, God legislates all evil. Take away evil, and the law wouldn’t have been written.
Second, I liked the analogy of war. It would be wrong for any country to go too hastily to war, without having first exhausted all peaceful means of resolution. But, it is not always wrong to war, and may, in fact be wrong not to, in some extreme cases.
I don’t need to belabor the analogy…
Posted by: Dan at February 27, 2009 09:26 AMDan, your question isn’t hypothetical, it is a real question, especially in some mission ministries. Bob might be better equipped to answer than me, since his family were missionaries in Africa at one point, I believe.
One solution I have heard have been along these lines: the first marriage is the only legitimate one, but the obligations of support remain for the subsequent ones, but the marital relations must be reserved for only the first marriage.
Regardless of how such problems are solved, the very complexity and awkwardness of solution points to the inherent evil.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
Thanks for the reply. In the interest of full disclosure, I am Bob’s younger, less intelligent (but better looking) brother.
You are correct that it is not hypothetical. We have a missionary dealing with that same issue now.
Thanks for the quick reply.
Dan
Posted by: Dan at February 27, 2009 01:14 PMHey, I have a younger, less-intelligent-but-better-looking brother named Dan too!
I understand that divorce is acceptable when the marriage bond has already been broken by adultery.
Posted by: Michael at March 5, 2009 08:46 AMAlso, I don’t understand why everyone is talking about divorce in the OT when Christ a) fulfilled the old covenant between God and Israel and started the marriage between Christ and the Church which shall never end, and b) Christ came along and fulfilled the law including the law on divorce, and issued a stricter standard of divorce.
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
