Should I sign?

[Tropical Wilds]

We've been together for 6 years, but I've traveled to 20 countries with her, slept in probably 100 different beds together, and we were in situations where it was only the two of us in dozens of different locations. We've been in the middle of nowhere for 3 years with only the two of us as believers and English speakers. We've traversed the U.S. visiting almost every corner of it, pleading with churches and groups to pray for the unreached. We were both each other's first sexual union. We visited each other's home towns, our elementary schools, and high schools even though they were thousands of miles apart. We suffered through a miscarriage together, took the remains to the birthplace of our parents in a different country, and buried our precious child in a mountain there. Then we were told by doctors that we can't have children because of a horrible surgical procedure she had in a foreign hospital when removing the baby while serving God overseas. We started the adoption process and wanted to bless a special needs child. She was beloved by my home church and spoke a women's retreat. She was then offered a job as a women's pastor at my home church and the offer was there for life. She promptly denied it because of her desire to serve God overseas, as was mine.

Those are all the things you want to remember that are good or led to you getting closer. It's not reflective of the bad things that caused her to want divorce, such as your abusive behavior. It's rose-colored glasses, selective memory. Not a summation of the whole of the union.

Besides which, it's also not a testimony to a husband and wife being closer than a parent and child. I mean, for the birth of my son, I carried him for 9 months, I was there when he took his first breath, said his first word, got hurt for the first time, comforted him, etc etc. It's not a description about how parents are closer to children than husbands and wives are to each other, they're a summary of important moments that led to bonding. And if my son had a falling out with me because I abused him, recalling only that as a summary as to why he should be with me, not only is it emotional blackmail, it's disingenuous. Those moments may have meant something to me, but they may not have to him, or if they did, the sum of their positives aren't enough to offset the negative.

And I am to just forget about her? To just give up on the marriage? To not even desire restoration and merely work on my issues? Of course I have issues that need to be fixed. But she is my wife and I have cleaved to her.[/quote]

Forget? No. I've never forgotten my ex-husband, nor any of my ex's while dating. Remember it as a time of learning, figuring out what you can do to be the best person you can be for either the next relationship or this one. But living in the past as justification and provocation to a future that's not really realistic? No. Right now, reconciliation isn't realistic, both because you've got healing to do and because she doesn't want it. It's like buying paint for a house you don't live in anymore. It's not the best use of your time, it's not a way for you to overcome your issues related to possessiveness and abuse, and it's not a way to live your life. Ask yourself, do the people who make their future building a monument to what's past and is negative, are they really happy?

Like I said, your need to claim her has hit a disturbing level to a point of self-denial and it's alarming. You make it seem like she ended this marriage and left you. I bet if you asked her, your behavior showed her you weren't in this marriage long before she ever filed for divorce. You broke the marital bond, now you want it back because you see it slipping away, but she's finally ready to fully undo what you started destroying yourself. It's as much her responding to your already ending the marriage as it is just her ending the marriage.

 

[ValleyGal]

This is a long thread, and with a lot of excellent thoughts. TW is coming from a woman's perspective, and since she sounds like your wife, it seems to me she is a good one to listen to here. Big Daddy also has some great points about the nature of God's relationship with Israel, Jesus' relationship with the church, and what that means for the marriage relationship.

I just want to address your thought about covenant. From Dictionary.com:

cov·e·nant

[kuhv-uh-nuh

nt] Show IPA
noun 1. an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.

2. Law. an incidental clause in such an agreement.

3. Ecclesiastical . a solemn agreement between the members of a church to act together in harmony with the precepts of the gospel.

4. ( initial capital letter ) History/Historical . a. National Covenant.

b. Solemn League and Covenant.



5. Bible. a. the conditional promises made to humanity by God, as revealed in Scripture.

b. the agreement between God and the ancient Israelites, in which God promised to protect them if they kept His law and were faithful to Him.

There is only one unilateral covenant, and that is between God and Israel. There is a reason for this. God, being a God of justice, requires payment of sin (that is, unholiness). But only holiness can pay for unholiness. He knew there was no way anyone would ever be able to live up to this requirement, so he made himself responsible to provide a way of reconciliation - that is through sending Jesus. The need for a unilateral covenant was only because the relationship is made up of one who is holy and a nation who is unholy.

In marriage, both husband and wife are unholy, and so a unilateral covenant is not possible or necessary. Marriage is bilateral, and both parties are contracting to live up to a certain set of conditions. The violation of those conditions broke the covenant. Iow, your covenant was broken by you the first time you mistreated your wife. All she is doing is formalizing the brokenness of the covenant by getting a divorce.

About divorce - when the two become one, it does not mean they are inseparable. Think about conjoined twins - they are separated, and depending on how they are joined, both will survive. This might take a little to explain this, so bear with me. When a couple is joined and they share the same heart, they cannot be separated without one of them dying, just like conjoined twins. When a couple is joined at the hip without sharing any vital organs, separation results in two who survive - but not without scars. Separation and divorce hurt. I've worked with couples where one will die and the other will follow shortly after. They had truly "become one" - and usually after 50 years together.

You were only together for six years, and you were never joined in a vital organ. You were joined at the hip. It's only been a few months into the separation, so your wounds are still fresh. If you need to hold onto hope that eventually you will reconcile with your ex wife, then hold onto it - but only till the wound starts to heal. God's intent for divorced couples is not that they would remain single and live lonely for the rest of their lives. If that was the case, only about 15 or 20% of North America would be married or in relationship. A biblical study on remarriage following divorce yields the knowledge that it is God's intent that people do not stay single.

Divorce is the formal dissolution of the covenant. It is what God requires to officially separate what was once "one". I agree with those on the thread who say to just sign and let her be. She has much healing to do from the baggage you've heaped on her, and you have much healing to do from whatever childhood trauma caused you to behave so cruelly to her. You can remember her and honour the special place she had in your life, but you need to let the marriage go. If you don't do it of your own volition, the judge will do it for you.

Meantime, yes, it hurts, and it hurts deeply. Not only are you hurting from the pain of divorce, you are also hurting from your childhood stuff as well as hurting over the regret you have over how you treated your ex wife. You are hurting because all this hurt was preventable, but you brought it on yourself, and that hurts even more. But just because you hurt, doesn't give you permission to hop into a pity party or play the victim. Use your pain as a motivator to make things right, to not let it happen again, to work on how you treat others you're in relationship with. Use it for good, for God's glory.

 

[dw2000]

Hey everyone. My wife has just emailed me the marital settlement agreement, which comes before the divorce papers (I believe). There's a line in it that states,

"WHEREAS, we were married on xxx date in xx place, and we now mutually desire to dissolve our marriage and mutually agree to live permanently separate and apart from each other, as if we were single."

I promised I wouldn't contest the divorce even though I don't want it. But in the line above, it states, "mutually desire to dissolve our marriage."

How can I respect my wife's desires and not lie on the agreement?

Thoughts?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Hey everyone. My wife has just emailed me the marital settlement agreement, which comes before the divorce papers (I believe). There's a line in it that states,

"WHEREAS, we were married on xxx date in xx place, and we now mutually desire to dissolve our marriage and mutually agree to live permanently separate and apart from each other, as if we were single."

I promised I wouldn't contest the divorce even though I don't want it. But in the line above, it states, "mutually desire to dissolve our marriage."

How can I respect my wife's desires and not lie on the agreement?

Thoughts?

You're hair splitting. You want to honor the wishes of your wife, which means you "mutually desire to dissolve" the marriage.

This is like listing to me in high school, "I, like, want X, Y, Z, but I don't WANT want it."

 

[bhsmte]

Hey everyone. My wife has just emailed me the marital settlement agreement, which comes before the divorce papers (I believe). There's a line in it that states,

"WHEREAS, we were married on xxx date in xx place, and we now mutually desire to dissolve our marriage and mutually agree to live permanently separate and apart from each other, as if we were single."

I promised I wouldn't contest the divorce even though I don't want it. But in the line above, it states, "mutually desire to dissolve our marriage."

How can I respect my wife's desires and not lie on the agreement?

Thoughts?

I believe we have tried to explain this. You can decide not to sign and then she has the option of serving you with the divorce papers and then you will need to show up in court.

You are living apart right now, correct?
Does she have an attorney or is she doing this herself?

Again, not signing the divorce agreement will not stop the divorce, it will only delay the process as the legal process would evolve. Bottom line, she can divorce you without you agreeing or signing anything, the judge would just rule from the bench.

 

[ValleyGal]

Good question. Where I live, there are divorces based on certain things. Imo, she is using the nicest, and being the kindest, and if I were you, I'd sign. Or she could re-do the papers to have it read that she is divorcing you based on your abuse of her. This would mean you are not "agreeing" but passively allowing it, but you are also formally acknowledging your abuse.

 

[bhsmte]

Good question. Where I live, there are divorces based on certain things. Imo, she is using the nicest, and being the kindest, and if I were you, I'd sign. Or she could re-do the papers to have it read that she is divorcing you based on your abuse of her. This would mean you are not "agreeing" but passively allowing it, but you are also formally acknowledging your abuse.

You are correct and even if you are in a "no fault" state, a filing of divorce typically has the reason(s) one party is seeking the divorce and she would likely cite the abuse and the document may actually include examples of the same.

Do you want this in the court record? Divorce pleadings are all public records.

 

[dw2000]

This is a long thread, and with a lot of excellent thoughts. TW is coming from a woman's perspective, and since she sounds like your wife, it seems to me she is a good one to listen to here. Big Daddy also has some great points about the nature of God's relationship with Israel, Jesus' relationship with the church, and what that means for the marriage relationship.


There is only one unilateral covenant, and that is between God and Israel. There is a reason for this. God, being a God of justice, requires payment of sin (that is, unholiness). But only holiness can pay for unholiness. He knew there was no way anyone would ever be able to live up to this requirement, so he made himself responsible to provide a way of reconciliation - that is through sending Jesus. The need for a unilateral covenant was only because the relationship is made up of one who is holy and a nation who is unholy.

In marriage, both husband and wife are unholy, and so a unilateral covenant is not possible or necessary. Marriage is bilateral, and both parties are contracting to live up to a certain set of conditions. The violation of those conditions broke the covenant. Iow, your covenant was broken by you the first time you mistreated your wife. All she is doing is formalizing the brokenness of the covenant by getting a divorce.

You were only together for six years, and you were never joined in a vital organ. You were joined at the hip. It's only been a few months into the separation, so your wounds are still fresh. If you need to hold onto hope that eventually you will reconcile with your ex wife, then hold onto it - but only till the wound starts to heal. God's intent for divorced couples is not that they would remain single and live lonely for the rest of their lives. If that was the case, only about 15 or 20% of North America would be married or in relationship. A biblical study on remarriage following divorce yields the knowledge that it is God's intent that people do not stay single.

Meantime, yes, it hurts, and it hurts deeply. Not only are you hurting from the pain of divorce, you are also hurting from your childhood stuff as well as hurting over the regret you have over how you treated your ex wife. You are hurting because all this hurt was preventable, but you brought it on yourself, and that hurts even more. But just because you hurt, doesn't give you permission to hop into a pity party or play the victim. Use your pain as a motivator to make things right, to not let it happen again, to work on how you treat others you're in relationship with. Use it for good, for God's glory.

Hi Valleygirl. I thank you for well thought out, kind, and compassionate reply. Of course, I want reconciliation with my wife. And, right now, am committing to not marrying ever again if there is no adultery on either side. I do not want to be single for the rest of my life. Although you talk about how a couple who is married longer are closer together, I don't think that's what scripture is talking about... I think it's talking more about how the sexual union within a covenant makes them one flesh and not just the length of time. Anyways, It's a tough road ahead. But I want to be obedient and not merely use happiness to justify all my actions. Could you explain these verses?

Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

A normal covenant is pretty much the same thing as a contract, that it's based on mutual support and performance. You did state that there is only one unilateral covenant: God and Israel. I would say that Christ and the church is a unilateral covenant too. From there, Eph 5:25 charges the husbands to model their marriages like Christ and the church, which is unilateral.

A second question is about 1 Cor 7:11 "But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband." So Paul charges these women to remain unmarried. Their only options are celibacy or reconciliation. There may be debate about who this applies to, but in to whichever group Paul was speaking to, it seems like God wants them to be lonely and unmarried for the rest of their lives.

And then we have the passages in the gospels where it talks about after a divorce, if a person remarries, then it's adultery.

These are the main ideas that are wanting me to stand in my marriage. It seems like there is more to support celibacy/reconciliation than there is for remarriage.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Good question. Where I live, there are divorces based on certain things. Imo, she is using the nicest, and being the kindest, and if I were you, I'd sign. Or she could re-do the papers to have it read that she is divorcing you based on your abuse of her. This would mean you are not "agreeing" but passively allowing it, but you are also formally acknowledging your abuse.

I hadn't thought about that. In a no-fault state, that may be the verbiage they use if she's doing a no-fault as opposed to citing abuse as the reason.

 

[bhsmte]

Hi Valleygirl. I thank you for well thought out, kind, and compassionate reply. Of course, I want reconciliation with my wife. And, right now, am committing to not marrying ever again if there is no adultery on either side. I do not want to be single for the rest of my life. Although you talk about how a couple who is married longer are closer together, I don't think that's what scripture is talking about... I think it's talking more about how the sexual union within a covenant makes them one flesh and not just the length of time. Anyways, It's a tough road ahead. But I want to be obedient and not merely use happiness to justify all my actions. Could you explain these verses?

Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

A normal covenant is pretty much the same thing as a contract, that it's based on mutual support and performance. You did state that there is only one unilateral covenant: God and Israel. I would say that Christ and the church is a unilateral covenant too. From there, Eph 5:25 charges the husbands to model their marriages like Christ and the church, which is unilateral.

A second question is about 1 Cor 7:11 "But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband." So Paul charges these women to remain unmarried. Their only options are celibacy or reconciliation. There may be debate about who this applies to, but in to whichever group Paul was speaking to, it seems like God wants them to be lonely and unmarried for the rest of their lives.

And then we have the passages in the gospels where it talks about after a divorce, if a person remarries, then it's adultery.

These are the main ideas that are wanting me to stand in my marriage. It seems like there is more to support celibacy/reconciliation than there is for remarriage.

It's sounds as though one of your main concerns of the thought of your wife being with another man in the future? Is that correct?

 

[bhsmte]

I hadn't thought about that. In a no-fault state, that may be the verbiage they use if she's doing a no-fault as opposed to citing abuse as the reason.

Even in a no-fault state, divorce papers will give a reason why one party is seeking divorce and may even include examples of abuse if that is the case (with descriptions and dates, etc.).

Judges will typically give cases with alleged abuse more attention (for obvious reasons), would likely approve an order of protection (if the other party asked for it) and if there is evidence of certain abuse, may even trigger a police investigation if the other party is serious enough.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Even in a no-fault state, divorce papers will give a reason why one party is seeking divorce and may even include examples of abuse if that is the case (with descriptions and dates, etc.).

Judges will typically give cases with alleged abuse more attention (for obvious reasons), would likely approve an order of protection (if the other party asked for it) and if there is evidence of certain abuse, may even trigger a police investigation if the other party is serious enough.

I may be wrong, but in my state (which was no-fault when I filed and fault when my husband filed for his) you can file a contested or an uncontested divorce. If you are filing to assign fault or because one party doesn't agree and division of assets will be messy, the verbiage at the end is different.

Example, looking at my papers which was a renouncement of fault and non-contested divorce form, where I signed and my ex signed it says "with mutually agreed upon intent to dissolve marital contract." On my husband's papers, the paperwork to get everything started says "with non-mutually agreed upon intent to dissolve marital contract and/or with notice to the court of disagreement with terms related to marital dissolution." His divorce was contested and, I think, an attempt at fault for irreconcilable differences due to financial and contractual fraud.

Looking online, we can file fault-uncontested, fault-contested, no-fault-uncontested, no-fault-contested. With verbiage like that, if she had options on how to start the process, it sounds like she chose no fault or uncontested. Essentially, she was being nice.

 

[bhsmte]

I may be wrong, but in my state (which was no-fault when I filed and fault when my husband filed for his) you can file a contested or an uncontested divorce. If you are filing to assign fault or because one party doesn't agree and division of assets will be messy, the verbiage at the end is different.

Example, looking at my papers which was a renouncement of fault and non-contested divorce form, where I signed and my ex signed it says "with mutually agreed upon intent to dissolve marital contract." On my husband's papers, the paperwork to get everything started says "with non-mutually agreed upon intent to dissolve marital contract and/or with notice to the court of disagreement with terms related to marital dissolution." Looking online, we can file fault-uncontested, fault-contested, no-fault-uncontested, no-fault-contested. With verbiage like that, if she had options on how to start the process, it sounds like she chose no fault or uncontested. Essentially, she was being nice.

If there actually was abuse, she is being EXTREMELY NICE, because even in a no-fault state, she could serve him with divorce papers that describe the reasons she is seeking divorce and those papers would be strengthened by including details of the abuse. Again, this would be done to get the judge's attention, that there is a serious problem here and has nothing to do whether it is fault or no fault. You see this in cases when the two parties can not work out the divorce agreement on their own.

If there was abuse in this case, I would sign the papers and run.

 

[dw2000]

It's sounds as though one of your main concerns of the thought of your wife being with another man in the future? Is that correct?

No. I wouldn't say that's my biggest fear. I don't think she will and I honestly am not saying that out of sheer denial of this situation. She has the most conservative view on marriage and even told me that she'll forgive me if I commit adultery. She was wanting to be single for life to serve God overseas before she found me, who had the same calling. When she told me that she's going to file for divorce, she told me she feels free to serve God now without me dragging her down and she said she can now more freely pursue one of her lifelong dreams of becoming a martyr while on the field. She felt like marriage was a hindrance to that desire of hers.

She's had to go through a ton of scripture and a ton of books to find Biblical grounds for divorce and I know she's not totally settled on it. She only had to change her paradigm because of the abuse I've caused and she could not handle it.

Even me, I can see some possible Biblical grounds for divorce. However, finding Biblical reasons for remarriage is even harder outside of death. Finding Biblical grounds for divorce is a lot easier than for remarriage.

Remember, we are both Bible translators who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, that is why we had dedicated our lives to this cause.

And much of this is why I have hope for reconciliation. I can very well see her not remarrying ever (without any input from me), and that leaves the door wide open for reconciliation. Now, on the other hand, if I date around or remarry, the door to reconciliation will SHUT quickly. If she does remarry, it'll be loooong time and the person most likely get remarried first is me. This isn't a contest to see who can hold out the longest, nor do I want her to remarry so that it lets me off the hook. I believe in reconciliation because I believe in God's heart for restoration and I know she does too. It's just that she's so hurt and damaged right now, she needs to leave the marriage to start the healing process.

Many people asked me, "if there another man?" I would bet my life there isn't. We held out for our first kiss until our wedding day. She had a boyfriend in college that she kissed, but after college, she didn't even give or receive a peck until she was 31 on our wedding day despite men lining up to court her the entire time.

Immediately after we got married, she cut off all relationships with male friends on her accord because she said that's what God put on her heart.

Also, she partly knows what I think. When she announced she would divorce me three weeks ago, she said to me, "when you get remarried, I will tell her all about the abuse so that you will never treat your next wife that way." I then told her, "the only thing I will do is to stay celibate or be reconciled to you." She didn't say anything back. She knows what my thoughts are.

So that's a long answer to your short question. Am I terribly afraid of her being remarried? No. If she does, I will be heartbroken, but I am not expecting it, at least for a looong time.

 

[ValleyGal]

To touch on each of your points, I will start with becoming one. If becoming one is nothing more than a sexual union, that truly limits God’s work in your hearts. Sexual frequency dwindles, and often is quite infrequent among the old old. When Paul talks about marrying someone who is an equal yoke, this is the starting point for becoming one. Social psychology actually supports this. The more alike a couple is to start with, the more likely they stay together and the greater their marital satisfaction. There are always going to be some differences, but it’s about working together – being a team, operating within the marriage as “one.” God is Spirit, so imo, when he talks about becoming one, it’s more about spirit than it is about sex.

Eph 5:25, only because you asked specifically (I’m not trying to go against forum rules), is about taking up your cross, and following Christ. It means self-sacrifice, it means setting yourself aside for her benefit. It means serving her and thinking of her more (above) yourself, no matter what it costs you. It is about living out your Christian faith starting with your wife.

Applying that to you in your situation, what is in your ex-wife’s best interest? Right now, until you have healed and can be trusted to treat her properly, her best interest is to not be with you. So it is in her best interest to divorce so she can be free to find someone who will not abuse her.

Jesus’ relationship with us is bilateral. Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners (and this is also how you should love your wife). But….to be joined with him at the marriage feast, it is only those who belong to the body of believers. We need to reciprocate in order to be with him as the bride.

First Cor 7 – Paul says that to the Unmarried (meaning divorced), and to the widows, it is better to stay unmarried, but if they burn with passion, then they should marry. It then goes on to say that if a wife separates (not divorce, but separate), then she should be reconciled to her husband. Then further down in verses 27-28, it says that if you’re married, don’t seek a divorce, if you’re unmarried (divorced), don’t seek a spouse, but if you do, you have not sinned AND if a virgin (one who has never been married) marries, she has not sinned. This says to me that remarriage after divorce or death of a spouse is not sin and is allowable.

It seems as though there is more support for celibacy and staying unmarried than there is for remarriage; however, much is lost in translation and culture. This is why deep study is so necessary. We can’t take any English version and think it is infallible. We need to see it in context of the original manuscripts.

Maybe if you study this topic deeply, it will help you to work out your angst over your own separation and divorce. I recommend a great website called www.divorcehope.com. Dig into it and study. A clear understanding might be liberating for you, and might help you to let the marriage go. Once you do, it will be that much easier to work through your own trauma that led you to be abusive to your ex wife.

 

[ValleyGal]

Remember, we are both Bible translators who believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, that is why we had dedicated our lives to this cause.

Are you translating from Hebrew and Greek, or are you translating from English?

 

[dw2000]

Are you translating from Hebrew and Greek, or are you translating from English?

From the Greek and Hebrew. We both felt we were called to do Bible translation for life to peoples without the scriptures and so we studied the original languages.

 

[ValleyGal]

Then it might be a good idea to study about divorce and remarriage using those originals. You will find that God is in full support of divorcees marrying again, and that there are more causes for divorce than adultery.

 

[technofox]

I have been through an abusive marriage and sounds like your marriage is over. I would have an attorney read the divorce papers prior to signing them. My situation differs from yours in that it was my ex-wife who was the abuser. I filed first after getting peace from God about it.

If your wife wants to reconcile then you should sign the papers and ask her to pray for your recovery. Seriously and leave it at that. From there let God take care of the rest.

 

[technofox]

And I say be wary of "Christians" who say to stay at any and all costs. She can file and he can refuse to sign. The court will most likely rule in her favor and grant the divorce. It just may take longer. Way to minimize the situation. It's "her" baggage and he's only responsible for "some" of it?? Oh goodness... Malachi 2:16 says God hates divorce. Before you sign something to do what God hates, you must be certain it's what He wants; not what your spouse wants. Not what your advisors want. Not what any attorneys want. Not even what you want.

One of the most misguided, misused Scriptures. God doesn't hate divorce. He hates that a man seperates from his wife and doesn't give her the divorce papers. There are 2 specific and different words in both the Hebrew and Greek (for Old and New Testaments) that speak to each. God divorced Israel (Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 3:8). Why would He do something He hates? Again, he can wait if he wants. She can file anyway and the judge can grant the divorce without him signing. He already broke his promise to love her. Unless your definition of loving her means to abuse her and "possess" her?? What a load of guilt! He is not fit to be in a covenant with his wife or any woman at the moment. He needs to resolve his issues. While he's doing that, she is free to file and the court is free to grant a divorce. And neither should you. You have no idea what his wife is doing. Is it God's plan for a woman to continue in a marriage where she doesn't feel safe and is abused? The only "flag" is he doesn't want to let her go. A broken person cannot have a healthy marriage until that brokenness is resolved and dealt with. In the end, the OP can beg, plead, and refuse to sign, but it's her choice on whether or not to stay. It's his choice on whether or not to focus on repairing his brokenness. It's God's choice on whether or not He wants to intervene.[/QUOTE]

This is probably the best advice for the OP's situation.