NOTE: This is a point by point commentary on the paper:
"Divorce and/or Marital Reconciliation after Adultery"
Unfortunately, I don't presently have a copy of that paper at hand:
however, I think that even without it the contents of this reply
to it contain enough of value to stand alone.
The entire argument of this paper rests on two false premises: first,
that biblical forgiveness is compatible with divorce; and second, that
Matthew 5 and 19 are intended to state biblical grounds for divorce.
These two premises have been addressed at length in my paper entitled,
"Adultery in Marriage - Should Forgiveness or Divorce be Sought?". This
list of comments will thus be abbreviated and specific, keyed to
particular points by number and letter.
Because the UNITY of marriage makes it impossible to speak of an
"innocent" spouse, I will take some issue with that term where it
appears. Like it or not, because God has made us one, we share the sin
of our spouse. So I will use the term "injured" or "wounded" rather
than "innocent".
1) "A believer is not obligated to divorce an unfaithful spouse."
TRUE, but weak. This would better read:
"A believer IS obligated to NOT divorce a(n unfaithful) spouse." The
behavior of the spouse is irrelevant. Mal 2:16, Mt. 19:4-8, Mk 10:2-12.
2) "Reconciliation... would have to be contingent..."
FALSE, although this sounds good, and contains elements of truth.
* I Cor 7:1-5 - Marriage partners are commanded to give one another
conjugal access (no contingencies).
* I Peter 3:1 - Peter calls for wifely submission to even the
disobedient husband (no contingencies).
3) "We must forgive as God as forgiven us..."
TRUE - but this does not go far enough. Eph. 4:32 - "EVEN AS GOD..."
says we must patiently and persistently labor toward forgiveness even
in the face of rebuff and repeated offense.
4) "But... has judged in previous cases..."
"But"... this may constitute replacing the commandments of God with the
traditions of men. Mark 7:8 "For laying aside the commandment of God,
ye hold the tradition of men..." Beware the risk of casuistry, "deducing
a standard of morality from the laws of society or from equity and
natural reason." (Webster)
4a) "exception phrase" - This is not an exception intended to grant grounds
for divorce. See "Adultery in Marriage - Should Forgiveness or Divorce be
Sought?"
4b) Partly true - but this is not to concede trust as central to
marriage. Trust and intimacy will certainly take time to restore, but
must necessarily follow the genuine grant of Godly forgiveness.
4c) While it is true that granting of forgiveness does not necessarily
erase all the effects of a guilty party's sin on a relationship, there
are serious problems with the restitution analogies presented here.
Analogies drawn from outside of marriage are inadequate because the
marriage relationship is completely unique in human experience, to the
extent of transcending that experience as a representation of the
relationship between Christ and the church.
4c1,2) Adultery is irremediable - there is NO POSSIBILITY of human
restitution. The levitical penalty for adultery was the death of both
parties (Lev 20:10, Deut 22:22). True forgiveness therefore has no
alternative but to recognize that CHRIST ALONE can and must pay the
death penalty.
What restitution does God require of us for our sin? "None of them can
by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: for
the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever."
Psalm 49:7,8. True forgiveness means the injured spouse must absorb the
remainder of the consequences which linger in this life. This requires
the complete acceptance of any remaining loss and/or penalty involved.
See "Adultery in Marriage - Should Forgiveness or Divorce be Sought?"
4c3) This analogy fails because it speaks of a position (elder or
deacon) which is achieved and held by maintaining a set of explicit
qualifications clearly delineated in scripture. There are no analogous
qualifications for maintaining the state of marriage.
4c4) A distinction must be made between punitive and corrective
action... which do these examples illustrate? As described here, they
are corrective or chastening. Wielded by the hand of God, either kind
of action is permissible. However, punitive action is not possible if
there has been forgiveness (Heb. 10:18). Chastening is only
appropriate in a parent-child relationship (Heb. 12:7). NEITHER is
EVER appropriate of one marriage partner toward the other.
4d) ... a rather long argument hinging on the supposed ground for
divorce in Jesus' teaching and on a view of reconciliation as one-sided.
This entirely begs the question as to whether there is any biblical
grounds for divorce. In the absence of such grounds, the conclusions of
this section are essentially correct; the divorce spoken of is
unbiblical, and may only be remedied by reconciliation. Not quoted
here, but definitely applicable, is verse 27: "Do not seek to be
released".
5) Seeking to restore and rebuild is not an option; it is essential.
5a) The paper states "he/she should not be made to feel 'to blame' for
the dishonor to Christ's name, division and pain to other family members
(children, parents, etc.) and to the church which divorce entails. This
responsibility rests squarely on the one who committed adultery..."
FALSE! While it is correct to place the principle blame at the feet of
the sinner who initiated adultery, it is sophistry to say that, given
two possible responses to that injury (one of which is known to lead to
honor, praise, etc. and the other of which is known to lead to
dishonor, division, pain, etc.), that there is no moral preference for
one course of action over the other.
The injured party is faced squarely with a choice; obedience to God
(whatever the personal pain or cost) or obedience to the wisdom of man
(no matter whom the choice may hurt). To choose divorce regardless of
consequences is the classic "the devil made me do it" cop-out. It
contains a clear echo of "the woman whom Thou gavest...she gave me...",
passing the buck and shirking all responsibility. Or, in more
contemporary terms, "the 'Matthew 19 exception clause' You gave me"
gives me an out, and damn the consequences!
And so we find ourselves blaming God! Not only for His sovreignty in the
matter of our partner's adultery, but also for giving us a convenient
rationale for the trail of destruction which will continue - for
generations, perhaps - based on the example we set today. Yes, God's
grace can overrule our sin... but dare we presume upon those riches?
5b) "... the innocent party MAY seek Christ's strength to reflect his
mercy in forgiving and accepting the guilty but repentant spouse..."
This course of behavior is presented as optional. This is in inherent
conflict with point #3, "We MUST forgive as God has forgiven us."
Ephesians 4:32, "..forgiving each other just as God in Christ also has
forgiven you" is a COMMAND, as is Matthew 5:48, "Be ye perfect". These
are not optional courses of action, Matthew 5 and 19 notwithstanding.
6) There is no possible protection of reputations in this kind of
grievous situation. The only genuine hope is forgiveness and
restoration.