Is it a sin?

[Avniel]

The reality of Bob situation is that he is sinning against his wife and God. The bible teaches us "“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The man doesn't have a spiritual right to divorce his spouse. The only spiritual right one has to divorce is adultery and if one legally obtains paper work that divorce is only legal and the two are still married. The only way two people may become spiritually divorced is when one or both of the people married has entered into another sexual covenant with another person. Even if the two are divorced legally one of them or both will have to sin order to get out of the relationship.

Bob is wrong and is on the road to adultery. The reality is being a Christian is "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Bob wants a watered down Christianity he wants his faith to be easy but the road is not easy it's a hard road. Our marriages are used as imagery explaining our relationship with God. Look at all of what Job went through and he still gave God the praise. Marriage in our faith is not easy we have to work it out because we entered into a covenant with our spouse and with God. To terminate that relationship is to sin and turn our backs on the commitment we made with God.

There is a reason why the disciples asked if it was even good to be married. That's because marriage isn't an easy thing and we can't quit whenever we want as believers.

 

[ValleyGal]

So then any divorce is a result of selfishness. You basically are saying anyone that initiates a divorce is selfish.

No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying anyone who is bored and wants to divorce based on the desire to seek non-boring is motivated not by love, but by the selfish (sin-nature).

Some divorces are initiated by people whose spouse's selfishness (sin nature) is indicative of non-reciprocal love. Some divorces are initiated by those who want to be safe (and thereby be a good steward of the life God has given them). Some initiate divorce because of hard hearts. Imo, it does not matter who initiates the divorce. The fact is that it is always the result of sin (self, old) nature. And sometimes divorcing is the most loving thing anyone can do. Just like God, in his love, gives people over to their sinful desires while still aching for their redemption.

 

[ValleyGal]

Man(kind) puts their own marriages asunder all the time by behaving in ways that are not loving and not in keeping with the bilateral covenant they made. Any time one or the other jeopardizes their marriage, whether it be in thought or deed, is acting in ways that if continued, will put their own marriage asunder. How does mankind do this? Sin.

If you were married to Jesus, would you seek a divorce? No. Neither would your spouse. So be the best jesus you can be so your spouse won't leave. The putting asunder is not the action of divorce. It's the behaviours that lead to the divorce. The divorce is the consequence of sinful behaviour/thinking....it is not the sin itself. The person in sin is the one putting the marriage asunder.

 

[Avniel]

Man(kind) puts their own marriages asunder all the time by behaving in ways that are not loving and not in keeping with the bilateral covenant they made. Any time one or the other jeopardizes their marriage, whether it be in thought or deed, is acting in ways that if continued, will put their own marriage asunder. How does mankind do this? Sin.

If you were married to Jesus, would you seek a divorce? No. Neither would your spouse. So be the best jesus you can be so your spouse won't leave. The putting asunder is not the action of divorce. It's the behaviours that lead to the divorce. The divorce is the consequence of sinful behaviour/thinking....it is not the sin itself. The person in sin is the one putting the marriage asunder.

Ok so let me ask you this then, can you name one person on christianforums that in their entire marriage has not sinned against their spouse?

 

[ValleyGal]

No. You are missing the point. We all sin against our spouse. But when the sin is ongoing and unrepentant and they don't work to accommodate their partner and contempt sets in....marriage can become destructive and unbearable and sometimes even unsafe.

Just as we can't abuse God's grace for us, we should not abuse our spouse's grace, or take for granted that we are married so we expect our spouse to stay no matter how badly we behave. Remember that even God will not tolerate sin forever. He destroyed the earth once trying to purge her through the flood. He will do it again with fire. He did not tolerate Israel's sin; he divorced her. Sure he took her back, but only because Israel was the lesser sinner than Judah.

We do not have to tolerate ongoing sin against us. However, God has shown us that we need to try. We need to work on it. We need to hope. But when that is gone, there is a concession for those who have done all they could, as far as it depends on them. And that is what God expects of us. We are not all ideal, though. God provides a way out when the marriage becomes intolerable.

 

[mkgal1]

Man(kind) puts their own marriages asunder all the time by behaving in ways that are not loving and not in keeping with the bilateral covenant they made. Any time one or the other jeopardizes their marriage, whether it be in thought or deed, is acting in ways that if continued, will put their own marriage asunder. How does mankind do this? Sin.

If you were married to Jesus, would you seek a divorce? No. Neither would your spouse. So be the best jesus you can be so your spouse won't leave. The putting asunder is not the action of divorce. It's the behaviours that lead to the divorce. The divorce is the consequence of sinful behaviour/thinking....it is not the sin itself. The person in sin is the one putting the marriage asunder.

Exactly. It's sort of like being under the influence......walking on a high ledge of a building...... and losing your balance and falling off (sort of......in a really abstract way ). The fall is a natural result of negligence. Looking *only* at the result doesn't give much of an explanation.....and most wouldn't call the error being the landing (IOW....."he shouldn't have landed so hard on that concrete!")......they'd say the error was in trying to walk a high ledge while inebriated.

 

[LinkH]

The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to dismiss his wife for any cause. Jesus pointed out that 'two, saith he, shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder."

This was in response to a question about a man dismissing or putting away his wife.

He didn't say that a series of relationship problems leading up to putting one's wife away were man putting it assunder. Even if a couple has relationship problems, they can still choose not to put the marriage asunder.

 

[ValleyGal]

Have you ever noticed how Jesus rarely ever answered trick questions head-on? He typically skirts around them so that he provides truth without giving into their tricks. What God has put together, let man not separate (the term "chorizo" (Gr.) is separate, the same as light from darkness, etc. KJV uses "put asunder"=/= divorce; it does = separate). So first of all, we are talking about a different type of separation from the "sending away" of shalach." But it's still separation rather than divorce.

Now on to the next point. Since Jesus rarely ever answered head-on, how is he skirting the issue the Pharisees brought up? By saying what GOD has joined together. How many couples do you really think God actually joined together rather than people just joining themselves together - especially in an age where premarital sex is so rampant? I'd say there are very, very few couples who were joined by God to begin with. He may have been there to witness the union, but you can be sure that he didn't bring all couples together, even in the church.

So what Jesus said was true. Whoever God has brought together in union, man should not separate. If they do, I'm sure the consequences are far worse than if they separate or divorce when it was just a couple of people who joined themselves together.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Let's suppose this man Bob asks you for advice.

If he's asking me if it's a sin, I'd say it's not my job to decide what is and isn't a sin. That's between him and God and he shouldn't be asking anybody but God.

If he's asking me if he's a good idea, I'd tell him no, it's not, and that he's a selfish idiot.

Why is it in these "hypothetical" (because they're always "hypothetical...") situations, it's always about how the man could move on to somebody younger, hotter, more successful, and otherwise just generally trade up without any real effort? Conceited much?

 

[mkgal1]

The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to dismiss his wife for any cause. Jesus pointed out that 'two, saith he, shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder."

This was in response to a question about a man dismissing or putting away his wife.

He didn't say that a series of relationship problems leading up to putting one's wife away were man putting it assunder. Even if a couple has relationship problems, they can still choose not to put the marriage asunder.

Like VG said......"put assunder" is something different than divorce. IMO......it's the turning away from.....or not loving a person with genuine Christ-like love (like Bob is doing in your OP). If you look at the other passages in the Bible where that same word is used.......it's used for "leaving". That "leaving" can be done emotionally just as it can be done physically.

 

[tall73]

I wouldn't say that. This particular passage is about a divorce under Mosaic law, which involves a man divorcing his wife with a certificate, and not vice versa. There was a big embalance in how men and women treated each other. Men could divorce their wives. If a man wasn't treating his wife right, she had to figure out some way to get a divorce certificate out of him under Jewish law.

Christ declaring most divorce invalid would have done away with much of that if people would have applied it. For the most part Judaism continued to follow Hillel on the issue.

I don't get how you responded to what I said?

She mentioned a scenario in which someone ran off with another person, leaving their spouse. That would be adultery. You wouldn't put that under the fornication clause? Or do you hold it is only pre-marital sex?

 

[mkgal1]

The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to dismiss his wife for any cause. Jesus pointed out that 'two, saith he, shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder."

This was in response to a question about a man dismissing or putting away his wife.

He didn't say that a series of relationship problems leading up to putting one's wife away were man putting it assunder. Even if a couple has relationship problems, they can still choose not to put the marriage asunder.

I don't mean "relationship problems"......I mean behaviours that destroy and eventually bring death to the marriage (IOW.....habitually not loving the other). Stop using strawmen arguments. There's a difference between "relationship problems" and one spouse checking out (separating their self from the other). One person cannot make a marriage on their own.