The Marriage Permanence Doctrine

[ZephBonkerer]

This is a topic that I've touched on in comments in various places. I thought this would be a good place to address the Marriage Permanence Doctrine specifically.

This teaching holds that for those that regard Jesus as their personal savior, there are no valid grounds for divorce other than adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. And even under these conditions, divorce may not be considered a valid remedy. Some variations of this doctrine hold that divorce is never allowed even in these cases. A divorce for any unapproved reason would be “unbiblical”. If someone does get an “unbiblical” divorce, then they must reconcile to their former spouse or remain unmarried for the rest of their days (per 1 Cor 7:10-11), regardless of the prospect for a successful reconciliation.

Some of the more extreme variations of this doctrine hold that if you do get a divorce on grounds considered invalid by this teaching and remarry, then you are committing a perpetual state of adultery and will lose your salvation as an adulterer unless you get a divorce from your “adulterous remarriage” as adherents to this doctrine often refer to a remarriage. Some adherents of this particular teaching insist that there are no grounds for divorce that are recognized by God, not even adultery or abandonment.

The Marriage Permanence Doctrine is NOT the ideal that marriage be lifelong and should not be terminated without some compelling reason. In fact, if it was legit to dump your spouse for any reason or no reason at all - or simply because someone younger and hotter came along - then marriage as we know it might as well not even exist.

If you are familiar with my posts in other threads, you would already know where I stand on this doctrine. In case you aren't, I believe this doctrine is a blasphemous heresy from the Pits of the Fiery Notheaven and ought to be marked RETURN TO SENDER. I hope to open this discussion on why this is false teaching. It is false teaching and there are multiple ways to prove it false.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

A side note: the "Fiery Notheaven" is that place in the after life that is fiery and it is not Heaven. It's the other place. That is where this doctrine is from, and it is where it belongs!

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Proof I : Association

1 Cor 5:11 (ESV)

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

In most church assemblies, persons who claim to be a believer but behave in this way can be – and should be – excommunicated. Candidates for excommunication are often unrepentant and are full of excuses for their immoral and unethical conduct. If the Church assembly shouldn’t put up with these worthless bums, how then can we reasonably insist that this person’s spouse do so for the rest of his or her days?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Proof II : Hardness of Hearts

Matthew 19:7-8 (ESV)

They [the Pharisees] said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so…”

If a concession for divorce existed under the Mosaic law due to the hardness of hearts, and if this concession no longer exists today, does this mean that peoples’ hearts are no longer hard? Or that only the Old Testament Jews had hard hearts?

Moses got in enough trouble with God for striking the rock (Numbers 20:12), so it is unreasonable to hold that he would have overstepped his authority by issuing the Law on something as consequential as divorce without the full endorsement and approval of God.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Proof III : Parallel with Sabbath

Mark 2:27-28 (ESV)

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.

Luke 13:14-16 (ESV)

But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?”

If the sanctity of the Sabbath does not outweigh the actual well-being of flesh and blood human beings, is it reasonable to hold that the sanctity of marriage would?

Jesus took a dim view of the leaders who valued the sanctity of the Sabbath to the detriment of the welfare of people, even referring to them as hypocrites! At the time, the New Testament had not yet been written, yet Jesus still expected the teachers of the law to have known better.

To the church leaders who value the sanctity of marriage even in marriages that are detrimental to one or both spouses, I ask this: What’s your excuse going to be?

 

[Stephen3141]

This is a topic that I've touched on in comments in various places. I thought this would be a good place to address the Marriage Permanence Doctrine specifically.

This teaching holds that for those that regard Jesus as their personal savior, there are no valid grounds for divorce other than adultery and abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. And even under these conditions, divorce may not be considered a valid remedy. Some variations of this doctrine hold that divorce is never allowed even in these cases. A divorce for any unapproved reason would be “unbiblical”. If someone does get an “unbiblical” divorce, then they must reconcile to their former spouse or remain unmarried for the rest of their days (per 1 Cor 7:10-11), regardless of the prospect for a successful reconciliation.

Some of the more extreme variations of this doctrine hold that if you do get a divorce on grounds considered invalid by this teaching and remarry, then you are committing a perpetual state of adultery and will lose your salvation as an adulterer unless you get a divorce from your “adulterous remarriage” as adherents to this doctrine often refer to a remarriage. Some adherents of this particular teaching insist that there are no grounds for divorce that are recognized by God, not even adultery or abandonment.

The Marriage Permanence Doctrine is NOT the ideal that marriage be lifelong and should not be terminated without some compelling reason. In fact, if it was legit to dump your spouse for any reason or no reason at all - or simply because someone younger and hotter came along - then marriage as we know it might as well not even exist.

If you are familiar with my posts in other threads, you would already know where I stand on this doctrine. In case you aren't, I believe this doctrine is a blasphemous heresy from the Pits of the Fiery Notheaven and ought to be marked RETURN TO SENDER. I hope to open this discussion on why this is false teaching. It is false teaching and there are multiple ways to prove it false.

(Needless to say, there is no language in the New Testament describing "the
marriage permanence doctrine". This is a name given by certain denominational
groups.)

Note, that there is a difference in understanding, about what "divorce" means,
and under what conditions it is permissible for a person in the People of God
to get a divorce.
That is, even if conditions are met to divorce one's spouse, does that mean
that the other spouse is now "single" (In American lingo)? I do not think so.

Paul talks about "separation" under certain conditions. But he commands that
the separated spouses be reconciled, or live without remarrying.