DIVORCE

[SPF]

You obviously don’t know any abusers . they need to keep control and as long as there is a legal string they’ll pull it. Spouses who are married to such a sociopathic or narcissistic person need to sever as many ties as they can . And that includes divorce and sometimes moving to another country, yes I meant country . My son’s mother-in law was in a relationship like that and she had to leave her country or he would have killed her. There’s Bible based fantasies like- no divorce except for adultery and there’s the reality of living with a sociopath or narcissist who just happens not to cheat on you.

You can call what the Bible teaches "Bible based fantasy", but it doesn't change the fact that Scripture is our authority. It doesn't matter how I feel about something, or how much I wish God did things differently, I'm not God, and I don't determine how the world works.

And Biblically speaking, there is little doubt that when two Christians make a covenant to become one flesh that it is more than a paper contract. It is a union, binded together by The Holy Spirit, AKA God, Himself. And according to Scripture, the only action that either spouse can commit to sever this one flesh covenant is adultery. That's it. You may not like it, but if you're going to acknowledge Scripture as authoritative, there's no way around it.

However, that being said - I personally would be more than OK, and would support an abused spouse getting a divorce from the state. If that's what they need to be safe, then they should do it. No spouse, male or female, should be forced to stay in an abusive relationship. But here's what's important. If the marriage was between two Believers, then getting that paper divorce doesn't actually free either of them from the one flesh covenant, because the one flesh covenant is bound together by the Holy Spirit.

So in those cases, the spouses need to remain single. Otherwise, they are committing adultery.

But for anyone who says that a spouse should stay in a marriage when they are being abused - they're wrong.

Divorce was an OT arrangement abolished by the New Covenant. It still exists in every culture but it is nowhere sanctioned by God in the New Covenant. This is why Paul told divorcees not to remarry. But also told them they are not bound to the unbeliever who divorces. But they are still married and should remain single.

Did you ever notice what Matthew 19:9 really teaches? The innocent wife divorced from the adulterous husband commits adultery when she remarries. along with her new husband....

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The passage here is more about remarriage than it is divorce. Jesus is clear that if a husband and wife divorce, that unless the divorce was done as a result of adultery, that upon remarriage they are committing adultery.

A single person cannot commit adultery. Therefore, Jesus is teaching that even if a divorce occurs, if that divorce was not because of adultery, they are actually still married in the eyes of God! And if one of these divorced spouses gets remarried, they commit adultery because they are still married to someone else!

But Jesus is also saying that if the divorce was due to adultery, then upon remarriage, adultery is not being committed because the one flesh covenant has been severed.

 

[Dave L]

You can call what the Bible teaches "Bible based fantasy", but it doesn't change the fact that Scripture is our authority. It doesn't matter how I feel about something, or how much I wish God did things differently, I'm not God, and I don't determine how the world works.

And Biblically speaking, there is little doubt that when two Christians make a covenant to become one flesh that it is more than a paper contract. It is a union, binded together by The Holy Spirit, AKA God, Himself. And according to Scripture, the only action that either spouse can commit to sever this one flesh covenant is adultery. That's it. You may not like it, but if you're going to acknowledge Scripture as authoritative, there's no way around it.

However, that being said - I personally would be more than OK, and would support an abused spouse getting a divorce from the state. If that's what they need to be safe, then they should do it. No spouse, male or female, should be forced to stay in an abusive relationship. But here's what's important. If the marriage was between two Believers, then getting that paper divorce doesn't actually free either of them from the one flesh covenant, because the one flesh covenant is bound together by the Holy Spirit.

So in those cases, the spouses need to remain single. Otherwise, they are committing adultery.

But for anyone who says that a spouse should stay in a marriage when they are being abused - they're wrong.



Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The passage here is more about remarriage than it is divorce. Jesus is clear that if a husband and wife divorce, that unless the divorce was done as a result of adultery, that upon remarriage they are committing adultery.

A single person cannot commit adultery. Therefore, Jesus is teaching that even if a divorce occurs, if that divorce was not because of adultery, they are actually still married in the eyes of God! And if one of these divorced spouses gets remarried, they commit adultery because they are still married to someone else!

But Jesus is also saying that if the divorce was due to adultery, then upon remarriage, adultery is not being committed because the one flesh covenant has been severed.

No matter how you slice it, there is no divorce sanctioned by God today. It was under Mosaic Law, now abolished. We can still bat Matthew 19:9 around but it matters not what you determine it to say. Divorce passed away with the Old Covenant. And only the pagans practice it in the New Covenant times.

 

[SPF]

No matter how you slice it, there is no divorce sanctioned by God today. It was under Mosaic Law, now abolished. We can still bat Matthew 19:9 around but it matters not what you determine it to say. Divorce passed away with the Old Covenant. And only the pagans practice it in the New Covenant times.

I'm sorry, but as much as you you want to pretend that the exception clause does not exist in Matthew, it does, and disregarding it only speaks to you fighting to make Scripture say what you want it to say, instead of simply letting it guide you. It clearly says that anyone who gets a divorce and remarries for any reason other than adultery is committing adultery themselves. That is clearly saying that if the reason IS adultery, then when getting remarried you are not committing adultery.

How can you read that and not see that?

Furthermore, in I Corinthians 7, Paul clearly says that in the case of an unequally yoked marriage that if the unbelieving spouses chooses to divorce the believing spouse that the spouse is free to remarry!

1Co 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

So what we see here in play is that there is something unique among a marriage covenant between two Believers in which they become one flesh, and the covenant is sealed by God, and that the only way to break the covenant is adultery.

However, Paul expounds on this in I Corinthians 7, and we see that in the case of an unequally yoked marriage that through the graciousness of God, that He still honors the marriage and expects the believing spouse to stay married, not permitting them to initiate a divorce, because He does honor the marriage:

1Co 7:12-14 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

However, as I said above, Paul is clear that if the unbelieving spouse initiates the divorce and wants it, then the believing spouse is not "under bondage", or in other words - is free to remarry.

 

[Dave L]

I'm sorry, but as much as you you want to pretend that the exception clause does not exist in Matthew, it does, and disregarding it only speaks to you fighting to make Scripture say what you want it to say, instead of simply letting it guide you. It clearly says that anyone who gets a divorce and remarries for any reason other than adultery is committing adultery themselves. That is clearly saying that if the reason IS adultery, then when getting remarried you are not committing adultery.

How can you read that and not see that?

Furthermore, in I Corinthians 7, Paul clearly says that in the case of an unequally yoked marriage that if the unbelieving spouses chooses to divorce the believing spouse that the spouse is free to remarry!

1Co 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

So what we see here in play is that there is something unique among a marriage covenant between two Believers in which they become one flesh, and the covenant is sealed by God, and that the only way to break the covenant is adultery.

However, Paul expounds on this in I Corinthians 7, and we see that in the case of an unequally yoked marriage that through the graciousness of God, that He still honors the marriage and expects the believing spouse to stay married, not permitting them to initiate a divorce, because He does honor the marriage:

1Co 7:12-14 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

However, as I said above, Paul is clear that if the unbelieving spouse initiates the divorce and wants it, then the believing spouse is not "under bondage", or in other words - is free to remarry.

Divorce was an Old Covenant provision abolished by the New Covenant. In the New Covenant, pagans practice divorce but God does not uphold it. If you marry it is for life. Any remarriage is adultery.

 

[SPF]

Divorce was an Old Covenant provision abolished by the New Covenant. In the New Covenant, pagans practice divorce but God does not uphold it. If you marry it is for life. Any remarriage is adultery.

Your inability to engage with the text at hand and just be a broken record speaks volumes to your character. Both Jesus and Paul disagree with your unsupported assertions.

 

[Dave L]

Your inability to engage with the text at hand and just be a broken record speaks volumes to your character. Both Jesus and Paul disagree with your unsupported assertions.

Did the New Covenant replace the Old? If so. divorce is not an option.

 

[SPF]

Did the New Covenant replace the Old? If so. divorce is not an option.

You keep saying that, but you still are not actually reconciling Jesus teaching in Matthew and Paul's teaching in I Corinthians which disagree with your assertion that divorce is not an option.

Thou shalt not murder was under the Old Covenant, but I think we both agree that the New Covenant did not make murder acceptable.

Your position that divorce is no longer acceptable is countered in two different scenarios in the NT. Thus, it appears that under the New Covenant that there are two instances in which a Believing spouse can both divorce and remarry without committing adultery. If you disagree you need to actually demonstrate how those passages are not teaching what seems to be obvious. Heck, my 10 year old son was able to grasp on his own the exception clause a few weeks ago when he was reading Matthew.

 

[bhsmte]

Did the New Covenant replace the Old? If so. divorce is not an option.

What does one do, in cases where one spouse, is abusing the other?

 

[Zoii]

What does one do, in cases where one spouse, is abusing the other?

The most sensible option would be to not enter a Christian marriage

 

[Liza B.]

The most sensible option would be to not enter a Christian marriage

That's not sensible if you're a Christian going in.

 

[Zoii]

That's not sensible if you're a Christian going in.

It's just I don't want all the negative stuff that can go with it Liz but I acknowledge for U it was great

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The most sensible option would be to not enter a Christian marriage

The disciples of Jesus said this also, directly to Jesus.

 

[Dave L]

What does one do, in cases where one spouse, is abusing the other?

In Acts, Christians always ran away from abuse. Some left homes, jobs, and started over in foreign nations. We should do the same in an abusive marriage. But marriage is for life regardless so we should not divorce and remarry.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In Acts, Christians always ran away from abuse. Some left homes, jobs, and started over in foreign nations. We should do the same in an abusive marriage. But marriage is for life regardless so we should not divorce and remarry.

No, not only not always, but also not required. Perhaps as an option though, yes, as it is written "when they seek your life in one city , flee to the next"
but also remember the instructions to believers who were working for a harsh task-master. (not to flee, but to serve as if serving Jesus)

 

[Dave L]

You keep saying that, but you still are not actually reconciling Jesus teaching in Matthew and Paul's teaching in I Corinthians which disagree with your assertion that divorce is not an option.

Thou shalt not murder was under the Old Covenant, but I think we both agree that the New Covenant did not make murder acceptable.

Your position that divorce is no longer acceptable is countered in two different scenarios in the NT. Thus, it appears that under the New Covenant that there are two instances in which a Believing spouse can both divorce and remarry without committing adultery. If you disagree you need to actually demonstrate how those passages are not teaching what seems to be obvious. Heck, my 10 year old son was able to grasp on his own the exception clause a few weeks ago when he was reading Matthew.

Jesus was under the Old Covenant up until he fulfilled it and abolished it on the cross. Divorce was an Old Covenant provision not included in the New Covenant. But pagans still use it. And if a pagan divorces a believing spouse, the pagan is still married in God's eyes. And he or she commits adultery when they remarry.

 

[Dave L]

No, not only not always, but also not required. Perhaps as an option though, yes, as it is written "when they seek your life in one city , flee to the next"
but also remember the instructions to believers who were working for a harsh task-master. (not to flee, but to serve as if serving Jesus)

We are speaking of physical abuse, life threatening. Not working for grumps.

 

[bhsmte]

In Acts, Christians always ran away from abuse. Some left homes, jobs, and started over in foreign nations. We should do the same in an abusive marriage. But marriage is for life regardless so we should not divorce and remarry.

You seem to contradict yourself here.

 

[Dave L]

You seem to contradict yourself here.

How so?

 

[bhsmte]

How so?

Christians should run away from abuse, but marriage is for life?

 

[Dave L]

Christians should run away from abuse, but marriage is for life?

Marriage is for life. But we do not need to remain together in abusive relationships. But if you divorce and remarry it is adultery.