What Is Wrong With “Marriage Permanence Doctrine?” – Part 4 | Divorce and Remarriage


What is wrong with the “marriage permanence
doctrine?” Part four. Hi, welcome to today’s little lesson. We’ve been talking about the “marriage permanence
doctrine,” which I call “divine divorce doctrine.” This is the fourth time we’ve talked about
this, fourth consecutive time, in little lessons. Anytime I’ve talked about this in the past,
it’s garnered a lot of interest and controversy. The folks who are in the marriage permanence
camp, they don’t like it when you contradict them. They can get pretty nasty at times. It’s shocking. We’ll see how it goes this time, whether their
comments are hateful and caustic and mocking or if there’s any grace to it at all. That is the problem. What’s lacking overall in the “marriage permanence”
doctrine is grace. There’s a little grace, if you’ll divorce
and live a single life until your original spouse dies. You can go to Heaven then, but other than
that, you can’t. You’re gonna go to hell ’cause you’re living
in adultery, by their definition. I believe it’s a great misunderstanding and
it certainly doesn’t fit the whole tenor of Scripture, does it? I mean, we certainly don’t find anywhere in
the epistles anyone telling anyone that they need to divorce. Just the opposite. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Believers
that stick it out even with unbelievers, and no believers should ever divorce,” etc., etc.. There’s just no advocacy for divorce, and
yet the marriage permanence folks want literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands,
of Christian couples to divorce because one or the other or both has been previously married. Their thesis is, in God’s eyes, you’re still
married to your first spouse ’cause it was a lifelong covenant. Well, it was a lifelong covenant, but that’s
a lifelong covenant that can be broken in God’s eyes by adultery, because that’s why
Jesus said a couple of times, in Matthew 5 they do, “Anyone who divorces his wife, except
for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery.” That’s the exception. He says the same thing in Matthew 19, which
we’ll read momentarily. Of course, to whatever degree it is adultery
in God’s eyes when there’s a remarriage that takes place, it’s a singular act of adultery
because at that consummation of that second marriage, it severs the covenant, the first
one, and that’s it because there’s adultery. That’s the end of it, but that doesn’t mean
you’re living in adultery or that God wants you to divorce and so on and so forth. We prove that from looking at Deuteronomy
24, the law of Moses. Of course, I know the marriage permanence
folks, a lot of them would say that the law is irrelevant because Jesus brought a whole
new law and laying down new rules. That’s a false premise and if you wanna be
challenged about that, I’ve written a couple e-teachings titled something like “Getting
the Sermon on the Mount Right.” You can look up those two articles on DavidSermon.com,
“Getting the Sermon on the Mount Right,” part one and part two. Prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus
was not bringing a new law because many times when He quoted, “You have heard it was said,”
He wasn’t quoting from the law. It was clear He was quoting from the scribes
and Pharisees because what He said is not found in the law of Moses, and secondly the
“new standard” that Jesus espoused is also already found in the law of Moses and so it’s
not a standard at all, proving that that theory is totally wrong, but I don’t have time to
go into that in this teaching. We can rely upon Deuteronomy 24 and verses
one through verse number four as Jesus Himself speaking through the law of Moses and He said
the woman who’s been twice divorced cannot go back to her first husband. That’s an abomination. Why? Jesus explained it. There’s been adultery committed as far as
her first husband is concerned and that would be an abomination. That covenant has been severed by the consummation
of the second marriage, but she’s free to marry anyone else besides her first husband. Okay, Jesus was an endorser of the morality
that is espoused in the law of Moses. Alright, Matthew 19, there’s a key passage
of Scripture, of course. “Some Pharisees,” verse number three, “came
to Jesus, testing Him and asking Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for
any reason at all?'” History shows that that was widely believed
by most of the spiritual leaders in Christ’s day, any reason divorce. “He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not
read that He created them from the beginning, made them male and female, and said,'” this
is quoting from Genesis, “‘”For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and
join his wife. The two shall become one flesh?”‘” Jesus then comments, “‘There are no longer
two but one flesh. Whatever God has joined together, let no man
separate.'” God’s saying marriage is designed by God to
be a lifelong union. Hey! Wow, that’s a revelation. We all know that. We all know that and God never did it for
anyone to get divorced. In Jesus’ day, divorce would be so commonplace,
so easy. I’m sure God was pulling His hair out, saying,
“What in the world?” Now, God did make a concession for divorce,
and that’s exactly what the Pharisees bring up. They said to Him, “‘Why, then, did Moses command
to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?'” Which I won’t comment on that, but that is
a total misquote and misrepresentation of actually what Moses said, but Jesus avoided
commenting on that misquote and just addresses the gist of what they’re saying, that there’s
an allowance for divorce, obviously, in the law of Moses. Well, of course there’s an allowance for divorce. People are sinners. God made some concession as to what to do
if there’s a divorce and what not to do if there’s a divorce. We read one of them in Deuteronomy 24. “If she ever gets divorced from her second
husband, she can’t go back to her first husband.” Jesus says in verse number eight, “‘Because
of the hardness of your heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives. But from the beginning, it has not been this
way.'” It’s never God’s will for anyone to get divorced,
but does that mean that you remedy the divorce by divorcing your current spouse and going
back? That’s never said in Matthew 19 or Matthew
5 or in Mark or Luke or in any of the epistles. You don’t read the book of Acts of all the
Christians getting divorces as they repent from their second spouses. Jesus then says the same thing He says, essentially,
in the Sermon on the Mount. “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,”
now don’t forget this clause, “except for immorality, and he marries another woman,
he commits adultery.” There’s an exception, immorality or adultery,
of course, is the exception. If he marries another woman and he divorced
his first wife because she was unfaithful to him, he’s not committing adultery. You get it? You get it? See, that’s how God sees it. Adultery severs and ends the covenant, even
if nothing else does in God’s eyes. That does. If Jesus is defining the second marriage as
adultery for all the parties that are involved, well, then that’s the severance of it all. When that marriage is consummated, it is wrong,
it’s grievous in God’s eyes, but what’s done is done and so now God says, “What are we
gonna do to try to fix this?” He’s not saying, “Go back, divorce again and
go back.” He forbids them to go back in the law of Moses,
and that’s the fatal blow to the “marriage permanence” folks because ideally, they’d
have you go back to your first spouse. I read you an instance in the very first of
this four-part series about a woman who saw a man in the worship team in her church who
was married and she persuaded him that he had a fake marriage, that woman he was married
to with which he had five kids, because his wife had been previously married and was divorced
and married him, so their marriage wasn’t legitimate. She talked him into divorcing that woman and
then she got him. That’s the fruit of marriage permanence doctrine. I’ll be interested to see the comments on
that ’cause who could say that that’s right and good? Marriage permanence people probably will. Alright, I settled my own heart and said what
I had to say to get off my chest and so I’ve said it. God bless everybody who disagrees. I’m trying to save Christian marriages. That’s what I’m trying to do ’cause that’s
what I believe God’s trying to do. Okay, you don’t fix sin by sin, folks. Amen. Okay, that’s all for this little lesson. Thank you so much for joining me. God bless you.


11 Responses

  1. mrprosperity1

    December 5, 2018 11:03 am

    so how about Scriptures saying marrying a divorced person is adultery. so you say you can divorce for adultery but compound that by marrying a divorced person and committing adultery

  2. Olubunmi Olaiya

    December 6, 2018 12:48 pm

    What can i do, i got married to a person i do not love. I was going through a very terrible time with my parents and i used the marriage as an escape route. Even after having two children in the marriage, i still don't have any feelings for the person. I am in love with someone else. I really want to be fufilled, I can't continue living a loveless life. I pray God forgives me but you i want to be happy. I need your opinion.

  3. raz ram

    March 11, 2019 4:36 am

    This is false teaching when he say adultery is a one time act when you remarry, (So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.) its clear from this passage the person is called an adulteress while they remain married in second marriage. Better to read the bible than read books written by man and be mislead by false teaching

  4. Ed Castillo

    April 4, 2019 6:35 pm

    Reading these comments makes a great argument for suicide among the lonely who are told they will go to hell if they remarry!! That is such bullshit!! Where is the grace and forgiveness that Christ teaches?

  5. Hannah Hannah

    May 14, 2019 9:32 pm

    but if the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself. A brother or sister is not bound in such cases.

  6. Philip Buckley

    May 29, 2019 2:18 pm

    you have a slow start….hey, if the Bible calls a relationship sin or adultery….are you going to say it is….ok…..or to put it another way….it is not marriage, but adultery….and one needs to leave that relationship to receive forgiveness…

  7. Philip Buckley

    May 29, 2019 2:19 pm

    Paul is speaking to the married, not the remarried….man you have a false teaching, and you are just getting started….

  8. Philip Buckley

    May 29, 2019 2:23 pm

    if your point were correct…the sex of a second couple severs the first…how would there be a charge, of adultery….you are too convoluted….to follow…..what a shame..

  9. Don Stevens II

    August 28, 2019 11:57 pm

    I would suppose those who truly believe this must feel sorry for King David. A man after Gods own heart. A man who committed murder, in order to commit adultery. Well that puts them in a tough position? I would love to gain wisdom from them on 1 single question….Could David be in heaven? Yes or no? Remember, there is no correct answer to keep their theory in tact aside from placing David and judging he is suffering in hell for eternity.

  10. Neal Doster

    September 18, 2019 4:38 pm

    Contextually everything Jesus concluded about divorce and remarriage came from the Pentateuch. Do you the reader understand that?
    I ask this question because it is very common for Christians to apply Jesus’ teaching to the Church at the exclusion of it’s historic application to Israel.

    While I certainly believe it is relevant to the Church many false supposition are derived from not understanding it’s primal relevance to Israel. The historic confusion within the Church comes from interpreting Jesus’ teaching in a fashion which disconnects it from it’s retrospective relevancy to Israel. This mentally bypasses the concurrency of Jesus’ conclusions with that of Moses. If you don’t understand Jesus’ teaching as concurrent with that of Moses you will overlook a very important truth that explains the confusion and ambiguity within the Church today.

    The reason there are so many views (in regard to Jesus’ teaching) is because Christians don’t realize that everything Jesus said about divorce and remarriage was historically true for Israel. By understanding all of Jesus’ conclusions came from the Pentateuch we understand that EVERYTHING He said was relevant to Israel and ran parallel to Old Testament history.

    Contextually Jesus was the Christ – the promised one to Israel (Matthew 16:15-17) and He minister specifically to them (Matthew 15:24). I ask a young pastor who advocates the “permanence” fringe doctrines, who was Jesus speaking to when He spoke to this issue? He answered, the Church, which was what I was expecting him to say. But the Truth is Jesus wasn’t speaking to the Church, He was speaking directly to His covenant people Israel within the Theocratic System of that time. I’m not saying His teaching is not relevant to the Church, I pointing out the biblical fact that everything Jesus said was directly speaking to Old Testament history and scripture. Nothing He said was referring to New Testament scriptures, that’s because no New Testament scriptures existed. The young pastor had a predisposition to apply Jesus’ teaching to the Church before he understood it’s application to the very ones to whom Christ spoke. This is the propensity of those who advocates the “permanence” fringe doctrines David is referring to. They have unwittingly disregarded it’s concurrent relevancy to Old Testament history.

    If the Church overlooks it retrospective application to Israel it will create a vacuum that will be filled with false suppositions. Christians will spend all of their time coming up with theories explaining the adultery and worst of all they will advocate their theories to fix it. All of the views today are arguing back and forth about what to do about the adultery in remarriage. Most are familiar with the rhetoric and heated arguments among Christians. The biblical view would be the view that explains this issue (at any given point in biblical history) with the historical facts that preceded it. If one’s view does not follow a congruous understanding of this issue from Moses to Jesus to Paul, it will not be the biblical view that interprets a given text from the truths that preceded it. Knowing to whom Jesus was speaking and it’s relevance to them is paramount.

    In context of Matthew 19 and Mark 10 Jesus was making a counter argument against the Pharisees question which wanted to know all the reasons the law allowed for divorce (Matthew 19:3). Instead of answering that question from the base point of the law, Jesus instead answered it from the base point of creation, “the beginning” (v.4,8). Jesus reminded them that in “the beginning” divorce did not exist. It presently exist because of hard hearts (v.8). By appealing to God’s creative design for marriage Jesus masterfully exposed their callus hearts for wanting to end that which God created for life. Jesus made a counter argument against liberal divorce. He then admonished them to stop separating what God had joined together (v.6). That’s as far as Jesus took it. The “permanence” fringe teaching takes it much further, understand?

  11. Natasha Rose

    October 1, 2019 10:16 am

    NDRM has become a cult on Facebook and YouTube. They are harsh, mean and condemning. Divorce is allowed by Jesus when adultery has occurred. They are literally condemning people who are free to remarry and they act like remarriage is the unforgivable sin, which when you think about it, puts them in serious trouble with God (those who do not forgive will not be forgiven, and yet these people are taking it even a step further and refusing to forgive the remarried even when they have not sinned by remarrying!)


Leave a Reply