Nail The Colors To The Mast: Divorce, Remarriage, and the People of God 

Thanks for the great comment. Yes, we would definitely agree. The double standard among conservatives regarding divorce and remarriage as it relates to homosexual marriage is absolutely shameful.

WOW did you even watch the whole video? I thought you taught the truth on this subject?? Please watch it again.

I did watch the whole thing, and there are two points I actually don't agree with, which come near the end. However, compared to somebody like John Piper who will discourage legalized adulterers from leaving those unlawful unions, Pastor Kerry will send far fewer people to hell, in my view. Both of Pastor Kerry's errors leave people outside of an immoral / demonic relationship where the Holy Spirit will have more fertile ground to correct doctrine errors and speak truth. On the several separate little snippets of this that have followed, I have brought the real word of God to bear where the errors are part of the snippet.

@@carolvaclavicek6666 Lil leaven leaventh the whole lump.....And there are 3 points he errors in not 2. Unless you teach it falsely also.

That's utter nonsense. Piper isnt a man pleaser. He could give a rats ass about what people think. He diligently searched the scriptures and prayed and for whatever reason came up on the other side. I don't know the rest of them in this video except McArthur and i dont believe in any way he came at this issue with the hopes of pleasing men before God.

@@meadowbrooks4041 You don't diligently search the Scriptures and come up with the idea that Christians can live in adultery. Piper gets it right on verse after verse, then caves to the pressure when it comes to remaining in sin. Adultery is a sin, and adulterers will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Piper is compromised and needs to repent. And by the way, he is on the record as saying partners in same sex "marriages" DO need to leave their relationship. So he's only blind when he wants to be.

The example in the Law that gives us insight concerning Mary's situation (if the child that was in her was not from God) is Deut 22:28. If Joseph didn't put her away quietly, she wouldn't have been automatically been put to death, but there would have been a hunt for her seducer before the betrothal.

No. Because Paul's statements in Romans and 1 Corinthians are about the first death. He gives positive affirmation of widows getting married again at the end of 1 Corinthians 7. This necessarily means the marriage is binding until the first death, not the second death.

All for the occasional beer! Plenty of Scripture commending wine as a good thing, but also warning against its abuse. So, we have to exercise discipline and wisdom when using alcohol, just like we have to do when operating a vehicle or even eating food. All good things can be abused. Christians need to show the world how to rightly enjoy the good gifts from God. A few relevant passages: He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, And vegetation for the service of man, That he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine that makes glad the heart of man, Oil to make his face shine, And bread which strengthens man’s heart. - Psalm 104:14-15 Honor the Lord with your possessions, And with the firstfruits of all your increase; So your barns will be filled with plenty, And your vats will overflow with new wine. - Proverbs 3:9-10 Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already accepted your works. - Ecclesiastes 9:7 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise. - Proverbs 20:1 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the wine, those who go in search of mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart will utter perverse things. - Proverbs 23:29-33 Do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit. - Ephesians 5:18 Jesus, of course, drank wine. Turned water to wine at Cana. And when He instituted the Lord's Supper, He did so with bread and a cup of wine. Cheers!

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red"

@@SaintAthanasiusChurch The word "wine" in the Bible can mean both fermented and non-fermented grape juice. The meaning depends on the context. Are we to believe that Jesus threw a kegger?

@@FreedomsNurse Unfermented grape juice goes rancid in days unless fermented or pasteurized. The latter process is relatively new in history.

@@FreedomsNurse The word wine in the Bible simply means wine. It's an alcoholic drink. Individual references to "new wine" may refer to the low alcohol version soon after pressing the grapes, but even that would become higher in alcohol shortly, as that's how the process works. Jesus drank wine regularly according to the New Testament, commanded its use for Communion, and created a vast amount of wine for a wedding. If Jesus created grape juice out of water for an ancient Jewish wedding, the biggest miracle is that they didn't throw Him out of the place.

No, because he's talking to virgins. "Now concerning virgins..." (v. 25) He isn't talking to divorcees. Next question.

@@SaintAthanasiusChurch "loosed from a wife" doesn't exactly entail a virgin. Unless it was a celibate marraige. Which might be the reason he was loosed in the first place. 😁

@@tommatthews9341 Except it does entail a virgin, because Paul explicitly tells us he is speaking to virgins. We call this way of reading the Bible: reading in context. "Wife" is a translator's decision on the word for "woman" which can mean married woman, virgin, divorcee, or widow. We don't have to guess which Paul means because Paul tells us who is speaking to - virgins. Furthermore, we have Scriptural evidence of a virgin who was only betrothed and yet to be married, referred to as "wife" in the person of Mary. Matthew 1:18-20. Joseph is also referred to as Mary's husband before they are married. Paul is speaking to virgins in these betrothal/engagement scenarios. Try again, chief.

@@SaintAthanasiusChurch I'm convinced on marriage permanence for the most part. I just know some who are dead set that pre-conversion divorce and remarriage are covered under the blood. On the account that God deals with you in what condition you were in when He called you. 1 Cor 7: 18-20. And that "all things become new verse (2 Cor 5 : 17) They believe pre-conversion remarriage is included in ALL. I understand the reasoning behind no remarrying because that would cut off the possibility of reconciliation. But what happens when the abandoned party's spouse does remarry, leaving no possibility for reconciliation? There's no exception for the innocent party who did not seek to be loosed? Must they suffer through celibacy till death do us part. Jesus did say that those who choose and can accept to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom should accept it in Matthew 19:12. But what about those that aren't gifted with the grace to remain celibate?

It's music from a Christian band. We would disagree that it's hellish and foul. It's intense, which is what we were aiming for.

And the rest of the music throughout is also from Christian musicians, which we considered to be quite appropriate. The only exception to Christian musicianship would be the music during the credits. But we fail to see how a song about sailors shipping up to Boston is hellish. We chose that song as it had the intense marine feel to it that paired well with the title of the documentary, also a marine phrase. The intense music accurately reflects the intense message and intense new covenant violence that God is calling His people to. If the Bible had a soundtrack it wouldn't be soft contemporary or classical. There would be music that is disconcerting and I would say even frightening. Much more could be said about this - about a theology of music. We would contend that you're probably envisioning the use of music more narrowly than we would. But we would also agree with you that there is ungodly art and musicianship in the world, too, and that we ought to avoid that.

Correction: the Lord Huron samples aren't Christian in the sense that the musicians aren't Christian, but they align with a Christian message. The Apostle Paul quoted pagan poets to the philosophers at Athens when he was preaching the gospel to them. We view ourselves as doing something similar.

Yes. We would counsel separation, rather than legal divorce. But sometimes a legal divorce may occur. But after the divorce or separation one must remain single or be reconciled as Paul instructs in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband." One may marry again in the event of the death of a spouse. Only death dissolves the marriage covenant.

@@SaintAthanasiusChurch come out of the catholic religion. It isn’t Biblical! Matthew 7:13-14.. the way is narrow that leads to life and few find it. The definition of catholic is broad, wide, universal.

@@SaintAthanasiusChurch according to the gentleman’s interpretation at minute 49:00 remarriage would therefore provide what many are potentially seeking - a permanent nullification of the original marriage. There’s the very same “door” he warned against earlier in his commentary. That’s the biggest inconsistency and contradiction I see. Remarriage (adultery according to Christ in Matt 5:32 and Luke 16) somehow nullifies the original marriage? But then it couldn’t be called adultery any more than a Jewish woman could he called an adulteress for remarrying after receiving her bill of divorcement under the law of Moses. The two can’t both be true, otherwise sin covers sin under the law of Christ. I agree a wife would in this case need to remain single, as Athanasius commented. I’m just pointing out a strange contradiction that appears to have slipped in from the video.

@@themoneyfork319 It's a good observation. We wouldn't see it as a contradiction, however. We would say it is simply an affirmation of all Scripture. That it doesn't nullify the first marriage, but because an adulterous covenant was introduced into that lawful covenant, it prohibits her return to the original spouse. We both arrive at the same conclusion, she must remain single. Sometimes sins have permanent temporal consequences, and violating a lawful marriage with an unlawful one doesn't nullify the lawful marriage, but brings the attendant consequences of violating it in such a manner. We might say she is prohibited from returning *because* the original marriage covenant is still binding. It does seem counter-intuitive, but the strong language of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and its lack of nullification in the New Testament leads us to believe this prohibition is still to be observed by Christians. Furthermore, if it's understood that divorce and remarriage prohibits one from returning to their original spouse it provides incentive to seriously consider the consequences of one's actions. It militates against a flippancy in divorce and remarriage.

@@SaintAthanasiusChurch Interesting take, and yes, while your view does strike as counter-intuitive (like the binding lawful original marriage taking its cue from an unlawful one) I appreciate the response nonetheless. I suspect our differences are rooted in our views on the impact Jesus had on the Covenant struck with Moses, and subsequent covenantal requirements (whether the same or different on any given point) upon all men. I think Deuteronomy 24:1-4 are obsolete under the law of Christ, but held in honor for how they served Israel in their time. These were very wise rules to enjoin for a nation that wished to divorce and remarry on account of the hardness of their hearts. As you indicate, the rules certainly deter flippant divorce and remarriage (husband giving her a bill before separating, and recognition that if he does so, he may not return to her). However, I believe Jesus only recognizes original first marriages under the new covenant - the Adam and Eve standard, if you will. Therefore subsequent marriages are merely ignoble, certainly worthy of separating over to avoid adultery, but also in order to be present-minded and ready to reconcile with an original spouse should the opportunity arise. Again - thanks! btw do you have any affiliation to the gentleman being interviewed in the video? I appreciate you uploading it, it's a rare testimony and position these days.

Are you divorced and remarried? His main "exegesis" is simple: Matthew 19:3-11 “The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’ They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.’ His disciples said to Him, ‘If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ But He said to them, ‘All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given

This man quotes abundantly from Scripture, and makes very little references to extra-biblical sources. The Scriptures are very clear on remarriage being adultery, and on marriage being for life. However, people want to live as they see fit. Nearly everything in the Bible is challenged, but that does not mean it isn't clear. It just means it's challenged. People want to put man first, not God, and remaining in sin sounds much more attractive than leaving it.

@@holinessofthebride1935 Let me be clear. This message is correct and is truthful. That being said, i have a degree in Biblical studies and know many people of walks of life including theologians and those in academia who believe, after much study and prayer that there are exceptions for remarriage Most of these men are not out to please men or sow to flesh and live holy lives. In my city of over a million people, there is one... Only one church that preaches marriage permenance. (besides the catholic churches that bend and have annulments which are unscriptual). I have grow weary of people who say its so easy to see. Few were raised to know this truth and most of them were "woke" about this topic well into thier Christian walk. You alnost certainly have to know some.greek and hebrew and know about Jewish marriage procedure to get there and its helpful to know of the Erasmusian error and the history of the church concerning this topic. Saying its clear does not make it true. If you were able to see it early then thabks be to God. But you willk see tstimony after testimony of people who were good Christians who were unwittingly involved in this sin.

@@meadowbrooks4041 I am glad you respect marriage permanence, and I hope you also work to lead churches to repent, and respect marriage. We need a turn around on marriage The church air that people breathe is absolutely full of divorce and remarriage, and I certainly acknowledge that can make people fail to see the truth. However, I speak about clarity in the Bible itself. Considering that it states multiple times, in plain language that remarriage is adultery, and that marriage is ended only in death, I don't think it's hard to understand. The idea that we can use three words in Greek to ignore all of that plain scripture may be tempting to the soul, and cloud the vision, but that is bad interpretation to begin with. The early Church did not believe the betrothal view, but they clearly saw that remarriage was adultery too. Therefore, I believe according to the text the doctrine is clear. People will claim any number of doctrines are "unclear," including the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus, and the male-female nature of marriage. Yet they are all clearly revealed in Scripture. Some may take some work to see -- like the Trinity -- but they are clearly there. I don't see that mass confusion is necessarily any indicator of the clarity of God's revelation.