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.
101. mike said the following at 12:24 PM on Nov 19:
I was in ministry my wife had an affair with my good friend and christian brother, so we divorced. I would have stayed with her but more for my daughter than anything else, but she didn't want to. Let me give you some other reasons for divorce you won't like it but I've seen more horror in this. Child abuse, spousal abuse & abandonment.
102. Rachael said the following at 9:51 PM on Nov 19:
Louise, 100,
I'm sorry if you have had horrible experiences of feeling continually downgraded. If so, it must have been horrendous.
As I've never married, I've never had a verbally abusive spouse, and I can't see signs that my fiance will be abusive.
Still, though, I don't believe I've seen permission in the Bible for divorce for verbal abuse. I don't believe I've seen it for physical abuse, either, but if my future kids or I were being physically abused I may separate or divorce anyway. I would pray about the matter, seek counsel, hope that my husband seeks counsel, search Scriptures, then decide...even if in the end it were a sin, if my future kids' safety was at stake, I'd view their endangerment as the greater evil.
103. BDB said the following at 11:00 AM on Nov 20:
Louise (100) wrote:
>>With all due respect to you and your right to your own opinions, you really do not KNOW what you are talking about!!!<<
I do.
I've seen it up close. Specifically, I've seen wives engage in precisely the kind of disparaging, unrelenting verbal attacks you describe. It is sin.
The question is, how to confront such sin?
Some, such as Elisabeth Elliot, are very specific: it is the husband's responsibility to confront his wife's sinful behavior. A similar theme runs through most men's ministries, that the responsibility for spiritual leadership rests with the husband. That responsibility includes confronting sinful behavior specifically.
Many men won't do this. They decide it's not worth confronting a nasty person, and bail out instead. The example they set from their sons is that if a woman is strong-willed, it's not worth pursing anything with her. Just leave. This is not the Biblical requirement, but it is very common.
Rachael's interpretation of scripture is correct.
104. Louise,43 said the following at 11:14 AM on Nov 20:
I know the tone of my comment 100 was brusque, but attitudes like the one expressed in comment 99 make me VERY ANGRY.
In my own case it took me a long time to decide to end the marriage, and yes, comment 103, I did "confront" his behavior several times during the last year and I was specifically told "this is the way I am and if you don't like it, you can just leave."
Comments 102 and 103, if a close friend or relative, after YEARS of emotional/verbal abuse, came to you and said "I've finally hit the breaking point, I've got to get out, I am slowly being destroyed" do you honestly mean that you would just respond "Sorry, you can't do that, it's not BIBLICAL?"
In my opinion, with friends (and relatives) like that, WHO THE HECK NEEDS ENEMIES?
105. Matt from DC said the following at 12:43 PM on Nov 20:
Louise,
Like BDB, I have been in this kind of situation. That wasn't the issue that caused the end of my marriage, but it certainly was present.
You seem to think that because Leah and all who likemindedly affirm the clear meaning of God's words on this issue lacks any compassion. While God's position is mine that doesn't mean that those who sin against his revealed will should be punished by me. Why not weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn? Why wouldn't it be reasonable to say "I don't agree with your decision, but I love you anyway." and follow it up with a big hug. Now we're talking specifically about verbal abuse here. However, if the abuse were physical or if the abuse what criminalized I would go further and aid this friend or relative with a legal solution if he or she wanted one.
What I'm wondering here is are you mad at God because of what he has written or are you mad at Leah and company because they seem to lack compassion for your situation?
106. Jo said the following at 1:37 PM on Nov 20:
Leah, #97:
"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."
The cultural context card gets abused a lot, yes. But used correctly, it is valid. There simply ARE cultural considerations in interpreting the Bible. We are not the original audience of scripture. The challenge we have is to try and understand fully what it meant in its original context, and then to apply that same message to our, often different, context. That's exactly what exegesis and hermeneutics are all about.
To clarify, I wasn't saying there was necessarily a cultural slant to the teaching on divorce (although I *have* read stuff that says there was), I was giving general examples of things to think about when looking at the Bible.
"He gives clear outlines that "xyz is the only time divorce is permissible"."
Actually, I don't think He does say that. He says, "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress."
Presumably the husband makes the wife an adulteress because she would be forced to marry again in order to provide for her needs. (Note: this is clearly no longer the case in our culture. How could the wife become an adulteress if she remained chaste after the divorce, as would be very possible nowadays?)
If the wife had been unfaithful, she was already an adulteress, so the husband would not be forcing her to become one. THAT'S the exception, as I understand it.
So in fact Jesus does not say that adultery is a valid reason to divorce your spouse in this passage. I don't think He does anywhere else, either. Correct me if I'm wrong. He merely says that if the wife is *already* an adulteress, divorcing her will not make her one.
He DOES quote Genesis and say, "What God has joined together, let not man separate." Doesn't that present potential problems for your allowance of separation in the case of abuse?
I still can't see any real qualitative difference between separation and divorce. It seems legalistic and inconsistent to allow separation in a given situation, but not divorce.
As to remarriage, where does Jesus or any NT writer specifically allow remarriage in ANY circumstance where the original spouse is still living? There may be something somewhere but I can't think of a passage off the top of my head.
What about Moses' allowance of divorce? He allowed divorce as a concession 'because your hearts were hard'. Whose hearts were hard? Are we talking about the particular people who wanted to divorce, or people in general? Is it the sin of divorce that requires a hard heart, or the sin that makes divorce necessary? Was divorce allowed by Moses because there are cases where spouses are so terrible to each other that there is no other option? I don't know, I'm thinking aloud.
And did Jesus ever take away this concession that Moses gave? Is saying, "Don't divorce" *exactly* the same as saying, "There are ABSOLUTELY NO circumstances under which you may get a divorce"? Is saying, "Don't lie" exactly the same as saying, "There are ABSOLUTELY NO circumstances under which you may lie"? Can you think of circumstances where it might be legitimate to lie? I can.
I know these thoughts are jumbled. And I know I'm playing devil's advocate here a little, and even proposing views I don't necessarily agree with. I'm trying to get across that I really don't think these issues are as cut and dried as you make out.
107. BDB said the following at 1:54 PM on Nov 20:
Louise (#104) wrote:
>>if a close friend or relative, after YEARS of emotional/verbal abuse, came to you and said "I've finally hit the breaking point,<<
Leadership requires that I do not wait years.
There was an incident in my family. A recovering alcoholic, hadn't had a drink in 19 years. Found out his kid tried pot. Went out drinking, came home in a rage, got arrested. No one was hurt.
Solution: he lived in a motor home on another relative's property for the next few months while he underwent court-ordered counseling. That Christmas dinner with him was very small and quiet. The message from the rest of the family was unequivocal: your behavior is unacceptable and you must change. This was the first such incident I was aware of. Immediate corrective action was taken on the FIRST observed incident.
Result: Situation is fully restored, family happily back together. In fact, one year I attended their holiday party and realized that many of the guests were AA buddies. Another guy was having a rough night - they managed to get him to the event so he wouldn't go out drinking, but he refused to come inside. He stood out in the cold for a few hours while the other AA men took turns and went out to talk with him. That is how accountability is done.
It is often said that addicts will not seek help until they hit rock bottom. Separation from a spouse is often the triggering event that makes them realize they need to change. The separating spouse should make it clear that the other spouse needs to be willing to place themselves under church authority for their behavior.
It occurs to me that this will likely produce one of two outcomes: repentance or abandonment, the latter being biblical grounds for divorce.
108. Louise, 43 said the following at 2:07 PM on Nov 20:
Comment 105, the hug would never have happened.
He would have shoved my arms away before I could actually have touched him.
And, do you really think it is reasonable to continue to "love" under those circumstances? I mean if one can, well, fine, but do you really think that is a reasonable expectation?
I guess my issue is that the understanding support of my family and close friends was an immeasurable help as I proceeded to reclaim my life, so the mere thought of someone else going through the same experience and meeting with family opposition due to a belief of "it's against the Bible" is enough to make me physically ill.
109. Jo said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 20:
Louise,
I don't think Matt was talking about the spouse, I think he meant that the "I don't agree with you but I love you anyway" hug might come from family/friends. In other words they might oppose the action, but still stand by the person they love and give the 'understanding support' that you speak of.
Your situation sounds like it was really hard and painful, and I truly don't think anyone here wants to trivialise that.
I've often wondered, are you a Christian? That has no relevance to my above comment, I'm just curious - but you don't have to answer of course. :)
110. J. said the following at 3:44 PM on Nov 20:
Rachael (#102) wrote:
"...I don't believe I've seen permission in the Bible for divorce for verbal abuse. I don't believe I've seen it for physical abuse, either, but if my future kids or I were being physically abused I may separate or divorce anyway. I would pray about the matter, seek counsel, hope that my husband seeks counsel, search Scriptures, then decide...even if in the end it were a sin, if my future kids' safety was at stake, I'd view their endangerment as the greater evil."
It's important to remember a wife's putting up with verbal abuse sets a terrible example for her children, too. It teaches a son that it will be okay to degrade and insult his future wife, and it teaches a daughter that putting up with this kind of behavior is acceptable. And given that verbal and physical abuse often, though not always, go hand-in-hand, a wife who puts up with a verbally abusive husband is putting her daughter at greater risk of ending up with a man who is both verbally and physically abusive. Given all these things, and that the Bible emphasizes setting a good example for one's children, I just don't think that a wife in this situation should do nothing but pray and hope her husband will change while refusing to confront him and continuing to live with him. I've never been in this situation, but if I had a verbally abusive husband who refused to change, even after a separation, I'd probably divorce him (and not remarry).
111. Matt from DC said the following at 3:54 PM on Nov 20:
Louise,
Jo is right about what I was saying. I was talking about the reaction of friends and family. Or, even those in your life who uphold the biblical doctrine about divorce. Just because they accept God's words doesn't mean that they'll reject you; just disagree.
Jesus ate and drank with the scum of Jewish society. He did not approve of their sin, but I think he showed them love, care, and compassion. Also, I'm betting that he taught them about righteousness and confronted their sin. Only the Pharisees rejected "sinners".
True love has both grace and truth. In one hand is unearned care and compassion. And in the other hand are God's words.
Today you show yourself to be a brave woman for coming in to this forum and putting your heart on your sleeve for all to discuss. I respect you.
112. Trevor Dolby said the following at 4:00 PM on Nov 20:
Jo (106): I think Jesus said things along the line of "anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" - I'm not sure there's the idea of adultery applied to the first wife . . .
In any case, I shall have to repeat what I said before :) that Jesus doesn't seem convinced that "divorce" is a reality in any way other than purely legal - remarriage is the interesting question. Or rather, it's the point at which the question becomes interesting.
113. Rachael said the following at 9:49 PM on Nov 20:
Hi Louise, even though I still don't think the Bible specifically states an allowance for divorce for cases of abuse, it doesn't mean I would lack compassion should a family member come to me for emotional support if he or she were going through a divorce. Thanks Matt for seeming to think that compassion vs. view of something being right can be two separate issues.
J(110) wrote:
"It's important to remember a wife's putting up with verbal abuse sets a terrible example for her children, too. It teaches a son that it will be okay to degrade and insult his future wife, and it teaches a daughter that putting up with this kind of behavior is acceptable. "
--> I actually think that spirit of forbearance can be an extremely admirable quality. I stand by that.
I also think it could cause the kids to feel yucky about that and not desire to be in similar situations. Could it have the opposite effect and contribute to a cycle of abuse? Yes I think so, and I'm sure a lot of people know about that first hand or from research.
114. Louise,43 from Chicago said the following at 10:04 PM on Nov 20:
Jo, would my divorce be okay if I weren't a "Christian?"
And I would only be obligated to stay in a emotionally abusive marriage if I were?
Look folks, I don't think anyone on here, and there includes BDD, whom I am sure is quite well-meaning, has any idea of how low one's self-esteem is when you come out an an experience like that.
If any one of my family members had said that they weren't in agreement with my course of action, that it was a "sin" I really think I would have gone right into the bathroom and drowned my head in the toilet.
For pity's sake, people, when one of your loved ones is literally at the end or his/her rope, PLEASE think of his/her well-being before you start quoting what is in the Bible, which, if I may be so bold as to point out the obvious, was written over two thousand years ago!
115. Jo said the following at 6:28 AM on Nov 21:
Trevor, #106:
Jesus says both what you're saying, and what I said. You're referring to the Mark 10/Matthew 19 passage. I'm talking about Mark 5:
"v32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."
Essentially the point is the same, remarriage is the same as adultery. As you say, this is the real issue addressed here, not the logistics of whether divorce is permissable and when.
I think we're agreeing on this point. My perspective has shifted a little since this thread started, as I've thought about it more. :)
116. Jo said the following at 11:15 AM on Nov 21:
Louise #114,
My question about whether you're a Christian really wasn't relevant at all to the divorce discussion. It's just something I've wondered a few times, only because you've never said either way (that I've seen), and you often talk about having a 'secular worldview'.
I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, there are things I'm still not clear on, but I'm absolutely sure within myself that separation is not only valid in cases of ongoing abuse, but is the *right* decision - a better decision than staying in the relationship. If reconciliation isn't possible, I believe divorce is also completely valid. And I believe scripture says nothing to the contrary.
I also know - and I can't say this strongly enough, especially as many people here don't seem to realise it - that emotional/psychological abuse DOES EXIST, and is JUST AS DAMAGING as physical abuse. The view that emotional abuse needs to be accompanied by physical abuse in order to be a legitimate cause for separation/divorce is not one I share.
It may be difficult for the average person to define, and it isn't as obvious as being covered in bruises, but the idea that ongoing abuse of this type doesn't cause serious harm to a person's mental and emotional health, significant enough to make it necessary for them to get out of their situation as quickly as possible, is very naive, I think.
117. Matt from DC said the following at 3:30 PM on Nov 21:
Jo,
You are entirely out of place to lecture me about the reality of emotionality, psychological, and physical abuse. When I wrote in #105 "Like BDB, I have been in this kind of situation." I meant that. I was a victim of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse in my marriage. I do not think that my situation was as severe as Louise's, but when I speak about these things I am neither "very naive" or plain ignorant. Even though my unbelieving wife left me and lived an adulterous life I still tried to reconcile our marriage. Why? Because I believe God's word is clear and his grace sufficient for all circumstances that I find myself in. In the end I divorced her several months after she was pregnant with the other man's baby and living with him.
The point that I was making was that physical abuse is handled under a special section of the law called domestic violence and many women are afraid to appeal to this authority for assistance. I was saying in general that if the abuse was physical there is _more_ that can be done than just separating. This was an example of showing compassion to this relative - helping her obtain legal counsel to prosecute her husband.
I have a quick question that is a clarification about your teaching on on abuse. When you write "their situation" in the last sentence do you mean the marital relationship or do you mean the abusive circumstances?
118. Louise, 43 from Chicago said the following at 3:46 PM on Nov 21:
I apologize for any brusque and unpleasant tone in my comments for this blog post.
Endurance of marital emotional/verbal abuse is a sensitive issue for me.
God Bless and Be Well.
Louise
119. Trevor Dolby said the following at 3:57 PM on Nov 21:
Jo (115): You're right, though you meant Matthew 5, not Mark 5 . . . I agree we're agreeing :)
The difficult part of this sort of discussion (in real life, anyway) is that you never know who is directly affected - divorce is everywhere, in almost everyone's family these days :(
120. More Christ Like said the following at 11:54 PM on Nov 22:
Les McFall has an interesting way to deal with the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that appear to allow for divorce and remarriage for marriage unfaithfulness.
He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall's paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.
121. Matt from DC said the following at 11:59 AM on Nov 24:
More Christ Like,
I want to begin this by admitting that I do not know Greek, Latin, or Hebrew so I can't get into a discussion about the validity of the plethora of claims made about translations. However, I do see three points that interest me.
First, I don't see how you think that Leslie McFall allows for divorce and remarriage when he says things like "...divorce was abolished by God completely, there being now no grounds whatsoever for divorce, for either Christian or non-Christian because of the one-flesh nature of the union, and this was understood firmly by the entire Church up until the Protestant Reformation, which then branched off and introduced divorce for adultery...".
Second, in the section titled "Comparing McFall/KVJ and NA27/TR" on your blog post I get what you're doing. You're comparing two Greek manuscripts for Matthew 19:9 where one has EI and the other doesn't and you're saying that if the Nestles-Aland manuscript was used instead of the Textus Receptus then Matthew 19:9 would read differently. However, the scholars who made the NIV used the Nestles-Aland Greek New Testament as their primary text when translating. So why did they translate Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."? I'm sure you know that the word except is present instead of the not which is a fact that seem to run counter to your prediction to me.
Third, you bring a baffling new teaching toward the end of your blog post when you write "This means we need to warn those that are thinking of remarrying or divorcing that there is no exception (allowance) for remarriage. Those who are currently remarried who have a living spouse from a previous lawful marriage are in the state of adultery and copulation in that union is adultery. Those that are in adulterous re-marriage need to separate and seek restoration with their rightful spouse, or remain single." Say a man is sitting at work, reads your blog post, and agrees. Would you have him return home, tell his wife that they must separate from their marriage, live separately, divide assets, make custody arrangements for their children, etc? That seems bizarre.
122. Jo said the following at 1:32 PM on Nov 26:
Matt from DC #117:
Okay, here goes.
I'm not out of place because I wasn't lecturing you. I was responding to a general tone I felt was present in several of the comments. Your comment was one of the ones I had in mind, but I didn't direct it at you or anyone else because I didn't want to put words in people's mouths. I just wanted to put forward my position, which no one else had seemed to give.
I may have misunderstood your comment and if I did I apologise. My point still stands as a response to anyone who does consider that emotional abuse isn't as serious as physical abuse. That's the point of view I was challenging, and whether or not there's anyone here who holds that view, I still think it needs to be clearly refuted because it's prevalent, and I believe false.
When you mention my 'teaching' on divorce, I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not teaching anyone; I'm giving my opinions. In my comment, I meant both the abusive situation AND the marriage relationship, because they are one and the same. I think separation/divorce is necessary in such circumstances. But that is my opinion, not teaching.
123. Jo said the following at 1:39 PM on Nov 26:
Louise 118 -
I think your comments add a different perspective which is really valuable. Topics like this are really sensitive for different people, it's totally understandable. And anyway I don't think you were unpleasant. :)
124. Jo said the following at 9:39 AM on Nov 27:
I just read Candice's latest Boundless Answers column and wanted to respond to a bit of it, and this seems the most relevant post to respond in.
Candice says:
"You have said that he makes you afraid (that's called abuse)"
No it's NOT. For a start, 'making someone afraid' is far too vague a description to immediately define the situation as abusive. What is he doing that makes her afraid?
In this case, the woman answers that question clearly:
"I'm scared to tell him that I need space to get closer to the Lord because he's already told me that if I give him space he's clearly going to move on."
She's not afraid of a beating or of any other kind of abuse; she's afraid he's going to move on. So unless there's more that hasn't been quoted, Candice has taken the woman completely out of context and called a situation abusive that isn't at all.
This is one of the reasons people don't take emotional abuse seriously - because the word 'abuse' gets thrown around far too lightly. And it bothers me because real emotional abuse is a horrific thing that NEEDS to be taken seriously.
I feel a bit like a broken record but hey. I think it's important.
125. Matt from DC said the following at 2:14 PM on Dec 1:
Jo,
I accept your apology and maintain that your tone in all of your comments relating to abuse has been instructive. I think that the best statement that sums up what I call your, as opposed to the Bible's, teaching is: "Oh and as a PS, I'm absolutely sure within myself that ongoing abuse of any kind is a legitimate reason for divorce." You appeal to yourself as the authority. Then you go on in several comments to elaborate on this. However, the Bible speaks about exceptional reasons for divorce and ongoing abuse of any kind is not one of them. So you are in conflict with the Bible's teaching on this topic. Maybe you're not trying to convince us that you're describing a morally right choice (I think you are). Even if what you have said is only your thought to be applied to your lifestyle I am left with one question? How do you reconcile that with the Biblical teaching? I just don't get it.
Disclaimer: I am sure that I am not perfect in my understanding of all Biblical truth. By stating that the Bible does not provide abuse as a reason for divorce I am not saying that all victims must do nothing and "suck it up". Please read this comment in context with my other comments on this thread. Happy Cyber Monday.
126. Jo said the following at 11:23 AM on Dec 2:
This will be my final comment on this topic. I honestly think I've explained my position to the best of my ability, so I'm not going to repeat myself.
But I will disagree with you Matt that I'm appealing to myself as the authority. I always try to take my morality from the Bible, and although I'm sure I often fall short of that goal, it is my constant aim.
I maintain that I am not 'teaching' anyone. I have no greater knowledge than anyone else, I simply have different opinions. Yes of course I believe my opinions to be right, but I recognise that this is a difficult topic on which Christians can and do disagree, which is why I used the phrase 'I'm sure within myself'. I've come to a tentative conclusion which I believe is consistent with scripture, but I'm not sure about all the finer pints, and I certainly don't presume to try and force others to accept my view.
I guess what makes this such a hard thing to discuss is the huge implications it has for people. You believe that divorce is wrong in cases of abuse - and that's fine, and I really respect the way you've done your best to live by that in your own experience. But can you accept that another person in a similar situation might interpret the Bible differently, and therefore act differently? Or will you 'teach' them that your belief is the only legitimate belief that a Christian can hold?
I think there are topics where it's important to figure out what we believe scripture is saying, but on which it's impossible to know for sure this side of heaven. And on these topics I think we need to extend grace to people who are hurting and doing their best to follow God in their pain, and to give them the benefit of the doubt.