Well, go over the divorce statistics. They are rightfully high. They are declining in the 90s divorce rate in this country has been on the decline, so that there is somewhat of a recovery in terms of the idea of divorce not being the solution to what the people thought it was. No fault divorce was introduced in California in 1970. It got that label because no fault insurance was pending at the same time and so divorce without grounds was introduced into law on both on the part of both or either party as no fault divorce. And since 1985, that obtains in all United States jurisdictions, so that is the case all along. So the US along with Sweden and Canada are somewhat set apart by the fact that the forms of divorce that we have adopted have altered the legal definition of marriage. By making it a relationship terminable at will that goes against our Judeo-Christian tradition or particular our Christian tradition. And so we have a situation where divorce for no cause is readily available. And not that that is necessarily the fault of the law, you cannot coerce people to live together in a married relationship. But there can be the law can ensure that there be a waiting period and time less things be done precipitally in various other ways of guarding. But ultimately, if people refuse to be married, they can be divorced in terms of the effectiveness of civil law in this regard. But in this situation, the church does have a role. I relate it to the threefold mediatorial office of Christ to reflect the prophetic role of Christ. Our responsibility is to declare the revealed will of God concerning marriage. We are to declare the ideal. And though in a fallen world, human beings don't live up to it. Nevertheless, we have a prophetic role to declare the revealed will of God concerning marriage. I think that there is a priestly role to restore sinners through the gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins that folks who have destroyed their marriages need the healing grace of Christ, the healing word of Christ and restoration to him and in the body of Christ. And I think that there is a kingly role. We relate that to the office of eldership particularly, but it affects the general office of all believers and that is to nurture persons so that by God's grace they are disposed toward marital fidelity. I think that if we think broadly about the church's role, we can keep in balance those three to declare the reveal will of God to restore sinners through the grace of Christ and to take the precautionary steps of nurturing people toward marital fidelity. The PCA report on divorce and remarriage has a good section on premarital counseling as one of the keys toward securing greater fidelity to the ideal of marriage. Fidelity is the key. We went over earlier in the course of faithfulness as one of the three way dear matters of the law that which reflects the character of God and particularly with respect to the marriage covenant that we are called to fidelity, which can be creative. We think of fidelity to often in a static way of just remaining within the boundaries, not committing adultery, but fidelity is more than that. It's more than fidelity to a vow though it is fidelity to a vow that what distinguishes the covenant idea of marriage from that of a contract, it is pledged fidelity. But it's pledged fidelity to a person so that it is the other person for whom we for whose sake we maintain our vow or that we call God to witness that we will be faithful as a supporting element recognizing our patidency of human nature to move in the direction of unfaithfulness. And it's faithful to our calling of marriage and to the relationship and the way fidelity is worked out in a given marriage can be quite creative. It is one of those things that goes beyond what can be specified in terms of duty. There is the boundary in terms of duty but within those boundaries there's a great deal of freedom or creating fidelity in terms of our marriage as the place where God intends for us to have the fulfillment of our sexuality as he is creating this. Now sadly, in a fallen world, the ideal is broken. The ideal is stated in Genesis 2.24. Man leads his father and mother leads to his wife to become one flesh and divorce is not envisioned. That ideal before the fall, in visions, a life long open-ended relationship or should say a permanent open-ended relationship, not even death was in view in Genesis 2.24. But with the fall, death dissolves the marriage bond. The question is whether there are other violations of the marriage covenant that so impinge upon the relation that they also dissolve the marriage bond. I think that the way there are a limited number of texts on divorce and remarriage in the scriptures, I think that the way to approach them is to begin with the teaching in the gospels, then look at the epistles, then derive some principles taking them together. In the gospels, deal first with Mark chapter 10. Mark chapter 10 will then take us back into the Old Testament and we will review the Old Testament teaching in connection with the Mark 10. But in Mark 10 some Pharisees come and test Jesus by asking, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? Sounds innocent enough, but for them it's a test question. They have doubtless heard his teaching on marriage and divorce, the sermon on the Mount Jesus touched on that. And so they come with a test question, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? What did Moses command you? He replied. They said, Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away. Jesus replied, it was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law but at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one place so they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together let not man separate. When they were in the house again the disciples asked Jesus about this, he answered, anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her and if she divorces her husband and marries another man she commits adultery. Now obviously the key statement that Jesus makes in this passage is what God has joined together let not man put a sunder. The dominant concern is commitment to the prominence of marriage. The dominant concern of Jesus is the preservation of marriage and that is highlighted by that very powerful statement what God has joined together let not man separate. Sometimes when pastors marry they join the hands of the couple and pronounce the man and wife and the pastor lifts his eyes to the congregation and says what God has joined together let not man put a sunder as though that statement is directed toward third parties. Well that's a subordinate concern don't interfere in this marriage but the primary reference of that is to the couple you know don't you put yourselves a sunder when God has joined you together now say that because divorce under both Jewish and Roman law did not require the pronouncement of some third party. Either civil or religious that the couple was no longer bound to each other divorce was a matter of repudiation of the marriage on the part of the husband under Jewish law the part of either husband or wife under Roman law all that was required was evidence of the intent. So the words are spoken to the couple expresses of Jesus dominant concern that the marriage bond be maintained dominant concern is preservation of marriage not prevention of remarriage is such but rather the focus is on preservation of marriage so that attitudes and actions that contribute to the breakdown of the relationship which God intended. Fall under this principle emotional removal from the marriage is already a step in the wrong direction no it's that wandering I typically on the part of man that leads to emotional involvement outside the relationship with the wife that's already a step in the wrong direction. Jesus dominant concern is with the preservation of the marriage and now the Pharisees asking because this was and this was the reason why they brought up the question is what about the teaching of Moses and Jesus refers them back to Deuteronomy 24 so there's a reference back to Deuteronomy 24 in this passage Deuteronomy 24 verses 1 to 4. I'll read it in today's English version that I think that it captures the the sense here it's a long if then clause and the then doesn't occur until verse 4 it's case law it sets up a number of conditions and then it says what's to be done. Suppose a man may as a woman in later to size that he doesn't want her because he find find something about her that he doesn't like where used to and she finds no favor any size because he has found some literally nakedness of the thing about her but it's really that term nakedness of the thing is very general and it only used in one other instance in the Old Testament Deuteronomy 23 14. Which is also vague something repulsive something indecent but so a man may as a woman I think that the TV gets the sense right a man suppose man may as a woman later decides he doesn't want her because he finds something about her that he doesn't like so he writes out divorce papers gives them to her and sends her away from his home then suppose she may as another man and he also decides he doesn't want her literally the Hebrew says and he hates her meaning he dislikes her he says some aversion to her so he writes out also writes out divorce papers gives them to her and send her away from his home or suppose her second husband dies in either case her first husband is not to marry her again he is to consider her to file he married her again it would be offensive to the Lord you're not to commit such a terrible sin and the land that the Lord your God is giving you thrust of this passage the reason is there is to prevent remarriage to the husband who divorced her after she has become the wife of another man whether he divorces her or whether he dies the first husband may not take her back again now that's to prevent something like wife swapping you know you send your wife off for a period of time and then when the other guy gets tired of her every sends her back and you take her back again I mean all kinds of abuses that you can think of that would be regarding here the the it provides some protection for the woman by making her status clear requires a certificate of divorce a written bill of divorce and with that bill of a divorce her status is at least clear that she's not married to the to the first husband and that also provides some protection for her a man who determined to get rid of his wife might resort to murder so this said that at least it provides her with the protection of a bill of divorce now the the rabbis argued over the meaning of the the phrase nakedness of a thing the school of Shamai I'm reading from the mission the school of Shamai say a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found a naked thing in her for it is written because he has found in her indecency in anything and rabbi says even if he found another fairer than she because it is written and it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes now I think that what we call the liberal interpretation is actually fits the Deuteronomy role the Hillel's ground and also Akabas ground is entirely subjective repulsiveness is in the eye of the of the the holder or the attractiveness of someone else is in the eye of the holder it is subjective this legislation does tolerate arbitrary divorce on the part of the man I think it's that's especially clear when in the phraseology of the second husband who he says dislikes her that's all the reason that has to be given he dislikes her it's got to give her a certificate of divorce but he has only to dislike her to be rid of her and understandably given the sin of men the liberal exegesis became the dominant view now Jesus and Mark 10 also Matthew 19 that will look at in a moment challenges the assumption that was common to both rabbinic schools namely that the passage was intended to give grounds for divorce see that's the assumption because this is in the case law it must be talking about grounds for divorce but what if it's talking about grounds for divorce then the liberal interpretation is correct seems to me on the in terms of the exegesis even Shanlai is liberal in terms of the allowing divorce for indecency short of adultery something that was embarrassing to the husband is much lesser than what the biblical requirements actually are so it rather regulated an existing situation of divorce for lesser reasons than adultery adultery being a capital offense according to Deuteronomy 22-22 it allowed it to be done but didn't approve it it allowed it to be done Jesus says for the hardness of men's hearts it's because your hearts were hard that you have this case law which allowed divorce requiring written documentation rendered the husbands incline intent and the ex wife status clear the traditional formula the bill of divorce read load that are committed to any man you have a reflection of that in Hosea 24 as the Lord divorce is Israel for adultery spiritual adultery she is not my wife neither am I her husband so that is also in the background that the Lord divorce is Israel divorce is Israel for the sake of adultery but I have to remember what Jesus says about the mosaic provision it was given for the hardness of men's heart from the beginning it wasn't so and he collates Genesis 1 and 2 for this reason God made the male and female this cause a man shall lead his father and mother and plead to his wife and the two will be one flesh and no longer two but one and then what God has joined together let not man put a sander now you don't have any exceptions in mark and that's the case also in Luke 16 18 I've given you on the handout the the very statements from the gospels summer unqualified mark 10 11 and 12 and Luke 16 18 or unqualified and they make mention of no so Martin makes no mention of an exception but I think we should understand that such a radical breach as I've said in fact the capital crime though not though the death penalty was not enforced at this time the radical breach such as adultery was not in question is grounds for divorce that was assumed in the argue so when when the Jews read Mark 10 they would understand that this forbids the divorce or in the arbitrary way of the doeronomy 24 but the question of adultery is a side now you could have inferred that from just the Old Testament teaching on divorce I should include here Malachi 216 we're used to Malachi 216 as I hate divorce says the Lord God of Israel but the rest of the verse doesn't make much sense when it's construed that way and actually Hebrew says or he hates divorce and there's a bit of a problem with the translation of of Malachi 216 I've worked on this particularly worked on on it in light of the septurgent which has been ignored but if you take Malachi 216 as an if then clause which the Hebrew can be taken and the septurgent definitely takes it that way then this would be the reading if you divorce your wife for hatred that is for dislike for aversion for what's tolerated in doeronomy 24 says the Lord God of Israel then you cover your garment with violence you cover your garment with injustice the one who divorces his wife out of hatred covers his garment with injustice what's the garment that's the patrol the garment remember Ruth and Boaz and remember in Ezekiel the Lord who puts his garment over Israel as he claims her for his patrol so it's the figurative for the patrol pledge which was a establishment established a permanent commitment which is now stained with injustice says the Lord God of Host now there's a for technical reasons I don't don't have time to go into it right now that that has become a standard understanding of Malachi 216 is reflected in a number the more recent translations I even wrote an article on that that was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature most recent thing that I've seen on that is this book by Gordon Hugenberger he's professor of Old Testament at Gordon Conwell and the title of the book is Marriage as a Covenant subtitle Biblical Law and Ethics as developed from Malachi first published in Hardback in 1995 now available in 1994 now available from Baker in paperback published in 1998 and if you want a full defense of the covenant idea in Malachi and this translation of verse 216 you can on the basis of the Hebrew you can get it there let me get find find this translation I marked it here yes sir okay it's let me find this just a second I will do that I'm looking for his translation because it matches mine here's the way he translates it this is page 67 if one hates and divorces says Yahweh God of Israel he covers his garment with violence says Yahweh of host and he defends taking that as an if then clause which is the way the Septuagint takes it but I don't come we can edit this out but I taught a semester seminar on abortion remarriage which we looked it we went over all these verses with a fine tooth we looked at every jot into the week we looked at these verses till our eyes bugged out and trying to put together Malachi and reading some commentaries on it I had a problem with the way that they were dealing with Malachi so I went to my New Testament colleague Carl Cooper with my Septuagint and said help me with this and began to read and what he discovered was that the Old Testament commentary tradition has not parsed the Septuagint correctly there are two readings of the Septuagint the critical reading says if you divorce out of hatred you cover your garment with violence the the variant reading says if you hate or divorce it's totally out of the context of Malachi I was the first time I went to Ukraine I had students in the class with Russian Bibles and Ukrainian Bibles and when I told the translator to read the Malachi 216 he read it in Russian and the those who were following the Ukrainian Bibles you know I don't know that's not right because the Russian Bible follows the inferior reading of the Septuagint if you hate a divorceer which you don't have to put up with it it's totally against the context of Malachi it's likely developed to bring it in harmony with Deuteronomy 24 when actually it's a protest against Deuteronomy 24 Ukrainian Bibles more recent translation had it right it's an if-then clause if in our common translation we read it for I hate divorce says the Lord God of Israel and that it doesn't match the rest of the text and the NIV has to have a paraphrase for that because it changes subject but actually the Hebrew doesn't say I hate divorce it says he hates divorce but you can also render that the one who divorces out of hatred now the technical reasons are spelled out in this book that's the way the Septuagint took it as a matter of fact correctly parsed it gives that so what you have here is already in Malachi a recognition that arbitrary divorce such as tolerated in Genesis into Deuteronomy 24 is infidelity the point of Malachi chapter 2 is covenant fidelity expressed in two ways first of all marrying within the covenant but secondly not divorcing your wife the wife of your youth though she is your partner and your wife by covenant arbitrary divorce is a radical breach of covenant fidelity and so the Old Testament teaching on divorce is complicated by the fact that you have Genesis setting the ideal Deuteronomy 24 regulating a situation it's a consequence of the fall Malachi protesting against taking advantage of that the legislation in terms of one's a personal interest Matthew 19 will come to Matthew 19 you do have the except accepted clause it's on the other side of the handout your yellow handout it's in both Matthew 5 and the Matthew 19 since Matthew 19 is directly parallel to Mark 10 I read it in Matthew 19 Jesus said to them for the hardness of your heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives but from the beginning it was not so and I say to you whoever divorces his wife except for Pornaya and Mary's another commits adultery now Pornaya so here you do have the accepted clause Pornaya came to mean originally meant prostitution but it came to mean unlawful sexual intercourse generally wider than the term adultery which is technically between a married person but also used of immoral sexual intercourse on the part of a married person so Pornaya is the general term for all immoral sexual intercourse sometimes you can give it a specific name by context if payment of wages is going on you call it prostitution not fornication if it involves very close relatives you call it incess not fornication if it involves persons of the same sex we call it homosexuality if it involves an unmarried couple it is unchastity although we still retain the term fornication for sexual sin of an unmarried couple but in the Greek it covers both married and unmarried if it involves unmarried person it is adultery and what is crucial for the right interpretation of the accepted clause in Matthew 19 is the observation that Israel's covenantal infidelity leading to her divorce by Yahweh is alternatively described as fornication and adultery given verses from Hosea Jeremiah Ezekiel that you can look up in the text to confirm that but the Lord divorces Israel for fornication for adultery both Pornaya and the term for adultery in Greek is used in the Septuagint translations so you do have explicitly in Matthew 19 the inclusion of what was clear in the Old Testament that divorce had become legitimate in case of adultery and the paradigm for that is the Lord's own activity in light of Israel's adultery he divorced her you no longer my wife no longer your husband now God retrieves his his sinful adulterous wife pursues her through the remnant and brings her back after the exile so that there's more going on than just the divorce but it is establishes the principle of an exception to what appears at first in Mark and Luther is absolute that if you remarry following divorce you commit adultery no if adultery is the cause of the divorce then remarried following divorce is not adultery now I don't have time to answer all the objections in class I try to answer all the objections in the in the text so the I tried to take all the alternative views and express them but this is this goes back by the way not to arasmas as it sometimes said sometimes this exegesis is connected with arasmas but it's always been the position of the eastern church the eastern orthodox church is always held that divorce with the right of remarried on the grounds of adultery from on the basis of what Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 and so it's it's been kind of pejorative to describe what it becomes the position of the reformers and the Westminster Confession as arasmin you know that has the connotations of all those well he was a humanist and you know is reading his views in the scripture actually is very ancient interpretation in the church that was known to be a point of contention between east and west when in the 15th century they were talking about reuniting the branches of east and west there's a historic difference between the two branches of the church east and west so you could have understood mark mark and loop circulated apart from Matthew at first and folks reading the gospel of mark would have known if they had paid attention to the Old Testament that there isn't exception with respect to adultery because it was a capital crime and because the Lord divorced Israel for adultery so it wasn't as absolute as it seems on the surface you know thinking exegetically in terms of the whole of scripture you could have come to that conclusion but I think the Holy Spirit were making it explicit in Matthew 19 you know it's we don't have to argue that because there's no textual variant to Matthew 19 there's no supposition that somebody manipulated the teaching of Jesus to lessen its strictness in some way it's there and it's because the frame of the question in Matthew 19 is a little bit different more precise any and every reason and in light of the way in which it's set up the exception that is implicit in mark and is explicit in in Matthew 19. Now when we come to the epistles I think that the first thing to say is on Romans 7, 2 and 3 that that principle still hold the principle to use the words of John Murray the contingency the sound so Murray asked the contingency of perverse and wanton violation of marital sanctity need not be taken into consideration when appeal is made to the law that governs marriage Paul this Paul uses this as an illustration his point in Roman 7 is not to teach the whole teaching about marriage and divorce and remarriage he uses the illustration all of his readers know that they're exceptions and that this is this is not intended to be to say everything a perverse and wanton violation he just leads a sign he talks about marriage law in general so I think that that's the way in which you can harmonize Roman 7 with Matthew 19 same way that Mark and Luke are harmonized with Matthew 19. The major place in the epistles where divorce and remarriage are presented is in Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 and we look first at verses 10 and 11 to the married I give charge and not I but the Lord and when Paul says not I but the Lord he's not depreciating his authority as an apostle of the Lord it's simply referring to something that Jesus taught while he was on earth as the recorded in the gospels so Paul says to the married I give charge not I but the Lord referring to a teaching that Jesus taught on earth that the wife should not separate from her husband and the word that's used for separate there is a divorce term from the point of view of the woman it was separating out of the domicile from the point of view of the man it was sending her out from the domicile so we're not talking about a legal separation we're talking about a divorce here and he repeats the teaching of the Lord that the wife should not separate from her husband but if she does let her remain single Agama's unmarried strictly or else be reconciled to her husband and that the husband should not divorce his wife in the Roman world the Greek or Roman world and distinction from Jewish world wives did have the right to divorce their husband and Carrizzo was the term that was used for that action on the part of the woman Paul says remember the teaching of Jesus don't do it and it's neither the man nor the woman should divorce the other he's speaking to believers in first Corinthians 7, 10, 11 he does include the thought that a woman might go ahead and divorce in spite of what the Lord says that's sometimes Christians fail to live up to what the Lord teaches and so he very quickly says that let her not let her remain unmarried you don't divorce and marry somebody else you hold open the possibility of reconciliation to your husband and under certain circumstances a person might divorce but Paul's rule is hold open the possibility of reconciliation how open into this would be we don't know there comes a point where church discipline might have to intervene it's a marriage to be a marriage requires cohabitation and this is not a concession that frees a person totally from church concern and church intervention but apparently the woman stays within the fellowship at least for the time being because marriages sometimes do not live up to even Christian marriages fall short of the ideal so Paul says in those cases at least let there be no remarriage what the husband may do after a significant period of time goes by is a subsequent question that Paul doesn't deal with nor its implications for a church discipline down the road he doesn't deal with the significance of this parenthesis again to quote Murray Paul recognizes human nature is perverse even Christians still struggle against the perversity of our nature Paul doesn't mention the exceptions here when teachers Calvin says intend to deal with something briefly they teach in a general way exceptions are dealt with in a detail as well as more inclusive than yet a precise discussion now there is Paul goes on to say well in verses 12 to 15 to the rest I say I not the Lord Paul up to verse 12 has been speaking of a couple both of whom are believing Paul says that he is saying this not the Lord not to again to reduce his authority because when he speaks as an apostle he speaks with the authority of Christ when he gives his opinion he says it's an opinion when he gives a concession he says it's a concession when otherwise he is using his apostolic authority to lay out the Christian position and so by this expression I not the Lord refers to something the Lord didn't specifically address that he now in the missionary situation where one partner becomes a Christian and the other one doesn't how should believers proceed they might think on the basis of Ezra that they should divorce their unbelieving partner but Paul says no if any brother has a wife who's an unbeliever she consents to live with him he should not divorce her if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever and he consents to live with her she should not divorce him okay so incompatibility of religious faith does is not grounds or divorce one should not contract such a marriage Paul says not the unequally yoked with unbelievers it's like Paul this sorry it's like the Lord said to Israel in entering the land don't make any covenants with those folks and you know they they bought into this story the Gibbonites that they were away away you know and and they didn't consult the Lord that praises very significant in that narrative and so they made this covenant with the Gibbonites and the Lord held them to it once you make the covenant you're held to it the sin was in entering into covenant with them but once the covenant made they were bound to keep it and the same way with unbelievers who marry unbelievers they ought not to do it but having done it it is a marriage and when we find ourselves in marriages which the one becomes a believer in the other remains an unbelief it's not grounds for the believer to divorce but there is this provision in verse 15 if the unbelieving partner separates and the corids you have the same bird there let it be so in such a case the brother or sister is not bound for God has called us to peace here Paul deals differently than he does in verses 10 and 11 you're recognizing the hardness of heart on the parts of unregenerate people that leads to a situation where there's no reconciliation there's no realistic hope for reconciliation not being bound implies the freedom to remarry because divorce is that by which all marriage to do these come to an end the willful, irremediable abandonment of the marriage like adultery is just cause or dissolution of the marriage bond and there may be a reflection of that in 1 Corinthians 7, 27 and 28 this text is not on the list of things but where it was J. Adams that I first found this reference in are you bound or you lost means are you unmarried or are you divorced if you're bound to the marriage you shouldn't seek to change it Paul when he says are you lost it could mean either are you unmarried or are you divorced and I think that it applies to those who are divorced to remarry is no sin however that may be where there is where the marriage ceases it is dissolved and it is dissolved on these two two grounds in scripture adultery and willful a diversion desertion those two conditions prevailed by the way I gave on the bottom opinion on the bottom of this handout on divorce and remarry's text in the New Testament the definition of desertion from the Oxford companion to law this is the sense in which the Westminster confession uses the term desertion and it goes back to the 17th century that's been traced out in matrimonial law the separation of one spouse from the other with the intention of bringing cohabitation to an end without legal justification or the consent of the other spouse it may be done by leaving or physically departing from the other spouse or constructively by one spouse so treating the other that he or she is driven to and he'll justifiably to leave the deserting spouse that is the understanding of desertion and you can in the late 16th century and in the 17th century that's the context in which the Westminster confession talks about adultery and willful desertion as being grounds for divorce I think a part point C here I call the analogy of faith sometimes call it the analogy of scripture but the analogy of faith seeks the theological rationale that unites the two accepted passages we have two accepted passages Matthew 19 except for fornaia and we have first went in seven where desertion is cost for divorce if we ask why is adultery that cause sufficient for dissolving the bond of marriage I would say because it is a radical breach of marital fidelity it violates the commitment of exclusive conjugal law violates the commitment of exclusive conjugal law why does the departure of the unbeliever in a mixed marriage lead the believer free to remarry because it is a radical breach of marital fidelity violating the commitment of lifelong companionship I look at that in terms of the exceptional circumstance that's common to both of those instances is willful and radical violation of the marriage covenant and with that violation the marriage cannot continue the marriage has already been irretrievably broken in the case of adultery that's not always the case that can it is we say it's cause sufficient for dissolving because adultery does not in itself but dissolve the marriage it's grounds for it but the exceptional circumstances that are common to both of those is willful and radical violation of the marriage covenant it means that when Jesus says except for pornaia he's not presenting every case but he's talking about something that radically breaks the marriage bond and Paul expands on that in terms of the relationship of a believer when an unbeliever leaves a believer where there's no hope of reconciliation that also is a radical violation of the marriage covenant so the accepted clauses these two accepted clauses for adultery and desertion illustrate the possibility the sinful possibility of marriage is being destroyed now it would be perverse to take this as an instrument to study arguments unduly to put a sunder those who God is joined together in marriage I think that that's the pull of sin you know you get a principle and you run with it in pretty soon you're back to Deuteronomy 24 and divorce is arbitrary but divorce is permitted in cases where one of the two partners by radically betraying the marital bond this is a statement from Ritterboss has already irreparably broken the marriage in fact I think that sometimes we lay too much emphasis on divorce when we ought to look at what led to the divorce is being the ravages of sin upon the marital bond upon the marital relation so I would say that while divorce is always an abnormality arising out of human sinfulness it is nevertheless the finely sanctioned in circumstances of grave infidelity and though it is unwise to draw up an exhaustive list of such sins it's clear that some violations of the marriage covenant are of equal gravity as adultery husband of forces is wife to have an abortion wife who has an abortion without the knowledge of her husband husband who habitually beats his wife or children all these actions strike at the heart of the marriage relationship and by their actions they willfully repudiate the one flesh union of marriage now the peace the pca took that that in case in the case of spousal abuse they fit that under the I think rightly under the principle of desertion when we understand that desertion is not just when a person leaves but when a person forces a partner to leave that also amounts to the same thing and that's that's embodied in the understanding of desertion in law then persistent spousal abuse is grounds for divorce it falls under that category of imposing intolerable conditions that make the marriage impossible to continue yes sir well I think that we'd have to be careful about our understanding of emotional adultery and I think that the if in terms of in terms of pornea now that term is sufficiently broad that that behave your patterns that destroy the sexual side of the marriage such as addiction to pornography you know we our press theory sadly had to deal with a chase where one of our ministers became addicted to pornography and it destroyed his it destroyed his marriage he you know it just ruined the sexual component of their marriage and he he persisted in it now I don't know that it actually led to divorce in that case because the woman would have had grounds for divorce but I don't know if she pursued it but we pursued it with the man in terms of the discipline of the press theory because it did it was a marriage destroying behavior pattern now I think that you know that's that's that's a definitive kind of thing impenetinent addiction to pornography and after after attempts to provide counseling and and to overcome that if it persists then that's pornea that's destroyed the sexual component of the of the marriage emotional attraction to someone other than one's wife is more of a shaky thing and there and a person can be recalled from that and there's a need for counsel I've very very slowly in both emotional disaffection from the marriage and also emotional abuse within the marriage there aren't situations where the emotional abuse is so extreme that it is it is the equivalent of making the condition so intolerable that the marriage can't continue so it's not just physical abuse so it's more more definitive when it's physical but and I would say you know in all of these cases the biblical premium is on maintaining the marriage and reconciliation but you we're dealing with centers who do destroy their marriages through infidelity they are our goals should be reconciliation the deal with these things through counseling pastoral care and the support of the church at some point you have to make a decision as to whether there has been such violation of the covenant in terms of what it is and it's hard and the heart of it is sexual intercourse and cohabitation becoming that's what being one flesh is it's living together as man and wife and if you destroy the sexual or the living together aspect that is if it's willful now folks are separated by war and by many other other things against their will and that's not grounds for the board it's willful malicious desertion which in which we think of desertion popularly as somebody moving out and that's one form of it but it's also causing the other person to move out or perverse some not filing for the divorce papers all you have no intention of continuing the marriage but you just know you're this person because of her church membership is stuck with that with that you know that's that's and so the key should not be who filed the divorce papers you know you have to look more at the total situation to to determine who's fault it is and there may be fault on both sides there's always some fault obviously on both sides but the person is more or less innocent and guilty in terms of of causing this disruption and refusing the to continue to work on the relationship I have six principles in the in my book that six summary principles that let me just touch on them briefly it's page 204 start with one that marriages a covenant witness by God whereby he joins the couple in relationship he in terms of the permanent sex exclusive union so we get away from the idea that is more than the will of the parties are involved God's will is involved here divorce is number two divorce is not a solution for marital disappointment or difficult this one pre-marital council is so important so you get a realistic view of what marriage is before you enter into it and where that's adopted the divorce rate is decline there are some communities where the the whole pastoral component of the town says we won't marry and without pre-marital counseling and the divorce rates in those towns are going down significantly and it's empirical evidence that there's a correlation there and the most the PCH churches that I know of now adopt that as a standing policy we don't marry without weeks of pastoral counseling and it's we are encouraged to believe that we have resources by God's grace to make our marriages work face up to responsibilities and that to believe that to endure hardship and suffering is preferable to disobeying a clear command of Christ no it's not that there's going to be just the marriages should be easy there should be no no difficulty we suffer a lot because of the premium and the Bible places on reconciliation number four we have to recognize that some marriages are destroyed by radical breaches of covenant truth covenant fidelity in those cases the wrong this is my point the wrong in such cases is the destruction of the relationship so that the covenant cannot be fulfilled divorce is the public and legal attestation it follows the destruction of the marriage I don't use the term break down of the marriage you know that's that's too but like something happened to us this is centrally destroyed but folks do centrally destroy their their marriages the idea of a covenant it doesn't set up a metaphysical bond but rather a moral bond it's plagued fidelity but people can break covenants they ought not to break them but when covenants are are broken then they should be recognized that they are broken and and there is there's fault involved and then I number five I'll go over some of the material that we just looked at in in paragraph six whether a given case of marital violation is both radical and irremediable can be judged only in the particular circumstances we're called to exercise judgment here I know we we would prefer it not to be that way we would prefer it to be death only I mean death is clear cut used to be a little complicated now but you know with all the equipment that we've got to sustain breathing and so forth but you know death is clear cut I there there's a tendency to want everything to be clear cut a couple comes or wanted to get married one of the partners is divorced before typically the pastor will ask was there adultery involved in your previous marriage and the hopeful answer yes because then at least you know that if that's the cause of the divorce it it's clear cut things are not always you know that clear cut and particular when you get into the issue of applying the desertion principle PCA did apply it to justify divorce on the basis of spousal abuse but the views are held accountable and it's not that there's no church discipline involved it's recognizing that sometimes Christians don't act like Christians and they they simply destroy their marriage okay thank you for your attention