Well, given your outspoken position on divorce and remarriage, we get a lot of questions in the inbox on this front. Here's one from a podcast listener named Lisa. "Dear Pastor John, I read your long article about divorce and remarriage and agreed all along. Near the end, you restated that only God can end a marriage.

Yes. Then you went on to say that remaining in a second marriage is right. I noticed that you did not give scripture to back up that point, and that's where I no longer agreed with you. All the other scriptures seem to only prove that marriage is impossible to end.

Are there any passages to suggest that a divorced spouse should remain in their second marriage?" It's important to point out that this question that's being asked is a question everyone has to face, not just me with my conservative view of divorce and remarriage. It's a question that everyone, except those who think that all divorce and remarriage is biblical.

If you have any limits at all in your view of divorce and remarriage, you will sooner or later meet a couple who has transgressed even your limits and are in a marriage that they should not have entered, that you think they should not have entered, not just me. This is a question then for almost every Christian.

If the marriage that you are in was entered wrongfully, you shouldn't have entered it, but you stay in it. That's the question. And my answer is yes. Repent honestly before God to each other and to him. Admit it should not have happened. Ask for forgiveness from each other and from God, perhaps from former spouses, and then keep your promises that you made to each other when you made your vows, rather than a second time breaking your word.

And Lisa's question is, are there texts for that opinion? I mean, you're just saying that, Piper. What about the Bible? And I want to say here, I could be wrong about this. I could be drawing inference from texts illegitimately, but there do seem to me to be three or four or more pointers in this direction in the Bible, and I'll give them to Lisa now.

Number one, in Joshua chapter nine, there's the story of the Gibeonites, who you may remember hear about Joshua and the Israelites destroying cities, and they don't want to be destroyed, so they know they're going to be next on the list of destruction. So they pretend to be from a faraway country, and they lie to Joshua, and they get Joshua to promise that he will not kill them because they're not in his territory.

And Joshua makes a vow and swears to them before God that he won't kill them. And then he finds out that they were lying to him. And it says in chapter nine, verse 19, "All the leaders said to the congregation, 'We have sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel, and now we may not touch them.'" Now, my point there is that it appears that a vow that you enter wrongfully—there are two reasons why they shouldn't have entered this vow.

One is because the Gibeonites were lying to them, and two is because it says explicitly they did not consult God, and God explicitly intended for the Gibeonites to be destroyed. And now they're keeping the vow they never should have made under horrible circumstances, thus elevating the importance of promise-keeping or vow-keeping, even when it was entered into wrongfully.

And I'm saying that perhaps suggests—I think it does suggest—that a vow you make to a person to be their husband or their wife till death do you part is not something to be taken lightly. Number two, Jesus talked to the woman at the well in terms that suggest pretty strongly that he believed she had five genuine husbands and one non-genuine live-in.

He put it like this. He said to her, "Go call your husband and come here." And the woman answered him, "I have no husband." And Jesus said to her, "You're right saying I have no husband, because you've had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband.

What you have said is true." Now think about that. What does that imply? It's true that the Greek—that includes this text here—does not have a different word for husband and man or husband and male. So it could be translated, "You've had five men, and the man you now have is not your man." But even if you translate it that way, it doesn't make sense unless you distinguish this sixth man from those other five in some way, because he says, "This is not your man.

Those were your men. This is not your man. This is not your husband. Those were your husbands." What was the difference? The only thing I know to suggest is that they had somehow formalized the relationship in a ceremony in which they took some promises to create the relationship that was known as marriage or husband-wife.

So it seems Jesus put some stock in calling those five men real husbands, different from five live-in boyfriends that she never married. Here's the third one. And this one comes, interestingly enough—I was talking this over with all the team of the Together for the Gospel guys, and I won't say who said it, but one of them, I thought, very provocatively pointed this out.

Jesus does use the verb "marry" for what they should not do and do do when he's forbidding them from doing it. Let me give you—let me show you what I mean. Matthew 5:32, "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." So he doesn't say, "Whoever presumably marries" or "tries to marry." He says "marries." He doesn't say "presumes to marry" or "tries to marry" as if, yes, this is a real marriage being created.

It should not be created, and it's like committing adultery when you enter it. He says the same, similar kind of thing in Mark 10, 12, 11, and 12. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." So if Jesus is willing to call wrongfully entered relationships marriages, then it seems to me that we should hold people to the expectations of holiness and permanence implied in the word "marriage" till death do us part.

So I take the warning that remarriage involves adultery—whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery—not to mean that sexual relations in a wrongfully entered relationship can never be sanctified through repentance and forgiveness, but rather that an unholy relationship involves unholy sex. Until that relationship is newly consecrated to God through repentance and forgiveness, that relationship remains tainted at every level.

One last thought. If this seems strange, that a prohibited relationship can become a consecrated and holy one, consider the example—and there are several in the Bible—of the kingship of Israel. The people came to Samuel in 1 Samuel 8 and said, "Now appoint for us a king to judge us like the nations." But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." But Samuel prayed to the Lord, and the Lord said, "Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them." And yet, in spite of this evil origin of this new relationship of king and people and God, God made the kingship an integral part of his plan for Jesus to come as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and as the Son of David.

So for those four reasons, examples, kinds of texts in the Scripture, I would appeal to those in a marriage they should not have entered to remain there and consecrate themselves by confession and repentance and consecration so that henceforth they will keep their sacred promises. Thank you, Pastor John, for that.

Everyone should stop and go read that article. It's titled Divorce and Remarriage, a position paper written by John Piper back in July of 1986. It's a very key document to read and to understand, and you can find it, of course, at DesiringGod.org. And there you can also scan or search through all the episodes we've released over the years.

You can also find articles, we're writing and editing, and videos. You can find all sorts of content to edify your soul at DesiringGod.org. I'm your host, Tony Reinke. I'll see you tomorrow. 1 DesiringGod.org