"... forgiveness does not require the kind of reconciliation that ends in a restored marriage."

I think you're teaching a watered-down version of forgiveness. I think genuine repentance requires genuine forgiveness, with no "buts." That's certainly the example Christ sets when we commit spiritual adultery. And if marriage is an allegory of Christ and the church, that's the example we must follow.

 

David, It may be that I am teaching a watered down version of forgiveness. I confess my gut reaction - the visceral instinctive tug in my soul is to say forgiveness "requires" the believer to always pursue reconciliation. Yet I find myself (presently at least) unable to reconcile that reaction with the fact that Christ Himself allowed for divorce in this particular situation.

If I command my son to stay away from the pit in the back yard, and contrary to my command he goes near it when I am not looking, and falls into it so that he cannot get out of it, and I hear his cries and I find him in the pit, He can ask for my forgiveness, and I will surely give it, but that doesn't get him out of the pit.

Perhaps I am making too fine a distinction, but if so, I am not sure what I am trying to make an allowance for in doing so.

You know how some people are inclined to say that because scripture command against drunkenness, we should interpret that, by extension, to be a command against drinking altogether. I am concerned that some will see the command to forgive as really meaning we should be reconciled - and the text in this case seems to leave room for forgiveness without restoring the marriage.

I am happy to take any instruction you may offer on this point, and that without guile.

 

You know, reading my words again, I think I could have phrased that particular pericope better.

"... scripture does not require the forgiveness of adultery to end in a restored marriage, but it does require genuine forgiveness."

or something like that. I mean, that is the intent I was going for at least. I think I will change that in the post.

 

I don’t see the command to forgive as a command to be reconciled per se. I see it rather as a necessary consequence, like faith/works. We are justified by faith, not works, but faith without works is dead. Likewise, forgiveness without reconciliation is empty.

And what about the example of Christ? Does he ever refuse to be reconciled to his repentant bride? Further, look at Matthew 18. Does the church ever have the option of not receiving a sinning member who repents?

 

David, like yourself, I expect that reconciliation ought to follow forgiveness, even as works follow faith.

However, our Lord, in unilaterally denouncing divorce, made this one exception: except in the case of immorality.

I do find it intellectually difficult to read back into this clearly phrased exception any notion that in essense and in practice negates the original exception.

My interest in this situation is not to speak about what is best, but rather what is allowed. It is better, or so Paul writes, to remain a virgin and not marry, but if this is unacceptable, let them marry, they do not sin. I think that restoration is best™, and yet divorce is allowable. I believe this is what scripture says.

Am I really off on this?

 

“I expect that reconciliation ought to follow forgiveness, even as works follow faith.”

Ah, but here’s the point: I don’t think works ought to follow faith, I believe, according to Scripture, that faith, without exception, produces works. Where there are no works, there is no faith. Likewise, where there is no reconciliation, I question whether there has really been forgiveness.

I don’t think the text in question says any more than you’re saying; on that, I agree. However, I think you’re reading it in isolation from the whole counsel of God. I think the adultery exception implies unrepentant, continuing adultery — adultery in the present. Otherwise, where is the opportunity, to forgive once again, let alone “seventy times seven”? So I would say that where there is no present, only past, repented-of adultery, there is no exception clause.

However, supposing I am wrong about that: what motivation — not legal grounds, but Spirit-led motivation — might one have to refuse reconciliation with a repentant spouse?

My word verification is "union." A Word from the Lord&trade:, possibly?

 

Rats. That's "Word from the Lord™"

 

David, Aha!

Now that's a good "Aha!" as opposed to a sloppy or poor one.

Sadly, I have only approached the throne of grace for the first time in this matter when I read your last post. Not that it was particularly persuasive (and I mean no slight in saying that), but rather that I realized that I was not so much seeking an understanding as wearing the mantle of the learned.

So when I humbled myself before the Lord, within a single minute of doing so, I was aware of something I hadn't noticed previously.

Yet before I expand that thought I want to express some regret at having used the word "ought" in a way that was rather ambiguous. You know well that I do not believe faith is genuine unless it produces (or will produce given time) works. Yet the word "ought" suggested that works were merely possible and not a necessary outcome. In my defense, I use the word ought in the same way when I say that if a man can be born again, he ought to have been born the first time also. If that helps to explain my original usage.

Now, back to the point. After I spent only a few moments in earnest prayer, I suddenly noticed something I hadn't noticed before.

Of the two scenarios given ([1] unbelieving spouse leaves the marriage because he hates Christ, and [2] adultery) I failed to see what I believe is a connection between these two reasons - in both cases the other partner wants out of the marriage.

Thus I find myself quite suddenly in full agreement with your objection.

Such is the Lord we serve. I would be ashamed of my former blindness if there was any hope of me opening my own eyes by my own strength or wisdom. Instead I am just thankful I see what you were getting at - and this because we serve a gracious God.

Let me know if I have understood your point correctly, lest I think I am repented of error, and still in it.

 

I hadn't actually thought of that, but I think it's true and fits well with my point. I would have said

In one cases the other partner wants out of the marriage, in the other, there is legal justification for throwing him/her out.

Since the latter is really "asking for it," your statement is true.

However, that's the letter of the law. Not being under law, I think the better angle is in the question with which I ended, which you did not answer:

What motivation — not legal grounds, but Spirit-led motivation — might one have to refuse reconciliation with a repentant spouse?

Forgive me. I learned to ask questions like that from you, and all your "walking in the Spirit" stuff.

 

David, had you asked me yesterday, I would have said that the Holy Spirit doesn't tell me how many times to brush each tooth in the morning, and so, in like way, being armed with and fluent in, scripture, I need not consult spiritual omens for motivation, ...or something similar. It wouldn't really have been answering your question, but it would have been a fair enough dodge to buy me some time to think.

Upon reflection however, and with sober honesty, I cannot imagine the Holy Spirit motivating anyone to refuse a willing reconciliation. If a person refused to be reconciled, I would say that the person was doing so in the flesh, and certainly not in the Spirit.

It was the right question to ask by the way.

 

"However, our Lord, in unilaterally denouncing divorce, made this one exception: except in the case of immorality."

But... Jesus granted this exception in reference to this: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” It is the but from the beginning it was not so to which we should look. We have to ask, is Jesus granting this exception, because it was the same one Moses granted. Or, is he saying that the reason for divorce still persists, e.g., the hardness of an unforgiving heart? Now thinking about what Jesus acutally said, if you divorce on any account beside sexual impurity, you cause the other to commit sexual impurity. Why? Because you have illegitemated the sexual union you had with that person. On the other hand if the other person has committed sexual impurity, you cannot cause them to do so by divorce, they have already. Is it then permission? No. Because as Jesus said, the reason that it was granted by Moses is hardness of heart, slerocardia, lack of spiritual discernment, the willingness to cast the stone... It is the, "From the beginning" that is important. They, that is Adam and Eve as Jesus is referencing, were one flesh. If there ever was a reason for divorce it was Eve's unfaithfulness, her uncleanness. But they didn't divorce. Jesus is referencing that relationship. Of all relationships, if there was a reason for divorce, that would be the one, yet Jesus says not even that was sufficient reason, from the beginning it was not so. So, if you want to divorce because of adultery, fine, but put it in perspective. To divorce is not so much to call another to account as it is to demonstrately confess how hard your own heart is in view of the great forgiveness that Christ has bought for you. Now what is impossible for men is possible for God. Still, in our weakness, we should look not to vengence and self-justification but to the reconcilliation that we are required to seek because it was granted to us. And if it is not with our wives where intimacy is at its highest, then how much more likely will we not seek reconcilliation with those who offend less? They tested Christ, and he threw it back in their faces. They wanted to justify their sin, he said, sure, but you must admit that you are just as an adulterer first. Because that is exactly what you would be if you illegitimate your sexual relationship with your wife for no good reason. And there ain't no good reason, even adultery. That was given because of sin. And that ain't no good reason.

 

Um, the things is... um... if your spouse leaves the relationship because your spouse refuses to turn from the course of adultery, you may divorce your unrepentant spouse.

 

Yeah, I should have qualified the abandonment thing. Abandonment is de facto divorce. In that case, I think it is legitimate for a person to make it legal. And in that case, since the abandoned is free, they can remarry. Paul is clear, that divorcing another in any other circumstance should not be the case. When it occurs he required reconcilliation. He makes no mention of adultery. He then requires that one remain unmarried. Not easy. I think the point remains, marriage is not ours to dissolve. We don't join ourselves, and we can't disjoint ourselves. Just try cutting yourself in half. That one-flesh thing is spiritual, I know, but when you carry the analogy out, the rending assunder kills both parts, dun'it?

 

That was one long paragraph, eh?

 

The first one was longer. :)

I agree, the point is that the only time divorce is legitimate is when your spouse refuses to be reconciled to you, and leaves you, either because of your faith, or in order to pursue immorality. The spouse who abandons the other spouse cannot be married to another according to God's word. They may find some church that lets them, they may find some society that lets them - but any "marriage" that follows such abandonment God will not recognize as such, even if all the world is okay with it.

Such it was for King Herod when he took his brother Phillip's wife. She left Phillip for Herod, and Herod took her. Even though Herod "married" his brother's wife, John the Baptist did not refer to her as Herod's wife, but as Phillip's wife. God does not respect the ceremony of marriage unless it respects the will of God.