EPISODE 96: Q&A

Date: 11/17/2021

Questions

I know you all have discussed/recommended a number of nonfiction books but I’d love to hear what each of your favorite fiction books are- stories that point you towards Christ by feeding your imagination.

Josh’s recommendations
1. CS Lewis’ Narnia series
2. Tolkien’s Hobbit and Lord of the Rings series
3. RC Sproul has some children books which are great:
  1. The Prince’s Poison Cup (Christ drinking the cup of God’s wrath)
  2. The Priest with Dirty Clothes (cleansed from our sins)
  3. The Lightlings (avoiding and being drawn to the light of Christ)

How do we approach people who think their loved ones become angels? We want to be compassionate since they are grieving, but we also want to hold doctrinal truth.

This isn’t something you bring up at a funeral or at any point that someone’s grieving.
This is a discussion to have before or long after the death of a loved one.
If a Christian, do so with a Bible in both of your hands.
If not a Christian, I don’t know that this is the most important topic.

In the sermon (from a few weeks ago), Josh mentioned that “the result of pride is always division.” Was that intended to be all encompassing? I can see how our pride in ourselves can lead to division, however we can take pride in many things outside of ourselves as well.

I’d need to know what kind of “outside of ourselves” things the questioner is meaning we take pride in.
Obviously, pride is sin — that’s clear in Scripture. And God hates it. So we’ve got to start there.
I think what’s being asked is the way we use the word pride that’s meant to be more of a “I want to encourage so and so because of what they’ve done — I’m proud of them”. And that’s a modern way of using the word pride that we shouldn’t impose on the biblical text. Let’s not water down God’s view of pride by trying to put a positive spin on the word.

I really appreciate you dedicating an entire episode on such a difficult topic as divorce and remarriage. I have really wrestled with this in the past and since the podcast, I have been digging into scripture, but I did have some follow-up questions.

First, I really appreciate you being clear that divorce may be permissible but not necessary. But I want to make sure I’m clear in what you said (and not just what I heard). Did you say “pornea” can be “anything that destroys the relational intimacy between a husband and a wife”? Does that mean there are numerous scenarios that divorce would be permissible, but not necessary, if the spouse is unrepentant? Secret gambling addiction that loses everything? Incarceration? Emotional abuse? Numerous examples could be thought of, correct? All things that would be unfaithfulness and breaking the relational intimacy of the marriage if the spouse remains unrepentant would be permissible grounds for divorce?
1. Remember: Permissible doesn’t mean required or the expected outcome.
2. Porneia does have the sense of the breaking of intimacy.
3. Remember, unrepentance is key.
4. Gambling example: It’s not just that, say, it’s discovered that the husband has lost $30,000 in gambling. Divorce becomes a permissible (not required) option if: 1) After many attempts at helping him see that gambling is an issue, and 2) Others trying to intervene to know he needs help, and 3) There’s a refusal on his part to stop gambling, and 4) He continues putting the family at risk because of his gambling, 5) etc… then the possibility of divorce starts to be considered. Divorce should never be decided lightly, quickly, or without opportunities for there to be repentance.

You mentioned 1 Corinthians 7 giving an exception where an unbelieving spouse separates and doesn’t want to return to the marriage (v.15). However, that verse doesn’t seem to say anything about allowing divorce, just that the believer should “let them leave” because we “are called to peace”. It doesn’t appear that the believer is ever permitted to initiate the divorce. Then in regards to remarriage, in v 10-11 of the same chapter, a divorced spouse should remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouse with no exceptions given. And later in v.39 he makes it clear that the marriage is bound until death (no exceptions). It doesn’t really seem like there is an exception here that gives the believer permission to initiate divorce or to remarry?

English word fallacy! You may not see the English word “divorce” in these verses, but the Greek being used implies the same thing as in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.
It seems as if the questioner is implying the modern idea of “separation” in marriage to the biblical text. When what the text is saying is what Jesus says in his words, “What God has joined together, let not man separate.” Meaning the end or final breaking of a marriage.
Regarding the rest of 1 Corinthians 7, remember that Paul is answering specific questions that the congregation has asked him about (see 1 Cor 7:1). V5 indicates that both married partners are Christians. So to make this a universal rule for all marriages, regardless if both spouses are believers, is to go beyond what this text is teaching. Same for v39. This seems directed at a Christian woman married to a Christian husband. So we can’t make this a universal rule for all marriages because not all marriages are of a Christian man married to a Christian woman.

I’m also struggling with the fact that Matthew’s gospel is the only occasion that the “exception clause” is uttered. The other gospel accounts do not include such a line, which seems like a pretty big deal to exclude. Paul doesn’t include any exception clause either in 1 Corinthians 7 or Romans 7. Why does Matthew include it where the other writers exclude such a huge piece of information?

Though we always want to interpret Scripture with Scripture, and though we never want to build a theology on a fringe type verse that isn’t found elsewhere in Scripture, Matthew’s text seems to be different from these two kinds of cases. This is clearly the teaching of Jesus. Additionally, the manuscripts aren’t in question (textual criticism) as if there’s a possibility that Jesus didn’t say these words.
Following the questioner’s line of thought, what else would we need to throw out of the Bible because only “one” author recorded it? Think of how different John’s gospel is from the others. Do we throw out all of the material that’s original only to John because Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t include it? Of course not!
Why would some gospel author’s leave it out and why would Matthew include it?
1. Who’s the original audience that their gospel is intended for?
2. What’s the goal for each of the authors in writing their gospel?
3. Questions like these must be answered to come to an understanding of why Matthew would include the words and why Mark wouldn’t.

What about the marital vows? Even if there is an exception clause that permits divorce in extreme unfaithfulness which breaks the relational intimacy, don’t one’s marital vows matter as well? If one vows to God and to one another “for better or for worse, til death do us part”, are we not bound for life? I have never heard someone saying their vows in the wedding ceremony and include an exception clause: “for better or for worse, except on the ground of pornea, til death do us part”. So where divorce may have been permissible, it may no longer be based on what you vowed to God and to your spouse? Ironically, the next section in Matthew 5 is about keeping your oaths.

Man made marital vows do not have a greater authority than God’s Word.
In regards to Matthew 5, are marital vows what Jesus (and Matthew) had in mind? If not, watch applying the verses incorrectly.
Regarding oaths, James 5:12 “But most of all, my brothers and sisters, never take an oath, by heaven or earth or anything else. Just say a simple yes or no, so that you will not sin and be condemned.”

Also on remarriage, aren’t we making a pretty big assumption that remarriage is permitted if there was a “permitted divorce”? In all of the scriptures referring to remarriage, they were all pretty clear that marrying a divorced person while their ex is still living is adultery. That a spouse is only free from their vow when their spouse dies (and even then it’s preferred to remain single). Wouldn’t we expect to see the same exception clause given in those scenarios if it was allowed? Mark 10:11-12 would have to read something like “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, [except on the grounds of a permitted divorce]. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery, [except on the grounds a permitted divorce]”.

Again, the fallacy here is treating the Bible like it’s a textbook on marriage and divorce and thus it lays out all of the instructions on the topic.
In a way this questioner is sort of asking about what’s known as the regulative principle in worship. When the church gathers for worship, are we to only do what is specifically stated in the Bible — meaning we are wrong if we do things not instructed in the Bible — or do we have freedom to look at Scripture and see not only specific things we’re to do when we gather — but also infer that there are other things we can do as we gather for worship that aren’t specifically stated in Scripture but are permissible?
1. Example: Church announcements aren’t found in the Bible. Are they permissible in a worship service or are they wrong for us to do?
2. Example: Women taking the Lord’s Supper is neither instructed nor do we find an example in the Bible of a woman taking communion. Permissible or not?
3. I’d suggest what the questioner is asking falls along the same lines as these examples. Though not explicitly stated the Bible gives enough information for us to reasonably apply the permission to remarry. Just like it’s reasonable for us to grant permission for women to take communion though it’s neither a specific command nor do we see an example. Same for announcements during the church service.

I’m also having a hard time wrapping my mind around two remarriage “situational” scenarios. The first couple was married after each had an unbiblical divorce in their past, but both have now repented. My head agrees with you in that they should not get divorced again. But what if the same scenario happened, but this time the couple was in a same-sex marriage? Wouldn’t we say that they should separate/divorce because that marriage wasn’t really a marriage to begin with (you can’t redefine marriage)? So, in both scenarios you have an “unbiblical remarriage”, both trying to walk into a marriage by redefining what a God-honoring marriage is. But the one couple we would say you can stay married because you’ve repented but the other shouldn’t? Is homosexuality a worse sin than the other?

Here the issue is confusing Christian marriage and marriage that’s recognized by the state. As the questioner states, “We can’t redefine marriage.”
The Bible only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman. Thus, there’s no biblical category of divorce (or marriage) for same-sex couples.
The only biblical or unbiblical marriage, according to Scripture, is between a man and woman.
Practically speaking, though a same-sex couple, who comes to faith in Christ, were never married according to the Bible, they will have to make some decisions of obedience as to what it now means to follow Jesus with their whole self — including their relationships that have been defined a certain way by the state.
And, no, homosexuality is not a worse sin than other sins.