Biblical Divorce
by Ted Slater on 11/14/2008 at 8:58 AM
We received the following e-mail from a man who had downloaded and read through our free Guy's Guide to Marrying Well:
So according to this "guide" which quotes Mark 10 verses 11-12 anyone who has been divorced is not an "eligible" person to marry? What planet do you idiots live on? I have to marry someone who has never been married? Are you kidding me? I'm 43. I don't have "never been married" as a choice. Thanks for the worthless advice.
The Mark 10:11-12 reference is found on p. 51 of the guide, where we provide some guidelines for eligible spouses, among them this: "Is the person a believer who fears God (Proverbs 31:30) and who is biblically eligible for marriage (Mark 10:11-12)?"
My reply to this man, which draws from the Focus on the Family article "Should I Get a Divorce?":
Is your concern with Jesus' words, or with our referencing Jesus' words? Or perhaps you're assuming an interpretation that we're not giving?
FWIW, we believe that Scripture allows for divorce in three instances:
1) When one's mate is guilty of sexual immorality and is unwilling to repent and live faithfully with the marriage partner.
2) When one spouse is not a Christian, and that spouse willfully and permanently deserts the Christian spouse.
3) When an individual's divorce occurred prior to salvation.
These, we believe, are biblically permissible reasons for divorce. If someone has been divorced for one of these reasons, then, we believe they are not sinning by marrying another person.
I pray you find this clarification helpful, and that you find a wonderful woman with whom to share your life.
God hates divorce. It tears people up, and misrepresents the relationship it reflects, that of Christ and His Church. But it is permissible (though not required) in certain instances.
If you're considering divorce, let me urge you to talk with your pastor or a Christian counselor whom you respect. Many who are biblically permitted to divorce, but who don't, end up with rich and satisfying and grace-filled marriages. If you're considering marrying someone who's been divorced, let me urge you to wrestle with that person's submission to the biblical principles identified above.
1. Ted Slater said the following at 9:08 AM on Nov 14:
Two things:
1) That third allowance, I think, reflects Dr. Dobson's gracious heart toward hurting people. I believe he includes that one to free divorced Christians (who weren't Christians at the time of the divorce) to marry guilt-free, without wondering if they're sinning by re-marrying. It also points toward the fact that non-Christians are by nature disinclined to honor Christ by adhering to principles laid out in Scripture.
2) I'd be tempted to add "abuse" as a fourth allowance, or at least extend grace toward those who divorce an abusive spouse. I'm not sure, though, whether "abuse" is identified in Scripture as a permissible reason for divorce. Unless you define "marital unfaithfulness" broadly to include abuse.
2. Ken said the following at 9:09 AM on Nov 14:
Maybe that guy is the "idiot".
I know quite a few women who are in their 30's and 40's who have never been married.
3. Rachael said the following at 9:13 AM on Nov 14:
Divorce is sad...there are a lot of never-been-married people, though. Older people should keep in mind that they can date younger, never-been-married people as well.
But for the ones who have been scarred by horrible marriages, I wish I could point you to specific pages in the 'When Sinners Say I Do' book, but my boyfriend has it right now. There are examples of at least 2 horrible marriages, I think, one of which got reconciled I believe, and one where the woman had a wonderful attitude in spite of the horrible marriage - I'm not sure if that one had a 'happy' ending or not...
It's got to be absolutely absolutely painful to be in a horrible marriage. What a huge pain. But I suppose even then it's an opportunity for the power of God work in an individual's heart. So sad, though....
As for Christian marriages that have horrible elements that may not be present in everyone's marriage but where the marriages are not horrible in every aspect...when the person who is treated horribly (even if on a lesser degree) has an attitude of humble forbearance and selflessness, it can be quite noticeable and a wonderful testimony of faith to the family.
We are to love our enemies...yuck.
4. Rachael said the following at 9:19 AM on Nov 14:
Oh, about Ted's comment about abuse...I wonder if physical abuse could be an allowance too. And definitely grace should be extended in those cases from a believer to another believer.
I once talked with my good friend about divorce and she was mentioning how if the couple is actually 'divorced', the spouse could get child support. I think we were talking about being separated vs. being divorced, and we were talking about a particular case.
Anyway, if my kids (and maybe me) were being physically abused I would probably separate myself from my husband, and I suppose possibly divorce him if I wasn't able to provide for them and if I needed the child support.
5. obewan said the following at 9:28 AM on Nov 14:
Ted: I appreciate the clarification since I am in a singles group where 97% of the women are divorced.
However, I see where some people get the interpretation that divorced people cannot remarry. The Bible gives guidelines on allowable divorces, but is silent on allowable remarriages. It only says that whoever marries divorced woman commits adultery (Matt 5:32). There is no accept clause stated.
I see how other interpretations can arise though (because of the silence in other verses), and I am somewhat open to the idea of marriage to a woman who has been "biblically" divorced.
I certainly never stand in judgment of other Christians who have been divorced and remarried - that includes our current singles pastor and our Sunday school teacher.
6. Ryan said the following at 9:37 AM on Nov 14:
Ted, do you believe abuse isn't included in the Bible because God wants us to fully vet our choices before walking into marriage, and (for instance) if one marries an abusive person instead of divorce they should separate, seek out the eldership of the Church, and try to confront the situation that way?
I would like to have compassion on people in abusive relationships... I saw it in my parent's marriage to an extent. But it seems to me (I could be wrong) that those in abusive relationships know well in advance the temperament of their significant other before marrying. And those that remain only enable the abuse to continue (like the women in "Cops" who complain to the police officers that "you're hurting him!" when they arrest her boyfriend who just bloodied and bruised her face).
Last question, how SHOULD the church leadership respond in that situation where a member of their church is being abused at home? Doesn't advocacy and being proactive come with the job of being a church family?
7. Michelle F. said the following at 9:43 AM on Nov 14:
I wonder about abuse situations as well. Just how much abuse warrants a divorce? A one-time instance? Continual? And what kind of abuse? Physical, emotional, sexual, verbal? It gets kind of tricky, and since the Bible isn't explicit in these matters, I'm not sure what to think.
8. EconNicole said the following at 9:51 AM on Nov 14:
I am actually planning on marrying a man who was divorced. This was something I strongly wrestled with at first. For many reasons.
One simply was me being me, I love statistics. 83% of second marriages fail.
Two was that I had just seen one of my closest friends go through a divorce and how much it had torn her apart and how badly she had dealt with it -- alcohol and one night stands. Not very encouraging.
Three was that my family had a really hard time with accepting this for their daughter.
Four, I'm not sure any divorce is ever simply one persons fault. Aren't both of them probably doing something? Or at the very least were incredibly blind to marry the other person?
Five, I once went out on like three dates with this guy who was "divorced" and "had been finalized for nine months" who was lying and was really only separated for like four months. Made it a little hard to trust especially when I started hearing the d-word.
Six, my personal feelings about it. He has committed his life to another woman, he pledged to love her forever. They had shared a bed every night. He has lots of old memories with her. We went shopping out of town with some friends and I felt haunted by his ex-wife because that's where she lived. Huge fear we might run into her.
Seven, and most importantly, was wrestling with the scriptures and what they meant. Sometimes scriptures include no caveats about divorce. And then in some places it does. Now, his divorce I believe, and according to ya'll, was biblical. His exwife was cheating on him, was unwilling to change, told him one of them was leaving he could get out or she would. He continued to try to work it out and she was unwilling to try. I think that's something that meant a lot to me -- he did fight for his marriage.
All that to say, that if you are thinking of dating someone who is divorced look at this list and you may have your own things to consider as well. It isn't the easiest thing to deal with. And while it may be different if you're in your forties, if you're in your twenties like me there are a lot of options.
HOWEVER, don't not date someone because they are divorced if it is biblical and you can handle the past. And there is a past -- sometimes memories will come back, her name will come up in conversation sometimes. If I had known before the first date (which he thought I did) I may never have went out with my fiance because of my prejudices and I would have missed the best thing that's happened to me since my salvation. In truth, the only reason I would change his past would be to keep him from the pain of it, it wouldn't be for me. Because he learned from it and has grown closer to God.
My advice is to spend a lot of time in prayer -- and have your family do so as well -- and see if you get a peace about it. I had a dramatic sense of peace about as did my family once they got over the "not my baby girl" thing.
Also -- that stats, depends on how you deal with it. If you're like my close friend who went through it and never look at yourself or what was wrong with your previous choices you will end up in the same place, but not if you examine yourself and what went wrong and truly seek God. I know that he and I are making a lifelong commitment. Divorce is not an option for our future marriage.
Also -- I really encourage a lot of communication of this topic. He and I share everything. Including the fact that on that shopping trip I was afraid we would run into her -- he was too. We talked about his feeling on the day that would have been their anniversary. I have cried over it in front of him. You gotta be honest about what bothers you about it and be sure you can handle everything about. As I told him, I love him far more than the past bothers me. And lately, I've started to appreciate his growth from it at least.
9. Brian K said the following at 10:00 AM on Nov 14:
Ted:
Thanks for posting this. The singles pastor at my church covered Matthew 5 (on divorce) and, of course, expanded it to include Paul’s letter. I am divorced myself and thought he spoke very well on it, but it occurred to me how different we can all be affected by this issue. When he and I were meeting, he made a mention about a divorced person coming up to him afterward and saying how relieved the person was. Until then that individual truly felt there was a scarlet “D” on them. The pastor was very firm on the exact points you make in this short response. He was very clear. I was surprised to hear that response (from that person). That individual was very clearly a part of that allowance and yet still felt stigmatized. It was heart wrenching to hear. I suppose I had been counseled all along (differently, perhaps?) and just hadn’t been exposed to that.
The difficulties are many when dealing with divorce. They are tragic. And after witnessing life overall, it surprises me how flippantly divorce is treated by professing Christians. It’s a core travesty in the fabric of America and yet it’s all too often simply accepted without thinking. All that said, it saddens me how uncompassionate folks can be.
Great response!
10. Nelson said the following at 10:34 AM on Nov 14:
I would recommend reading the following book:
http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage-Bible-Adams/dp/0310511119/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1
The issue on abuse is that the first reaction to an abusive spouse should not be divorce, so hence it shouldn't be put on the "Allowed" list.
Also, if both of the spouses are Christians, then there are other options to consider. Church discipline will be the first. If the abusive spouse is unresponsive to church discipline, then that spouse will then be excommunicated according to the outline of discipline in Matthew 18, which then basically makes the marriage similar to one between a non-Christian and a Christian.
The next step is whether the abusive spouse decides to stay. The Christian, in this case, shouldn't be in the position of initiating the divorce, as per 1 Cor 7:12-16.
However, that Christian should be constantly receiving resource from the church to discipline the abusive spouse until the abusive spouse repents and returns back to the body of Christ, or leaves on their own initiative.
I think the main problem is that when abusive spouses are brought up in the church, the church does not respond appropriately and the couple is left to fix things on their own, which doesn't work.
11. DannieA said the following at 10:35 AM on Nov 14:
I would tell a woman in a heartbeat if she was being abused by a husband to seperate...seek counseling...if partner refuses to change or go to counseling...divorce him. There is a difference between moving forward together when one makes bad financial choices then when there is a seperation and an abusive husband takes advantage of the financial situation to ruin her...that's why seperation sometimes is not a good situation either.
BTW, I do not condone divorce for no fault's sake. But I've witnessed women putting themselves and their children at risk due to abuse...physical and sexual. It's not good and divorce would be the lesser of two evils.
12. Matthew S. said the following at 10:41 AM on Nov 14:
Ted,
I know Christians have a wide range of views on this topic (which doesn't mean they are all simultaneously right--they can't be), but I'm sure from a linguistic standpoint that the Bible doesn't include abuse as an acceptable reason for divorce. The Greek term in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 rendered, "marital unfaithfulness" in the NIV is, in my opinion, badly translated. Other translations more accurately render the term as "immorality," "sexual immorality," or the older "fornication." Regardless, the Greek word, "porneia," refers either to sexual sin in general, or to sexual sins outside of marriage when contrasted with "moicheia," meaning "adultery." There's nothing specifically "marital" about it, and it is only "unfaithfulness" in the specific sense of sexual unfaithfulness. Personally, I tend to take the really conservative view that this may refer to sexual sin in the Jewish betrothal period, but I'm not certain about that.
That said, there's no way I would encourage a wife suffering abuse to herself or her children to continue living with her husband--she probably needs to separate from her husband and get out of the house. It's a shame that churches don't get involved more often in abuse situations, especially if the husband is a believer. But some churches will step in if the leadership is contacted, and there are other options like womens' shelters--perhaps those who know more about these will step in with some advice. What options besides divorce do churches, organizations, or the government offer women?
13. Holly (single, non-parent one) said the following at 10:47 AM on Nov 14:
Two points.
1. To the original e-mailer...I'm 30. Never married. My boyfriend is 43. Stop whining and man up.
2. On the "abuse" question -- I claim no theological expertise. As a matter of cold, hard reality, divorce is sometimes the ONLY way to protect children from abuse. I am a little dismayed at the "she knew what she was getting into" tone of a previous comment, though. If you know someone has a temper and you marry them anyway, how many handfuls of hair, black eyes, bloody noses, face slaps, dents in the wall from being shoved, etc., have you signed up for? What do you "deserve"? (Hint: the correct answer is still "zero.")
14. Jo said the following at 11:00 AM on Nov 14:
There has to be a further allowance (which I'm sure you'd all agree with but hasn't been stated):
The person's spouse - whether cheating or not - demands a divorce and is unwilling to try and reconcile the relationship.
That person ultimately has no say in the matter. Granted, they may well have made mistakes in the relationship that have helped it progress to this stage - but if they want to fight for the marriage and the spouse doesn't, there's not a lot they can do.
15. Tami said the following at 11:01 AM on Nov 14:
Wow. "Idiots."
Perhaps, "You may not be aware of the situation where I live, but..." would have been a bit more charitable of phrasing.
Anyway.
Like Ken pointed out, there are PLENTY of women in their 30's and 40's who have never been married. I will concede that many of them came to Christ later and might not be virgins, but even so, they haven't been divorced. (I'm not arguing which is "better" here, merely stating that there are MANY older never-been-married ladies in the Body.)
I can understand the frustration -- and certainly not to sound like a Pollyanna -- but if your heart is set on marrying someone who has not been divorced, the Lord will provide. I count this as a matter of obedience, and while for myself I wouldn't rule out someone who was "Biblically divorced" (I've always held point 3 as well, myself, as "in Christ we are a new creation"), it is not my preference, as I'm one of those older never-been-marrieds myself, and I know there are a lot of older never-been-married guys out there.
I'm not trying to demonize divorced folks, or those who marry divorced folks, here. Getting married after having been divorced is not "the unpardonable sin." But no doubt God has His reasons for including this in Scripture (and I'm sure that, whatever they are, they are far from "worthless").
16. Jo said the following at 11:07 AM on Nov 14:
Oh and as a PS, I'm absolutely sure within myself that ongoing abuse of any kind is a legitimate reason for divorce. If you look at scripture as a whole, I just can't see God expecting a child of His to stay in a relationship where they are genuinely being abused.
I have often wondered though whether the word translated as'unfaithfulness' in that passage is specifically referring to adultery, or whether it is a broader term. In English, I would say that abuse certainly denotes unfaithfulness, if that's a literal translation of the Greek. Any clever people know what the original word means?
17. obewan said the following at 11:20 AM on Nov 14:
#13. Holly (single, non-parent one) had the following to say on Nov 14 at 10:47 AM:
"1. To the original e-mailer...I'm 30. Never married. My boyfriend is 43. Stop whining and man up."
-------------------------------------
Aren't you being a little hash on him? You really don't know his situation. Most churches separate the singles at age 30 to avoid having older men "hit on" younger women. Dating between older-younger is even frowned upon in some cases.
I know at my current church, they tried to merge the age 30-40 singles with the over 40 singles, and the 30 something girls freaked and refused to attend. So, I am in his boat. I am in my 40's, and LITERALLY 97% of the single women are divorced.
Now, you could tell ME to man-up and marry a widow I suppose. Maybe you would have a case telling me to man-up with SOME of the divorced women.
It is seldom straightforward. One woman I know was the adulteress who caused her own divorce BEFORE becoming a Christian. I suppose she should get the bye since Dr. Dobson exempts cases like hers - as happened before a Christian.
18. Kate (who finished her thesis!) said the following at 11:22 AM on Nov 14:
I'm with Holly,
Like her I'm no theologian, but abuse is a situation where I would strongly recommend the following: (1) get out, (2) call a lawyer. Especially where children are concerned. If we care so much for the prenatal, than we should have equal concern for the already born. Children should not be raised in abusive homes and women who gather the courage to remove their children and themselves from such a dangerous situation should be met with compassion and aid, not spiritual ambiguity.
Ted- I'm going to chime here. I've done fundraising on behalf of women's shelters and during a DA legal internship observed domestic violence court. And I've never heard about a specific 'divorce alternative' program.
And this is just a thought, but it seems like all the literature out there on abuse says: abuse is wrong, don't get abused, if you get abused, leave. Where is the literature that says, "hey! don't abuse!"
And finally, thank you Ted for writing this post. You've inspired me to take my new found free time (due to a recently finished thesis! Woo! I'm going to graduate!!) and do some volunteering at the local shelter.
19. Louise 43 from Chicago said the following at 11:24 AM on Nov 14:
IMO, that was a rude email.
If that 43 year old man doesn't agree with someone's advice so be it, but calling names (idiot) doesn't do any good.
I got divorced after years of being subject to emotional abuse; it finally got to the point where I literally couldn't tolerate the situation.
If God "hates" my decision, well so be it.
As for not being "permitted" to re-marry, that is a moot point due to my lack of interest.
20. Jo said the following at 11:28 AM on Nov 14:
Never mind, Matthew S answered my question. I stand by my view though.
Nelson:
"The issue on abuse is that the first reaction to an abusive spouse should not be divorce, so hence it shouldn't be put on the "Allowed" list."
By the same token you could say the first reaction to adultery shouldn't be divorce. Reconciliation, where possible, is always preferable. And yet adultery is on the 'Allowed' list. (That sentence could be taken so out of context. :P)
To those who think separation from an abusive spouse is legitimate but not divorce, I have an honest question:
what would you say is the Biblical difference between the two? In both separation and divorce a couple who were one in the eyes of God are torn apart. The obvious difference I suppose is that separation could be viewed as a 'temporary measure' with the hope of reconciliation in the future. That makes sense as an ideal, but what if reconciliation just isn't possible? What moral advantage would a permanent separation have over a divorce?
A hypothetical example: Say I was abused by my husband to the point where I feared for my life. Even allowing for full repentance and an eagerness on his side to try and reconcile, and even allowing for full forgiveness on my side, I'm really not sure that I could ever put myself under that man's protection again and live with him as his wife. Of course nothing is impossible for God, but I would suggest that for a woman in that situation, just being able to forgive would be miracle enough.
21. Louise from Chicago said the following at 11:29 AM on Nov 14:
Comment 6, you are grossly unfair to those people who have been in or are currently experiencing abusive relationship!
22. farmer Tom said the following at 11:40 AM on Nov 14:
Where to start, and so little time.
I see several assumptions in this discussion which I believe are unBiblical, and I'm personally convinced that much of the teaching on divorce in the church today is a haphazard amalgamation of a few Bible verses, a lot of modern psychology, and a great deal of emotion.
It does not help that the institution which marriage is designed to protect, family, is also under attack in our culture. Unless one understands the Biblical role of men, women and the family unit in God's economy, it is impossible to discuss the divorce question in a correct context.
I'm eating my lunch, I don't have time to expand on this now, but maybe over the weekend I can make some points not touched so far.
23. Renata said the following at 11:47 AM on Nov 14:
I understand that scripture does not SPECIFICALLY say anything about abuse and I'm sure that abuse in a marriage is not a recent phenomenon, BUT I know that scripture says that a man is supposed to love his wife and Christ loves the church. I sat on the board of a day care center for children whose parents (mostly mothers) were homeless and the number one reason for these families being homeless was abuse--physical, emotional, sexual--and in many cases, the women needed to divorce their husbands for safety reasons (not that that helps all the time). I have been quite concerned to have read elsewhere on the Boundless website the term "so-called abuse". This is serious--families lives are in danger--yes, God hates divorce, but I would never condemn a person who has been in an abusive marriage for getting out of it.
24. Rose said the following at 11:49 AM on Nov 14:
So when are we going to start pushing hard for a contitutional amendment against divorce? The success of prop 8 in Califormia protecting Christian marriage from homosexual marriage really makes you wonder if bringing legislation against (non-biblical) divorce would be even more effective at preserving marital sanctity in this country. Reading these comments (and from my own experience) it seems that legal acceptance of divorce is harming a lot more families than gay marriage (at least as far as numbers go).
25. Kimberly Eddy said the following at 12:03 PM on Nov 14:
a couple thoughts on divorce and abuse:
I believe that if a spouse commits a sin that was punishable by capital punishment in the Bible (such as molesting children, etc.), then a divorce is permitted because if we were obeying the Bible she'd be widowed. (I am not advocating forming posse's! we obey our laws even when we don't agree with them...but for purposes of the divorce discussion, I believe God's heart is that no one should be forced to stay married to someone who assaulted someone else).
Also, in the book of proverbs, it says to not have a friendship with an angry man (Proverbs 22:24). I think that this verse and others about dealing with angry or foolish people (in the book of Proverbs) shows me some things: warnings about even getting involved with someone with an anger problem (though it isn't always apparent until after marriage), an exit strategy for how to deal with someone who is getting angry and becoming abusive (walk away, if only temporarily getting to a safe place until they calm down), and also I believe that God doesn't want us to stay in abusive relationships if the person is unwilling to work on their anger problem. Though I am married to a great loving guy, my extended family and his all are full of verbally and sometimes physically abusive people that we have had to walk away from and in extreme cases, break the relationship off with entirely.
26. Brenna Kater, the Ocean Skater said the following at 12:09 PM on Nov 14:
I can tell you right now those words will not be popular with many. I too draw a hard line on this topic, based on what I read in Scripture, and have been told by many that I lack compassion & understanding. I've also had my views called "abusive".
27. Tami said the following at 12:14 PM on Nov 14:
obewan (17) -- I hold to Dobson's #3, and if I was a guy, I wouldn't give her a "bye" *simply because* she was now a Christian. I'd watch for repentance and fruit. As no doubt you already have.
28. Tigger said the following at 12:23 PM on Nov 14:
When children are abused in any manner, they are removed from the house. We do the same for pets. Why would we not extend the same grace for the women and men who've suffered so much already? ... And for those who remark that children and pets are defenseless, I challenge you to find out exactly how the abuser absolutely controls the abused spouse and children.
Now, what about when one spouse is an alcoholic or drug addict? Gambler? Compulsive workaholics? Unwilling to change and doesn't see the point? I realize Christian marriages may be less likely to run into this case, but it happens. For sure. What then? And if children are involved? Should they suffer the electricity being turned off because Mommy or Daddy spent it all on Valium to sleep at night?
I know the Biblical standards are there to prevent people from splitting up abritrarily, or from leaving one person to be with another, among many other selfish reasons. Fair enough. But it's easy to be legalistic. Try to always remember that you are dealing with another human being, a sinner, an imperfect person who made wrong decisions and very tough decisions. You, too, will make those decisions, and you'd better be prepared to be as gracious as you'd expect to be treated if the situation were reversed.
29. BDB said the following at 12:29 PM on Nov 14:
Jo (#14) wrote:
>>but if they want to fight for the marriage and the spouse doesn't, there's not a lot they can do.<<
Hmmm...this is an interesting one.
I know a couple of couples in my church like this. The one who bailed seems to be the one who has a rocky life. The abandoned ones did remarry within the church and seem to be doing much better.
A few months ago I was in a van on a ministry trip and listened to an hour of one of these conversations. The woman happens to be my age with two small children. I wasn't part of the conversation but in close quarters, definitely heard all the details as someone else asked questions.
Frankly, I didn't hear anything that would count as biblical grounds for divorce. I heard lots and lots and lots of selfishness on both sides. The husband she is separated from is still at the same church and is asking the mens group to pray for reconciliation. She is unwilling.
I won't touch this with a 10-foot pole, no matter how friendly she is towards me. If she really feels he is just "manipulative," then she needs to sit down with someone on the pastoral staff and explain why reconciliation is not acceptable. It sounds to me like a perfect time for some church discipline-for both of them.
Whenever someone uses the excuse, "I deserve to be happy!" to justify divorce or some other course of selfishness, I'm tempted to ask, "Where does it say that in the Bible?"
So far, I haven't found that in the Bible anywhere. But yesterday, I did find Leviticus 11:22:
These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.
When I was in Cambodia, I declined to eat the crickets fried in garlic. I didn't realize it was a biblical delicacy.
But if such a small thing is in the Bible, why doesn't it include a big thing like we "deserve to be happy?"
30. BDB said the following at 12:38 PM on Nov 14:
Kate (#18) wrote:
>>Where is the literature that says, "hey! don't abuse!" <<
Many men's ministries put a lot of emphasis on loving and cherishing one's wife. Periodically there is a testimony when somone confesses abuse and how God broke them - often these testimonies are given by people where reconciliation occurred. But the men giving these tesimonies make it very clear their giving into their anger and becoming abusive was absolutely and categorically wrong.
The Potter's Field ministries have come to my church a few times. Their testimony includes this.
31. Andrea-Elena said the following at 12:48 PM on Nov 14:
Kate (congratulations, by the way!!):
You raise good points. We need pastors and church leaders to deal head-on with "What is abuse? Am I an abuser? Am I a victim of abuse? What do I do? What does God say about it? How are we to treat one another, instead of these abusive ways? And how do I know if the person I'm dating might turn out to be an abuser?"
Hmm... I bet Mark Driscoll could tackle this subject well. Over the course of his pastorate, he's counseled a lot of hurting people.
And to those who think that women who are abused got into situations they already knew about... While it is possible that in some cases the "She knew what she was getting to" thing is true, I think that many times the woman sees only in hindsight the warning signs that appeared in the dating/courtship relationship. Other times for some reason there really is an abrupt 180-degree change in a person sometime in the marriage.
What we need is more prevention and intervention.
32. Kim said the following at 12:49 PM on Nov 14:
Once again, I'm disheartened by the focus on the law that I'm seeing in many of these comments (as I see so often on Boundless). Yes, I believe that divorce (except in certain circumstances) is a sin. Yes, I even believe that remarrying a "illegitimately" divorced person is a sin. But the truly revolutionary, glorious news is that I am covered by the blood of Jesus Christ and stand before God clothed in Christ's righteousness. And so now I can bear the fruit of the Spirit - among which are love and kindness - to others who find themselves in sin.
I believe in a God who is slow to anger and abounding in love. Does his heart not break at the thought of someone being abused by one who has pledged to protect? Shouldn't it break ours? Shouldn't we be quicker to respond with compassion and generosity to women who, whether they "should have known better" or not, find themselves in abusive marriages than to argue over whether it is "permissible" for them to get divorced?
I am so thankful that Jesus always offered grace and forgiveness to those he encountered who were guilty of sexual sin.
33. Brian K said the following at 12:52 PM on Nov 14:
Regarding abuse, I know others have said it already, but in the case of abuse, the first action is to protect the innocent. As far as is that grounds for divorce and remarriage, there is the idea (and I agree) of biblically confronting that sin. If someone is hard and unrepentant, then they are not in Christ’s fold. Hence why Paul’s allowance would apply. If you remain steadfast in your sin after being confronted (by one, a few and the church), then you don’t love Christ.
One of the hardest things to do is to go to your spouse to seek reconciliation when your only desire is to get as far away from them as possible and they have no desire to understand how they are continuing down a path of destruction. Another of the hardest things to do is to apply God’s word in the face of what the world would preach is “fine” (I had some who told me how utterly ridiculous it was for me to seek a path of reconciliation with my (now) ex. I felt like a fool at the time and it was very difficult. I learned a lot about personal prayer and the meaning of Philippians 4).
PS: Why is the link (not the title) biblical-divorc? Is that the Hebrew spelling ;-)?
34. Trevor Dolby said the following at 1:02 PM on Nov 14:
Jo (20): The main difference between separation and divorce is, as Louise (19) indicated, whether one is permitted to marry another afterwards.
It is quite easy to argue for a legal divorce in cases of abuse; the question then becomes "what do you say when such people want to marry someone else?"
Clearly, the Christian church over the years (until quite recently) would not allow "remarriage" in such cases, because the original marriage still existed: the vows "until death do us part" don't have any exceptions.
That does _not_ mean forcing anyone to live with anyone else, or any of the other spectres raised from time to time. It's really the question that Jesus points us towards in his remarks on the subject: the legal system says you're divorced, but have you really cut apart two people God joined together?
35. Jim H. said the following at 1:19 PM on Nov 14:
#17 Obewan,
You are absolutely correct about the situation for over 40 never marrieds who seek a mate who has also never been married. Among the over 40 group (I also share that demographic), it does have a very high percentage of divorced people and my church also separates the over 30 group from the younger group. So you may just simply be stuck if you are over 40 and believe that Scripture teaches against remarriage after divorce.
But the original e-mailer did use the word "idiot" which does not go far to garner sympathy for his predicament. I can understand his frustration since I am in the same situation, but using words like "idiot" indicates a seething bitterness about his situationand I would be tempted to tell the person to "man up" as well. Like God said to Paul when Paul complained about his "thorn":
2nd Corinthians 12:9: But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
We should not dwell upon what we don't have, but rather be thankful for what we do have. Although my dream of being married and having children may never come true, I am SO thankful for God for the other rich blessings He has bestowed upon me and trust that whatever happens is God's best for me (Romans 8:28).
36. Laura_MH said the following at 1:20 PM on Nov 14:
Rose (#24), I don't think that would work.
If you make it too hard to get a divorce, people will simply cohabitate more. To get those people to marry, you would have to provide some amazing tax break or other incentive.
And I don't think you can prevent cohabitation - those laws have been taken off the books in most states and municipalities. Or, at least where they do still exist, they aren't enforced.
Having said that, those who do marry will likely (and hopefully) have made a solid commitment to making the marriage work.
37. Med Student said the following at 1:37 PM on Nov 14:
As someone who grew up in abusive household and watched my mother and sister suffer through abusive marriages, Ryan #6 is very mistaken. Domestic Violence is about power and control and it is not an "anger management" problem (go to any domestic violence training program and you will learn this). Abusive people tend to be charmers, and often do not show any signs of abuse until after the marriage or until a woman is pregnant (this is a very common time for abuse to start). Your view of domestic violence being shaded by what you see on the media in shows like "COPS" is akin to watching Grey's Anatomy to understand surgery or watching Desperate Housewives to learn how to have a good marriage. Moreover, even if a woman is upset because a police officer is "hurting" or arresting her abusive husband, it is because she is going through an emotionally heart wrenching time. Ryan, I really hope you learn more about domestic violence because it seems like you are mistaken on what really goes on in these situations.
38. IMO said the following at 1:49 PM on Nov 14:
"It's really the question that Jesus points us towards in his remarks on the subject: the legal system says you're divorced, but have you really cut apart two people God joined together?"
Wow I never looked at it like that! Interesting!
39. Kim said the following at 1:54 PM on Nov 14:
To Trevor (34):
The Bible also says having sex with a person makes you "one." Would you argue that you couldn't marry a person who'd had sex with another because he/she was one with someone else?
40. Bertha said the following at 2:01 PM on Nov 14:
All of the young adults I know who are divorced fall into #1 and #2 (though one couple were both Christians...the wife up and left and as hard as the husband tried, they still ended in divorce).
Personally, while I dislike divorce, I have experienced some good things from it. My grandparents divorced before I was born and my step-grandpa is one of the most important people in my life. In many ways, I'm thankful.
41. Dave said the following at 2:03 PM on Nov 14:
Speaking of this supposedly downloadable book of yours, I put in an email address a couple of days (two different ones when the first didn't work within a day) and no email appeared with download instructions. What's up with that?
42. Jo said the following at 2:15 PM on Nov 14:
#34 Trevor:
Good response, but it left me wondering. In the case of adultery, Jesus DOES allow divorce and then remarriage. That's the exception he notes. So why would God's view of divorce and remarriage after terrible abuse be different? I've never been in either situation, but I truly think I'd find it easier to reconcile with a husband who had cheated than one who had abused me. I'm not trying to put words into God's mouth, but I really believe that everything we know from scripture tells us He values and adores us, and would not ordinarily expect one of His children to willingly stay in a situation where their self-worth was being stripped away and they were in danger of serious harm.
43. obewan said the following at 2:19 PM on Nov 14:
Jim H. Wrote"
">>But the original e-mailer did use the word "idiot" which does not go far to garner sympathy for his predicament.<<"
-----------------------------------
I agree his word was a little harsh. I suppose he might have gotten what he deserved with the "man-up" rebuke.
I would not have used the word "idiot" just because of the controversy around divorce and remarriage. I am willing to listen to and respect both sides of the argument, and tend to error on the side of conservatism.
To be honest, I do attend a new Christian singles group with about 60 people, and it is for 20's-60's. There are no hang-ups about ages. There are a few very nice never married women in their early 30's. I even spent an afternoon with one who is (only) 34 at a beach party. Sooo, if she told me to man-up and ask her for a date, I would jump at the opportunity LOL. She tends to hang around the older guys in the group, but I don't want to scare her off - yet.
44. Ted Slater said the following at 2:20 PM on Nov 14:
Dave -- is the e-mail address you provide when you submit a comment legitimate? If so, I'll send you the info. If not, maybe e-mail me at editor@boundless.org and I'll get it to you.
Here's the deal: so far, 117 of the 2,600 requests for this booklet have bounced back to us with errors. Sometimes an e-mail address appears to have been entered incorrectly, but in most cases our e-mail wasn't received by the person requesting it because for some reason we've been "greylisted."
Not sure if there's something wrong with the way we're sending it out, or if we've been added to a greylisted list by someone with malevolent intentions, or some other reason. The fact remains, though, that over 100 folks who wanted this haven't received it. You seem to be one of the chosen ones, Dave.
45. IMO said the following at 2:32 PM on Nov 14:
Kim-
Here are a few verses from the Bible. Take them for what you will --they support both Trevor's and your opinion--
Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
1 Corinthians 6:15-17
15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[a] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
Proverbs 6:29
So is he who sleeps with another man's wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished.
Romans 7:2-3
2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
It's easy to say, "doesn't the bible say?" but then that's kind of hazy way of thinking about things. I guess for me, there's never enough time to spend in God's Word. I tend to forget things easily...
46. BDB said the following at 2:33 PM on Nov 14:
Tami (#15) wrote:
>>Like Ken pointed out, there are PLENTY of women in their 30's and 40's who have never been married. I will concede that many of them came to Christ later and might not be virgins, but even so, they haven't been divorced.<<
Yes...it is likely that there will be some reason that will require extending "grace" or, at a minimum, patience. It could be prior sin that they feel disqualifies them from marriage. It could be prior negative experiences, such as a broken engagement, that make them extremely reluctant to respond when approached.
I do find Rachael and Holly's comments interesting. Pursuing women 10 years younger is a decision that will draw fire from some quarters. If the woman is willing, I suppose the guy can just "man up" and smack down those who object. I would cousel against a 28-year-old pursing an 18-year-old. But if a woman is 28 and through college, and still unattached, perhaps God has something for her that's more important than linear age.
My boss' daughter married a guy 10 years older. At first, he was very unhappy - came storming into my office, wanted to know where young people were meeting these days to distract her. Eventually he accepted it. The bottom line was that his wife was a cancer survivor, and this guy had been building his business while supporting his mother who had cancer, with a remission and relapse thrown in. She wanted to become a mom immediately, he could afford it, and the both had a deep, personal understanding of how cancer will dramatically impact your lifestyle. They're Catholic, and I can't remember if she just had her 3rd child.
47. Tami said the following at 2:34 PM on Nov 14:
obewan wrote, "(only) 34"
:)
48. BDB said the following at 2:43 PM on Nov 14:
Obewan - I'd encourage you to get to know the widow.
I've always been amazed by how quickly widowers seem to remarry. Then again, the ones I know about are usually devoted to their wives as they walk through cancer or something. I remember one guy I worked with going through this. After she passed, some widow was immeiately bringing him meals and doing other things. Another of the women in my office simply pointed out that of course she is not going to let him get away.
Among the difficulties of getting involved with a divorced person is a semi-present ex spouse. If that person still has influence, is manipulative or abusive, it makes things more difficult.
With a widowed person, this set of problems is not there, and the Bible is consistent that it is OK to marry someone widowed. That would solve the theological issue for me. Interestingly enough, I've seen a few studies that show children who had a parent die grow up to be just as responsible/well adjusted as two-parent families. It may be because the sample size is small. Or it may be because they don't feel their parent "chose" to abandon them. With cancer or an accident, the might be mad at God for letting it happen, but the parent didn't deliberately abdicate responsibility.
There was a guy in my church who was killed by a drunk driver at Thanksgiving a couple of years ago. I think he was 25. They had been inseparable in high school and married soon after. She was seriously injured, but survived. Their newborn was not in the car nd was safe. That would clearly seem to be a situation where God would allow - and even encourage a 2nd marriage.
49. skp said the following at 2:57 PM on Nov 14:
Point to ponder- Are we are more "gracious" in our "judgement" of divorce because 50% of the population is divorced?
50. BDB said the following at 3:43 PM on Nov 14:
The example used in Ms. Watters article is surprisingly mild. Indeed, if the only experience someone had was their parents, successfully married 26 years, saying don't get marry young, that wouldn't be too compelling.
However, some people have experienced far worse than this. These are real examples, though not from my own life:
1) Children whose father divorced their mother, then failed to show up for visitation. This can give them repeated, consistent evidence that men don't keep their promises, and thus cannot be depended upon. So they determine that they're going to need to make it on their own.
2) One or both parents involved in substance abuse, leading to a lack of involvement in children's lives or even resulting in foster care. In this case, even if the kids decide to live their life the 'right' way and avoid the use of alcohol or drugs, they may still be forced to be completely supporting themselves at age 18. This makes focusing on the operational side of life a matter of survival - not merely selfish careerism. They simply don't have their parents to fall back on, so they must figure out how to make it in life on their own.
3) A son who sees his mother being constantly disrespectful to his father, and refusing to take responsibility for how her attitude negatively impacts others. This may manifest itself in parents arguing with each other in public or in front of guests. It may result in someone growing up and decided to stop pursuit of any woman who argues with him, thinking that continuing down that path will result in the same kind of nasty arguments he witnessed with his parents.
These are all logical reasons why people might delay marriage - and they have nothing to do with Peter Pan syndrome or playing video games.
While logical, I don't think they are Biblical. The Biblical solution is found in Titus 2. Note what Titus 2:4-5 says about older women:
that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
Usually, we hear about "admonishments" being when people are sinning and need discipline. Why would young women need to be admonished to love their husbands? See example #3 above...
I guess my only point is that I would encourage the Boundless staff to continue to explore how the prevalence and justifications for divorce in America have impacted succeeding generations. I think there is more there than has been discssed so far.
51. YvetteS said the following at 3:46 PM on Nov 14:
I'm not sure I agree with reason 3 - if the person who has become a Christian was divorced for unbiblical reasons, and the ex-spouse has not remarried.
Also, consider that a person may have a good reason to get a divorce for their own safety- but that does not mean they are biblically free to remarry.
52. Shantal F. said the following at 3:55 PM on Nov 14:
I must admit that I feel like a second class citizen in regards to this subject. I too believe that God hates divorce and the terrible toll that it takes on all involved. I was married to an abusive man (sexually and mentally). There was unfaithfulness on his part but that isn't the reason why I divorced him. He is bipolar and refused to take meds. He became more and more mentally unstable throught the years towards me as well as the kids. The toll was tremendous on us. There were affairs, pornography as well as a host of other things all the while he proclaimed he was a christian. He wouldn't submit to any accountability. When I filed for divorce I struggled mightily with how God must see this. I know He hates divorce but I had one foot in the grave and my kids weren't far behind. According to Dr. Dobson, does this behavior and actions constitue divorce.....no. I respect him so much and value his values but I could no longer stay in the marriage. I don't advocate divorce but I do know that no one knows what goes on behind closed doors of marriage and I have alot of compassion for other families in these types of situations.
53. anonymous said the following at 5:05 PM on Nov 14:
I had an abusive marriage. I don't believe scripture gave me an out because of abuse...what I wound up doing was this:
I separated from my spouse for what turned out to be half a year. He was required to go to counseling and do specific other things. I had decided either the marriage would be healed-or if not, I would stay permanently separated or get a divorce and never remarry. That is how I read scripture.
My marriage, thank God, was reconciled. And years later we are doing fine.
But obeying God was and is more important than my personal happiness with a particular spouse. I was under no obligation to stay in a dangerous situation, but I was not free to divorce and remarry either. In my case a gracious God and a spouse who repented and did what he needed to do meant my marriage was healed.
If he had not been willing to do what he had to do, I would be and remain single, period.
54. Dave said the following at 5:15 PM on Nov 14:
Dave -- is the e-mail address you provide when you submit a comment legitimate? If so, I'll send you the info. If not, maybe e-mail me at editor@boundless.org and I'll get it to you.
Here's the deal: so far, 117 of the 2,600 requests for this booklet have bounced back to us with errors. Sometimes an e-mail address appears to have been entered incorrectly, but in most cases our e-mail wasn't received by the person requesting it because for some reason we've been "greylisted."
Yes, the address attached to this (and the previous) comment is legitimate - it has also worked for previous stuff from FOTF if memory serves correct.
55. Chantel said the following at 6:38 PM on Nov 14:
What about divorcing from a physically and/or emotionally (verbally) abusive spouse?
56. Mike said the following at 7:39 PM on Nov 14:
Dr. David Instone-Brewer has written several books on this subject, notably "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible". He did extensive research of Biblical and extra-Biblical texts to reconcile Old and New Testament teachings, as well as cultural norms of the time. Here is a summary of his conclusions:
"The Old Testament allowed divorce for the breaking of marriage vows, including neglect and abuse, based on Exod.21.10f. Jesus was not asked about these biblical grounds for divorce, though Paul alluded to them in 1Cor.7 as the basis of marriage obligations. This book argues that God never repealed these biblical grounds for divorce based on broken marriage vows. They were exemplified by Christ (according to Eph.5.28f) and they became the basis of Christian marriage vows (love, honour, and keep)."
His web site is http://www.divorceremarriage.com/. There is a related blog, where he answers several questions from readers. He makes some very interesting points, but the basic notion is that an abusive spouse is failing the Biblical covenant to "love, honour, and keep" - and thus can be divorced on those grounds. He cautions that this does not mean a casual "abuse" (as the word has come to be used today - "you came home from work late - you're abusing me!"), but a repeated pattern of callous disregard for the other's well-being.
On a personal note, I have been on a five-year journey for an answer to this question since my own divorce. While I find Instone-Brewer's research to be consistent and somewhat comforting, I still am bothered by some of it (especially since, with just a little stretch, it could easily degenerate into our "no fault" divorce).
There are other Biblical scholars, notably John Piper, who argue that there are no Biblical grounds permissible for remarriage - for divorce, yes, but not remarriage. Others, such as Andre' Bustanoby (author of "But I Didn't Want a Divorce"), argue that the consummation of the second marriage is a sin, but the couple can pray for forgiveness at that point and the second marriage is then "clean". (I find that one troublesome, based on the notion that I'm deliberately going to go out and commit a sin.)
The one unwavering consistency I did find in all my research was that no Biblical scholar I encountered endorsed the "no fault", "I'm unhappy", "irreconcilable differences" divorce that is so prevalent today. Not really surprising, but I thought I'd throw that out.
In the final analysis, Malachi 2:16 tells us, "'I hate divorce,' says the LORD God of Israel". That should be the guiding principle.
57. beatrice81 said the following at 8:18 PM on Nov 14:
So, when it comes to "legitimate" reasons for getting a divorce, the questions are very simple:
- Did God forgot to mention physical abuse as a valid reason?
- Are we going to claim that violent abuse is not a good enough reason merely because the Bible fails to mention it?
- Does anyone believe that a husband having a one-night-stand (adultery) is really worse than him repeatedly beating his wife to a bloody pulp?
58. Rachael said the following at 1:11 AM on Nov 15:
BDB (46) wrote: "Pursuing women 10 years younger is a decision that will draw fire from some quarters."
--> That's too bad if it draws fire for age alone. We were talking about maturity among adults. I think some people never mature fully. I wonder if a lot of adult sins are more subtle and strategic than kid sins, but they still struggle with, (or give into without a struggle) sin...anyway I hope people won't automatically judge my boyfriend or I for being 9 years apart for that reason alone, but, at the same time, it's natural for us humans to make judgments, even if it's subconscious. Perhaps with time and getting to know us they'd see deeper and not just the superficial. It's too bad if we can't just get past the superficial. I should remind myself to be open and think of a person as a whole when someone rubs me the wrong way or when I have the superficial lenses on...the little slices we see of someone doesn't necessarily represent their heart core.
59. Becca said the following at 1:46 AM on Nov 15:
To the "you knew what you were getting into comment".
That to me just is just the age old tactic of placing all the blame on the victim (almost always a women) and removing all responsibility from the abuser (almost always a man) Typical misogyny attitude that all to often the church just loves to use.
Someone else made a comment about how so many here are stuck on the "laws". If its not in the Bible...well I'll give you an example of a "unapproved" divorce. My best friend's husband decided after 5 years of marriage he wanted to be a women - and got the operation done. Should she have stayed married to him/her? I'm thinking even God was okay with that one.
60. Myracle said the following at 3:19 AM on Nov 15:
i hope you are kidding when you say "Spousal Abuse" is not one of those reasons. WHAT!!????
That is one of the MAIN reasons...I lived in a coma a big share of my marriage and i stayed over and over, for 12 years to be exact! due to the fact i was raised very conservative and always thought i was to 'turn the other Cheek": to this day, 17 years and another 5 yrs of abusive relationship later, i still have guilt feelings at times. nEVER, NEVER would God want us to stay in abuse!!!
I now counsel abused women and children and have been single/divorced for 9 years.
61. Laura said the following at 9:45 AM on Nov 15:
Dave, check your junk email . . . I was wondering why I didn't get a download link from Boundless either, but I just found it in Junk.
62. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:06 PM on Nov 15:
Kim (39): Oh, I make few arguments these days :) However, it does seem worth thinking about precisely why God, when He was writing laws, had it written that girls found to have been immoral before getting married were to be stoned to death. Whether or not we agree with the penalty, the fact that it turns up at all should make us think! Incidentally, if God is in charge of creation, why is it the husband can tell if the girl is a virgin? Naybe it's important . . . (but this is not a popular thought these days).
63. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:08 PM on Nov 15:
Jo (42): The key, I feel, is when you mention someone "willingly stay[ing] in a situation" - I had been focusing on the distinction between only splitting up/hiding/divorcing/whatever and the idea that you are then free to do what you choose. There's no obvious biblical reason why you have to stay in a situation, it's just that God seems to have opinions about what happens after that :) and saying "He was mean to me, so I'm going to marry someone else" doesn't seem to be God's plan.
64. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:08 PM on Nov 15:
Anonymous (53): Praise God! May He bless you for your faithfulness.
Beatrice81 (57): I think the distinction here is between divorce, and divorce-and-remarriage. The first one is not banned by Jesus at all: he simply makes us think about what we're really doing :) His teaching was shocking even then, of course. The disciples said "if that's the truth, then it's better not to marry", and so we should expect the same reaction in ourselves and others.
65. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:24 PM on Nov 15:
Rachael (58): Don't worry about a nine-year age gap - just point people to "Jane Eyre" if the subject comes up :) Or "Sense and Sensibility", or the Bible, where Abraham and Sarah were ten years apart (indicated by Genesis 17:17).
66. BDB said the following at 4:39 PM on Nov 15:
Becca (#59) wrote:
>>on the victim (almost always a women) and removing all responsibility from the abuser (almost always a man)<<
It has been my observation that women are equally abusive as men. Men are bigger and do more physical damage. A man isn't going to report a woman who slaps him. He'll just leave. Lots and lots of child abuse is committed by women when there is no male present. If you consider verbal abuse to be abuse, then there are PLENTY of female perpetrators.
Either way, it is sin.
67. Nickolina said the following at 6:57 PM on Nov 15:
When you tell someone that "God hates divorce", remember to add that He does not hate divorced people...He hates divorce, I'm thinking, because of what it does to people He loves.
Just as He hates sin, and loves the sinner.
68. randall said the following at 7:08 PM on Nov 15:
the word does not give multiple choices for divorce and the 1 allowance is except for fornication(not adultry). by the way can only be done if single. engaged was almost married at 1 time and the engagement could be broken off if infidelity (fornication)played in. scripture is clear but as is with most issues, if dying to self or sacrifice is involved...well I think the scripture means this or that. reality is a constant and is not contigent on our perspective. BE VERY SURE on who's perspective is important(maybe God's). divorce, don't remarry Matthew 19:9
69. randall said the following at 7:15 PM on Nov 15:
BE VERY SURE
70. skp said the following at 7:53 PM on Nov 15:
Abuse is a a loaded word- sometimes used as an excuse.
I ask is it abuse or is an argument?
I have a co worker whose husband hasn't worked for years. During arguments the words "lazy" were thrown around- is this verbal abuse?
In the heat of one argument she threw a banana cream pie in a tin foil pan ather husband (there were no marks)- is this physical abuse? He called the police and had her arrested. She spent the night in jail. That was the end of the end
of their marriage. You decide- was it abuse?
My husband says "well it could have been a knife". I say "it was a Pie".
Personally I don't throw things- I slam doors. And say things that maybe I should not. Nobody is perfect.
I know people should argue nicely. But lots of times they don't. But this is NOT abuse in my opinion.
This is not to say that there are not truely abusive relationships. Just that some people like to think that using the word abuse automatically gives them a pass on divorcing their spouse. It's can be an easy out.
71. BDB said the following at 11:59 PM on Nov 15:
Rachael (#58) wrote:
>>Perhaps with time and getting to know us they'd see deeper and not just the superficial.<<
Oh, there's a lot of couples that manage to serve in ministry together and make such a beautiful team that everyone forgets things like age differences. For that matter, some people don't like it when a Western man marries a woman from a developing country. Having seen some missionaries in this situation, I was really impressed by how well they worked together in a ministry setting.
I don't see anything in the Bible that criticizes the age difference.
I think specifically of Ruth 3:10
Then he said, “Blessed are you of the LORD, my daughter! For you have shown more kindness at the end than at the beginning, in that you did not go after young men, whether poor or rich.
That sounds to me like Boaz was holding back because of the age difference. Of course, he'd also spent years building up a responsible estate. Building a business requires judging the character of employees; I'm sure Boaz knew good character when he saw it.
While I haven't yet been in this situation, I have seen men criticized by other non-Biblical sources for pursuing women 8-12 years younger. But I suppose such criticism is an opportunity for the gentleman to "man up" and tell the critics to pound sand. In a grace-filled way, of course.
72. Mike Theemling said the following at 6:00 AM on Nov 16:
The chief problem over the tension I believe is, "How literal should we be with regards to a Biblical guide?". With this people can (including myself at times) cherry pick which ones to be strict over and which ones not to be.
For example, very few churches demand that a "woman cover her head" as stated in 1 Corinthians 11 despite Paul's words, "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."
In a similar manner, one can come up with all sorts of if...then...because scenarios of applying Biblical verses regarding divorce. Jesus said that adultery was grounds for divorce (Matt 19:9) and yet He also said that a man who lusts in his heart after a woman already commits adultery with her (Matt 5:28). So therefore, could a woman Biblically divorce her husband over a single lustful thought? Sound ridiculous? But what if though a husband were compulsively and unapologetically viewing porn on a regular basis? Do you see the problem?
The Bible also doesn't seem to directly deal with a lot of "what if" scenarios. What if one spouse sinfully divorced before he/she became a Believer? Does that mean that person could never marry again without sinning? What about the person marrying him/her? And what about physical abuse?
One analogy which is not a complete fit but I think does get the point across is the perversion of the Sabbath Laws over the years. The Sabbath was designed by God as a good thing--a time to rest. But over time it became a legalistic burden. The definition of "work" eventually encompassed mundane things like to the point of being counterproductive.
Likewise grounds for divorce also became perverted. The "certificate of divorce" as Moses required was meant to be a way to protect the woman from remaining in an abusive marriage and so divorce could not be given whimsically. But eventually the legitimate gave way to the ludicrous, where even burning dinner was grounds for divorce.
Jesus said that the "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27)". Personally, I believe that likewise marriage was made for man and woman, not the other way around. To me, it means that we ought not to hold onto such dogmatic views of "unless it's porniea or abandonment, there's no divorce". I understand that some disagree with this conclusion, but I do believe it assists in understanding the point of the Law (Matt 22:40).
That doesn't mean though that we take the words of Jesus and Paul, nor the words of Scripture lightly. The context posed by the Pharisees was to trap Jesus in something He said. And He rightfully pointed out that the reason the divorce certificate was given at the time was that "their hearts were hard". But it wasn't ideal. His point was that marriage was brought together by God and meant to last a lifetime. And that it was a sin to divorce and remarry, certificate or not, without "marital unfaithfulness". It's important to also note the cultural context as well. In that culture, being a divorced man wasn't so bad and it was assumed that he would be married soon again (as was the societal expectation). However, being a divorced woman pretty much crushed any hopes of being married again (as no man would want to marry her), and most likely the only way she could survive on her own is to prostitute herself (Matt 5:32).
Thus for a situation like the physically abused, I would certainly say a separation is in order as well as any appropriate criminal investigations. And if there seems no intention of change, even after repeated and honest attempts at reconciliation, I would not leave divorce off the table, but only as a last resort. However, situations where “there just isn’t any connection anymore”, or “we can’t stand each other”, etc. would not be sufficient.
Regarding remarriage, it too can be sticky situation. Jesus said that not only the man who initiated the divorce on unbiblical grounds and remarries commits adultery, but also whoever marries her. And Paul says that a woman if separated (not sure if this implies divorce as well) from her husband "must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband" (1 Cor 7:11). So basically, the question is, "Can someone who got divorced against their will remarry?" because on the surface it seems whoever does marry her/him will be guilty of adultery. If we took the passages literally, it would appear not because it would be inviting sin. But perhaps the intention was to reinforce that one could not simply divorce someone and remarry someone else who also happened to be divorced. After all, part of the original purpose of a certificate of divorce was to allow a woman to remarry. So I would also say if a woman (or man) was divorced against his/her will based off of unbiblical grounds than he/she would be free to marry again.
I realize that this did not touch upon everything. Again, there are dozens of "what if" questions out there. What if the divorce was unbiblical but one of the two remarried? How is reconcilation possible now without divorcing again? And what about emotional adultery? Each situation is different. But I would argue that it's unwise to keep an issue like this in such stark black and white terms.
I appreciate all the postings from those with a much more personal experience. Thank you for sharing such difficult stories.
73. Lita Cosner said the following at 4:10 PM on Nov 16:
I have not read through all of the comments, but I thought that some exegesis that I have done on the Matthew 5 divorce passage might be helpful (I am currently studying for my Master's in New Testament, the exegesis is from undergrad work).
I definitely agree that divorce is a horrible thing for all involved, and not part of God's plan for marriage. However, I would say that based on my exegesis (which several commentaries agree with), this principle stands out: the innocent party can remarry; the party who caused the divorce cannot.
What Jesus was probably addressing was a debate between two Jewish schools of thought regarding divorce. One, that of Shammai, allowed for divorce only in circumstances of sexual immorality. The other, that of Hillel, allowed a husband to divorce his wife for any reason, no matter how trivial. Jesus is affirming the importance of marriage, and essentially coming down on the Shammai side.
Now, some use Matthew 5:32 to say that no divorced woman may remarry because to do so is to commit adultery. Some unfortunate English translations give that impression. However, in my study, I found that the phrase is best translated 'whoever might marry a woman who has gained a divorce commits adultery', in agreement with Nolland's commentary on Matthew. Now, in Judaism, women could not divorce their husbands, so it is easy to concieve of a situation where the wife nags and henpecks her husband night and day, is rebellious, etc, until her husband gives her a divorce. This is, I believe, what Jesus meant when He talked about a woman 'who has gained a divorce'. Further evidence for this view is that the parallel passage in Mark 10:12 has Jesus saying "And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." If those are two recordings of the same teaching by Jesus, which I believe they are, then it would demand that we see the Matthew passage as referring to a woman who is not blameless in the situation.
Lastly, on the topic of whether or not a woman may divorce a man who is abusing her: I believe that genuine abuse constitutes abandonment of the marital vow; the abusive spouse is not honoring his commitment to love, honor, and cherish his wife (and vice versa for the less-common husband-abuser). Since the abusive spouse has already abdicated his role as husband, the wife does not sin when she divorces him (or separates herself from him without divorcing). Indeed, in some cases, divorce or separation is the only way to ensure the safety of the abused spouse and any children involved, and in some cases of abuse, even the attempt at reconciliation is not advisable, because many abusers are also very manipulative. How many women have fallen for "Baby, I promise I won't hit you again"?
We must be careful not to be too legalistic and in so doing condemning those that Jesus never intended to condemn. However, the vast majority of divorces in the US today do not fall under the biblical guidelines.
74. Leah said the following at 7:04 PM on Nov 16:
Regarding what Ted said in comment 1:
I don't think abuse is a reason for divorce. Yes, we should extend grace towards victims of abuse who have divorced. Yes, abuse is definitely a reason for SEPARATION. But I am not yet convinced it's a reason for divorce.
Here is a question about legitimate grounds for divorce:
What if the partners were both Christians when married, but several years down the track, one decides she doesn't want anything to do with church, Christians, etc anymore, and wants out of the marriage?
It's something I've struggled with since my uncle went through this. His wife (who was a pastor's daughter and apparently committed Christian) "backslid", abandoned the church, and apparently rejected her faith. She left him, at first just for a separation. He wanted them to get back together, she had no interest. He tried to get her to marriage counselling, she was only interested in divorce counselling. I don't know if she was ever unfaithful to him; obviously, I do not know every individual detail. They ended up getting divorced (I'm not sure when they actually divorced), but nine years after the initial separation, he remarried.
I at first thought this was outside of the biblical grounds for remarriage after divorce. But then I considered that I do not know if she was ever unfaithful, and I do not know if her "backsliding" has legitimately made her a nonChristian, or if she was ever a real Christian to start with, therefore legitimising the divorce.
It's all very confusing :(
Jo #42 - sometimes something really makes sense to us and we don't understand why God hasn't made allowances for it. Or sometimes something makes NO sense and we don't understand why God has made it so. All we can know is what's in the bible. We can't use our fallen human logic to deduce that "God allows this, therefore, logically, he must allow that". So all we can know is that God has made allowances for divorce based on unfaithfulness, but not abuse. I know, it doesn't make sense to us. But my guess (and this is just a guess) is that faithfulness is the glue that keeps a marriage together. It's the very essence of marriage. Destroy that, and perhaps God sees that the other partner has the right to exit a marriage that the other person has destroyed the very essence of. Perhaps violence does not necessarily do this. Someone can be rehabilitated from violence and save a marriage. Sure, people can be rehabilitate from unfaithfulness too. But perhaps unfaithfulness affects the essence of a marriage unlike anything else? Keep in mind that marriage and sexual intimacy makes a couple "one". Unfaithfulness (sex with someone else) destroys that oneness in a way nothing else would.
I'm not trying to justify God here. I'm not saying this is the reason, or that it doesn't have holes in it. I'm just making guesses.
Kimberly Eddy said I believe that if a spouse commits a sin that was punishable by capital punishment in the Bible (such as molesting children, etc.), then a divorce is permitted because if we were obeying the Bible she'd be widowed.
This is not true. Jesus has already taken the punishment for these sins when he died. That is WHY we do not kill people for such offences anymore. We are no longer in the Old Testament; what happened in the New Testament (Jesus' sacrifice) negates the requirement to put those offenders to death. Therefore, to obey the bible, we'd NOT be putting those offenders to death. Did Jesus say anywhere that you're permitted to divorce someone who WOULD HAVE been put to death by the old law? (Which Jesus himself said he'd come to fulfil?)
As much as your idea sounds like it makes sense, it's not found in the bible.
75. Kelly said the following at 8:03 PM on Nov 16:
To EconNicole - my heart goes out to you. I was once almost engaged to a divorced man and I found it so very difficult for the reasons you mentioned. To stand up to my family and community who kept pulling me aside and telling me that it would be a sin to marry a divorced man (even though his non-Christian wife had cheated and run off). To know that he'd pledged those vows to someone else and that it wouldn't be 'as special' with me. To be constantly haunted by the spectre of his past, and knowing he'd lived 7 years bound to someone else.
And to see the continual damage in his ongoing life from the breaking of those bonds.
In the end, I couldn't do it. Divorce destroyed his life and the repercussions were destroying mine as well.
And so I truly admire you and your fiance for being able to work together BEYOND that. God is great!
---
On another topic, I know a delightful young man who would make such a wonderful husband. The problem? He's 10 years my junior and even though we converse well and connect intellectually, that age gap would cause no end of problems. However, if *I* were the younger one, it'd probably be more acceptable.
76. EconNicole said the following at 9:25 PM on Nov 16:
I have a question on this subject, because of a Hallmark movie (yeah who knows) I saw while working on a paper yesterday.
My fiance's first marriage resulted in no children, was over because of an adulterous wife, and it's behind him. No contact, etc. continues. It last a year and half. He's 25 (I'm 23). We have both agreed that we would prefer our children to not know he was married before. I don't see any reason for this to be an issue. Until the movie - where this girl was like devastated when she finds out after her parents die that her dad had been married before and never told her.
So my question is, what do you think about not telling your children that part of your past? Or if you were to marry someone, that part of their past?
77. Al said the following at 9:55 PM on Nov 16:
I'm not usually a stickler for gender-neutral language but I wanted to express my appreciation for those who rightly spoke of "abusive spouse" and "abused spouse" (and the like) when referring to domestic violence. Those who presume that the man is always the abuser and the wife is always the victim have limited pastoral and counseling experience. I've been amazed at the number of violent wives/mothers terrorizing their families. Unfortunately, abused males have far fewer options in dealing with the violence (and run the risk of being arrested themselves by lying spouses who will say, "Do what I say or I will tell the police you've been threatening and beating me!") Even 15 years ago I had the eye-opening experience of leading a home Bible study where the spousal abuse issue came up. I privately polled the group about their own experiences. Out of a group of 17 middle-aged adults, three of the men admitted that they had been physically attacked during a previous marriage. (I had myself assisted one of the men who "escaped" to my home in the middle of the night carrying his 6-year-old son. The man's shirt was ripped into shreds on the front and he had what looked like claw marks dripping blood all over his chest. On another occasion his wife had hit him over the head with a brick while he was sleeping.)
So over the years I have on several occasions asked "domestic violence ministries" to adopt gender-neutral language on their websites and consider adapting their workshops/seminars to address both male and female abusers. Not one was willing to even acknowledge female-on-male violence on their websites. One representative phoned me and said, "That's absurd. Women rarely attack their husbands." Of course, they are ignoring statistics and they are ignoring how many mothers are physically violent towards their children. Is it impossible to imagine their behavior is similar towards their husbands?
A senior center chaplain recently told me that the abuse of elderly men by their wives is virtually an epidemic and he shared several examples of recent incidents he counseled.
But one domestic violence ministry told me "off the record" that "If we used gender-neutral language we would jeopardize our fund-raising. It is easier to solicit sympathy and dollars to assist abused women. People tend to look down on abused husbands." How true.
78. Rachael said the following at 11:21 PM on Nov 16:
Chantel (55) wrote:
"What about divorcing from a physically and/or emotionally (verbally) abusive spouse?"
-->My opinion is that it is not okay to divorce because of an emotionally abusive spouse. I think God could give the strength to develop the trait of forbearance in the emotionally abused spouse. If that spouse was abusing by means of saying physical threats, I think at least separation should be okay for protection purposes.
79. Daniel B said the following at 1:54 AM on Nov 17:
The key should not be if someone has gotten divorced before, but what his/her current attitude to towards divorce is.
Otherwise we should also infer that anyone who is not a virgin is also not eligible for marriage even if he or she is no longer in sexual sin and has committed to a life of purity.
80. Loris said the following at 8:31 AM on Nov 17:
A few things: My father delayed marriage until his late thirties because his parents had fought tooth and nail when he was a child. Dad is quiet and is very much a "peace at any price" type of man, so he was terrified at the thought of having a combative spouse.
My mother was divorced. Her first husband abandoned her after ten months. It turned out he was mentally ill and had a mistress in another town. She waited eight years to divorce him hoping for reconciliation, and when she did finally sign the papers, she also got a letter from the elders in her church clearing her of blame. I think she handled her situation very well.
81. Matt from DC said the following at 11:11 AM on Nov 17:
Leah in #74,
You said just what I wanted to say and you said it well. Thanks for saving me the time!
82. BDB said the following at 12:09 PM on Nov 17:
EconNicole (#76) wrote:
>>So my question is, what do you think about not telling your children that part of your past? Or if you were to marry someone, that part of their past?<<
The people I trust the most in this world are those who answer my questions transparently. That doesn't mean you need to volunteer the information until they ask.
It may not happen until a family discussion about divorce and remarriage comes up. In your case, there's a clear Biblical guidance. So, when your kid asks, you pull out your Bible, and say "Let's look at what the Bible says about that."
It can be a GREAT way to show your kids how you are serious about following the Bible's teachings.
That's my $.02
83. BDB said the following at 12:33 PM on Nov 17:
Hmmm...there is something else I haven't seen mentioned: what happens after divorce?
For example, say there aren't Biblical reasons for divorce, and the innocent party is forced into a divorce they didn't want. At that moment in time, it would seem that remarriage would be biblically questionable.
However, say the spouse who initiated the divorce, after the divorce goes and gets a live-in girlfriend. NOW there's biblical grounds for divorce. That would seem to me to release the innocent spouse.
I do know a few cases where both spouses did nothing after divorce and eventually reconciled.
84. Dave said the following at 5:40 PM on Nov 17:
Thanks Laura.
The email did indeed find its way into my spam. (Since I average 200 spam or so per day, I don't often check it).
85. Leah said the following at 10:17 PM on Nov 17:
Daniel B said The key should not be if someone has gotten divorced before, but what his/her current attitude to towards divorce is.
Otherwise we should also infer that anyone who is not a virgin is also not eligible for marriage even if he or she is no longer in sexual sin and has committed to a life of purity.
Not true. Jesus explicitly said that it was a sin to marry someone who was unbiblically divorced, or to remarry after unbiblically divorcing. He never said that about marrying a non-virgin.
86. Renae said the following at 6:56 AM on Nov 18:
I am not sure where to start. So many posts, however Nelson's post caught me the most. I have been divorced for almost 11 years. Not by my choice, but rather my ex-husbands choice. We were married for 81/2 years and had 1 beautiful daughter together. Sadly those 81/2 years were filled with physical and mental/emotional abuse daily. This included both my daughter and I. Nelson, I understand that you are against divorce and that God does not approve either, but what was happening to me and my daughter for years is still causing great emotional pain. It effects you in ways that no one can understand unless you have gone through it. I pushed for the therapy, we went for over a year, it did nothing. We went and he would say things were fine only to go home and do the opposite to us. But I hung in there. Then one day he came home and said he wanted a divorce and walked out on me and my daughter and left us with nothing. He left me for a short time with the use of the credit card only because he did not remember I had one. He soon took that and within 2 weeks had sold the house out from under me and my daughter. I still prayed and tried to reconcile my marriage. I soon found out he had been having an affair for 6 months with a man he met on the internet. Yet I still was willing to work on our marriage. A year later I was given no choice, with or without my signature the divorce would go through and it did. I prayed for years for God to restore my marriage. He has chosen not to. I am now finally at peace about that. I dont know why He chose not to, it doesnt matter, I trust Him. The thing is Nelson, you have seem to have this idea how it should be handled and the sad thing is, with abuse it isnt black and white. In fact, alot of times it is better and safer for the spouse to get out then to stay. The stats are very high for the number of spouses killed by their abusive spouse. The Church needs to treat divorced people as anyone else and sadly that is not so. Like I said, I have been divorce almost 11 years and I just yesterday was relieved to find out that because my husband cheated, and because he was not a Christian and he abandoned us I was ok to remarry. This was a huge weight off my shoulders that I had been carrying for so long. Christians must learn to love one another, and the judging of each other I pray will stop. Not that I think you are. I just watch it so much and it is so painful to see, and to feel as I have been judged by many. I hope my story has helped someone. God Bless you all.
Renae
87. Caleb Woodbridge said the following at 7:05 AM on Nov 18:
Another issue to bear in mind is that a lot of crimes that were capital crimes in under the Old Testament law aren't necessarily so in our legal system and culture.
But this means that there are certain difficult situations that could arise now (e.g. being married to a murderer) which wouldn't have occurred in Biblical times.
You could make the case that any capital crime under the OT Law is potentially legitimate grounds for divorce, since in Biblical times the marriage would be ended by the offender's death, leaving the spouse free to remarry, and that someone who does such a crime can be counted as if dead.
In any case, I think we need to hold together that on the one hand divorce is a really Bad Thing, and on the other hand, God allows it under extreme circumstances because of our hard hearts.
Physical abuse isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, but it seems to me a no-brainer that in such an extreme breakdown of the relationship, if after attempting to mend the relationship, a spouse is unrepentantly abusive, then divorce is sadly legitimate and indeed necessary.
I'd also say that a genuinely repentant Christian divorcee may legitimately remarry if there is no prospect of the original relationship being restored. Grace applies to our sins after we are converted as much to our sins before conversion!
Our priority must be adherence to the spirit of the Law, which is love, rather than rigid and Pharisaical definitions of what exactly is and isn't permitted, while never making divorce anything less than a very last resort for exceptional circumstances only.
88. Renae said the following at 7:08 AM on Nov 18:
Trevor #64 are you sure that the disiples said that it's better we not marry? I believe that was Paul who said that if we could not stay pure or something on that lines, then it was best if we married otherwise it was best not to marry.
Renae
89. Jo said the following at 9:40 AM on Nov 18:
I have a few comments to make.
Firstly, skp #49 - It certainly is easier to 'judge' 1% of people than 50%. The church and Christians as a whole are probably far too lenient on divorce, I think.
Secondly, I think we need to clarify what we mean by 'abuse'. It certainly isn't "He was mean to me, so I'm going to marry someone else", as Trevor 63# suggests. And although I understand what Rachael #78 means, I also would not describe something that one could 'forbear' as abuse. Some of the comments seem to refer to merely unpleasant situations as abusive, while others seem not to acknowledge that real abuse does exist, and is not only physical. Where psychological abuse is concerned, there may be no danger of bodily harm, but severe mental and emotional damage is a huge risk. Of course the line has to be drawn somewhere and it's not always clear, but the point is that there are REAL situations where continuing to live with an abusive spouse would not be advised by anyone who knew what they were talking about. (Think of child abuse - no one thinks it is good for a child to be separated from its parents, but there are circumstances in which we would ALL agree that it is necessary for the child's protection and wellbeing. We would also not make that decision lightly and cry 'abuse' where abuse was an inaccurate term. I think the same rules should apply to marriage.)
As several people have noted, it seems the difficult issue in the case of abuse and indeed adultery is not divorce, but of *remarriage*. I maintain that separation and divorce are qualitatively the same in that both are a splitting of the married couple - which God says He hates. I would apply the same rules to separation as to divorce - it's not acceptable for trivial reasons. Adultery, abuse, persistent damaging sinful behaviour are the only legitimate reasons I can think of right now. In all these situations, I think separation is a legitimate option, and if reconciliation is impossible, divorce is too.
As to remarriage, well. Exodus 21 gives even a slave wife freedom if her owner/husband is abusive. Did Jesus repeal this law in the gospels? Stuff I've read suggests not, that He was responding to a specific question about divorcing only for adultery versus divorcing for any reason at all, and had no intention of speaking to any other legitimate reasons (which would include abuse). I don't know, the jury of my brain is out on this one. Regardless, God hates divorce, that much is clear - and so it should only be considered in extreme circumstances, and even then, Godly reconciliation will always be preferable. The fact remains that the majority of divorced people in our societies are illegitimately divorced, and that is not good.
Leah #74 said: "All we can know is what's in the bible. We can't use our fallen human logic to deduce that "God allows this, therefore, logically, he must allow that". So all we can know is that God has made allowances for divorce based on unfaithfulness, but not abuse. "
I somewhat agreed with much of your post, but I take issue with the part I quoted. I think we DO have to use our logic, AS WELL as what's written in the Bible. I think God expects it of us, that's why He made us as people who can think. In my comment I talked about looking at God's overall attitudes throughout scripture, rather than ONLY looking at one verse that may not be completely understood. My interpretation may still be wrong, but I do think that's it's okay and even necessary to not simply absorb the Bible at 'face value', but to consider it, read around it, think about the cultural context, pray over it and be open to more interpretations than just our own.
90. EconNicole said the following at 11:38 AM on Nov 18:
Kelly #75
Thanks for saying that, but don't let your heart go out to me. He's truly a wonderful man. I did have to deal with some aspects I didn't expect to deal with in life, but I am blessed to have him in my life. I believe it will be just as "special" -- more so in some ways because he knows the pain divorce can cause and we are going into our relationship with our eyes wide open both acknowledging that divorce is not and will never be an option. Like the song from Fireproof -- love is not a fight but something to fight for.
As a side note, I think God prepared me ahead of time by letting me see a very close friend experience a very difficult divorce and going through that experience with her (we were roommates last year when she was going through the separation and finalization).
So thanks for the comment, but I just wanted to make sure people were aware that I don't need any sympathy or admiration for dealing with it on my part. I have an amazing fiance who loves me second only to God, who brings me flowers, and thinks I'm beautiful. A girl really couldn't ask for a better guy.
I think that if it's the right man for you God will prepare your heart to handle his divorce (and you should be sure it is for biblical reason, I believe and always have his were for clear biblical reasons that allows remarriage). That's my 2 cents.
And BDB thanks for your 2 cents. I think that's probably the best approach as well. If it becomes an issue we share it but not until that point.
91. Trevor Dolby said the following at 12:04 PM on Nov 18:
Renae (88): You're right that St. Paul said something of that sort (1 Corinthians 7), but the disciples reacted to Jesus saying stuff about divorce too. See Matthew 19:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19
It seems that the ideas of Jesus have been unpopular for a long time :)
Jo (89): Not sure if you're ascribing views to me or not, but my statement about "He was mean to me, so I'm going to marry someone else" was not intended to be a description of all "abuse" situations (though I'm sure it describes some).
92. Matt from DC said the following at 12:28 PM on Nov 18:
Renae,
Check out Matthew 19:10: The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jo,
I think I understand what you mean, but it sounds dangerous to describe it that way. You could very easily come to unbiblical conclusions then because of a feeling of peace you gained through prayer believe and _practice_ heretical things. I think the things you listed in addition to a plain reading of the Bible are important and will yield greater understanding. The Bible was written to be understood at face value. Also, the three most important thing to understanding the Bible context, context, and context. I like how you've taken the verses about slaves and made a comparison to spouses, but that is not correct for a couple reasons. First, you're reading from a portion of the law that God used to describe to Israelite society how to operate. So the best you can say is that the instruction about slaves is a principle. Then if it is a principle is the relationship between husband and wife like that of master and slave? I think not. We're equals with different functions. I also agree that honing in on one verse to inform your topical understanding of biblical information is not a good thing. However, a single verse can easily sum up a major point from a topic like certain verses on remarriage on the topic of marriage. In all of the major places in the New Testament where Jesus or his witness Paul could have listed a possibility for abuse we only find ones for adultery and desertion by an unbelieving spouse.
93. BDB said the following at 3:15 PM on Nov 18:
In defense of Jo's "he was mean to me" comment, I HAVE read something similar. It was in the pages of a very popular U.S. preacher with a huge church. Literally chapter that came off saying you deserve to be happy, and while divorce isn't a good thing, you deserve to be happy, like when there's abuse, you deserve to be happy...
TOTALLY unbiblical advice. I firmly believe this preacher will face condemnation in the next life for teaching things that are contrary to scripture. No where did he provide biblical cites to back up "you deserve to be happy," nor did he define abuse. I know several divorced persons who initiated the divorce based on this vague notion of deserving to be happy. In all my study, I see no biblical support for this position.
To Rachael's point, there are a number of cases when suffering or longsuffering are mentioned in the Bible as part of being made holy.
94. Jo said the following at 3:24 PM on Nov 18:
Matt from DC:
Yes, I absolutely agree that the principles I described in my last paragraph can be and have been abused. I believe these things should be done *in addition* to reading the Bible at face value, not instead of that. I don't think I really made that clear. I think if you read the Bible alone, 98% of the message will be crystal clear, and the 2% that might confuse you will be non-essential. And really, what we're talking about here is non-essential. Salvation doesn't depend on a correct understanding of divorce and remarriage, important though it is.
I do think that reading commentaries, listening to sermons, doing some research about cultural and historical stuff around these subjects can shed a lot of light on the confusing bits, and also further illuminate and bring alive the rest. I think that in a society where most of us have ready access to thousands of good books and a world of information on the internet, it is good for us to look into some of these things a bit more carefully. The 'face value' reading is the right place to start, but as you said, context is everything, and context is made clearer by reading around the subject.
On the subject of context, I take your point about the Exodus passage. The thoughts I posted on were fairly random, from bits and pieces that came up in a google search, so I can't say really whether I agree with your interpretation or the other one I read. Guess I should take my own advice and look into it in more detail myself. :P
As to a single verse summing up major points, I agree with you again - but I don't think I necessarily agree with your conclusion. The summing up in on divorce seems in my mind to be: "Marriage is ordained by God and divorce is a serious and terrible thing that is to be treated as such." If anything, the adultery clause is a side note. The general rule in the majority of cases seems to be "God hates it. Don't do it." Perhaps by looking for exceptions we're missing the point a little. Then we're in danger of going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, I think.
Again, I think the issue is remarriage rather than divorce. A couple obviously has to be separated in cases of extreme abuse. Whether the abused party is then free to marry again according to God, is the contentious issue. And as I said, I'm not totally sure about this one. Even in that situation, I think it certainly isn't a decision that should be taken lightly, or without a great deal of prayer and wise counsel.
Trevor Dolby:
Sorry, I did refer indirectly to your comment. I understand you weren't meaning it to refer to all abused spouses, it just seemed to represent a general attitude from *some* of the posters. And to be honest, I would say that isn't the case with ANY abused spouse. That was kinda my point, that abuse goes waaaay beyond 'He was mean to me'. Of course the term 'abuse' is sometimes applied erroneously, but that doesn't negate the seriousness of genuine abuse.
95. Trevor Dolby said the following at 5:45 PM on Nov 18:
Jo (94): I'm not sure if "he was mean to me" would properly described abused spouses (spice?) either, but I do think it's hard to draw lines in circumstances between "mean" and "abusive". How mean must someone be before it becomes abuse? Or is it a length of time?
It's also a very emotive issue for many people who've been there - what some people call abuse on the part of their spouse might very well be what others think of as "he was mean to me". Regardless of what others think, the feeling of being abused is very real to the people in such situations. Whether they are _right_ to feel abused is another question, but feel it they do.
As you can probably tell, I think it's very hard to come to any generally applicable conclusion on that sort of thing; I tend to stick with the bible for that very reason, because these questions are _so_ hard.
96. Trevor Dolby said the following at 5:53 PM on Nov 18:
BDB (93): That's very depressing :( especially since divorce, in general, isn't actually going to make anyone happy! Somebody did a study on this once (citation needed :)) and discovered that people who stayed in miserable marriages were, on balance, happier than those who left, and not always because the marriage got better. I think they concluded that you take the weather with you, and what's inside someone determines happiness (but that could be me editorialising). I also think they ignored any marriage where there was an abuse accusation.
I understand the temptation to want God to want us to be happy regardless of what we do, though!
97. Leah said the following at 12:56 AM on Nov 19:
Jo (89) - the "cultural context" card gets thrown around far too much. Jesus taught quite clearly on divorce and I have never seen anything that suggests Jesus was referring to something specific happening within the culture at the time.
I agree that we can use our logic, but not when it draws conclusions that are not even alluded to in the bible. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere does Jesus say anything about divorce based on abuse. He gives clear outlines that "xyz is the only time divorce is permissible". It doesn't make sense to us, but we can't allow our "logic" to tell us something that Jesus clearly doesn't allow.
(NB: to recap what I said in one of my original posts: I believe separation is a very valid action to take in situations of abuse. I also believe that, most of the time, a truly unrepentant abuser is probably not a Christian, and so if he/she were to walk out on the partner, as Renae's husband did, the divorce is quite biblical, and so would be remarriage.)
98. Jo said the following at 1:51 AM on Nov 19:
Trevor #95 (and this can be a reply to BDB too):
You're right that the line is very difficult to draw when we're discussing it in theory. There are too many variables to create a hard and fast rule. But I actually think that in reality, it's often (although not always) much easier to draw those lines.
I know there are people who confuse unpleasantness with abuse, and there are people who give as good as they get so that what's going on cannot really be described as abuse. My aim isn't to define what does or doesn't constitute abuse, but to acknowledge that there are situations where clear ongoing abuse is happening. My thoughts are about what should be done in those situations.
At the end of the day, if I take a Biblical view of divorce as a terrible and serious thing that God hates, I'm far less likely to look for loopholes like "Well I deserve to be happy", and far more likely to do everything I can to persevere unless the circumstances really are extreme.
That some people abuse the exceptions should never be a case that those exceptions shouldn't exist. Exceptions must be drawn up on their own merits.
99. Rachael said the following at 9:18 AM on Nov 19:
someone wrote:
"do think it's hard to draw lines in circumstances between "mean" and "abusive". How mean must someone be before it becomes abuse? Or is it a length of time?"
--> Good question. And I bet some people would consider some stuff to be abuse whereas others forbear it...I wonder, if it caused extreme physical reactions, if the mental abuse could change into physical abuse (like if someone didn't allow his/her spouse to eat or something, and consequently the spouse got dangerously thin -- [I just made that up, I don't know if it's ever happened]).
However, if a spouse repeatedly makes the other spouse cry because of meanness, I think the one spouse can forbear it. Sad, sad, sad situation...but I hope it would drive the hurting spouse to Christ and His strength.
If the spouse's meanness or verbal abuse put the other spouse in a dangerous situation (for example, repeated real death threats), then it would probably be good for the couple to be separated.
100. Louise, from Chicago said the following at 10:25 AM on Nov 19:
Comment 99,
You, if you choose, may certainly "forbear" living with a spouse who continually throws mean, nasty, degrading comments into your face, who ridicules you and laughs at you, who makes you feel like you are gradually being ground down into the dirt under your feet!
I would think anyone in the above situation who is driven to appeal to any God out there would receive the divine message to get the heck out!
With all due respect to you and your right to your own opinions, you really do not KNOW what you are talking about!!!