abuse/re-marriage/divorce

[Scott Hilton]

Greetings Naznetters,

I am involved in another forum on a discussion on remarriage. The topic of spousal abuse came up and we have some on there saying that no matter what, unless of adulterer or sexual misconduct, you can't divorce and remarry. I find this contrary to the relational aspects of Jesus Christ. I feel it is concentrating on the letter of the law at the expense of the love of the Spirit. I am going to post my only reply on there so far below and I hope that I can gain some insight from ya'll on this issue. I thank you in advance for your thoughts on this topic, its one that I have not spent a lot of time thinking about, but I hope to gain some understanding from you all.

Marriage is a conditional contract. Most would say the condition is “love, honor and cherish” each other along with other wonderful sayings that some may come up with in their wedding vows. Marriage is about submission to each other, not domination over each other. God is the witness to the vows and the one who spiritually confirms it. The marriage document is man made and is, in my opinion, a separate entity from the spiritual one. Why am I making this distinction, because I don’t see how a paper divorce by a female or male of an abusive spouse is a sin, when the abusive spouse has spiritually divorced the marriage already. How can I say that, well I am hoping to make some points on that.

First of all, I am not using someone who claims abuse as their spouse just doesn’t treat them the way they used to or buy them the things they desire, etc. I am talking about real abuse, verbal and/or physical abuse. I realize scripture tells us God hates divorce. What else does God hate though? We see in Malachi 2:16 that God does indeed hate divorce, however we also see that God hates covering ourselves in wrong. The word for wrong here is omx, which translated means, violence, wrong, cruelty, and injustice. So, unless you think physical and/or verbal abuse is right in Gods eyes, He also hates violence in a marriage. He hates both of these things because of the root cause of them, sin. Proverbs 14:17 also states that God hates a man of evil devices. Is not abuse, an evil device? Divorce, abuse, adultery etc. were not part of the original design. That is why He hates them. The fact that He hates divorce does not necessitate that staying in an abusive and destructive marriage is right in Gods eyes.

Can one be considered to be faithful in his vows and marriage if he/she is abusive? Is not the abusive spouse breaking the covenant by his actions already? Proverbs 12:2 tells us that God will condemn a man who devises evil. Proverbs 11:19 tells us that he who pursues evil will bring about his own death. Proverbs 11:20 tells us that the perverse in heart are an abomination to the Lord. Perversion is simply turning something to a use other than its intended purpose. What is more perverse than turning your spouse into something to dominate and control by any means necessary? Proverbs 29:22 states “an angry man stirs up strife, and a hot tempered man abounds in transgression.” Does this sound like part of the spiritual idea of marriage God has for us? Does staying in this situation really fit to Gods revealed will in scripture? Is this really the kind of suffering that scripture speaks of?

I do not believe that once the abused spouse has taken the problem to God, has sought help, has prayed for the abusive spouse, has sought council, that if they do divorce their spouse, that it is a sin. I see a solid case for the abusive spouse already spiritually divorcing the covenant. If the spouse refuses to repent from their sin, refuses to turn to righteousness and continues in wickedness, that it is them that have cut off the marriage that God intended, not the abused spouse. The paperwork is mans work; it means nothing to God. It is the spiritual part of the marriage that He looks at.

So, let’s say you still think the abused spouse is in sin if they divorce and remarry. Let’s take a look at another angle then. Is it not a sin to cause another to sin? So if by staying married to an abusive spouse, you are actually causing them to stumble into sin, how do you choose what sin is worse? More so, if you have kids who are either also getting abused or watching the abuse, does this not go against the very nature of how God intended us to raise our children? Is it not also a sin to raise our kids in an environment of abuse? Wouldn’t abuse also cause anger in the abused? We are told in Ephesians 4 not to go to sleep with anger. How is someone supposed to do this when the very act of confronting the source of anger will result in a violent end? Why do I get the feeling that Jesus would reiterate Matthew 23:4 on this issue with the church?

Jesus came and showed the Pharisees that it was not about the letter of the law, but it was an equally weighed measurement between spirit and law, between obedience and mercy, love and discipline. It seems to me, that the spirit of the Pharisee is still alive today and missing the point.

Now on to a more, real life issue. We have been praying for a lady and her situation in our church. She is a friend of one of our small group members. She is from a small town in Pennsylvania, not sure exactly where. She has been violently abused in her marriage for a long time. This town is like a town out of the movies. It is old school; they all turn their heads to spousal abuse. The church, the cops, everyone. She was scared for her life to the point that she left her kid and came down to is with our small group member for awhile via. Women’s shelter program. The courts are in his favor in that town and in order for her to gain custody of her child, she had to return. I am not kidding you here, she was at the airport upon her return and her husband ran her down with a car and then took off. What happened to him? Nothing. While she was in the hospital trying to recover from the hit and run, he came in and stabbed her. She has since become stable, but they thought she was going to die. They FINALLY moved her to an unknown location so that she could be protected. What does her fellow church members and church pastorates tell her? That she should not divorce him, it’s a sin bla bla bla. Please tell me how it is Gods will that she and her child are to stay in that situation. Please tell me how that is a marriage that God had intended. I pray that for those of you in pastorate positions or soon to be in pastorate positions that you would truly consider things beyond the letter of the law. Lest us not forget that David ate the priests food that was not lawful for him to eat, because they were hungry. The bible shows us both scripture and Gods attributes that there are times when God makes exceptions when it comes to our health and safety. Is He a God of love? Of Mercy? Is He a God of laws or a God of relationship? Is He a God of action or a God of a rulebook.

I guess that is it for now. Maybe I am in the minority on this one, I would hope not. Sorry about the long post.

In Christ
Thorns

Thanks guys

Scott Hilton

p.s., yeah, I go by Thorns on that site......don't ask, lol

[David Pettigrew]

A few random thoughts on this subject...

A lot of men and women have stayed in abusive marriages because their pastor/church told them it would be a sin to divorce.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you referred to marriage as covenant. Marriage is a sacred agreement, just like our relationship with God. That agreement can be broken, but not without a lot of pain.

No, there's no scripture that says "abuse is a reason to divorce". That doesn't mean that divorce in the case of abuse is a sin. Often, it's a sin to stay in an abusive marriage, especially if there are children involved.

I think there's more than one way to adulterize a relationship.

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

Often, it's a sin to stay in an abusive marriage, especially if there are children involved.

I think there's more than one way to adulterize a relationship.

interesting thoughts...

[John Kennedy]

Anyone advising someone to stay in an abusive marital situation on Biblical grouinds should probably be sued for theological malpractice. The absolute 'nlo grounders' have no ground on which to stand. You might almost think of it as 'hyper fundamentalism on steroids'.

[Barb Bouldrey]

What bothers me is that it seems everyone says that an abused spouse should leave the marriage and get a divorce.

What is wrong with leaving the marriage to protect yourself and your children and just being separated?

I do not believe an abused spouse should stay in that home. I believe they need to go to shelters and get protection. But why can't they just stay married, but separated?

Why should we advice an abused person to leave AND get a divorce? Why not advice them to just leave and get help?

Barb

[Belinda Y. Edwards]

What bothers me is that it seems everyone says that an abused spouse should leave the marriage and get a divorce.

What is wrong with leaving the marriage to protect yourself and your children and just being separated?

I do not believe an abused spouse should stay in that home. I believe they need to go to shelters and get protection. But why can't they just stay married, but separated?

Why should we advice an abused person to leave AND get a divorce? Why not advice them to just leave and get help?

Barb

Good question.

my great grandmother separated from my great grandfather - never divorcing. He was an alcoholic abuser. She lived at a time where monies and taxes were paid in different ways. Today, if one is of the mindset to abuse, there are financial issues that one HAS to acknowledge.

Abuse isn't always physical.

Safety isn't always defined as in physical life. There are more ways than one to die and be in danger.

[Scott Hilton]

What bothers me is that it seems everyone says that an abused spouse should leave the marriage and get a divorce.

What is wrong with leaving the marriage to protect yourself and your children and just being separated?

I do not believe an abused spouse should stay in that home. I believe they need to go to shelters and get protection. But why can't they just stay married, but separated?

Why should we advice an abused person to leave AND get a divorce? Why not advice them to just leave and get help?

Barb

Well, if you read my example of a real life story up there in the first thread, the seperation is not an option. With the earthly laws we have to abide by, it doesn't mean that the abused is going to have custody of the child. So what exactly do you do in that circumstance? I don't think you would say leave the child with the abusive person, the abuse (if not already) will turn to the child.

I am not saying that every instance has to be a divorce, but why are we recommending more weight on a person than God intends for them? We make them so worried about getting a paper divorce when the abusive spouse has already caused a spiritual void that they can end up living a life less joyous than they need to if they are trying to stay to the letter of the law.

I know of a person who came from a situation much in the same mold as the one I posted up in the original post. She managed to get out of that town (yes, its the same one) with her daughter. The daugther still does visitation with the father, but she spends the majority of time with mom. Mom found a loving Christian man and now they together are raising the daughter as God intends parents to do. Would it have been better for her to just seperate, become a single mom (not an easy thing to do at all) and deal with trying to raise a daughter on her own?

in Christ
Scott

[Dale Cozby]

I believe that divorce is allowed in cases of abuse, abandonment and adultery. If you want the proof texts I can give them.

But I think the concept of remarriage needs to be addressed as to why a person is venturing into those waters rather than seeking reconciliation.

I many of our states today, the only way to protect yourself from an abusive spouse is to file for divorce, and eventually carry through if things are not resolved.

[John Kennedy]

Reconciliation, it seems to me, is a two-way street. It is a bi-lateral thing. I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect an abusive spouse to engage in a significant and effective reconciliation process.

[Cathy Boulos]

Time after time I have ministered to women in the ER and some stay in the marriage because they have been belittled and beaten to point the they believe that are useless and self a steam is gone. To stay in a abusive marriage can be deadly and that their are some who are to afried to leave. Have anyone experienced someone who has a black eye and they ran into the door. As a chaplain I have witnessed the abused anything is wrong.

[Barb Bouldrey]

My point is....

Every time I hear Christians talk about someone who is in an abusive marriage, I hear someone say, "She/he needs to leave that man/woman, get help and divorce him/her."

Why do Christians put the idea of divorce into the picture immediately? Why do Christians think that leaving and divorce always go together?

I am not ever suggesting an abused person stay in a home with an abuser. But is leaving, "STEP ONE" and divorce "STEP TWO?"

Most abusers never change. Some do, with counseling and help from God.

We have a lady who works at the Women' Shelter. She and I have talked about the system. Our Women's Ministry collects things every other month for this shelter.

The process is:
Leave and find shelter.
Get a restraining order.
Find a place to live and a job.
Get what government help you can.
Get counseling for yourself and your children.
Get settled and get your life back on track.

I see so many people jump from one marriage to another quickly. Our world teaches us that we have to be loved and love to be acceptible in life.

An abused woman needs to find her own self worth before jumping into a new relationship. She needs to discover that she can stand on her own two feet and does not need a man to make her complete.

Legal separations establish custody and child support.

Why can't a Christian woman get a legal separation and stay single? Maybe down the road the abuser will get the divorce. Maybe the abuser will find someone else and then the Christian can get a divorce on grounds of adultery.

I don't know the answers and I do not know the law. I just think that Christians spout the word "divorce him!" too quickly.

My mother and her first 6 children (including me as the oldest) lived with an alcoholic abusive man. I remember the fear, the bruises, the empty cupboards, the broken glasses, the broken arm, and all my mother endured. (baby no. 7 was born after dad left)

Dad left and we all moved in with my mother's grandparents. My mom went to work and never got a dime from welfare. (there was not much available in 1958).

Mom died last October. In all those years she did not date and did not remarry. She was a very happy, busy, fullfilled woman. She never divorced my dad. If she had found someone else to marry, she would have divorced my dad because she sure had grounds for divorce...even though she was not a Christian.

This "Hurry up and get a divorce" bothers me in the Christian world and in the secular world, too.

Barb

[Gina Stevenson]

Legal separations establish custody and child support.

Supposing that it still may vary from state to state, seems that it's been "eons" here in MI since something called a "legal separation" even exists. We've seen [thinking back to my legal work years ago] where divorces were filed to get this support, figure out custody/visitation/etc ... and then perhaps just not completed (which in effect becomes a "legal separation"). However, seems, too, that cases are gone through on a regular basis and dismissed for lack of any action after a certain amount of time (180 days, 'think it was at one time?), which would then void whatever was set up, also.

'Seems that the legal system has made it difficult for someone to do what you would suggest ... remain married, yet have certain necessities (child support, regulation of visitation if permitted) dealt with ... anymore. UNLESS, of course, since it was done away with years ago, the filing of a "legal separation" has since been reinstated. Our society sometimes sort of works against the longevity/institution of marriage (such as someone getting mandated support while things are worked through towards a reconciliation, etc) ... just as certain tax laws seem to work against marriage, too, so far as what a couple might pay when married compared to that same income if being taxed as two separate/single people (recall hearing of the "marriage penalty tax"?).

HOWEVER, I do agree with what you're saying about people rushing towards divorce all too quickly these days. There was one friend in Phoenix where I lived close enough to see/hear some things ... both parties would talk to me re their problems, etc ... and I tried to do what i could to encourage their working through things rather than splitting as they did. They both ended up marrying others; the hubby was remarried & divorced again before the gal ever remarried. She did at least wait a few years ... proceeded carefully.

Also, my niece, too, now mentioned awhile back something she "almost divorced (her hubby) over," and I was sadly not surprised to hear that, because I'd already begun praying that she wouldn't fall into the trap of thinking it's easier to just "get rid of some problems" rather than "working through them" (they've already worked a lot, so a bit more makes more sense than someone else's problems--thinking remarriage). You see, there are how-many people in her circle of friends/coworkers who've been divorcing left & right the last couple of years ... and I've seen how in groups in can be/seem "catching." So, I do know what you're talking about.

EDIT - came back to say, "huh? I didn't tell this thing to change from purple to black font. what happened?" hmmm ...

NEXT MORNING: 'Guess I was tired last night. What we could do years ago without someone filing for divorce was file a case for support. However, without a divorce being filed, no provisions could be made therein for visitation rights, etc. gs

[Scott Hilton]

Barb,

I was not tying to state divorce first. If you go back to my original thread, I stated that this was after I said "I do not believe that once the abused spouse has taken the problem to God, has sought help, has prayed for the abusive spouse, has sought council, that if they do divorce their spouse, that it is a sin. " I too think this generation was FAR to quick to jump the gun on divorce. I am not referring to those who are seeking divorce due to just being unhappy or because they aren't "in love" like they used to be with their spouse.

My issue is with the church and Christians placing the burden of a law, which is not even talked about, on to the abused person. Their are examples of God showing mercy on a person for their health and safety when it comes to the law.

I also don't believe if the abused has done what I stated above, that the divorce is the sin of the abused. The abuser has broken the spiritual covenant before God, not the abused. The abuser is the one who is in sin. The divorce papers are just that, something that is meaningful only to our world. The divorce that matters is the spiritual one before God. If the abuser has done things to their spouse, which scripture tells us: God hates, God comdemns these things, God thinks they are an abomination, then how can the weight of sin, be left onto the abused?

It would be up to the abused after the divorce if they were to move on and marry or not. That is between them and God. I just see where the extra weight being put on the abused causing them to not be able to fully listen to the Spirit as to what to do. It is an extra burden that does not need placed on the abused. They need love, grace and mercy, not law. I think this is where Jesus came in and showed the pharisees that they were all law and no Spirit.

Don't get me wrong, divorce is not the first thing out of my mouth. I have just heard of an attitude that is not represented in scripture to me, towards the abused on this issue specifically. I find the covenant of marriage very sacred and have myself been married for over 12 years. I work with a guy who is on his 4th divorce and a lady who is on her 5th marriage. I don't get that. I think that is nuts and sad :basic04

blessings
Scott

[Scott Hilton]

I believe that divorce is allowed in cases of abuse, abandonment and adultery. If you want the proof texts I can give them.

But I think the concept of remarriage needs to be addressed as to why a person is venturing into those waters rather than seeking reconciliation.

I many of our states today, the only way to protect yourself from an abusive spouse is to file for divorce, and eventually carry through if things are not resolved.

when you get some time, I would appreciate it if I could see those proof texts.

Thanks in advance
blessings

Scott

[Kevin Rector]

My point is....

Every time I hear Christians talk about someone who is in an abusive marriage, I hear someone say, "She/he needs to leave that man/woman, get help and divorce him/her."

Barb

At the risk of speaking for others (please correct me if I'm wrong): I'm not hearing this from people. What I am hearing them say is that abuse is "grounds" for divorce, not that the abused person should rush out and file the paperwork.

[David Pettigrew]

I believe that divorce is allowed in cases of abuse, abandonment and adultery. If you want the proof texts I can give them.

But I think the concept of remarriage needs to be addressed as to why a person is venturing into those waters rather than seeking reconciliation.

I many of our states today, the only way to protect yourself from an abusive spouse is to file for divorce, and eventually carry through if things are not resolved.


This is an issue worth considering. I don't know that I would tell someone that they are prohibited from remarraige in the case of a divorce resulting from abuse, however, I do see this as a major problem. Often, a man or woman finally gets out of one bad situation, and jumps into one far worse less than a year later. Should I, as a pastor, be willing to perform a wedding ceremony in such a situation?

We are far too conditioned that we MUST have someone else in our life to be happy. Tracie and I have an agreement that if something happens to one of us, the other will not remarry while Hannah is in school. This is not a judgement on anyone who has lost a spouse and remarries. I've just dealt with too many broken situations, and my daughter's well being comes first. If, God forbid, my wife were to die, I may find a woman that would make a great stepmom to Hannah. I may just as likely find one that would resent her and cause problems between us. Why take that chance for a possible shot at happiness?

Then again, you don't know what you would do until you're in the situation.

[Scott Hilton]

David,

Isn't this where we as the body of Christ and more refined, the local family church where the people involved in the situation, come in? I don't have the time in, that most of you have in faith. However, the one thing that from reading the scriptures and kind of viewing the church body nowadays that I see is that it seems that nowadays we tend to be more "hands off" when it comes to these things. I am not placing this on the head pastor either, while I think the pastor is vital for one on one council, I think it is the body that supports the abused and yes the abuser too throughout the situation and beyond. Have we become to much of the way of, "I don't want to offend them" or "they will call me if they need me"? From my experiences the people who are abused are going to either lash out at those trying to help them or they are going to quickly jump on a "quick fix". If the body is doing what we are called to do and we do not leave them to their battered decision making abilities, wouldn't this help the possibility of the abused jumping into a situation of the same type again?

I think where maybe some would be apt to jump into a remarriage that would have the same results is where they have not been surrounded by believers who have Gods will at heart. Have we become to detached from being the support group we as a body are supposed to be? I think it was Paul who stated it was up to the church to take care of the widowed (if I remember right), well wouldn't that apply here as well? I don't know, I guess I am asking because ya'll have more "church" experience than I.

in Christ
Scott

[Kevin Rector]

Then again, you don't know what you would do until you're in the situation.

This is the crux of it. the issue has to be contextualized and there is little value in speaking abstractly about it.

My pastor in Nashville was on his second wife. His first one died of cancer. The lady who he re-married was also on her second marriage. Her first husband was murdered.

When his wife died, Jamie (his second wife) helped him to know how to deal with his grief as she had been grieving. They ended up getting married really quickly - so quickly that a lot of busybodies began raising eyebrows and wagging their tongues.

Anyway, long story short they've now been married for 14 or 15 years and they have an amazing relationship.

So for you perhaps the right thing is to not remarry, for another the right thing might be to remarry.

[Barb Bouldrey]

Scott and Kevin,

I was not referring to your post, Scott, but speaking in general. Yes, I saw your same thought about not rushing into a divorce.

And, Kevin, I was speaking of what I hear in the area I live. And again, speaking in general.

This uncontrolled rage and jealousy and need to control that I read about and see in our society seems to be epidemic. It is frightening how much of this goes on. But then, with my father, it was not rage, jealousy or the need to control, it was meanness that exhibited itself when he was drunk.

Barb

[Dale Cozby]

Scott you asked me for the scriptures i would use as proof texts.

Here is the readers digest condensed version of this:
Abandonment:
1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

So if a person leaves a Christian they are not bound to fight it. Allow the person to abandon you. Paul essentially says at the end of this scripture that PEACE is more important than fighting it out to save the marraige.

ABUSE:
Malachi 2: "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
*this word can also mean "his wife"

So if you understand what he is saying he hates divorce BUT he also hates violence against your spouse. So if you must choose between the two( divorce or violence) both are bad, but Paul clear this up when he says God desires us to have peace foremost.

ADULTERY:
Matthew 19:8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Now, in the adultery issue, we have a clear picture of divorce AND remarriage.

Divorce from a Christian standpoint should be a place of last resort to keep the peace. If a spouse leaves, then don't stop them( abandonment).
If a spouse is abusing you(covering with violence) then again we are choosing the path of peace as the high road.

Remarriage is another issue. Adultery is clearly the reason to be free of the covenant relaitonship that was established. In abuse and abandonment cases, the goal should be reconciliation if at all possible and if not, follow the example of Barbara's mom.

In many cases if the unbelieving spouse divorces and has no desire to reconcile with the believer, then they will most likely commit adultery, thus bringing about the condition to be free of the covenant. In either case, the person has done the right thing by waiting and offering the hand of peace and reconciliation.

Sadly, many Christians do what Barb said and they run right out and get into another relationship and become the adulterer themselves rather than seeking peace first, restoration second, then and only then to move on if thier ex-spouse has "moved-on"

[Dennis M. Scott]

Admittedly, I'm weighing in a little far down the line in this thread. Just a thought or two.

Because Jesus allowed for divorce in the passage cited above, we maybe too often see adultery on the part of one party - usually the one we're not working with - as an open gate to divorce in a legalistic sense. Jesus was talking about hardened hearts more than divorce. Our hearts can be just as hardoned while we are the "innocent" party, and we're no better off than if we prostitute ourselves. It's almost like we are waiting to pounce once the so-called guilty party commits adultery. "Aha, now I am free to become sexually involved with someone - in marriage - and I am not guilty." Guilt isn't the issue: a hardoned heart is the issue. We have perfected the ability to attribute blame to the point that with some arrogance we orchestrate adultery! "All I have to do is deny sanctioned sex for that person and because they're not a Christian they will sooner or later commit adultery and then I'm free to do whatever I want." That kind of entrapment is sin of a hardoned heart exactly like Jesus was referring. The sin of entrapment is eternally just as great as that of divorce or adultery. Jesus was not saying, "Let me tell you how to divorce and remarry while getting away with it." He rather was saying that it is a very complicated and difficult matter and that our hearts are hardoned to the point of not understanding what God would have us do in marriages. While having scripture to prooftext human behavior may alleviate some guilt feelings, it doesn't dismiss us from responsibility. This is no more logical than the concept of anulment. The church has prooftexted ourselves silly, and it's no wonder that some intelligent young people say the whole wedding thing is a sham. When we say or imply that unmarried couples living together should get married "to make it legal," we belittle the very sanctity of marriage. Persons should not enter into marriage to legalize sex. There are a couple other options they should consider, like separating. Some couples are not going to be able to work through appropriate issues while separated either. Often the heat of no passion is more confusing than the heat of passion.

New paragraph and specific topic. I am running across more and more married couples who have been divorced and remarried - to the same person! Early on in ministry, I don't think I ever encountered it, but recently, I have seen it more often. In the last decade, I've encountered two clergy couples like that. It seems to speak to the day of easy divorce as mentioned above. In one of those two cases, the couple is no longer together. Each has subsequently remarried, and now between them both, there have been a total of eight marriages. They are no longer Nazarene, but they were until their last divorce. More bizarre than some.

[Barbara Moulton]

Because Jesus allowed for divorce in the passage cited above, we maybe too often see adultery on the part of one party - usually the one we're not working with - as an open gate to divorce in a legalistic sense. Jesus was talking about hardened hearts more than divorce.

That passage is an interesting one. My understanding is that Jesus was presenting limited grounds for divorce in order to protect women. A woman whose husband had divorced her in that time was in an incredibly vulnerable position with not many options open to her. And if her husband decided that he wanted to divorce her...just so he could marry another woman, she had no recourse.

Essentially, divorcing your wife in Biblical times, with no reason other than some other woman had caught your eye, was a form of abuse in and of itself.

I see these words of Jesus then primarily in the light of "You can't treat your wife this way." To protect women from the abuse of divorce.

To see how those words have been used over the years to keep women in abusive relationships seems to twist the spirit of Christ's message.

[Barbara Moulton]

And of course...one thing we Christians don't seem to make statements about are the cases of men or women who have lived with someone without benefit of marriage.

The person becomes a Christian and then meets another Christian. They decide to marry? Does anyone say anything? My experience has been usually not.

So the person with a common law relationship that ends is not held to the same standard as the person whose marriage ends.

[Dennis M. Scott]

And of course...one thing we Christians don't seem to make statements about are the cases of men or women who have lived with someone without benefit of marriage.

The person becomes a Christian and then meets another Christian. They decide to marry? Does anyone say anything? My experience has been usually not.

So the person with a common law relationship that ends is not held to the same standard as the person whose marriage ends.

We need way more work in this whole arena. Biblical standards will stand without our help. Ours isn't to defend them. Our role must be to engage with those whose lives are messed up and needing the Savior. In Jesus' day the legal standards were being pretty well upheld by those Jesus dismissed - mainly the religious crew. His task seems to have been to work with those whose lives didn't fit the legal requirements, to dispense grace, and train those who were in the process of becoming. Something about the whole not needing a physician. He didn't make excuses for them, but rarely did he chastise them either. He seems to have been about reconciliation, healing, justice and redemption.

[Dale Cozby]

we maybe too often see adultery on the part of one party - usually the one we're not working with - as an open gate to divorce in a legalistic sense. Jesus was talking about hardened hearts more than divorce. It's almost like we are waiting to pounce once the so-called guilty party commits adultery. "Aha, now I am free to become sexually involved with someone - in marriage - and I am not guilty." Guilt isn't the issue: a hardoned heart is the issue. We have perfected the ability to attribute blame to the point that with some arrogance we orchestrate adultery! "All I have to do is deny sanctioned sex for that person and because they're not a Christian they will sooner or later commit adultery and then I'm free to do whatever I want." That kind of entrapment is sin of a hardoned heart exactly like Jesus was referring. The sin of entrapment is eternally just as great as that of divorce or adultery.
I believe this line of thinking is called blaming the innocent party for the crimes committed by another person.

I used to think this way too. I always thought it took two for a divorce. I was wrong. It doesn't.

Unfortunately I believe that when we as the counselors of the hurting and troubled begin to take the attitude you mention it is what makes us become truly legalistic in our heart. We have gone beyond God's word and are now judging the motives of the heart of the innocent(at least not the adulterating) party and in fact codemning them for things unseen and undone.

We are now blaming the violated and often victimized spouse for the adultery of thier spouse!!!! No, wonder so many people leave the church when they get divorced.

I have seen too many people grow up in church, then not use good sense in choosing a spouse early, then a few years later that person they thought they could turn around and make into a nice Christian is still a sow's ear.
They end up coming to church alone until one day they find out thier spouse is out carousing or drinking or thier messing up the finances or whatever is the cause but they leave the Christian spouse and in short order they are in another relationship. Your line of thinking essentially says the Christian didn't try hard enough to keep it together and blames them equally for the failed marriage. That is when they harden themselves and say, Church is full of judemental hypocrites and they aren't too far from wrong.

Sometimes we become too legalistic in reading into what Jesus said and then we twist it to mean more than it should. Yes, Jesus said the reason you divorce is because of hardened hearts, but it doesn't mean both parties have done so. Sometimes, when wounded the victim will harden as a defense mechanism to avoid even deeper wounds. So be it. Why did Jesus allow any reason for divorce? Why not just say divorce is never allowed because you will harden your hearts?

[Dale Cozby]

Biblical standards will stand without our help. Ours isn't to defend them Ours is to lift them high so everyone can see them plainly.

We must procliam them to the people who are struggling with a poor understanding of what God wants and what will bring about the peace in thier hearts that is now abscent.
Jesus offers to calm the storms but we need to be with Him in the boat, not off doing our own thing.

Most people have only heard a few sermons about divorce in thier entire lifetime, and then only if they have gone to church a few decades. Even fewer have really studied it at any length.

In a world with so many divorces, we better take the time to really know what we are saying is from God.

[Walter Thompson]

I haven't read all the posts, but most of them. So that means there may be something I missed.
However,
What about forgiveness?
First and foremost. Divorce and remarriage is pretty well laid out by Jesus. We can't make it mean what we want it to mean. Situational theology can't apply to the words spoken by Jesus himself. (What I mean here is, Jesus was really trying to teach them.... Not there, didn't say it, pretty clear in what He did say, doesn't mean something else...) There isn't a need to become legalists either, since Jesus explains things pretty well. He didn't say this is only an example, he made the satement pretty clear in the teaching on divorce.

27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Matt 5:27-32 (NKJV)

If a woman is being abused, of course, she should get help and sperate herself. (Or if a man....) But that is not a reason for divorce and remarriage. We need to be faitful to the full teaching of scripture. Not make it the way we want it to be. Our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and the pharasees.
20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 5:20 (NKJV)

But even in the matter of divorce, God gives us an example of going a lot further than what is required,

1 Then the Lord said to me, "Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the Lord for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans." 2 So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver, and one and one-half homers of barley. 3 And I said to her, "You shall stay with me many days; you shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man--so, too, will I be toward you." 4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. 5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.
Hosea 3:1-5 (NKJV)

I have also met and have pastored a couple of couples (different churches) that have remarried each other. One couple is on their 28th year in remarriage after having been married the first time for over 15 years (I believe.)

Ihave refused to do three weddings in my 30 years of ministering. Each time it was because the couple said something like, if it doesn't work out wwe can always get a divorce. I'm sorry but that thinking is planning on a divorce before they even marry. They did get married and all three couples divorce within two years. I have performed over 200 weddings, to the best of my knowlege they are all still married. I would like to think the counseling about marriage had something to do to them all still being married.

Sometimes it hurts to have to be firm in our stand.
So...
Abusive situations should be fled from...People need to get some help. Forget what the government will do to help. The church needs to be the church and step in and offer help, protection and LOVE>
But remarriage is not permitted by scripture under that circumstance. God, Himself has said that unless it is for marital unfaithfulness you can't do it. Lets not be like the pharisses in this. Because then we become like the Biblical pharisees and God says that our righteousness must exceed theirs.

[Barbara Moulton]

First of all Walt, like you, I will not do a wedding unless the couple communicates that their intent is that this is to be a lifelong committment. That's one point of agreement. Further to that, Carl and I believe in marriage. We consistently offer marriage seminars to the community because we want to help couples with their marraiges. I do not agree with divorce for reasons of incompatibility. I would do all that I could to help a couple work through problems in their relationship. I mourn when I see a divorce. I know that God hates divorce (not the divorcee) because of the pain it causes to all those involved.

Having made my position on marriage and divorice clear, could I ask you some questions?

I assume that since you don't accept remarriage, you will not perform marriages of divorced people? If no, would you perform a marriage of someone who had lived common law in the past?

What if the man was not an abuser of his wife but a pedophile who abused his children? Should a woman remain married to such a man? Or if she divorces him and meets someone else, should her children be deprived of a father who might wish to marry her and provide a loving home?

I have seen some horrendous examples of spousal abuse during my years of ministry, I find it very hard to accept that the will of God is that the person who was abused must spend the remainder of their lives living as single people and often as single parents.

Someone who has been abused can forgive their abuser. But that doesn't mean they are obliged to remain yoked to their abuser.

I don't believe that Jesus meant that in order for our righteousness to exceed that of the Pharisees He was talking about having more laws than they did. I always saw those words as meaning that our righteousness must be more than outward conformity to the law. It must be inward transformation and surrender to the Holy Spirit.

That's why Jesus said that if someone lusts after another then they have committed adultery.


Hmmmm...just as I was typing this I thought of the transitive property.
If a = b and b = c then a = c.

So......

Lust = adultery
Only grounds for divorce = adultery
Lust = Grounds for divorce

Just a thought. Not one I would wish to see lived out in marriage relationships. But certainly it gives me pause and allows me to look at Christ's words a little less rigidly.

If lusting after someone else is equivalent to adultery then surely bringing violence into a marriage relationship breaks the marriage covenant.

Bottomline, my Saviour exemplified love, forgiveness and grace....I find it hard to believe that when He said these words he was really saying, "If a woman is beaten by her husband she must spend the rest of her life as a single woman."

I think that we are far apart on this issue and further discussion probably would not bring us any closer. I really just posed the questions because they came to me as I read what you wrote.

Blessings,
Barbara



I haven't read all the posts, but most of them. So that means there may be something I missed.
However,
What about forgiveness?
First and foremost. Divorce and remarriage is pretty well laid out by Jesus. We can't make it mean what we want it to mean. Situational theology can't apply to the words spoken by Jesus himself. (What I mean here is, Jesus was really trying to teach them.... Not there, didn't say it, pretty clear in what He did say, doesn't mean something else...) There isn't a need to become legalists either, since Jesus explains things pretty well. He didn't say this is only an example, he made the satement pretty clear in the teaching on divorce.

27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
31 "Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Matt 5:27-32 (NKJV)

If a woman is being abused, of course, she should get help and sperate herself. (Or if a man....) But that is not a reason for divorce and remarriage. We need to be faitful to the full teaching of scripture. Not make it the way we want it to be. Our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and the pharasees.
20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 5:20 (NKJV)

But even in the matter of divorce, God gives us an example of going a lot further than what is required,

1 Then the Lord said to me, "Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the Lord for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans." 2 So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver, and one and one-half homers of barley. 3 And I said to her, "You shall stay with me many days; you shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man--so, too, will I be toward you." 4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. 5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.
Hosea 3:1-5 (NKJV)

I have also met and have pastored a couple of couples (different churches) that have remarried each other. One couple is on their 28th year in remarriage after having been married the first time for over 15 years (I believe.)

Ihave refused to do three weddings in my 30 years of ministering. Each time it was because the couple said something like, if it doesn't work out wwe can always get a divorce. I'm sorry but that thinking is planning on a divorce before they even marry. They did get married and all three couples divorce within two years. I have performed over 200 weddings, to the best of my knowlege they are all still married. I would like to think the counseling about marriage had something to do to them all still being married.

Sometimes it hurts to have to be firm in our stand.
So...
Abusive situations should be fled from...People need to get some help. Forget what the government will do to help. The church needs to be the church and step in and offer help, protection and LOVE>
But remarriage is not permitted by scripture under that circumstance. God, Himself has said that unless it is for marital unfaithfulness you can't do it. Lets not be like the pharisses in this. Because then we become like the Biblical pharisees and God says that our righteousness must exceed theirs.

[Dale Cozby]

What if the man was not an abuser of his wife but a pedophile who abused his children?

Would this not also be a form of adultery in itself?
Does adultery have to be a man and a woman? or can it also be a man and aman, woman and woman, adult and child, etc...?

I believe it is safe to say, that this level of violation is ground for divorce and remarriage.

Concerning not marrying people who are probably going to divorce anyway.

What if the would-be wife is also pregnant? and the father is a recent convert wanting to "do the right thing?" Even if the marriage does not make it would not the child be "holy" instead of "unclean" according to 1 Corinthians 7?

[Barbara Moulton]

Concerning not marrying people who are probably going to divorce anyway.

What if the would-be wife is also pregnant? and the father is a recent convert wanting to "do the right thing?" Even if the marriage does not make it would not the child be "holy" instead of "unclean" according to 1 Corinthians 7?

Normally what I say to the couple is that my faith as a Christian and my position as a minister in my church, requires that they give me the assurance that this will be a lifelong committment.

Every couple I have ever married has done this and allowed me to include words to that effect in the ceremony. That they are witnessing before God that this is their intent.

If they give me this assurance then I have to take it as the truth. I don't second guess them. I am not sure, short of them telling me, how I would determine if a couple was "probably going to divorce" anyway.

Thinking about it....I guess I would know that a couple hasn't ruled out the possiblity of divorce if they had already signed a pre-nup.

That hasn't arisen yet. But if a couple told me that they had signed a pre-nup then I no...I wouldn't perform the marriage. I would refuse gently and kindly and try to assist them in finding someone who would do the marriage for them.

[Barbara Moulton]

I believe it is safe to say, that this level of violation is ground for divorce and remarriage.


Would non sexual abuse of a child be grounds for divorce and remarriage then?

[Bob Carabbio]

The old Baptist/AoG Half-serious suggestion was that you should MURDER your wife rather than divorcing her - because you could be forgiven of murder, but NEVER divorce - particularly if you re-married. Murder provided a nice "clean break" from the situation, and other than the prison time - guaranteed a fresh start with no "spiritual strings" attached.

Fortunately, those bad old hyper-fundy days are largely gone in 2007.

Most of the teachings on divorce/re-marriage are "LAW" based, but it's clear that the Christian is NOT "under religious law" (unless he really WANTS to be cursed), but is dead to the law - and risen in newness of life in Christ.

Paul says that folks SHOULD stay single (which we pay no attention to, or his reasons for it), but also says "are you Divorced (loosed) from a wife? - seek NOT a wife - but if you DO marry - you haven't sinned - you're GONNA have problems in the flesh, though. SO re-marriage isn't the doctrinal monster that a lot of churches WANT it to be.

Let's face it - it's IMPOSSIBLE to be in a relationship going into divorce without all SORTS of "Sin" being involved - probably on BOTH sides.

The FUNDAMENTAL thing in marriage is commitment to one another (It being a picture of Jesus' relationship to HIS bride - us), and where there's abuse (We used to know a Quaker pastor - turns out he was a wife-beater - go figure) then one needs to look carefully at the wisdom of continuing the relationship, since 9 times out of 10 - it's gonna get a WHOLE LOT worse before it gets better.

IF it resolves well, everybody gets saved and changed and peace reigns - then good. If somebody (or several somebodys) dies, then not so good, we off a couple or two a week here in Dallas generally - "marital problems" - often with "recreational chemicals" involved.

Staying legally married has all sorts of ugly ramifications to it when couples split - remember, what's done in church during the pretty ceremony is PRIMARILY a legal contract execution which carries all sorts of property, tax, and financial issues tangled up with it - some states are more insane than others about what all is entailed.

[Paul Whitaker]

In another culture they cannot understand our 'divorce'. They say we 'throw away' our wives and no longer take care of them. They choose to keep their wives and provide for them and their children. That way the man, his wives, and his children stay together.

The culture has begun to accept the 'technology' of divorce. The problem is that the divorced woman is not desirable to upstanding men so remarriage is unusual. This leaves many single mothers without support or the ability to support their children.

Our culture exposed them to the technology of divorce and they were not considering the outcome of the divorce - just the immediate relief. (I define technology as any technique which we use to accomplish our goals) Not very academic but ...

If they have problems they build another hut and marry another woman. The first and second wife usually become good friends. They help keep care of each other's children. If one of the wives gives the man a hard time he may build another hut for her which is distant from the rest of the huts. Some might even build the hut for the trouble maker 'across the road'. One man had five wives living on one side of the road and three lived on the other side of the road.

Of course the wives could be separated because of problems with the other wives. So, if problems arise they may play 'musical huts' - or build another hut.

Sometimes I wonder if their system might be better.

[Dale Cozby]

Would non sexual abuse of a child be grounds for divorce and remarriage then?I believe we must love our neighbor as ourself. So.... This would include our children and even our abusive spouse.

So how can we best do that if they are abusing the children?

In that law of love we will have to search for the right choice in each situation. It isn't a "one size fits all".
It might be that we must protect our children from them, and in many states you would have to file for divorce, get a restraining order etc...

I believe that each situation should be weighed against what we know about scripture as a whole and what Jesus commands. It should be done with prayerful consideration and godly counsel always seeking to stay as close to God as possible in the choices we make. If we do that, then I would trust in my faith it will be the best choice.

Hope you don't see this answer as a cop out.

[Barbara Moulton]

Hope you don't see this answer as a cop out.

Not at all.

Blessings,
Barbara

[David Pettigrew]

I had forgotten about this quote from Wesley, but came across it when looking for another one. John Wesley had a troubled marriage to a rich widow woman, whom he completely neglected. One reason he constantly travelled and held meetings was probably to avoid being home! In fact, when she died while he was out of town, he did not return home for her funeral.

At one point, she had enough and separated from him. Many worried what effect this would have on his ministry. Here was his reply:

"I did not leave her; I did not ask her to leave; I will not ask her back."

Just goes to show you; you never know what's going on behind the parsonage doors!

I think often those that sit in the pews feel like perhaps their marriage/family life can't "measure up" to the pastor's. Sometimes women even envy the pastor's wife (if their pastor is a man) and wish their husband treated them as well as Brother Jones treated Sister Jones. I've known women who became obsessed with this fantasy, and looked for ways to volunteer at the church more just to be closer to the pastor. Bad things have happened as a result.

At the same time, I think many feel disqualified from leadership or vocational ministry because their home life isn't perfect. I guess if John Wesley could usher in a movement that turned the English speaking world upside down, and form a theological tradition that millions hold dear to this day, all while enduring a far-less-than-perfect marriage, maybe we shouldn't feel like complete hypocrits if we "get into it" in front of the kids at the end of a hard day once in a while.

Does anyone know a cure for run-on sentences?

[Scott Hilton]

Does anyone know a cure for run-on sentences?

Periods? :basic02

[Gina Stevenson]

Does anyone know a cure for run-on sentences?

While Scott's idea of a period here or there isn't too bad, sometimes one just has to put up with them. After all, Paul didn't look for a cure; look at some of his several-verses-long run-on sentences! ;)

So, join the club consisting of those of us who've also been accused of writing some "Pauline" sentences now & then. :basic05

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

My dad left when I was 15 years of age, not long before he and mother had been married 25 years. He left a letter for her that said, she was the clenest woman he knew, but he could not live up to her standards. He began writing letters to her, sending them in an envelope to a COTN pastor on the next street from us, who would mail them to mother. We did not know where he was. My brother said that he had gotten his finances messed up.
but, mother would not answer his letters via of the pastor. Neither would I have answered such letters.
Finally, after about five years, he had met a woman whose husband was dead. He filed for divorce and mother did not protest it. Mother never remarried, and never got over daddy leaving. But, he did send money back, and got his finacial problems straightened out. I think he tried too hard for us. I remember that we had an automatic washing machine when I was in about the third grade. He liked name brad furniture, etc. We had a telephone, when most of our neighbors did not have one. Even mother's family had one before she married daddy in 1929. Her dad had a surry with a fringe on top, and then a car. I wonder if daddy was trying to live up to things like this. Plus, daddy, nor we children could ever live close enough to God to please mother. Was it a sin for either one of them to remarry? It is OK what you post. that was a long time ago, and I will take the heartache to the grave, but do not live dwelling on it.

[Dale Cozby]

Ok, You guys deal with this one:

Young person grows up in the church with His parents(stepdad and mom), gets married has 2 kids over several years then decides the marraige is a mistake because they fight too much, moves out to an apartment, divorces and after 3-4 months gets married to the babysitter.
Wants to come back to church with new spouse and thier 4 children "mixed family" kids and continue as all is normal.

What should the minister do or say? What can you say?

[Randy Wise]

Ok, You guys deal with this one:

Young person grows up in the church with His parents(stepdad and mom), gets married has 2 kids over several years then decides the marraige is a mistake because they fight too much, moves out to an apartment, divorces and after 3-4 months gets married to the babysitter.
Wants to come back to church with new spouse and thier 4 children "mixed family" kids and continue as all is normal.

What should the minister do or say? What can you say?

This sounded like a math problem at first. :) Well I guess since what has happened is in the past you only have to deal with the now. Don't forget the kids who are not at fault. It would be good to have them in your church wouldn't it? You could always give a sermon that would address what you feel they need to hear without a direct confrontation. Obedience comes from Love. Pray for them as intercessional prayer pleases the Lord.

Randy

[Mark Metcalfe]

There are many circumstances we can cite or think up that seems reasonable to split a marriage. These debates have gone one forever.

Jesus was asked about divorce and he did not respond by defining what the circumstances were that legitimized divorce. Instead, He spoke of what marriage ought to be.

Marriage ought to reflect the relationship that God wants to have with each of us. Loving, sacrificial, joyful, and fully satisfying.

"That's all fine and good, Jesus, but what about my situation?" (I think this was left out of the gospel.)

Mark

Matthew 19:3-8
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?" Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Note that I stopped before verse 9 because too many people focus on verse 9 instead of the crucial text that precedes it! Jesus said that the way "from the beginning" was what was intended.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Here is a link to a good commentary on the passage in Matthew.

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=1&source=1&seq=i.47.19.3

Some exerpts:

Grounds for Divorce in God's Law

The hardhearted person who cannot forgive or live in proper relation to others in Christ's body (18:1-35) will also despise weaker people in society-in Jesus' day, these included wives (19:1-12; compare Mal 2:14-16) and children (Mt 19:13-15). By contrast, Jesus, who is not hardhearted, remains unimpressed by worldly status (vv. 16-22). When we hold grudges against a genuinely repentant spouse and remain hardhearted toward her or him-whether or not we officially cast the person away-we hinder our own communication with God (1 Pet 3:7-12) and ultimately can invite our own damnation (Mt 18:34-35).

It is thus no coincidence that in Matthew Jesus' teaching on marital commitment directly follows his teaching on forgiveness (18:21-35), just as in Mark it follows a discussion of sinning against a "little one" (Mk 9:42-50; compare Mt 18:7-9). The more intimate the relationship, the deeper the wounds of interpersonal friction sear; marriage without forgiveness and reconciliation would be difficult. Some of Jesus' contemporaries for this reason either emotionally neglected or divorced their wives; many of our contemporaries refuse to form close bonds of commitment to begin with. This passage provides a number of essential principles.

Jesus Summons Us to Work Toward God's Ideals (19:1-6)

God wants us to work for the purposes he intended for the world before it was marred by sin. ...

... The ultimate issue should not be the right to divorce, but God's original desire for husbands and wives to be one flesh (compare Belkin 1940:231); "one flesh" is the language of family ties and alliances (as in 2 Sam 5:1). The Genesis principle from which Jesus draws this application goes beyond opposing divorce; it opposes marital disharmony altogether. ... Jesus' call to follow and proclaim him comes first (Mt 10:34-39; 19:27-30), but one's relationship with a spouse must take priority over any other relationship but one's relationship with Christ.

...

Remaining Single Is Sometimes the Price of Following Jesus (19:10-12)

... Then, more so than today, marriage partners could not know in advance how their spouse would turn out. ... Responding to this objection, Jesus replied that some would indeed be better off not marrying; perhaps because of the intensity of their calling, it would be difficult for them to find a compatible spouse who would share their commitment (this is not only an ancient situation).
...

[Judy Hamilton]

My point is....

Every time I hear Christians talk about someone who is in an abusive marriage, I hear someone say, "She/he needs to leave that man/woman, get help and divorce him/her."

Why do Christians put the idea of divorce into the picture immediately? Why do Christians think that leaving and divorce always go together?

I am not ever suggesting an abused person stay in a home with an abuser. But is leaving, "STEP ONE" and divorce "STEP TWO?"

Most abusers never change. Some do, with counseling and help from God.

We have a lady who works at the Women' Shelter. She and I have talked about the system. Our Women's Ministry collects things every other month for this shelter.

The process is:
Leave and find shelter.
Get a restraining order.
Find a place to live and a job.
Get what government help you can.
Get counseling for yourself and your children.
Get settled and get your life back on track.

I see so many people jump from one marriage to another quickly. Our world teaches us that we have to be loved and love to be acceptible in life.

An abused woman needs to find her own self worth before jumping into a new relationship. She needs to discover that she can stand on her own two feet and does not need a man to make her complete.

Legal separations establish custody and child support.

Why can't a Christian woman get a legal separation and stay single? Maybe down the road the abuser will get the divorce. Maybe the abuser will find someone else and then the Christian can get a divorce on grounds of adultery.

I don't know the answers and I do not know the law. I just think that Christians spout the word "divorce him!" too quickly.

My mother and her first 6 children (including me as the oldest) lived with an alcoholic abusive man. I remember the fear, the bruises, the empty cupboards, the broken glasses, the broken arm, and all my mother endured. (baby no. 7 was born after dad left)

Dad left and we all moved in with my mother's grandparents. My mom went to work and never got a dime from welfare. (there was not much available in 1958).

Mom died last October. In all those years she did not date and did not remarry. She was a very happy, busy, fullfilled woman. She never divorced my dad. If she had found someone else to marry, she would have divorced my dad because she sure had grounds for divorce...even though she was not a Christian.

This "Hurry up and get a divorce" bothers me in the Christian world and in the secular world, too.

Barb

Barb

many times those who divorce..have spent years behind closed doors with an abusive spouse

and divorce is a way of not enabling this person to continue to demean the abused wife/husband any longer.

a healthy self is one who can leave the carnage behind and move on to LIFE

keeping in a marriage..even with extended no-contact separation
as you suggests does not allow closure for most persons and
the needed healing to begin

I was divorced and after i was legally divorved
i could then separate myself in my emotions and my thinking, that
"I am not any longer a part of this man, " and this in and of itself
empowered me to begin a search for who is Judy...

I found myself and like myself.
Had I stayed in an abusive relationship..
I would have been used and abused

hope this helps

your mother ..was perhaps exceptional..

Judy

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Dwayne has performed four marriages, in the last forty or so years, for people that have been married before. It is best to thoroughly know the circumstance before you do this, and know that your conscience is clear before God.
Many on this board are aware of the circumstances that caused Judy's divorce, but we also know that Judy is a very Godly person, even if she does tend to be "a little forgetful." ha ha We love you, Judy. I hope everyone knows that they must continually pray for her if she is riding in a car, in which she is sitting in the driver's seat, and also, that God will help her to not lock her keys inside of it, and so forth.

[David Cash]

It bothers me when Christians act as if staying single after a divorce were some kind of unthinkable tragedy. Some of us make middle age and longer without every marrying. Is this also a tragedy that would justify things that might otherwise seem unscriptural? Can I say that just because I hate celibacy that I can do things that would be wrong otherwise? Maybe not with harlots, but with pornography? Does God really demand that I miss out on everything? Is celibacy some kind of unthinkable curse?

All people sometimes have to tell their bodies no. For some of us it's a regular occurence. It isn't fun, but it usually isn't lethal either. Whatever the reason, the person in a place that demands a life of moral restraint, needs to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. (Can't remember the reference, but the idea is in Scripture.) And even we single people can experience good and happy times in life.

As this old bachelor looks to the end, I'm persuaded that what God thinks about the way I handle desires will be a lot bigger issue than whether or not I fulfilled those desires. For the divorced also the same principle holds true. We don't always get what we want in life, but our reward will be based on how we manage what we are given.

David Cash

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Even thought we feel that adultery gives grounds for divorce--remarrying is to be "only in the Lord." This is what would give a Christian grounds for divorce...
the adultery and being a Christian would help you to be sure you had the approval of God if you remarried--my opinion.