Jesus and Divorce

[Johnnz]

The issue of divorce is a big one today. Once quite rare, society’s attitudes have changed and the rate of divorce in Christian marriages is getting closer to that of the general population. The ‘failure rate’ of divorce has led to an increasing scepticism of marriage itself. Many people just don’t bother, and simply chose to move in with each other. For many younger people, the undermining of marriage has contributed to more accepting attitudes towards pre marital sex.



There is still much guilt attached to divorce. Christians struggle with biblical teaching that severely limits the grounds for divorce. Then there is the issue of remarriage, which for many people faced with traditional teaching, feel they are left with little choice, and drop out from their churches. There are real issues facing marriages where there is harmful abuse, yet scripture does not seem to cover such situations.



Here I have amended a previous post so that it is more relevant to the discussions that have been taking place recently on this troubled matter. I trust that it will be helpful. This information is presented within the framework that any divorce is a deviation from God’s intention. However, it is just one deviation – all sin comes under that description, and we must not elevate divorce into “celebrity status” amongst other sins.



There is Jesus’ teaching about divorce. This passage in the Sermon on the Mount is an example. Matt 5:31-32 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.



It starts with Jesus quoting a common saying “It has been said”. In Jesus’ day there were two schools of thought amongst the religious leaders. One group were quite strict about divorce. The other was very liberal. A man could divorce his wife for something as petty as burning the toast (modern example). Jesus firmly corrects that liberal view by restating the old principle that marital unfaithfulness was the only biblically sanctioned ground for divorce. This recognises the special nature of sexual relationships between people – a far cry from many modern attitudes.



Today, that statement has now become the basis for opposing divorce on any other ground. We must note that it occurs within the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Here, Jesus constantly compares the outwardly pious beliefs of the religious leaders with the true demands of inner righteousness that would characterise those who become part of His new kingdom. Jesus constantly affirms God’s true principles, which in those verses is marriage.



Elsewhere Jesus again dealt with divorce and remarriage. Matt 19:3-9 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,' and 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'? So 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. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."



Again, we see in the words expressed “for any reason” the liberal view. Jesus rebuts that position by referring to the creation story- back to first principles. Then Jesus refutes their belief that, because Moses allowed for a certificate of divorce they were justified in doing the same. Jesus was pointing out to them that it was never God’s intention for marriage that it be prematurely ended.



Having said that, we must see that Jesus was not imposing a new and stricter law. Many have taken this scripture and taught that Jesus was “tightening up” on custom, and that only death or adultery are now grounds for divorce. That is unfortunate, as Jesus was challenging their laxity towards marriage that was commonly held by some in his day. His emphasis still hold true today. We must always see marriage within a framework of a lifelong bond between two people. Anything less does not fulfil God’s intention for marriage.



Death and adultery are valid grounds for divorce. That is clear. Having made that point we must now look at how we are to treat situations such as abusive relationships.



That Jesus was not stating a new law with even greater restrictions than under the Mosaic covenant can be inferred from the scriptures.



One ground is that Paul adds another reason, where an unbelieving partner may call the marriage off. Paul states that he received such approval from Christ, but it is interesting that Jesus did not reveal this new condition until later, when a practical issue was confronting the christian community. Can we then add other reasons, based on practical considerations, provided that we are not inconsistent with biblical principles?



I believe we can. The destruction of a person, as occurs in an abusive relationship would qualify under what Jesus taught in John 10:10 “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” The destruction of another personality by an abusive partner and parent is the work of evil. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to submit ourselves to evil. Then, there are the children to consider.



Then, we must never forget children in any violent and abusive relationship. When you have counselled adults who had such childhood experiences you see what devastation those environments produce. Did Jesus really teach that children are to have their lives distorted by an insoluble marriage?



Then, if a relationship does not exhibit the loving, the intimacy (“knowing”) and the gentleness of mutual submission, is it a marriage at all? Has it become so unlike what God intended that it can no loner qualify as a God ordained marriage? God loves “the world” but he will separate Himself from unrepentant evil doers. Should we do less in a very unhealthy and destructive relationship? Separation happens because the marriage no longer exists, except as a legal entity. God divorced Israel as the nation had consistently failed to live up to the requirements of their relationship with him. Jesus never denied the “hardness of heart” referred to earlier as the reason for some marriages ending in divorce. He just challenged the assumption that we should accept human failure as a reason to undermine the divine intention for marriage, especially as the more liberal religious rules had done so.



Then there is the matter of a divorced and remarried person committing adultery. Jesus teaching did apply to those of the liberal school. God did not recognise their petty grounds for divorce. He was stating that deciding to marry another woman due to some minor infringement was a simple disguise to avoid the label of adultery. But God was not fooled by that, and regarded the matter for what it was. Jesus teaching on looking at a woman and “lusting” was addressing the same issue. Here He was in effect saying something like this “If you see a woman and decide you prefer her to the wife you already have you have in fact committed adultery. Your subsequent plans to find reason to divorce your current wife, although strictly proper in your eyes, is no more than plain old adultery in God’s eyes. You continue with your outward respectability, but God has already placed His judgement on you for the low view you have taken about the marriage covenant.”



If Jesus was giving us a new and stricter law, then we are obliged to spell out the details. What was the adultery? Was it the act of getting remarried and having intercourse? Then, we could just repent and get that out of the way. Or, was it every time the couple had intercourse? So, sex must always be followed by repentance, which would be somewhat hollow, as there obviously would be no intention to discontinue. It comes close to having a new, unforgivable sin.



Those are my grounds and reasons for looking at this troublesome area with compassion, yet without my having to abandon biblical principles. I affirm dearly God’s intentions for marriage, and I distance myself completely from the attitudes of many moderns. Divorce must never be the first option for either party, but only after other avenues have been tried.



However, fallen people fail in so many ways. Some marriages don’t work. The Christian community needs to continue to lovingly relate to such people, bring them to a position where they can face up to the reasons and consequences for what happened, and receive acceptance within the ‘family’.

John
NZ

 

[Warrior Poet]

Not one thing in there that I could or would even try to dispute.
That was a good one.

Warrior Poet

 

[LadyDJ]

extremely well written...

 

[seekfirst]

The issue of divorce is a big one today. Once quite rare, society’s attitudes have changed and the rate of divorce in Christian marriages is getting closer to that of the general population. The ‘failure rate’ of divorce has led to an increasing scepticism of marriage itself. Many people just don’t bother, and simply chose to move in with each other. For many younger people, the undermining of marriage has contributed to more accepting attitudes towards pre marital sex.



There is still much guilt attached to divorce. Christians struggle with biblical teaching that severely limits the grounds for divorce. Then there is the issue of remarriage, which for many people faced with traditional teaching, feel they are left with little choice, and drop out from their churches. There are real issues facing marriages where there is harmful abuse, yet scripture does not seem to cover such situations.



Here I have amended a previous post so that it is more relevant to the discussions that have been taking place recently on this troubled matter. I trust that it will be helpful. This information is presented within the framework that any divorce is a deviation from God’s intention. However, it is just one deviation – all sin comes under that description, and we must not elevate divorce into “celebrity status” amongst other sins.



There is Jesus’ teaching about divorce. This passage in the Sermon on the Mount is an example. Matt 5:31-32 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.



It starts with Jesus quoting a common saying “It has been said”. In Jesus’ day there were two schools of thought amongst the religious leaders. One group were quite strict about divorce. The other was very liberal. A man could divorce his wife for something as petty as burning the toast (modern example). Jesus firmly corrects that liberal view by restating the old principle that marital unfaithfulness was the only biblically sanctioned ground for divorce. This recognises the special nature of sexual relationships between people – a far cry from many modern attitudes.



Today, that statement has now become the basis for opposing divorce on any other ground. We must note that it occurs within the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Here, Jesus constantly compares the outwardly pious beliefs of the religious leaders with the true demands of inner righteousness that would characterise those who become part of His new kingdom. Jesus constantly affirms God’s true principles, which in those verses is marriage.



Elsewhere Jesus again dealt with divorce and remarriage. Matt 19:3-9 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,' and 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'? So 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. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."



Again, we see in the words expressed “for any reason” the liberal view. Jesus rebuts that position by referring to the creation story- back to first principles. Then Jesus refutes their belief that, because Moses allowed for a certificate of divorce they were justified in doing the same. Jesus was pointing out to them that it was never God’s intention for marriage that it be prematurely ended.



Having said that, we must see that Jesus was not imposing a new and stricter law. Many have taken this scripture and taught that Jesus was “tightening up” on custom, and that only death or adultery are now grounds for divorce. That is unfortunate, as Jesus was challenging their laxity towards marriage that was commonly held by some in his day. His emphasis still hold true today. We must always see marriage within a framework of a lifelong bond between two people. Anything less does not fulfil God’s intention for marriage.



Death and adultery are valid grounds for divorce. That is clear. Having made that point we must now look at how we are to treat situations such as abusive relationships.



That Jesus was not stating a new law with even greater restrictions than under the Mosaic covenant can be inferred from the scriptures.



One ground is that Paul adds another reason, where an unbelieving partner may call the marriage off. Paul states that he received such approval from Christ, but it is interesting that Jesus did not reveal this new condition until later, when a practical issue was confronting the christian community. Can we then add other reasons, based on practical considerations, provided that we are not inconsistent with biblical principles?



I believe we can. The destruction of a person, as occurs in an abusive relationship would qualify under what Jesus taught in John 10:10 “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” The destruction of another personality by an abusive partner and parent is the work of evil. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to submit ourselves to evil. Then, there are the children to consider.



Then, we must never forget children in any violent and abusive relationship. When you have counselled adults who had such childhood experiences you see what devastation those environments produce. Did Jesus really teach that children are to have their lives distorted by an insoluble marriage?



Then, if a relationship does not exhibit the loving, the intimacy (“knowing”) and the gentleness of mutual submission, is it a marriage at all? Has it become so unlike what God intended that it can no loner qualify as a God ordained marriage? God loves “the world” but he will separate Himself from unrepentant evil doers. Should we do less in a very unhealthy and destructive relationship? Separation happens because the marriage no longer exists, except as a legal entity. God divorced Israel as the nation had consistently failed to live up to the requirements of their relationship with him. Jesus never denied the “hardness of heart” referred to earlier as the reason for some marriages ending in divorce. He just challenged the assumption that we should accept human failure as a reason to undermine the divine intention for marriage, especially as the more liberal religious rules had done so.



Then there is the matter of a divorced and remarried person committing adultery. Jesus teaching did apply to those of the liberal school. God did not recognise their petty grounds for divorce. He was stating that deciding to marry another woman due to some minor infringement was a simple disguise to avoid the label of adultery. But God was not fooled by that, and regarded the matter for what it was. Jesus teaching on looking at a woman and “lusting” was addressing the same issue. Here He was in effect saying something like this “If you see a woman and decide you prefer her to the wife you already have you have in fact committed adultery. Your subsequent plans to find reason to divorce your current wife, although strictly proper in your eyes, is no more than plain old adultery in God’s eyes. You continue with your outward respectability, but God has already placed His judgement on you for the low view you have taken about the marriage covenant.”



If Jesus was giving us a new and stricter law, then we are obliged to spell out the details. What was the adultery? Was it the act of getting remarried and having intercourse? Then, we could just repent and get that out of the way. Or, was it every time the couple had intercourse? So, sex must always be followed by repentance, which would be somewhat hollow, as there obviously would be no intention to discontinue. It comes close to having a new, unforgivable sin.



Those are my grounds and reasons for looking at this troublesome area with compassion, yet without my having to abandon biblical principles. I affirm dearly God’s intentions for marriage, and I distance myself completely from the attitudes of many moderns. Divorce must never be the first option for either party, but only after other avenues have been tried.



However, fallen people fail in so many ways. Some marriages don’t work. The Christian community needs to continue to lovingly relate to such people, bring them to a position where they can face up to the reasons and consequences for what happened, and receive acceptance within the ‘family’.

John
NZ

What about 1 Corinthians 7:10-11? To me, it seems like yes, you may seperate, but you shall not remarry...unless you reconcile with your husband/wife. I agree with you that a woman/man should not stay in the house with an abusive person...but I don't see God telling us it's ok to remarry someone else.

 

[Prakk]

Johnz,

You said:

'I believe we can. The destruction of a person, as occurs in an abusive relationship would qualify under what Jesus taught in John 10:10 “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” '

Jesus was sent to the Jews, he states this himself to his disciples in Matthew 10:6:

"But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

He also makes reference to this with the Syro-Phonecian woman and the woman at the well. Jesus ministry is to the Jews. As such all his pronouncements are to them, a people who are under contract to be believers. The Isrealite, who was synonymous with belief and under penatly of death for unbelief could not marry outside the believing family, hence the reason to end a marriage that Paul seems to add to the mix in 1st Corinthians 7 is not an addition after all. It harks back to the time of Ezra in which the people were to seperate themselves from foreign wives, which they were under contract NOT to take and to the language in Exodus 21 regarding wives of slavery or concubines. There is a new situation in place. People are coming to Christ apart from the nation of Isreal, not as proselytes, not being grafted into Isreal, but into Christ. Paul's advice and moral clearance to seperate permanently from an unbelieving spouse is not termed divorce, and is not divorce, per the scriptural use of the term. He tells the believer to stay where they are, which could in all likelyhood be an "evil" place and if the unbeliever departs the marriage, which is a dual condition, Paul commands that the marriage is immediately over using the term "not bound" which is what reflects back to Exodus 32.

You also said:

"The destruction of another personality by an abusive partner and parent is the work of evil. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to submit ourselves to evil. Then, there are the children to consider."

this is directly contradicted by 1st Corinthians 7:14:

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

Keeping the marriage together, at least formallly, is to the benefit of the children. The only provision of scripture is that a wife may leave her husband that she doesn't get along with for essentially any reason, but she must remain his wife.

The facts are these. Divorce is a formal disolution of marriage that issues from the husband only. Wives may not divorce. Wives may seperate. Men may only divorce with God's dispensation if the wife has been adulterous. An unbeliever departing a marriage with a believer virtually "annuls" the marriage as if it had never been. This is why Paul uses the phrase "not bound" instead of divorce.

Virtually all our churches, and you as well, teach a great and sinful error. That is that there are more reasons for divorce than are given in scripture. We add reasons for divorce, and we may not. The Catholics do the opposite, they load more restrictions on divorce than God would place on them. A believer divorcing for reasons unacceptable to God may certainly be forgiven but the act of divorcing for those reasons erects a barrier to further marriage while the former spouse lives.

Hugh McBryde

 

[mghalpern]

Hugh McBryde... Now I'm starting to track with you a little better (than some earlier posts in another thread). I really like your last paragraph...

Virtually all our churches, and you as well, teach a great and sinful error. That is that there are more reasons for divorce than are given in scripture. We add reasons for divorce, and we may not. The Catholics do the opposite, they load more restrictions on divorce than God would place on them. A believer divorcing for reasons unacceptable to God may certainly be forgiven but the act of divorcing for those reasons erects a barrier to further marriage while the former spouse lives.

...I can pretty much support those statements...Michael

 

[Prakk]

Michael,

You said:

"

...I can pretty much support those statements...Michael"

Kewl.

Hugh

 

[Johnnz]

Seekfirst asked about these verses.



1 Cor 7:10-11 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. NIV



Corinth was a city heavily influences by Greek culture and pagan worship. Its people had a reputation for sexual licence. Paul established a church there, made up of Gentile and Jewish converts, from different levels of society. His letter addresses issues facing a culturally, socially and religiously diverse new Christian community – doctrinal differences, idolatry, sexual immorality, class distinctions, wrong teaching and so on.



In the first part of Chapter 7 Paul deal briefly with several issues relating to marriage. There were those who were trying to bring ascetic teaching into the community. 1 Cor 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. Here Paul is quoting such a source. He then goes on to correct it in verses 2-7. Incidentally, Paul goes much further than any other writer from antiquity in saying that a man has sexual obligations towards his wife. The wife’s obligations, as an extension of a man’s property, had always been made clear by ancient writers. Here we see Paul, as in other places, putting mutual obligations upon men, and in so doing, discreetly undermining the male dominance practiced by all other ancients.



Then in verses 8-9 he briefly deal with single people, the unmarried and widowed. His advice, stay single if you want to and can, otherwise get married. No asceticism or stoic endurance here.



He then moves on to married people. His brief advice simply restates Jesus’ teaching about marriage. It is not something to walk in and out of. Either party could leave a marriage under Roman laws and customs. The Jews had granted exceptions too, although only a man could initiate a divorce. I believe that’s all Paul was saying. In a culturally diverse and sexually liberal city Paul gave a Christian understanding of what marriage was – a lifelong bond.



Some commentators believe that Paul was referring to a particular women in his advice here, telling her not o leave her marriage, but couching his advice more generally in order to let the entire community know what the God’s standard was. Then, there is the issue of not marrying. Paul was again reaffirming what Jesus had taught. Leave a marriage for the wrong reason and that can be seen as adultery. It would be adultery indeed if the reason for leaving was another partner. If you do decide to leave, wrote Paul, don’t expect me to sanction any marriage to another.



There is another factor to reflect on. In most cases an unmarried woman, divorced or widowed, would be without means of support. Many ended up in prostitution. Paul was not going to sanction either subsequent church dependency or prostitution as acceptable outcomes for an unhappy woman.



Paul has taken a strong stance on the permanency of marriage. That accords with biblical teaching. Then, suddenly, he allows dissolution of a marriage if an unbelieving partner no longer wants to remain married to a believer! (v15). So, we now have marital unfaithfulness and an unbelieving partner as permitted grounds for divorce. The later reason was a response to a real life situation encountered by the new community. Paul was both principled and practical. Thus, for reasons given earlier I believe that there are some situations where a marriage can legitimately be accepted as over, and the parties freed from obligation to that partner.



Virtually all our churches, and you as well, teach a great and sinful error. That is that there are more reasons for divorce than are given in scripture



I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot accept that the frequency of divorce amongst christians is indicative of the very damaging relationships that I believe can be accepted as good reason.



We must also not confuse our modern concept of separation with the word used in Paul’s letter. There was no equivalent to separation as a prelude to formal dissolution in Paul’s day. To separate was to abandon the woman. Paul’s injunction against husbands divorcing my well have been directed at Jewish members, whose men did have the right to initiate divorce under Judaism. Separate, or divorce – they were one and the same in Paul’s day.



John

NZ

 

[mghalpern]

Seekfirst asked about these verses.



1 Cor 7:10-11 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. NIV



Corinth was a city heavily influences by Greek culture and pagan worship. Its people had a reputation for sexual licence. Paul established a church there, made up of Gentile and Jewish converts, from different levels of society. His letter addresses issues facing a culturally, socially and religiously diverse new Christian community – doctrinal differences, idolatry, sexual immorality, class distinctions, wrong teaching and so on.



In the first part of Chapter 7 Paul deal briefly with several issues relating to marriage. There were those who were trying to bring ascetic teaching into the community. 1 Cor 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. Here Paul is quoting such a source. He then goes on to correct it in verses 2-7. Incidentally, Paul goes much further than any other writer from antiquity in saying that a man has sexual obligations towards his wife. The wife’s obligations, as an extension of a man’s property, had always been made clear by ancient writers. Here we see Paul, as in other places, putting mutual obligations upon men, and in so doing, discreetly undermining the male dominance practiced by all other ancients.



Then in verses 8-9 he briefly deal with single people, the unmarried and widowed. His advice, stay single if you want to and can, otherwise get married. No asceticism or stoic endurance here.



He then moves on to married people. His brief advice simply restates Jesus’ teaching about marriage. It is not something to walk in and out of. Either party could leave a marriage under Roman laws and customs. The Jews had granted exceptions too, although only a man could initiate a divorce. I believe that’s all Paul was saying. In a culturally diverse and sexually liberal city Paul gave a Christian understanding of what marriage was – a lifelong bond.



Some commentators believe that Paul was referring to a particular women in his advice here, telling her not o leave her marriage, but couching his advice more generally in order to let the entire community know what the God’s standard was. Then, there is the issue of not marrying. Paul was again reaffirming what Jesus had taught. Leave a marriage for the wrong reason and that can be seen as adultery. It would be adultery indeed if the reason for leaving was another partner. If you do decide to leave, wrote Paul, don’t expect me to sanction any marriage to another.



There is another factor to reflect on. In most cases an unmarried woman, divorced or widowed, would be without means of support. Many ended up in prostitution. Paul was not going to sanction either subsequent church dependency or prostitution as acceptable outcomes for an unhappy woman.



Paul has taken a strong stance on the permanency of marriage. That accords with biblical teaching. Then, suddenly, he allows dissolution of a marriage if an unbelieving partner no longer wants to remain married to a believer! (v15). So, we now have marital unfaithfulness and an unbelieving partner as permitted grounds for divorce. The later reason was a response to a real life situation encountered by the new community. Paul was both principled and practical. Thus, for reasons given earlier I believe that there are some situations where a marriage can legitimately be accepted as over, and the parties freed from obligation to that partner.



Virtually all our churches, and you as well, teach a great and sinful error. That is that there are more reasons for divorce than are given in scripture



I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot accept that the frequency of divorce amongst christians is indicative of the very damaging relationships that I believe can be accepted as good reason.



We must also not confuse our modern concept of separation with the word used in Paul’s letter. There was no equivalent to separation as a prelude to formal dissolution in Paul’s day. To separate was to abandon the woman. Paul’s injunction against husbands divorcing my well have been directed at Jewish members, whose men did have the right to initiate divorce under Judaism. Separate, or divorce – they were one and the same in Paul’s day.



John

NZ

JohnNZ... After a first read through...very nice work...Michael

 

[Jennifer615]

John NZ, you are very wise. I agree with everything you have written. and and

 

[GIGATT247]

The bible makes no reference to remarriage, no not one. He makes reference to being married again ( not remarried) after your spouse dies because now the original marraige is non-existant but only then (I Corinthians 7:39). I think that the scriptures in the Gospels that state, "But I say unto you, that whosoever put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commiteth adultery" (Matt 5:32). The key word is fornication which is sexual acts before marraige, not adultery which is sexual acts outside of marraige. Which means that is a man marries a woman believing she is a virgin and then he finds out that she wasn't then he has the God given right to divorce her. God can not give provisions for us to get a divorce because of adultery beause He is a God of forgiveness and if we divorced because of adultery then that would be a sign of unforgiveness because forgiveness would leave no room for divorce. God does not however give any provisions for a woman to divorce her husband not one (Mark 10:12). He does allow for separation, but to remain unmarried or be reconciled with her husband (I Corinthians:10-11). I hope that this has shed some light to someone who is headed for divorce or remarried. If your first marraige was ordained by God then that is the only one he sees. How can you vow until death do you part to two people? I hope that everyone who reads this will search the scriptures for themselves and that God will reveal His true plan for marraige and that you will line up with his will and not die an adulterer. Once we have come to the knowledge of the truth we will be held accountable for our continued sin.

 

[E_Powers]

if adultery can be forgiven does the husband still need to divorce?

and if someone is divorced and commits "adultery" while divorced is it ok for one to remarry?