Divorce

[aReformedPatriot]

The Bible states explicitly that divorce can be granted in the case of adultry. Can one divorce their spouse for lusting after someone/looking at pornography etc.?

What are your thoughts?

 

[ZiSunka]

Good question.

The ideal is always for the couple to experience the grace of God and to forgive and heal after repenting of the adultery (I think that in a lot of cases, both spouses have something to repent in cases of adultery). Instead of counselling someone that they can divorce and remarry, I would counsel them to do everything it takes to make the marriage whole again.

I really don't think we Christians do enough to keep marriages together, we are too quick to look for loopholes that allow marriages to be broken.

 

[SumTinWong]

The Bible states explicitly that divorce can be granted in the case of adultry. Can one divorce their spouse for lusting after someone/looking at pornography etc.?

What are your thoughts?

I think one should try to do the very best they can to make the marriage work, but at some point the person will have to choose one or the other. Divorce should be the very last option.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Good question.

The ideal is always for the couple to experience the grace of God and to forgive and heal after repenting of the adultery (I think that in a lot of cases, both spouses have something to repent in cases of adultery). Instead of counselling someone that they can divorce and remarry, I would counsel them to do everything it takes to make the marriage whole again.

I really don't think we Christians do enough to keep marriages together, we are too quick to look for loopholes that allow marriages to be broken.

Agreed. Many Christian see Jesus' words as what should be done in the case of adultery. But adultery should not be seen as an "out" to marriage and an opportunity for "permitted" divorce. That is a very legalistic way of looking at it.

I think using lust/pornography as an "out" for marriage is showing a lack of commitment to working out your marriage vows.

I think Yahweh's Love's story in Forgiving an ex wife for adultery is a terribly sad story I would never wish on anyone but an awesome testament to Christ's attitude towards forgiveness and marriage in the face of adultery.

 

[Gwenyfur]

The Bible states explicitly that divorce can be granted in the case of adultry. Can one divorce their spouse for lusting after someone/looking at pornography etc.?

What are your thoughts?

adultery at it's core is lust...
lust for something/one other than your spouse...

 

[aReformedPatriot]

I agree with you all that we should not look for an easy way out. However, in lieu of the scripture, would it be sin in God's eye to divorce for those reasons?

 

[SumTinWong]

No I do not think it would be a sin to divorce someone with an addiction to porn that will not stop.

 

[ZiSunka]

I agree with you all that we should not look for an easy way out. However, in lieu of the scripture, would it be sin in God's eye to divorce for those reasons?

In light of that scripture, I'm still not convinced that that should be grounds for divorce and remarriage. I think that it's too easy of an out.

If a man wants a divorce so he can remarry, all he has to do is go out and buy some porn and let his wife find it and then he's off the hook from his first wife? Or if a wife is tired of her husband, all she has to do is look at a nudy magazine and no one objects to the dissolution of the marriage?

Besides, a lot of times the couple will look at the smut together, or the husband will with the consent of the wife, or a husband could set up the wife by putting porn out where she can find it then take a picture of her looking at it.

I don't think it is at all well-advised to let people divorce because one of them looked at porn. It's too open to abuse.

Even if a husband or wife is really into porn, I doubt if that is a good enough reason to break up a family. It may be uncomfortable for the other spouse and it may harm the intimacy of the marriage, but the same would be said of working too much or being addicted to sports.

If thinking about another woman or man in a sexual way is grounds for divorce, who would ever stay married? Everyone is tempted by someone else some time or another. It's when you cross the line from thinking about it to dwelling on it that it becomes a real problem, because when you start to dwell on sin, you eventually do it.

 

[rural_preacher]

My wife has told me that she will never divorce me...


but she has threatened to kill me.



--

 

[Crazy Liz]

We look at divorce through the eyes of Western legal systems that grew out of medieval Christianity, which took a scholastic view of the nature of marriage and divorce. The idea of a divorce being granted by some authority (like a court) originated in this system, not in the Bible. Divorce in the Bible was something one spouse (in Hebrew culture, always the husband) did to the other spouse.

Looking for ways to get out of a marriage without sinning is exactly what the Pharisees were doing when they questioned Jesus in Matthew 19. We need to train ourselves not to look at divorce that way. Jesus objected to the form of their question. In fact, Jesus never, as far as I can recall, replied directly to a purely hypothetical question. The way Jesus objects or redirects hypothetical questions about morality is something we should pay more attention to.

After paying attention to this, we should also understand culturally what divorce meant and how it was accomplished in Jesus' time. Women were victims of permissive divorce, allowed to the husband unilaterally for any reason, but never allowed to a wife for any reason, and required of the husband in the case of a wife's adultery. The legal and social implications are not necessarily what we assume.

However, I think what we miss most in examining the teachings of scripture on this point is the danger of hypothetical questions. Jesus never hesitated to give direct answers to "What should I do?" questions, although he never directly answered a hypothetical question. There must be a reason, don't you think?

 

[ZiSunka]

He knew he was considered an authority and didn't want to get trapped into recommending something that would later come back to bite him, so to speak.

I think for those of us who are not divine, it is important to practice what we would say and do under hypothetically situations so that we can be better prepared when the real situations happen.

As for Jesus never answering hypotheticals directly, he certainly did when he was asked, "Whose wife will she be in heaven" about the woman who had seven husbands before she died. His answer was, "No one's. There is no marriage in heaven."

 

[Bible2]

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be
for fornication..."

(Matthew 19:9)

"...Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
together, she was found with child of the Holy
Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man,
and not willing to make her a publick example,
was minded to put her away privily."

(Matthew 1:18-19)

"If any man take a wife... and say, I took this
woman, and when I came to her, I found her not
a maid..."

(Deuteronomy 22:13-14)

 

[AJ]

What is your take on divorce in cases of unrelenting physical abuse? After separation, counseling, legal actions and possibly even arrest... Should divorce be allowed or should the spouse continue to live in a state of perpetual danger if attempts to change the abuser have failed?

AJ

 

[Crazy Liz]

What is your take on divorce in cases of unrelenting physical abuse? After separation, counseling, legal actions and possibly even arrest... Should divorce be allowed or should the spouse continue to live in a state of perpetual danger if attempts to change the abuser have failed?

AJ

You state this as if there are only two alternatives, and as if divorce will protect an abused woman from danger in some way that separation won't. I don't think either of these assumptions is necessarily correct.

 

[seebs]

I am currently leaning towards the theory that abuse is not grounds for divorce, so much as probable evidence of it. Just as marriage is not the same thing as the legal paperwork, neither is divorce.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I am currently leaning towards the theory that abuse is not grounds for divorce, so much as probable evidence of it. Just as marriage is not the same thing as the legal paperwork, neither is divorce.

Interesting. This brings divorce closer to the Roman Catholic idea of annullment, doesn't it? I mean in the sense of the legal and/or ecclesial paperwork simply being a declaration of a fact that already exists, rather than an act that changes something.

I think I've always felt this, given that I've worked under a rubric of no-fault divorce for so many years. The courts here in California never really decide whether or not to end a marriage. They simply declare it ended as of a particular date, to leave a paper trail, and take care of cleaning up the mess resulting from the mess of commingled property and debts, and sometimes continuing to have an economic and/or parenting relationship without a marriage.

 

[seebs]

Interesting. This brings divorce closer to the Roman Catholic idea of annullment, doesn't it? I mean in the sense of the legal and/or ecclesial paperwork simply being a declaration of a fact that already exists, rather than an act that changes something.

Not quite. Annullment is saying "actually, there was never any marriage to begin with". I'm more arguing that at some point, a divorce may have been committed, even if the paperwork wasn't done... But that doesn't mean there was never a marriage.

But I do think it helps a lot to realize that, in the cases where people start talking about "grounds for divorce", most of the time, they're looking for justification for something that's already really been done in spirit.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Not quite. Annullment is saying "actually, there was never any marriage to begin with". I'm more arguing that at some point, a divorce may have been committed, even if the paperwork wasn't done... But that doesn't mean there was never a marriage.

Yes. I agree that is an important distinction. The whole sacramental change thing is kind of a red herring, I think. It leads to the kind of discussion I have seen here on CF ad nauseum about exactly when a couple becomes married. The discussions about marriage remind me a lot of the medieval scholastics on transubstantiation. Both deal with speculation on the mechanics of exactly how and when a sacramental change occurs.

But I do think it helps a lot to realize that, in the cases where people start talking about "grounds for divorce", most of the time, they're looking for justification for something that's already really been done in spirit.

Yes. I agree. Either that, or they're looking for the loophole that will get them out of the obligation to try to reconcile or rush them past the admonition of Paul:

[bible]1 corinthians 7:24[/bible]

 

[Crazy Liz]

He knew he was considered an authority and didn't want to get trapped into recommending something that would later come back to bite him, so to speak.

I think for those of us who are not divine, it is important to practice what we would say and do under hypothetically situations so that we can be better prepared when the real situations happen.

I do understand this, but there is also a hidden danger in hypothetical questions. Especially those directed to situations 2 or 3 steps removed from the step we are presently contemplating. WRT marriage, I have seen it go like this. A person who really wants to get out of a marriage, but feels it would be wrong to do so begins asking hypothetical questions about situations in which it would be OK. Then he or she begins (usually largely unconsciously) to set things up in such a way that he or she will fit into one of these situations. The person's thoughts are directed toward getting out, not toward staying in.

Paul discusses a number of cases in 1 Corinthians 7. These cases have the ring of concrete reality, not of being hypothetical. In only one case does he take his logic more than one step - the case of the virgin who cannot maintain celibacy. If he or she, after considering celibacy finds it too hard, he or she may marry in the Lord, and not sin. All the other cases or examples seem aimed at a present situation, and what the person should do or try to do right now. Marriage for a virgin who finds celibacy too hard is the only "plan B" in this whole chapter.

The kind of hypothetical that is dangerous is the one that explores plan B or plan C before Plan A has been tried.

 

[Your Desired User Name]

the Bible also says that a husband and wife should stand by and support eachother, so I think that if someone is doin that their spouse should stand by them, pray for them, be there to support them, and also be the one to point out to them how wrong what theyre doing is