When Aron Ralston fell into a deep crevice on the mountain, a boulder tumbled after him, pinning his arm. After days, Aron realized he had to choose between his arm and his life, and so he severed his arm with his knife.
Divorce is an amputation. It cuts into each of you, into the “one” that God has joined together. So why, Jesus was asked, was divorce permitted at all? Jesus said it was because of the hardness of men’s hearts, meaning that when a hard heart breaks the marriage covenant, it may be merciful to allow the victim a divorce.
Malachi is often quoted where we read “God hates divorce,” but you must read that phrase in context, for so often this phrase has been used as a bludgeon to hammer the victims of divorce. God’s heart breaks for you! In Malachi He was THUNDERING against the men who tossed aside their wives for pagan women. He wept for those women and he wept for the men who were professing faith yet treating the “wives of their youth” treacherously. Eugene Peterson paraphrases it like this:
I hate divorce,” says the God of Israel. God-of-the-Angel-Armies says, “I hate the violent dismembering of the ‘one flesh’ of marriage.”
This was not how things were meant to be.
InThe Meaning of Marriage, Tim and Kathy Keller say that 2/3’s of couples who consider divorce, if they hang on, are happy in their marriages five years later. So often it is stubborn pride, rather than a broken covenant, that leads to divorce, and the couple will regret it for the rest of their lives.
But never will you hear me say again, the way I did when I was a know-it-all young Christian, “divorce is not in my vocabulary.” It’s in God’s vocabulary, so we must not be holier than God. God knows sometimes an amputation is necessary for life and gives exceptions, which we will study.
Our own gentle Nanci, whom I was privileged to meet and love, shares this testimony:
My first marriage was an emotionally destructive relationship…I was pelted with hurtful words and actions, disinterest, deceit; we attended counseling three different times in the 10 year relationship. I have said before, I view the end of that marriage as a blessing; had that marriage not ended, I would not be enjoying the emotionally uplifting relationship with my husband of 14+ years…my daughters would have not witnessed the loving, kind, respectful relationship they witnessed…they would not have the “family” relationship “our family” provided that they now hold and value… I reiterate…the steps are difficult and require calm, strength, and fortitude, but they will either benefit the marriage or benefit the individual.
May we have compassion, may we study these challenging and controversial passages with hearts open to what God might teach us for ourselves, our children, and our sisters and brothers in Christ.
On a personal note, I believe we must honor marriage and fight for it. Our hearts are deceitful and proud and usually divorce is regretted. Having said that, I also think that when there is unrepented and continual abuse, that it is abandonment (The Christianity Today article we will read this week takes that controversial stance) and that it takes courage and faith to separate and demand the spouse get help. Why? He or she may opt for divorce instead and you will need to trust God to be your husband. But abuse, physical or emotional, is so devastating to both the spouse and the children, and so likely to be passed to subsequent generations, that, in my opinion, separation in these situations takes the same kind of courage that Aron Ralston had in severing his arm.
Sunday Icebreaker:
1. What stands out to you from the above and why?
Monday-Wednesday Bible Study:
The prevailing teaching on marriage, beginning in Genesis, is that the two shall be one. The other commands about marriage, including divorce, flow from that central teaching.
God thunders at the men who have disregarded their holy union and instead of covering their wives with protection, have covered them with treachery. He is holding them accountable — as he did the husbands in 1 Peter 3:7.
2. Read Malachi 2:13-16
A. How are the men giving an appearance of godliness?
B. Why isn’t the Lord answering their prayers?
C. The Hebrew of verse 16 is difficult, but I do think Eugene Peterson caught it above. What is God saying?
D. If you are a victim of divorce or have a friend who is, how might this passage bring comfort?
3. In Mark 10 and Matthew 19, Jesus addresses divorce and adultery. Many Jewish men were divorcing their wives for “any cause,” even burning the toast.
A. What question in Matthew 19:3 is asked of Jesus?
B. How does Jesus go back to God’s plan for marriage in Matthew 19:4-6? What is He communicating about marriage and divorce?
C. What is the next question and answer from Jesus in Matthew 19: 7-9?
D. Challenge question: why does adultery break the marriage covenant?
E. What is the response of the disciples to this? Why, do you think?
F. What does Jesus say in Matthew 19:10-12? What does this mean and how might this be applied?
Next week, when we look at the mystery of sex (and how it parallels our relationship with Christ) we will see it is a gift and it is wrong for groups to forbid it, as the Catholic church has for priests. (1 Timothy 4:3)
4. Read 1 Corinthians 7:12-16
A. Why, according to 1 Corin. 7:12-14 should a believer stay with an unbeliever and not file for divorce?
B. What exception is made in verse 15 and why? What do you think the phrase, “not enslaved,” or “not bound” means?
C. Why is abandonment the breaking of a covenant?
5. Now here is the controversial part. I agree with the following article from Christianity Today. He defines abandonment according to the Old Testament. This article drew heat however. Please read it, summarize it, and comment on it. (Please copy and paste) http://www.agathosministries.org/Sermons111107b.pdf
Thursday-Friday Sermon by Tim Keller
6. Please listen, summarize, and comment.
http://www.gospelinlife.com/marriage-divorce-singleness-6425.html
Saturday:
7. What is your take-a-way and why?
273 comments
E. What is the response of the disciples to this? Why, do you think? That it is better not to marry. I think they may be thinking that it is less risky to stay unmarried than to have divorced for reasons other than unfaithfulness and then to have married another woman and be called an adulterer. Since that is what Jesus just said. Jesus seems to be saying that the reasons for which Moses permitted divorce (hardness of heart) are no longer applicable as he only leaves room for infidelity. (So now I am getting things in my mind muddled up again in regard to the balance of mercy and truth and the issues of abuse as we’ve talked about last week.) Am I missing something? Or is that yet to come in this lesson?
F. What does Jesus say in Matthew 19:10-12? What does this mean and how might this be applied?
He says that this message doesn’t apply to everyone…..not those born as eunuchs or those made that way by others. I guess that means sexual intimacy and adultery would not be an issue for them. AND it also doesn’t apply to those who renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. This made me think of the monastic movement and people like Rich Mullins who, after a heart rending, broken relationship was very influenced by St. Francis and took vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. (and started the ‘Kid Brothers of St. Frank’ movement.) Did he renounce marriage because of the kingdom of heaven? That was my first thought when I watched the movie but I haven’t read any more in depth biographies (other than online pages) and of course, who but God knows our hearts? There are others I think of in the contemporary monastic movements. For example: John Michael Talbot and the ‘Brothers and Sisters of Charity” who also take vows of chastity. Because of the kingdom of heaven? I think so.
As far as the reference to literal eunuchs and the societal issues (cringe) that surround the practice all through history…..I’m still thinking how this applies in a non literal sense. I kinda skimmed over that part of the question and just took it literally. I’m with Laura on this one…it’s confusing and I’m not seeing what it means.
I looked up the definition to eunuch and this brought some light into how that last part of the passage fits in ……A eunuch (/ˈjuːnək/; Greek: εὐνοῦχος) is a man who (by the common definition of the term) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. In some ancient texts, “eunuch” may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function; this was common in many societies
E. What is the response of the disciples to this? Oh wow… they said that if divorcing and remarrying = adultery, it’s better not to marry. Why, do you think? I might be all mixed up, but it sounds to me that they had accepted the views of marriage that those around them had: that a man gets married & if he isn’t happy, he gets rid of his wife and tries again. i.e., if they get married, they might be trapped in an unhappy marriage. If they are single, they are not trapped.
F. What does Jesus say in Matthew 19:10-12? What does this mean and how might this be applied?
The Easy-to-Read Version (that’s really what it’s called on Bible Gateway 🙂 ) says
I sorta feel as if I am making things up. (I like this version because the word “eunuch” isn’t used!). I think Jesus is saying that not everyone SHOULD marry, that marriage isn’t easy, and that God grants His gift of grace and strength to commit to marriage. And that if someone isn’t willing to commit to faithfulness in marriage (& accept God’s strength to work through the difficulties), s/he should remain single. God also provides his grace/strength for singleness (“because of God’s kingdom”). SO, both being married and being single are gifts from God, and He provides the grace to be faithful to Him. (So, is being a eunuch like having a hysterectomy, “made that way [unable to produce children] later in life” ???? ) I wonder how many Bible guys knew they couldn’t have kids before they were married???
If this is remotely close to what the passage means, it’s actually encouraging.
Not thinking you were asking the question seriously, Renee….but I’ll respond anyway! No…I don’t think so. Hysterectomy is not the same…..usually done for health reasons. (and sometimes because women are physically/mentally unable to bear and care for children) But usually for several and varied health reasons. But becoming a eunuch; ‘made that way by men’ has to be an example of terroristic and social oppression at best. (started reading a novel about the Terracotta Warriors and had to stop because the descriptions of this were over the top. True, I think. But over the top-horrific. Ugh. And there is, of course the female equivalent in some violent, oppressive cultures today.) Maybe hysterectomy was done for social dominance too….but not to my knowledge. But the ‘easy to read’ translation does have a point. Maybe it is talking about the inability to produce children with the reference to eunuch being symbolic. That would explain men who were ‘born that way’ but as you alluded….I don’t think they had medical labs and knowledge of fertility and sperm counts so…..how would one know except in retrospect? I think there must be several ways to interpret this passage.
Renee, I like this easy to read version much better. I looked up the word Eunuch and it was not real pleasant, it made things clearer to what God was saying in this passage but it wasn’t pretty.
Renee–really like your answer to “F” :“SO, both being married and being single are gifts from God, and He provides the grace to be faithful to Him.”
I’ve wondered what ‘eunuchs because they were born that way’ meant in Jesus day too. I’ve seen this verse reappropriated by the gay marriage lobby to say that Jesus knew and approved homosexuality. However, homosexuality is not evident in babies so that interpretation doesn’t make sense to me. I rather think that at that time, people would have considered people became homosexual when the preference and behaviour became evident? Maybe?
I’ve also seen impotence as an interpretation, but again, that would not be evident at birth. I don’t see that impotent men would be described as ‘born that way’, or even as eunuchs.
Eunuchs because the were born that way – would that refer to intersex babies and other deformities that were evident at birth? Other ancient literature talks about natural eunuchs as a separate category to castrati – males who have been castrated.
Wow….I’m just caught up with all the comments! This is really intense!
My dad always told us kids to always make sure your knife was sharpened very well, because you never know when you might have to cut of a finger or something worse…..and you would NOT want a dull knife!
I think you all know my story of two divorces well enough to not have to repeat it, but it does tear you apart….mostly your heart. And your kids take it worse than you do most the time. I think that’s why so many kids live with each other now days. They are scared of divorce. Maybe I’m wrong.
I’m busy with a bible study here, but can’t leave this one alone….I’m tied to you all like sisters are meant to be!
laura, I’m praying for Sarah and your tough love…so hard.
So good to hear from you Mary e. , and so nice to have you here Liz!
Love Lucille Ball’s quote too.
Thanks Joyce! Missing you.
Joyce – so good to see you checking in…..and thankful your “in person” studies are so meaningful to you. You’ve been on my heart a lot, sister, through these past several weeks of study…..praying God’s peace and wisdom and provision in your life right now.
Here is the definition that I looked up. It made things clearer in more ways then one……A eunuch (/ˈjuːnək/; Greek: εὐνοῦχος) is a man who (by the common definition of the term) may have been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. In some ancient texts, “eunuch” may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate. Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function; this was common in many societies. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the 21st century BC.[1
When Aron Ralston fell into a deep crevice on the mountain, a boulder tumbled after him, pinning his arm. After days, Aron realized he had to choose between his arm and his life, and so he severed his arm with his knife.
I am in awe at how the Lord, in His divine wisdom as He is removing idols from my heart, He is replacing my idols with truth.I often feel sad and condemned about my past marriage which ended in divorce. I know it I would have stayed I would be dead by now. My ex-husband last act of violence towards me was an attempt to drown me and when this did not work he tried to tie me to railroad. As the Lord is exposing the idols in my heart, He is also exposing the root causes. Which take me down memory lane. It is so easy for me when I am reliving my past to fall back into what makes me comfortable or secure. Self salvation strategies to keep a abuse from ever happening to me again. I feel that I will be exposed to truth about my divorce and how God feels about me and divorce and learn to run to God and my gods.
Roshanda so glad you are here. I pray the Lord continue to work in your life bringing healing from that past. I KNOW He is able and it sounds like you are seeking that. I try to think of others in far worse places and pray for them when things feel heavy here. I pray I do that more often. Jesus certainly walked a road before us. I pray He can use your past for His glory.
Roshanda I’m so sorry for what you had to deal with. Continue to turn to the Lord for your comfort and strength. He will always guide you and be there for you.
Praying for you, Roshanda. Sometimes, it’s hard to fathom the pain that one person can put another through. Our peace is only found in Jesus who is the antithesis of selfishness and hatred. He loved us and gave Himself for us…..and one day will wipe away all our tears. Prayers that you feel His loving peace surrounding you today, sister.
Oh my goodness, Roshanda! Those acts your ex-husband tried to kill you by doing are horrible! I’m so thankful he didn’t succeed and here you are! Thank The Lord. He is amazing. Amen.
A. Why, according to 1 Corin. 7:12-14 should a believer stay with an unbeliever and not file for divorce?
They should stay together because there might be a chance of conversion by one of them.
B. What exception is made in verse 15 and why? What do you think the phrase, “not enslaved,” or “not bound” means?
The believer is not bound to the marriage if the non- believer leaves. He/she is freed upon this event occurring. I suppose God still wants happiness for His people, and the ending part of the verse does say we should all live in peace. If that means without the marriage then so be it.
Oh Roshanda – the abuse you describe in your first marriage is truly horrific. But what stands out to me in your testimony is that the Lord delivered you!!!! The Lord is with you and He is gently leading you to be able to look back just enough to GROW and move forward with Him. When I think about God’s kingdom on earth, your story sure “fits”……here you are…..bruised and battered…..yet experiencing the love of Christ and going deeper with Him. I just looked at Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians in Ephesians 1:15-22 and felt led to pray that for you – the prayers of the Scriptures are SO GOOD to pray for one another! So much stands out….but especially the little phrase….”that you may know the hope to which he has called you”. May his hope fill your heart and lighten your steps this day!
3. In Mark 10 and Matthew 19, Jesus addresses divorce and adultery. Many Jewish men were divorcing their wives for “any cause,” even burning the toast.
A. What question in Matthew 19:3 is asked of Jesus?
Is it okay for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?
B. How does Jesus go back to God’s plan for marriage in Matthew 19:4-6? What is He communicating about marriage and divorce?
Jesus goes back to Genesis 2 and explains that when God joins and man and woman they become one flesh, not two. God is the one who does this and let no man tear apart what God has joined together.
C. What is the next question and answer from Jesus in Matthew 19: 7-9?
The Pharisees asked, Why did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus answered it was because of their hardness of heart-they were mean not loving and kind to their wives. In the beginning God did not design it that way so if a man divorces is wife for frivolous reasons, except for sexual immorality, and then remarries, he is committing adultery.
D. Challenge question: why does adultery break the marriage covenant?
When you have sex you become one with that person. God designed sex to consummate the marriage-to become one. So if the wife or husband has sex outside the marriage they break that one-ness covenant they had with each other.
E. What is the response of the disciples to this? Why, do you think?
That it is better not to marry then. Perhaps either they saw that they too could fall into this hardness of heart due to the deception of their own hearts and they didn’t want to do anything that would grieve God, or they just didn’t want to be distracted from following Jesus.
F. What does Jesus say in Matthew 19:10-12? What does this mean and how might this be applied?
Not everyone is made or meant to be married. Some are born desiring to remain single, some are made single by men and some have decided to remain single for the sake of the Kingdom. I haven’t seen this or related it to other passages about being single, but it definitely fits. To apply this perhaps is to say singleness really is special! If you are single you have more undistracted intimate time with Jesus and really can help us who are distracted see His Love. I think of Rich Mullins and other singles as a great example of this.
4. . Why, according to 1 Corin. 7:12-14 should a believer stay with an unbeliever and not file for divorce?
There is the possibility that they will come to believe.
B. What exception is made in verse 15 and why? What do you think the phrase, “not enslaved,” or “not bound” means?
The exception made in v. 15 is that if the unbeliever decides to leave, let them leave. I think that “not enslaved” or “not bound” means freedom from the unequally yoked relationship.
C. Why is abandonment the breaking of a covenant?
“Abandonment” is defined as “to leave completely and finally; forsake utterly; desert; to give up; discontinue; withdraw from.” (Dictionary.com) The covenant is broken because the relationship is no longer in tact…it has been severed.
Reading the Malachi passage instills the words, “Guard your hearts.” Yes, God hates violence and sins that injure a marriage partner.
The Matthew passage is more familiar to me.
A. Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?
B. God’s plan for marriage is a united relationship: no longer are they two but one flesh.
C. But mens’ hearts were hard (I think about the abusive issues in this respect for does this not cause the emotional and other abuses?)
D. Challenge question:Adultery breaks the marriage covenant- why? I think that the one involved has joined to another unlawfully.
E. The response of the disciples, “It is better not to marry, then.”
F. Jesus said, “Not everyone can accept this word. Some are born eunuchs, others were made that way by men and others renounced it because of the Kingdom of God. As others have said, it is hard to understand these words. I believe the first category means that there is no urge/desire to marry, and then I think of the second category as those who have witnessed harm in their lives that have caused a trust issue, and the third category is perhaps because of the desire to serve God and not have other responsibilities to a marriage partner.
Marriage requires much work and not everyone can work through the differences and remain strong. I also know that divorce requires calmness and strength and fortitude. Relationships are difficult and our culture does not nourish loyalty and truth.
Some profound truth in your last three sentences, Shirley.
Sisters,
Such a difficult discussion here this week. My heart is heavy for the pain among us here….. It all culminated for me here this morning with this Sara Groves song entitled Heart Wide Open Like a Lake.
Lord, sometimes it takes more courage than we have to be transparent with one another. Thank you for the brokenness that you produce so that we can share our stories with each other and in this way bear each other’s burdens.
The song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XTSGQbicZM
The lyrics:
so much hurt and preservation
like a tendril round my soul
so much painful information
no clear way on how to hold it
when everything in me is tightening
curling in around this ache
I will lay my heart wide open
like the surface of a lake
wide open like a lake
standing at this waters edge
looking in at God’s own heart
I’ve no idea where to begin
to swallow up the way things are
everything in me is drawing in
closing in around this pain
I will lay my heart wide open
like the surface of a lake
wide open like a lake
bring the wind and bring the thunder
bring the rain till I am tried
when it’s over bring me stillness
let my face reflect the sky
and all the grace and all the wonder
of a peace that I can’t fake
wide open like a lake
everything in me is tightening
curling in around this ache
I am fighting to stay open
I am fighting to stay open
open open oh wide open
open like a lake
Good discussions and interactions.
I do think the disciples were looking for an easy way out if they didn’t like their wives, and Jesus won’t give them that. It is rather like “Count the cost.” You may have to work hard in your marriage. The eunuch passage is interesting — and within the cultural context we know some men were cruelly castrated if they were to guard the queen. There are various factors, some due to sin, and some due to feeling called that could cause one to renounce marriage. But I know, according to 1 Timothy, it is wrong for the church to forbid marriage. I know many women say they don’t feel called but have not been found by a man. That is hard. I have seen, in recent times, women find their mate through Christian internet sites and I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Interesting discussion!
Wow! interesting comments. My sister-in-law divorced many years ago, as her husband requested and because he had been unfaithful. The irony is that she and her ex have a good friendship, which they needed to parent their three kids. Now she is able to pray for him and share Christ with him and he is not threatened, but genuinely listening.
On another note, it has been four weeks since my eye surgery. Still have the gas bubble in my eye, about 20%, so it affects my vision, especially when using the computer. Please continue to pray. I hope to have my full vision restored, but until the gas bubble dissipates the doctor cannot really tell about my fine vision.
Continuing to pray, Sherryl!
Good to hear from you Sherryl. Glad that it sounds like the worst of the recovery is over. Praying for a good outcome overall.
Praying for your recovery, too, Sherryl
2A. The men here are giving an appearance of godliness by weeping and wailing and groaning at the altar of the Lord – saying why does the Lord not accept our offering? The appearance seems to me to be even a sense of repentance – it makes me think of the N.T. text that differentiates between “worldly sorrow” and “godly sorrow”…their sorrow to me is that they are not getting what they want on THEIR terms! Nothing real or the slightest bit worshipful about it!
2B. When the men question: “Why is He not?” (accepting us)….the answer is immediate….”BECAUSE the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.” Covenant. How casually we have taken what God sees as non negotiable. It seems that everywhere I turn I am reading about “polyamorous marraiges” – really???? RAPIDLY gaining acceptance in our culture and riding the wave of the homosexual marriage movement and it’s successes in the political arena.
2C. God is saying that divorce is like the “violent dismembering of the one flesh of marriage.” Bringing in the God-of-the-Angel-Armies makes me tremble inside…..it’s almost as though divorce is declaring war on God. It was nearly 7 or so years after my divorce that I began to get a glimpse of this…..I remember it as though it was yesterday – I was, most glamorously, mucking out horse stalls and I was emptying a wheelbarrow into the muck pile. Right there at the muck pile (how appropriate, really) God smote my heart with the enormity of my sin. I was a very new believer in Christ and was remarried. The verses in Matt: 5: 23&24 burned my soul……I realized I was “offering my gift at the altar” and the Lord wanted me to LEAVE my gift…..and go, confess my sin and make amends – such as I could. I walked away from the muck pile (fortunately we had our own business, so I wasn’t on someone else’s timeclock!!) and went into the house, sat down and wrote a long letter to my ex-husband, asking his forgiveness and detailing my sin in seeking the divorce – frivolously. My ex-husband and I had a wonderful son together and spoke often and easily about Zack…..however, it was about 2 years before Lou ever even acknowledged receipt of my letter……and he assured me that I was entirely forgiven by him. I totally understand that it took him that long to wrestle is through…..and I don’t think it was any coincidence at ALL that he met the woman he has now been married to for over 20 years in the next month!! Forgiveness breaks chains.
2D. I think for victims of divorce, it is ever so comforting to remember that God sees all. God knows all. God DOES care that you have been so deeply sinned against. A day of reckoning will come if the perpetrator is unrepentant. And He is on your side. He’s got your back. Even the BEST human marraiges are only pale reflections…..we WILL fail one another often. He will never fail us.
Jackie, your personal experience of making peace with your ex-husband says so much to me. When I went to my friend, Steve’s funeral last month, I thought a lot about divorce as the marriage between he and his wife was a second one for both of them. Yet, at his burial, his wife extended such grace and love publicly, to his first wife in such a moving way. I also spent time with another classmate at the funeral, who told me a lot about his two marriages and how, now after many years, things go pretty smoothly when communication with his ex-wife is necessary regarding family events. They had divorced after her unfaithfulness. I don’t know if any of these situations involved the kind of obedience to God’s prompting that you described. Your story is exemplary from that standpoint….how you acted in faith as a new believer, to make amends as you felt Him leading you. But what I do see in each of the above, as well as in others that I know, is that God’s mercy is wide and He can so completely redeem lives that are broken and ‘mucked up’. Thank you for sharing this.
Jackie,
Such life-giving words in your answer to 2D.
And He is on your side. He’s got your back. Even the BEST human marraiges are only pale reflections…..we WILL fail one another often. He will never fail us.
Jackie, I love this: “Forgiveness breaks chains” and your beautiful story of asking for forgiveness. Thank you.
3A. The question asked of Jesus was “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”.
3B. I think it’s important to note that it is, once again, the Pharisees who are questioning Jesus – their intent was ALWAYS to try to discredit him before the people who were hanging on his words. I LOVE the way Jesus questions them right back! “Have you not read…..?” If ANYONE should have understood God’s design for marriage, it should have been those whose life’s work it was to study the Scriptures! But they were blind. So Jesus reminds them that “in the beginning God created them male and female.”……”Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife. and the two shall become one flesh.” He also reminds them that it is God himself who creates the “one flesh” of marriage. I think Jesus is communicating that marriage really belongs to God. He created it, he ordered it and he creates the one flesh experience. He is the ONLY one with the “right” to end marriage. Which of course, happens at the death of one of the marriage partners. As well as the other situations we’re delving into………
3C. The Pharisees’ next question was “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” Jesus answer is that because of the hardness of their hearts Moses ALLOWED (not commanded, Jesus is rebuking them for twisting the Scripture) divorce. Then Jesus comes right back around to “from the beginning”…….it was not so. Not God’s design. God’s design is so beautiful: one flesh, loyalty, companionship for life.
3D. As so many have stated here, adultery brings another (or others) into the covenant between the two whom God has united as one flesh. It is no longer the same entity at all. Again, I can’t help but think of the rise of polyamorous marriage that so many are beginning to defend on so many levels……”more love for all”, etc. Ugh.
3E. The disciples response to this is that if this is the case, it is better not to marry! Why is that their response? I must admit, I have no idea! I can only think that they had been so “conditioned” to the religious leaders’ way of defining marriage and divorce, that Jesus’ words seemed “impossible”. I’m sure all of us have read the opinions of some today that man is not made for monogamy for a lifetime. Generally this way of thinking comes directly out of evolutionary thinking if I am remembering correctly. Indeed, as the world looks around, it does look bleak for one man and one woman for a lifetime – but what a MINISTRY to the lost such marraiges that honor Christ can be! What an opportunity to show the world that, with God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE!!!
3F. Jesus’ response to his disciples dismay seems to me to be acknowledging that , yes, there’s a challenge here in this message! “Not everyone can receive it”……”but only those to whom it is given”…….I guess Jesus is saying that for some it is indeed better not to marry? Some people truly do have the gift of celibacy – as it seems Paul clearly talks about celibacy in this way in 1Cor 7:6……but I think we’re coming up on questions from that chapter next, so that’s all I’ll say on that. Besides, I clearly may be way off track here! All of Jesus’ talk about “eunuchs” and the different ways one becomes a eunuch is a little confusing. I have a hard time comparing eunuchs from birth with those who choose to be eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom…..but I guess Jesus is just acknowledging that sometimes being a eunuch comes from the great brokenness of our sinful world – and other times being a eunuch comes as a gift from God to further the kingdom of heaven. ?????
Jackie — that’s the way I interpret that. That sometimes celibacy is a choice, and sometimes from brokenness in the world.
4A. The believing spouse is not to separate from the unbelieving spouse because their presence in the marriage brings holiness into the marriage. Not that the unbelieving spouse is saved by the believer’s faith – but think of it, the Holy Spirit dwells in the believing spouse….thus, the unbelieving spouse is continually exposed to His work in the believer’s life!
4B. The exception that is made to this in v. 15 is “but if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so.” Don’t cling, don’t beg, don’t manipulate. Let the peace of Christ rule your heart. The phrase “not enslaved” or “not bound” to me clearly indicates that in God’s eyes, when the unbeliever abandons the marriage, it is over. The one flesh union has been broken.
4C. Abandonment breaks the covenant because the covenant clearly calls each party to cleave to the other. Leaving and cleaving are mutually exclusive states of being. Although I have to say here that I believe a TEMPORARY separation – not a divorce – for the PURPOSE of restoring the health and vitality of the marriage is an entirely different kind of separation than this passage is referring to.
I’d be interested for you to elaborate on why you believe that the passage might not be calling for a separation with hope to restore marriage.
Dee – what I just meant to say was that I didn’t see 1 Cor 7 as dealing with or alluding to even the possiblitiy of this kind of separation – which I strongly believe in as a possible godly way of dealing with abuse in marriage, for instance. Not that the passage is in any way condemning this kind of separation – just not talking about it, but rather talking about the kind of separation that would be synonymous with divorce. Ok – to give a “practical example”: in my own marriage to a non-believer, with a history of a season of emotional abuse, I can see in this passage that I need to be willing to stay in the marriage – IF my non-believing husband desires to stay…….but if my husband exhibits a pattern of emotional abuse and threats to leave the marriage, then I can see from the whole of scripture that I may need to “speak up, stand up …..back up”. Not only for my own protection – but for the very real possibility of calling my husband back into a healthy, respectful partnership. If, however, these actions lead him to leave the marriage permanently, I am called to peace. It is well with my soul. Did that make any sense whatsoever?? It’s been a very LONG week and my focus is not what it should be……still, I’m loving this study – daily am so grateful that you have “taken us on”!!
It makes perfect sense and I appreciate the great clarification!
4. Read 1 Corinthians 7:12-16
A. Why, according to 1 Corin. 7:12-14 should a believer stay with an unbeliever and not file for divorce? – The unbeliever will be sanctified thru the believer and the kids you have will be holy
B. What exception is made in verse 15 and why? What do you think the phrase, “not enslaved,” or “not bound” means? – If the unbeliever leaves than we are ok to let them go. I think “not bound” means that we are not tied to them or assigned to them where we are trying to convince them to believe. It makes me feel like if we made them stay we would be working so hard to keep them there that they would become like an idol to us that we would focus more on keeping peace than focusing on our own relationship with God and live our lives pleasing to Him where the spouse may realize and give their life to the Lord from our actions in life. This was another verse I was standing on in my first marriage but was confused on what I was supposed to do with an unbelieving husband. My pastor at the time told me I was taking it in the wrong context and pointed out to me that my spouse had to be “WILLING” wanting to live with me which he was not. This helped me so much because I thought if I gave up and let him leave I would be sinning.
C. Why is abandonment the breaking of a covenant? – I think this goes back to the beginning of when God put the two together as one. This union or marriage was His creation and if we abandon it we are splitting apart something God has put together for good.
Good word from your pastor.
Is there a way to get the article without having to pay for a subscription?
Julie…..go back to the previous page of comments. Elizabeth posted a link. I haven’t tried it yet, but I know it’s there.
Thanks Wanda I found it and included it again below.
A. Why, according to 1 Corin. 7:12-14 should a believer stay with an unbeliever and not file for divorce? For the sanctification of the unbelieving partner and/or the children. This is complicated. Some believe this verse also speaks to children entering into the covenant relationship with God when their parents do. (as the children of the Israelites under Abraham’s leadership entered into the covenant with their fathers through circumcision). Some think it means that the godly influence could persuade the unbeliever (and/or the children) to become believers. (However, of course only God can really do that). Keeping the peace is a high priority too. I do find it interesting that Paul begins this segment with “I, not the Lord” which makes it sound like a ‘suggestion’ rather than a command. But, it also could mean that Paul is saying that he is not quoting Jesus directly here. He does say in verse 40 that he believes that he thinks he has the Spirit of God (inspiring him).
B. What exception is made in verse 15 and why? What do you think the phrase, “not enslaved,” or “not bound” means? No longer bound to that person in marriage. I don’t know if the next verses say that that person is not free to marry again or not. Again, it seems like Paul is expressing his own opinions about this, by saying that everyone should remain ‘as they are’… And in looking at the rest of the passage, it seems that he is saying that because he believed the time was short and everyone should only focus on the Lords affairs and pleasing him…..for ‘this world and its present form is passing away’. Sometimes, when I’m reading Paul’s works, I wrestle with whether he is speaking out of his own experience and preferences/viewpoints….or if his message applies to all. He uses the phrase, ‘in my judgement’ at times.
C. Why is abandonment the breaking of a covenant? It is the tearing away of the ‘one flesh’. Even if the couple is never legally divorced, in practical terms, one party has not stayed loyal to the covenant, the agreement, the legally binding contract, because he/she is no longer an intertwined part of that other person. (to say nothing of the children who are also abandoned).
Here is the link that Elizabeth gave on page one to the Christianity Today article www.agathosministries.org/Sermons111107b.pdf Thanks Elizabeth
I feel so behind! I started a class at our local Seminary (RTS) this week and I’ve not kept up here as well as I’d like. I’m eager to read the good discussions above.
3 A. What question in Matthew 19:3 is asked of Jesus?
“Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
B. How does Jesus go back to God’s plan for marriage in Matthew 19:4-6? What is He communicating about marriage and divorce?
He goes back to Genesis—God’s creation of male and female and the declaration that marriage makes them one “So they are no longer two but one flesh.”
C. What is the next question and answer from Jesus in Matthew 19: 7-9?
They ask “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” And Jesus answers “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives”, but from this was not God’s design for marriage. Jesus adds that unless the divorce is due to sexual immorality, to divorce and remarry is committing adultery.
D. Challenge question: why does adultery break the marriage covenant?
(Maybe?) Because God says spiritual adultery breaks our Covenant with Him: Jeremiah 3:8 God says of Israel “for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce.”
E. What is the response of the disciples to this? Why, do you think?
It’s better not to marry. They see the difficulty, the seriousness of divorce, and assume it’s better to not enter into to marriage.
F. What does Jesus say in Matthew 19:10-12? What does this mean and how might this be applied?
He says that not everyone is called to be married, but it is a matter of calling and what is best for the Kingdom.
What class are you taking, Elizabeth?
Nanci–you have such an eye (or heart really!) for the details! I am taking a class on Romans at Reformed Theological Seminary. One of our pastors is the President there and he is offering a class specifically for women this year. So far, it’s been amazing–last week we spent 45 minutes on one verse! 🙂
Elizabeth, so great to hear that you are studying Romans at RTS. I studied at a Christian College many, many moons ago and absolutely LOVED it! The Bible came alive to me in that course!
Please read it, summarize it, and comment on it. In regard to the David Instone-Brewer article in CT. Wow. I would really like this to be true because it would give a lot of help to those going through the really tough issues….abuse, abandonment and adultery. I’m intrigued. Like Renee…..I think his book might clarify some things better. For instance: I can’t quite follow the leap from the Exodus portion speaking of rules for fathers selling their daughters into slavery (cringe) and the possible second marriage of their potential husband and applying those to marriage in general. However, it does sound like I-B has done his homework in studying the ancient texts as he has.
After googling Instone-Brewer, I clicked on the article Piper wrote in response. And that made me more confused since if I’m seeing what I think I’m seeing, Piper is saying that even adultery is not a reason for divorce? And that Christian marriages should so reflect the marriage between Christ and his bride that no man should separate it. But when it doesn’t….then what? (and Piper said several times, that every marriage would have grounds for divorce if Instone-Brewers premise was true)….. so what is the next step? Yes, breaking the marriage breaks the illustration of Christ and his bride. But the heart had already broken that image. Keeping an adulterous heart as an example of the marriage of Christ and his bride would be worse (hypocritical) than breaking the marriage and saying that it no longer could represent Christ and his bride. I know I wasn’t supposed to comment on the Piper article but I have a harder time accepting his statement (if I am understanding it correctly) than I do Instone-Brewer’s position……though I don’t completely understand IT either.
I am also interested in the covenant vs. contract relevancy that Renee brought into the discussion.
I’m READY to hear from others!
I just got done reading the article and I think David has done a great job in explaining and going deeper in to what the passage is really meant to mean. I think people make it mean what they want or need it to mean to fit the situation they are in, instead of understanding the true meaning. You cannot take away from the Word of God or add to it. God has inspired the writers to convey what He wants us all to know and understand. Our Pastor does expository preaching and he will say it all the time that if it is in the Bible he will be preaching on it. He doesn’t skip verses because they may be to complex he digs deeper to find what God wants him to say. And the same has to be with us we have to take each verse from beginning to end and stand on it and study it to understand it. I would like to see those commentaries that disagreed with this article, that would be interesting.
John Piper disagreed. You can find his response by googling their two names together. That’s the only one I’ve read so far.
I listened to a “debate” between him and another British guy who disagreed (don’t remember who). And even though it was called a debate, they both were so gracious to each other, while disagreeing, that it didn’t seem like a debate. They helped me see that there is room for disagreement (but the other guy didn’t make statements as extreme as Piper’s either; they focused a little more on remarriage)
I-B article: I appreciated the discussion of “any cause” marriage, but the last part of the article was confusing to me. It seemed that just about anything could be included in the the emotional and physical neglect categories and possibly in abandonment category, i.e., “we don’t love each other any more,” unemployment (today, women can get jobs as easily as men can), dementia… (and I admire those who stick with their spouses through illnesses that last so long and are so severe that they could seem like abandonment.). The last part of the article sorta left room for a position that Pat Robertson took (that drew considerable criticism) saying that a man should divorce a wife with Alzheimer’s disease.
So, I dug a little deeper and found a couple places where I-B apologized for lack of clarity in the CT article because the article did have the possibility of being misinterpreted. He also was very gracious in responses to Piper (and it was Piper who pointed out to him that the article did have the potential for misinterpretation). As the article is written, I’m not a fan! It seems that at first, he is disapproving of “any cause” divorces — and then opens the door for divorces for just about any cause. I couldn’t tell the difference between “minor” manipulation and emotional abuse (but he does clarify elsewhere that he is referring to chronic abuse). It almost seemed that the presence of any of the idols we have studied could justify divorce — according to the way I was understanding what seemed like very broad, vague criteria. I think the book would make more sense to me (as did his web site/blog). However, I’m not at the point of agreeing/disagreeing until I have a better understanding of what he means. Here is his blog on divorce and remarriage: http://divorceremarriage.blogspot.com and other things he wrote: http://www.premierchristianity.com/Regulars/David-Instone-Brewer
I don’t understand how not providing clothing and food would fit as a reason for divorce today. This is even more confusing because he seems to lean in an egalitarian direction.
Here’s a follow-up article in Christianity Today by Instone-Brewer. This clarified the first one and made more sense to me (at least the first part did!). The second part helped me better understand friends who take a pretty strong Catholic position — but I didn’t read it closely enough to understand it well. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2007/october/more-from-david-instone-brewer-on-divorce.html?paging=off
When I opened up this link, I realized that I had read it also, earlier when I was googling I-B’s name. You’re right. This is a gracious discussion. This clarification article, helps me personally, conclude that Piper’s premise of Jesus not allowing divorce for adultery is a shaky one. The article doesn’t really clear up some questions I have about I-B’s previous writing, but it gives a better understanding of the original language definitions of the words that relate to adultery and sexual sin.
If you want to read more of Instone-Brewer’s thoughts on divorce & remarriage, there is quite a bit online. He has 2 books Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible – that’s the academic book, and there’s not much of that online. The pastoral version is called Divorce & Remarriage in the Church, and a lot of that is available on his website.
http://www.instonebrewer.com/DivorceRemarriage/DRC/IndexBook.htm
C. Why is abandonment the breaking of a covenant?
The covenant in modern society is “till death do us part.” If one abandons the covenant, she/he has broken it because they haven’t died at this point.
Are these the only guidelines for the marriage covenant in NT times? It basically says to follow God’s laws after specifically saying no adultery should occur. “…Keeping God’s commands is what counts.” (1 Corinthians 7:19 NIV) In this passage it also says if the unbeliever leaves, then that’s ok. “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.”(1 Corinthians 7:15 NIV) so now I am confused because it says it’s okay to leave one another! If you leave, then aren’t you “abandoning” the covenant? You aren’t fulfilling the promise.
For past times, it says if you divorce then you are not supposed to remarry unless it is with your ex husband, or you commit adultery. So when you leave, you have agreed to be on your own, and marriage is a union of two; God and man/wife. Aren’t you breaking the covenant then?
Someone brought up the whole homosexual issue….this is so upsetting to me. These people take the biblical institution of marriage (Jesus to man/wife) and pervert it into what they want so they can justify their sinful behavior. No where that I read, in the bible (Old and NT) does it say it’s okay to be gay. Marriage is biblical and a covenant between God and man. If people want to be gay that’s their business, not mine. I care and wish they would see the light, but I don’t understand why they say they want to be “married,” when they aren’t following God’s law in the first place. Marriage is between God and man; a union of two that is holy. It is beautiful.
As far as the eunuch discussion….I am guessing people were born with birth defects, right?
Laura isn’t this passage referring to unbelievers leaving that, that is ok since they do not believe?
4. Read 1 Corinthians 7:12-16
A. Why, according to 1 Corin. 7:12-14 should a believer stay with an unbeliever and not file for divorce?
If an unbelieving spouse consents to live with a believing spouse. If the unbeliever is okay with staying then he and their children can be greatly influenced through the believing spouse.
B. What exception is made in verse 15 and why? What do you think the phrase, “not enslaved,” or “not bound” means?
If an unbelieving spouse desires to leave, let him. The believing spouse is not bound or enslaved which means they don’t have to fight for the marriage to stay together. This would rip apart his or her peace and trust in Christ. It would be tempting for the marriage to become an idol problem.
C. Why is abandonment the breaking of a covenant?
I think of Genesis when God designed the man and woman to become one covenanted together in Him. When abandonment happens in various forms it tears apart that oneness which is spiritually, emotionally and physically.
I can’t wait to get to the article!
5. Now here is the controversial part. I agree with the following article from Christianity Today. He defines abandonment according to the Old Testament. This article drew heat however. Please read it, summarize it, and comment on it.
Summary…David Instone-Brewer through study of ancient Jewish documents in addition to the bible texts realized that understanding of Jesus’ statement regarding divorce differed in the time when when it was shared and what is understood today. Jesus was strongly opposed to the divorce for any cause…”any cause” being something trivial or simply an excuse to end the marriage. The initial plan of the marital relationship was for the two to become one and that covenant relationship to remain in tact…that “marriage” was one of love, honor, and faithfulness. With “the fall,” came marital discord… The old and new testaments allow for divorce and remarriage for: adultery (Deu 24:1), emotional or physical neglect (Exo 21:10-11, 1 Cor 7), and abandonment and abuse (1 Cor 7). Jesus accepted that all of these were causes for spouses to divorce. the bottom line is that God doesn’t want divorce to occur, but He does allow for it and re-marriage in these circumstances.
This article is like a breath of fresh air… I so clearly recall being told by my priest that I was in mortal sin and not entitled to receive any sacraments until I had taken care of the matter of my first marriage being annulled…he wanted me in his office ASAP to address the situation, but until the annulment was “signed, sealed, and delivered,” I was destined for an eternal life in purgatory or hell. In my heart and mind I knew that the Lord forgave me for the failure of that marriage; He knew the circumstances…He saw it all…He understood. I wish I could have read this article at that time…it would have been very comforting (I may have even slide a copy under the priest’s door for his reading pleasure 🙂 ). Reading articles, such as this that put bible texts in the context of the time, whets my appetite to delve into this type of study…so interesting, so enlightening…what might I be missing in not fully understanding contextually? Great article…thanks for sharing it, Dee! (and thanks for the easy link Elizabeth).
sorry for the duplication…I went back to make edits and thought it hadn’t posted…the following is the edited version…:)
Nanci – your posts are always worth a second look anyway – :)!!!
🙂
Nanci, I felt as you did on the article. It cleared up a lot of questions I had about what Jesus is saying. I think it’s important to know the historical thought as well to understand throughly.
5. Now here is the controversial part. I agree with the following article from Christianity Today. He defines abandonment according to the Old Testament. This article drew heat however. Please read it, summarize it, and comment on it.
Summary…David Instone-Brewer through study of ancient Jewish documents in addition to the bible texts realized that understanding of Jesus’ statement regarding divorce differed in the time when it was shared and what is understood today. Jesus was strongly opposed to the divorce for any cause…”any cause” being something trivial or simply an excuse to end the marriage. The initial plan of the marital relationship was for the two to become one and that covenant relationship to remain in tact…this “marriage/covenant relationship” was one of love, honor, and faithfulness. With “the fall,” came marital discord… The old and new testaments allow for divorce and remarriage for: adultery (Deu 24:1), emotional or physical neglect (Exo 21:10-11, 1 Cor 7), and abandonment and abuse (1 Cor 7). Jesus accepted that all of these were causes for spouses to divorce. The bottom line is that God doesn’t want divorce to occur, but He does allow for it and re-marriage in these circumstances.
This article is like a breath of fresh air… I so clearly recall being told by my priest that I was in mortal sin and not entitled to receive any sacraments until I had taken care of the matter of my first marriage being annulled…he wanted me in his office ASAP to address the situation, but until the annulment was “signed, sealed, and delivered,” I was destined for an eternal life in purgatory or hell. In my heart and mind I knew that the Lord forgave me for the failure of that marriage; He knew the circumstances…He saw it all…He understood. I wish I could have read this article at that time…it would have been very comforting (I may have even slide a copy under the priest’s door for his reading pleasure 🙂 ). Reading articles, such as this that put bible texts in the context of the time, whets my appetite to delve into this type of study…so interesting, so enlightening…what might I be missing in not fully understanding contextually? Great article…thanks for sharing it, Dee! (and thanks for the easy link Elizabeth).
Nanci, Thanks for this post. You’ve provided such a clear example that how we interpret what we read depends on our own context, i.e., what we saw in I-B’s article was two different messages. Your post also helps me better understand other perspectives on abuse books that I’ve found comforting, crystal clear and very helpful (critics believed they were too harsh, but I read descriptions of exactly what I experienced). I grinned at the vision of you sliding the article under the priest’s door.
I don’t understand the Catholic position on annulment. In most situations, it has seemed to me that it IS divorce by another name — and that the term is often used as a “work-around” to avoid the term ‘divorce’ (or it takes place as a follow-up to divorce to make remarriage allowable). I’m particularly confused on how marriages could be annulled after children are born — because they cannot/should not be annulled!
I do know of a couple situations in which annulment occurred within a couple weeks of the marriage — but I don’t think those couples were Catholic.
I like reading about culture and context, too. It has been helpful to understand what has seeped into the church during the past couple hundred years and also helps me understand why American evangelicals interpret passages different from believers in other parts of the world. But it was a little disconcerting to think that much of what I had been taught about marriage, creation, heaven/hell, the second coming of Christ, etc. might be wrong. Listening to (vs simply reading) authors helps more because I can tell that they definitely are believers … and are able to graciously disagree. And gracious disagreement is quite miraculous given the context of public discourse in the U.S. during the past few decades.
Wow, Renee. I think I could systematically say ‘amen’ to every paragraph here.
I have had some of the same questions (regarding annulment) and have felt the same disconcertment over doctrines that I now feel were taught to me inaccurately. AND also, feel the same about gracious disagreement. I have nearly always felt that on so many issues and details about doctrines, we aren’t ever going to know all of the ‘right’ answers. There is almost always some room to disagree. (It’s when I’m in a situation where there is an ungracious insisting of one view with certain particulars that can’t be budged, that I feel the most uncomfortable and ready to bolt out of the room.)
Thanks for sharing this, Nanci. I really appreciate your perspectives. I also giggled at the thought of you sliding the article under the door for your priest to ‘enjoy’.
Nancy, the sliding the paper under the door made me chuckle, thank you. I grew up Catholic and they seem to have their own rules and understanding. The annullment issue is one of the reasons I left. My sister wanted her first marriage annulled so she could get married again in the church and they only way they would accept it was if she paid money and filled out a bunch of papers. How is paying money make it all go away??????
Too funny, I wrote my summary and response prior to reading others’ comments…after reading Renee and Wanda’s comments regarding John Piper’s disagreement and their differing perspective of the article, I thought that I should google the names together to see what Piper had to say. I will, just haven’t had that extra time yet this week.
My understanding of annulment, is that “divorce” is the legal dissolution of a marriage, whereas “annulment” is the Catholic dissolution of a marriage. When I was going through divorce, I went to see my priest at the time (not the one mentioned in my comment) for information on getting an annulment. The annulment process works to determine if the marriage was a “covenant” relationship…if it was a covenant relationship, no annulment…if it wasn’t, an annulment will be granted. It is a cumbersome process that is time intensive and there is cost involved ($750 was the cost approximately 20 years ago). The priest (a lovely, kind man) chatted with me at length and told me that whatever my decision in pursuing an annulment or not, he would never withhold sacraments from me, I would be treated the same as I always had been… I understand that the other priest was doing his job, but I found it to be in such a callous manner (in my case)…certainly not with the love of Jesus (Jesus’ mercy toward the adulterous woman comes to mind). Ah well…enough said…:) Happy Friday!
4. A. Why, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 should a believer stay with an unbeliever and not file for divorce?
For the sanctification of the other.
B. What exception is made in verse 15 and why? What do you think the phrase, “not enslaved,” or “not bound” means?
If the unbelieving spouse leaves the faithful one, allow them to go. I think “not enslaved” means no longer obligated to serve the unbeliever in hopes of their sanctification. Your responsibility to them in this way is released.
C. Why is abandonment the breaking of a covenant?
To abandon is to choose something else—either another person, freedom, an addiction—but to choose some other thing instead of your spouse. In that sense, it’s an emotional adultery, maybe?
That’s good Elizabeth. I like how David Instone Brewer goes back to the covenant of providing shelter, food, and care from Moses — the breaking of the covenant.
I have always understood a covenant to be unbreakable because a covenant includes God. Because God does not make mistakes, then it is unbreakable. A contract, on the other hand, is between people and can be broken by either party.
It is also my understanding that in the ancient governmental societies under patriarchal control, the prevailing idea was a man could just say he did not want to be married to a woman any longer and the marriage was considered void. The reference to the certificate of divorce in Matthew 5:31 now requires a reason that society would consider justifiable. Perhaps, if we put that need for a reason into our modern culture, we would see that often adultery is the result of some other failure in the marriage contract. Adultery is just the visible to the world symptom of the brokenness of the marriage.
Let’s look at how we have broadened the definition of murder in our modern culture. We have many levels of intent, levels of accidental death, and now even justifiable killing based on protection of home and property. Yet, I believe that God still prefers we not kill one another.
When my sister-in-law divorced, my pastor husband stood by her. We could not fully grasp the situation, as we lived out of state, but we did believe that God was guiding her decision. Jacki, you are so right about the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. Just like them, many Christians today are looking too quickly to jump on the side of judgment rather than on the side of understanding and compassion. My husband and I decided early on that our relationship with her was most important and we could help her through her life as a new Christian. We chose to support her decision rather than risk breaking the relationship. Were we glad her first marriage did not work out? No. But we could trust God to allow her to grow in her faith.
Sheryl, you bring up some really good points. That adultery is often the most discernible offense of a series of behind the scenes offenses, is certainly true.
Your comparison to the laws we have regarding killing others really is making me think.
I think you hit on something here. An analogy that is beginning to make sense to me…..though I can’t put it all together right now. I struggle greatly with the property rights and self defense justifications for killing. The heart of God must surely be grieved when any of his commands are broken and when life is taken. And yet, we live in a fallen world that includes hatred, abuse, and all forms of grievous sins and laws are regularly challenged and amended to reflect that. Hmmm. Still thinking here.
Hi Sherryl. I saw that you commented previously…so good to have you back. One month out from surgery…whoo-hoo! Hope (and will continue to pray) that the final gas bubble gives way and your vision is clear.
Sherryl – so much of what you’ve written melts my heart……when I divorced my husband, as I stated, I was not a believer and I was more or less a total brat. NONETHELESS…..several of my the people in my parents’ world…..who WERE godly believers…..stood by me. NOT condoning my decision – but just “being there” for me and letting me know their door was always open. I’ll always cherish those dear ones as “putting feet to their prayers” for my salvation……and along with my parents’ fervent prayers, those were answered down the road!! Praise God! You and your husband fit that mold! Bless you.
Thank you. As with most issues, nothing is really black and white. We try to apply the simple concept: If Jesus were confronting this issue, what would he do and say? I personally choose to err on the side of grace, mercy, and love rather than on the side of judgement. I suspect that the love shown to you during your divorce has helped guide you as you interact with people in similar situations today. He touched you through their responses and support.
I needed something, somebody to reach out with/to. I’ve been hurt repeatedly through spoken words not by my husband but by women related to me and have strong profession of faith. I am afraid to speak up because of the authority they hold in our church. I have decided that I will be leaving our church so not to deal with them.
Eza — welcome here! I was gone so slow to approve your first comment, but want you to know you are welcome here!
Eza – I did not see your comment until just now. Oh my goodness. Your pain is palpable. Please dig in and stay with us here if you can. You will find a warm welcome and much encouragement from the sisters here! Praying right now that the Lord will strengthen you for the days ahead.
Eza, I hope you feel welcome here. I discovered this blog early last summer and hope you find it to be as much an oasis as I have.
Welcome, Eza…glad you found your way here.
I found the article enlightening. The author explains the history behind the phrase “any cause,” and how first century Jews would have understood this phrase when we may not. Some rabbis of the time interpreted the phrase as meaning for any reason, others say it meant just immorality; both were interpreting Deuteronomy 24:1. Jesus agreed with the second group; divorce was ok when immorality was concerned…..now they couldn’t divorce for any reason and they got upset.
Exodus 21:10-11 allows for divorce for neglect. Jesus agreed with this too. Neglect concerned anyone (even slaves), and included food, clothing, and love. These are the basis of any Jewish marriage and really any marriage today (love, honor, and keep). Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 that married couples owed each other love and material support. The neglect of these was reason for divorce; it was written on the marriage document. Divorce included abuse, which is extreme neglect, and abandonment, which is passive neglect, if it was a non-believer who abandoned.
Summing it up:
“Putting all this together gives us a clear and consistent set of rules for divorce and remarriage. Divorce is only allowed for a limited number of grounds that are found in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New Testament:
Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1
Corinthians 7)
Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)
Jewish couples listed these biblical grounds for divorce in their marriage vows. We reiterate them as love, honor, and keep and be faithful to each other. When these vows were broken, it threatened to break up the marriage. As in any broken contract, the wronged party had the right to say, “I forgive you; let’s carry on,” or, “I can’t go on, because this marriage is broken.””
I really appreciated this explanation. Thanks for posting it Dee.
Laura — very clear summary! Great job.
This article was enlightening to me also. Laura, your summary was accurate and thanks for reviewing the article.
Including the statement that , as in any broken contract, the wronged person may forgive or may decide “I can’t go on.”
God’s law is both practical and loving! Marriage is ordained by God and I definitely understand that abuse, emotional, financial, or physical, cannot and should not be tolerated.
5. Now here is the controversial part. I agree with the following article from Christianity Today. He definesabandonment according to the Old Testament. This article drew heat however. Please read it, summarize it, and comment on it.
Wow..This makes sense to me after learning about the culture and the language in these passages. I always wondered if God addressed neglect which both physical and emotional abuse falls into, and if one or both of the spouses break their vow via neglect emotionally, physically etc..and not love the other.
What stuck out also were the notes at the bottom that said if we stay in this kind of marriage no matter what, we are teaching our children to stay in bad relationships and not teaching them there are standards.
I have been preparing for our youngest daughters wedding which is tomorrow. I am praying Gods grace. All these years my daughter has seen some tough moments and the thought of what example I may have given her on many different fronts breaks my heart. Keeping my eyes on the Lord.
Sweet Liz……our God is the One who can “restore the years the locusts have eaten”…..oh how that hope stirs my heart! May you find His beauty in this day as you celebrate your daughter’s marriage.
Such a good discussion and digging. And poor Liz — hard subject as preparing for a wedding.
As far as John Piper — there is much I like from him, but he often frightens me on his stands too. Leslie Vernick posted a video of him telling women to put up for a time with abuse that really made me question if I should ever recommend him, though I do see a softening in him — and that video was in the early nineties. But I also think his stand on divorce according to what you have found is harsh. So I would just read and listen to him with caution, as we really should with everyone.
Loved Nanci’s thoughts on the article. And I love how you all are being like “the Bereans.”
Renee – Was catching up on comments this morning and caught your comment mentioning something about God divorcing us?? (I still don’t have internet so its hard to read/find/type on my phone…)
Anyway, I wanted to point out Jeremiah – God did give Israel a certificate of divorce because of her idolatrous heart but then He made a new covenant (which Christ sealed with His blood).
Jeremiah 31:31 and following. I dont have a lot of knowledge (or time currently to find knowledge!) but wanted to encourage you. I also liked what someone said about God being the one to uphold the covenant.
Thanks, Jill!
In Mark 10 and Matthew 19, Jesus addresses divorce and adultery. Many Jewish men were divorcing their wives for “any cause,” even burning the toast.
Something’s been bugging me here… it’s widely quoted that Jewish men were divorcing their wives for ‘burning the toast’. But ‘burning the toast’ sounds western, rather than Jewish. Wouldn’t they have been eating flat breads, rather than sliced, toasted bread? I suppose ‘burning the toast’ sounds catchy, and probably just means ‘something trivial’ but it seems something has been lost in the translation. What were the actual causes for divorce that are being condemned? ‘Burning the toast’ just doesn’t ring true for that time and place.
A. What question in Matthew 19:3 is asked of Jesus?
Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason whatever?
B. How does Jesus go back to God’s plan for marriage in Matthew 19:4-6? What is He communicating about marriage and divorce?
He is asked about divorce, but Jesus’ answer focuses on the meaning and purpose of marriage. God intends marriage as a binding covenant relationship. I like Hagner’s perspective (Word Biblical Commentary) on this… Jesus is articulating an ideal, that will not be achieved in a fallen world, but nevertheless we continue to strive for it.
Hmmm… is he saying that marriage continues in the eschaton? Isn’t marriage till death do us part, and didn’t Jesus say that at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage?
C. What is the next question and answer from Jesus in Matthew 19: 7-9?
Q: Why did Moses command divorce?
A: Because you were slow learners.
D. Challenge question: why does adultery break the marriage covenant?
The marriage covenant is between one man and one woman, promising to be faithful to each other for the rest of their lives. They are bound together for life. But adultery forms another ‘one flesh’ union with another person, thus breaking the marriage bond… 1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”
E. What is the response of the disciples to this? Why, do you think?
The disciples recognise that Jesus’ teaching is radical and unattainable. They recognise that marriage without any possibility of divorce is too hard, so suggest it’s better not to marry.
F. What does Jesus say in Matthew 19:10-12? What does this mean and how might this be applied?
“Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.” Jesus has stated the ideal – no divorce. But not everyone will be able to meet this standard, nor will everyone be able to live without marrying.
Kerryn……In my study Bible, the phrase used was ‘burning the food’ which I guess would be safe to represent any culture or time period. I suppose I pushed the analogy a bit further when I said ‘for leaving dirty socks lying around’…..I don’t think Jewish men or women of that era wore socks either…..but it was a trivial thing that popped into my head! Smile.
Yes, ‘burning the food’ is much more general. It appears ironic to me to use anachronistic examples in an argument that is about grasping the cultural context of Jesus’ words. If the examples given don’t fit the culture, it causes me to doubt that the author has really understood the context in the first place.
Good point, Kerryn.
4A. Why, according to 1 Cor. 7:12-14 should a believer stay with an unbeliever and not file for divorce?
For the sake of the unbeliever. It is to their benefit to be linked with Christ through their believing spouse. v16 indicates that remaining in the marriage may lead to their salvation.
B. What exception is made in verse 15 and why? What do you think the phrase, “not enslaved,” or “not bound” means?
If the unbeliever wants to leave, don’t put obstacles in their way. The believer is not bound by the previous instruction not to separate. I don’t think it means they are free to remarry though, as this would contradict v11.
C. Why is abandonment the breaking of a covenant?
Abandonment breaks the promises made in marriage. Even when a covenant has been broken, it does not mean it cannot be restored. We all fail to live up to our marriage vows – we don’t love as we have promised, but that doesn’t mean the marriage is over. In marriage, we promise to keep on building and rebuilding that covenant.
Important point that when a covenant is broken, it does not mean it cannot be restored.
Yes, Kerryn. Even when a covenant has been broken, it does not mean it cannot be restored.
Earlier in our discussion here this week, I mentioned that over the course of the past many weeks, I have listened to messages at church on Hosea. It is a bleak book, but not without hope. In the first half of this book Hosea’s family life is made symbolic of the Lord’s message for His people. The Lord loved His covenant people. And what bleeds through it all is that He would take them back, however often they would wander. In the second half of Hosea, Israel’s idol worship is chronicled. Yet, this book carries a call to repentance… an alternative to complete severing of the relationship. Redemption in the midst of horror. And the pastor pointed out that Hosea 10:12 is the heart of it: “Sow with a view to righteousness, reap in accordance with kindness; Break up your fallow ground, For it is time to seek the Lord.” It is not too late. Hopeful words no matter our circmstances/pain. That we can ask the Lord to soften the hardened parts of our hearts (that our hearts would not be hard, Matt. 19:8). So that no matter how things “turn out”, we can walk it out without a hardened heart. Only possible with Him.
5. Now here is the controversial part. I agree with the following article from Christianity Today. He defines abandonment according to the Old Testament. This article drew heat however. Please read it, summarize it, and comment on it.
In the past, people have found that what the Bible seems to say about divorce and remarriage impractical, and even cruel, so they have ignored it or stretched the meaning. Instone-Brewer’s research found that first century Jews had been involved in similarly stretching the meaning of Moses’ instructions. ‘Any cause’ divorce was as popular then as ‘no fault’ divorce is now. Jesus wasn’t condemning all divorces, but only ‘any cause’ divorce.
Instone-Brewer comes up with a list of grounds that he thinks are valid for divorce.
· adultery
· emotional and physical neglect – eg withholding love
· abandonment and abuse
This list is currently so broad that it doesn’t actually exclude anything. Subsequent discussion between Piper and Instone-Brewer shows that’s not what’s intended. However even when narrowed further, it still makes the disciples’ incredulity in Matt 19:10 difficult to understand. They appear to have understood that Jesus said something so radical it’s impossible to achieve without God’s help.
The focus of this article is the opposite of Jesus’ focus, so I think it misses the point. Jesus is asked about divorce. His first reply: Don’t do it. That’s not what marriage is about. Jesus words focus on staying married. This article focuses on making rules, on exceptions and getting out of marriage.
I think the amputation illustration is much more appropriate. Divorce is a last resort, just as amputation is. I work in health care, and I rarely hear people asking for amputation, even when they are in pain. More frequently I hear them say that if their leg or foot has to be amputated, their life will not be worth living. They want to try everything else first.
I wonder is it looking at the problem of divorce the wrong way… it’s not that people need better rules for when they are allowed to get a divorce. They need to understand the value, meaning and purpose of marriage so much better so that they will try every other possibility first. And maybe that’s what Jesus was getting at, not making rules about getting a divorce.
Kerryn – yours is a wonderful response to the Instone-Brewer article. Last night I’ve been reading both the article and the responses and I found I was coming away with a little different response – and much of what you said here is what I was finding running through my mind. “The focus of the article is the opposite of Jesus’ focus, so I think it misses the point.” I agree. I also agree with you that the list that Instone-Brewer suggests as reasonable for divorce is “so broad that is doesn’t actually exclude anything.” and “it still makes the disciples’ incredulity in Matt 19:10 difficult to understand.” “They appear to have understood that Jesus said something so radical it’s impossible to achieve without God’s help.” I just don’t see how we can get away from the disciples’ response to Jesus’ words – and I think their response is key to how “impossible” such a way of viewing marriage would be! Bringing out your examples of people you have seen in your work in health care when confronted with the possibility of amputation – it is ALWAYS a last resort! – is so on the money! I agree that Jesus was turning the conversation from showcasing divorce to showcasing marriage, so to speak. Jesus was certainly pointing out the connection between divorce/hardness of our hearts and marriage/God’s plan from creation.
Well said, Kerryn – and very helpful to me in clarifying what I had been questioning.
Yes, Kerryn, ditto to what Jackie said. Thank you for this good, clear post. Your example of amputation being a last resort helped so much. Then I started thinking that I have seen groups of people with unchecked diabetes — where they don’t seem to fight that hard to avoid amputation. Though extremely difficult, it’s almost accepted as “to be expected.” This is such a contrast to the fight to avoid amputation that I’ve seen elsewhere. That seems to parallel some divorces. Sometimes amputation is necessary to preserve life; other times people fight like crazy to change their behaviors to minimize the extent of the amputation (e.g., toe vs whole leg); and then there are others who decide not to fight the diabetes — and amputation is unusually common.
I talked to someone this past week who has years of experience working with people in troubled marriages. He suggested that separation (rather than divorce) should be much more common (as Jackie also indicated earlier). I can only think of a couple situations when people separated (i.e., non-divorce); one couple got back together after he “cleaned up his act.” And I’ve only known the other woman as someone who is separated — for decades.
I think this is a good criticism, though I don’t think Brewer’s intent was to help people find any reason for divorce, but rather to show that emotional and physical abuse is scriptural abandonment and insisting that a person endure that goes against God’s intent for marriage. That is not to say there should not be a separation first in the hopes of repentance and change. Our hearts are so deceptive that Kerryn’s words are good caution.
Kerryn-I appreciate your response. Mine was similar, but I deleted it right after posting. This is such a sensitive topic, and it feels difficult to express my views without sounding critical of others. I actually read Piper’s article last Sunday, before I read Brewer’s–and I was biased towards Piper. I also read some from D.A. Carson and a few others who disagreed with Brewer. Probably influenced some by the pain my husband went through as a child–3 divorces on each side, but I did feel there was a bit too much focus on why/when it’s OK to divorce, rather than avoiding it whenever possible for the damage it causes.
I have finally had time to catch up on comments. I love everyone’s digging and discussing and learning! This is such a fine balance indeed-you all are so wise.
I do think it helps us see that if there are areas in our marriage that aren’t healthy, we need to get counseling. For example, Keller brought up deep friendship as being the purpose of marriage. If one of the spouses in the marriage has set the climate for the other one to feel unsafe being vulnerable then the friendship aspect of the marriage-the DEEP friendship aspect has been damaged. The outflow of that is romance and sexuality, so the romance and sex is going to be hindered. That then fuels the one who makes it not safe to get even madder at the vulnerable one because he or she isn’t getting his or her sexual needs met. Then the marriage is dysfunctional. If the abuser doesn’t think he is abusing and doesn’t see it even though it is brought up in love by his wife-even if he agrees to go to counseling but refuses to agree he has this problem..then I think but I could be wrong-not sure..but I think this could be a reason for separation and even divorce. Yet even then God is the great redeemer! 🙂 I like what Keller said that sometimes when you stay and both work it out it can be a huge time of growth..but I believe both need to be willing to work it out.
Keller also brought out that sure God designed marriage to be permanent and for the couple to delight in Him and in one another-to be naked inwardly and loved as well as outwardly but Jesus said because of sin sometimes divorce is necessary.
Elizabeth – Yes…..as I said to Kerryn….I was thinking it, but didn’t know how to say it! You actually attempted to say it, then deleted it! Once more I see God’s hand at work in all of our responses…..or holding back from responding……vulnerability, honesty……and a desire to be gracious to one another. He gets all the glory!!
love having you here Jackie–you have a graciousness about you that reminds me of Dee–thankful for you~
Marriage, divorce & singleness – Tim Keller
Statistics on marriage – 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce, minority of children will live all their childhood with 2 parents. This has resulted in a debate about marriage itself. Options proposed
· . revert to traditional marriage, legislate marriage
· . new approach needed with greater flexibility
· . scrap marriage
Bible says marriage is indelible because it was originated by God, on the same day he created mankind. It is part of us. If we invented marriage, we could tinker with it. But because God instituted it, he regulates it and we can’t mess with it. Your marriage is does not belong to you. So what does the creator say about marriage, divorce and singleness – dealing with them together because they hang together.
What makes marriage, marriage? Some people say
· . love & affection – but dogs do this
· . procreation – but rats do this
· Jesus says, leaving and cleaving. ie commitment.
People often don’t understand what marriage is really about. A wedding is not about declaring your present love, but promising future love, no matter what happens. Marriage controls your future.
The essence of marriage is a covenant. The purpose of marriage is friendship – deep friendship. Marriage means nakedness, vulnerability to the bottom of your being – deep friendship. This is why it is essential to choose a marriage partner from someone who shares faith, the same centre. Marriage is dysfunctional if it is not a friendship.
Out of the friendship grows romance and sexuality. That’s the biblical order. Singles today often reverse that, walking into a room and eliminating people on the basis of sexual attraction, rejecting people with whom they could have great friendship.
The most fundamental, the most primal relationship is marriage. God didn’t place a parent and a child, or two people of the same sex in the garden. He placed a man and a woman. Marriage has the power to set the course of your life. If your marriage is weak, and everything else is strong, you move into the world in weakness. (& vice versa). If your spouse says you’re ugly and everyone else says you’re beautiful, you feel ugly. (& vice versa). That’s the power of marriage. Marriage misused causes enormous pain.
Divorce is an amputation. Divorce is sometimes necessary for life. It is not like taking off your clothes, it is more like taking off an arm. It can be survived, but it is life threatening, and therefore only considered as a last resort. God divorced Israel – so divorce is not impossible for Christians. What about non-biblical divorce – for insufficient grounds? Non-biblical divorce is not an unforgivable sin. David & Bathsheba’s marriage started knee-deep in sin. David repented, and God redeemed the situation.
Singleness has to be seen as a calling. It cannot be endured unless you see it as a calling – whether a permanent calling or temporary calling. Some people are physically unable to marry, but some people have been spiritually called to remain single. I’m going to use the freedom I have as a single person to serve people and to serve God. I’m going to die to my desire to be married. If you are going to be single, be single for the kingdom.
Comment: Love it, very balanced.
6. Please listen, summarize, and comment.
THIS was like a breath of fresh air. So many good things in this sermon. I will mention what stood out.
-The most powerful relationship is marriage..If your husband says you are ugly and the world says you are beautiful you will believe you are ugy..If your spouse says you are beautiful and the world says you are ugly you will believe you are beautiful. Marriage has the power to set the course of your life as a whole. If your marriage is weak and yet in every other way you are strong..it doesn’t matter, you move out into the world in weakness. If your marriage is strong and everything around you is weak you will move out into the world in strength.
-There is another thing he mentioned that was a light bulb that went on for me. It is a bit painful but so encouraging for me to hear so I need to pray.
I read this today from Paul Tripp on marriage and thought it was really good: “A marriage of unity, understanding and love is not rooted in romance but in worship. It is only when I worship God as Creator, Sovereign, and Savior that I will ever love as I should.” Also “Marriage this side of heaven will always be a war between two kingdoms (God’s Kingdom and the Kingdom of Self). ”
Diane–I couldn’t reply above–but would you believe I was JUST thinking that I missed you and was checking to see if you’d been on here! I love it how God does that–across the many miles 🙂 Wish you were here and could be in the class with me…oh and then I wish we could ALL be together in one room someday…long for that!
Wouldn’t we all be quite a class if we all got together in person to study, Elizabeth. We’d probably drive the teacher crazy!! 🙂
I feel badly that I have not had the time to listen to Keller this week so thanks to those of you who took the time to summarize, make notes and comment. Hopefully I will get back home from vacation and listen to the sermon sometime soon.