Divorce,remarriage and children

[Guest]

I have a friend who believes that divorce even if the spouse has rejected christ is wrong.Even if the one who rejected Christ chooses to leave the the believing spouse must remain unmarried.And that any children born in a new marriage are basically cursed.They say the husband/wife must leave his/her new spouse and any children born in the new marriage and return to the unbeiliving spouse since thier patience will eventually save the unbelieving spouse. It is rediculous to me.They use David as an example that the children of the new marriage are condemned(even though it was David murder of bathsheba's husband that caused his problems).I know it's a big topic,try to be brief and to the point in your replies:)

[Guest]

The best thing you can do is to question this person to get them to think through their belief. Try asking them the following, as well as whatever questions you can think of yourself:

1. Are you saying that the spouse who remains gets to suffer for someone else's sin? They have no recourse before God?

2. If the spouse who leaves takes with them financial support for the household, what should the spouse who remains do in regards to the household, including any children that might be a part of it? Should they let the household and the children suffer because the spouse who departs is no longer willing to provide and protect? Isn't that what God ordained a God-fearing husband to do? Would you deny God the opportunity to bless you with what He ordained by refusing any possibility of remarriage? Furthermore, would you hold it against someone else if they chose to remarry?

3. Are you being legalistic, or are you open to God's love and what He would want for you? Would you be willing to pray and ask God what He would want?

4. Are you believing the lie that you have to suffer in order to be Godly? Is that what your spouse taught you, through this whole situation? Are you sure that's what God would want?

Etc.

I'll pray that the situation you've described will work out for the best.

Damon

[Guest]

They use David as an example that the children of the new marriage are condemned(even though it was David murder of bathsheba's husband that caused his problems).I know it's a big topic,try to be brief and to the point in your replies:)

This is what I would show them who use David as an example:

Matthew 1;
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:...David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon begot Rehoboam...etc

Now this is Joseph's geneology, but are they going to tell me God considered Solomon and all those after him accuresed? Yet God allowed this line to become the step-father of Christ himself? Now were there consequences? Yes.

Remember that under the new covenant:
Jer 31:29 In those days they shall say no more:
"The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children's teeth are set on edge.'
30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

You can't justify a second divorce if there has already been a re-marriage.

[_Steve]

My thoughts on this have been expressed at length at my website, at the "Topical Articles" link. There I have combined three articles I wrote many years ago (while married) about divorce and remarriage. I cover the above questions there.

I agree with much of what Damon has said above, but am concerned by one of his comments: "Are you believing the lie that you have to suffer in order to be Godly?" I am not sure of the exact nature of the "lie" Damon is referring to, but there certainly are times when one must suffer in order to be godly (Matt.5:10-12, 44; 10:16-18; 24:9-13/ Acts 14:22/ Rom.8:17-18/ 2 Cor.4:16-18/ Heb.10:32-36/ James 1:2-4/ 1 Pet.1:6-7; 2:18-21; 3:1-6; 4:1, 12-19; 8-10).

One such time would be when refusing to deny Christ results in torture and death. Another case would be when refusing to deny solemn wedding vows involves much sacrifice and suffering on the part of the faithful spouse. Damon has elsewhere on this forum made it clear that he approves of breaking up marriages upon grounds other than those that the Bible allows, and I have registered my disagreement with him on this point (see in the "Pentateuch" section, topic: "Exodus 1-6 and Standing Up for What's Right").

To tell unhappy spouses that they do not have to suffer (in the course of being faithful to the marriage vows) in order to be godly is to counsel rebellion against God's institution of marriage and to give sinful permission to many spouses who have no grounds for divorce.

Let us make no mistake about it. Godliness will generally involve suffering of one kind or another. Bearing a cross seldom was pain-free.

[Guest]

I agree with much of what Damon has said above, but am concerned by one of his comments: "Are you believing the lie that you have to suffer in order to be Godly?"

Steve, let me clarify. Is a person who has had a spouse divorce them believing the lie that they are obligated to suffer - that is, not remarry and simply live with the fallout from the divorce - in order to please God? Could there be a way to deal with the situation which would please God that wouldn't require extreme suffering?

Some people have it in their heads that unless they're suffering, they aren't pleasing God. The "no pain, no gain" mentality, that is. There is a time for everything under the sun, and there is certainly a time for suffering, as you quoted. But not in every circumstance. That's what I was getting at.

Damon has elsewhere on this forum made it clear that he approves of breaking up marriages upon grounds other than those that the Bible allows, and I have registered my disagreement with him on this point (see in the "Pentateuch" section, topic: "Exodus 1-6 and Standing Up for What's Right").

I never did finish that conversation, because I'd spent two hours on a reply that subsequently got lost. But to clarify, I never meant that I "approved" of breaking up marriages for, for instance, chronic disagreements and arguments. But I categorically stated that physical abuse should never be tolerated under any circumstances and that the abused spouse should immediately separate themselves from the circumstance. Certainly, they could try to be reconciled, but they should never stay in a circumstance where they're being physically abused. Also, some people don't have the emotional fortitude to tolerate extreme verbal or emotional abuse, so they should likewise separate themselves from the circumstance, seeking reconciliation if at all possible.

I've also pointed out before that the true meaning of "Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of your hearts" in Matthew 19:8 is that divorce is often the recourse of spouses who are at the effect of extreme insensitivity - "hardness of heart" - on the part of the other spouse! So as Jesus said, the hard-hearted spouse is actually causing the other to sin when that other spouse either gets a divorce or gets remarried after a divorce (Mat. 19:9). Sin is sin, no matter what the circumstance, and yet I counseled to consider whether divorce might not be the lesser of evils in certain very extreme cases. Sometimes there simply is no "right" answer, and that's all I was saying.

To tell unhappy spouses that they do not have to suffer (in the course of being faithful to the marriage vows) in order to be godly is to counsel rebellion against God's institution of marriage and to give sinful permission to many spouses who have no grounds for divorce.

Steve, do me a big favor and read more carefully next time, because I never said that! It's extremely offensive for you to chronically misread things like this because it can lead to unjust accusations.

Damon

[_Steve]

Damon,

I don't disagree that there are times when separation or divorce may be justified and where remarriage is an option for a divorced person. I simply don't like to regulate when these things should or should be done by the use of a term as vague as "suffering." Even the term "physical abuse" can be too imprecise.

No man should ever treat a woman roughly, but there may be cases where this might occur without endangering the woman or introducing the likelihood of a pattern. I once had a wife who sometimes over-disciplined the children. The children would have called these instances "physical abuse," and I am not sure that she did not overstep a line that would justify that term (it is a vague term), though there was clearly never any threat to life or limb involved.

If a mother over-disciplines, would you suggest, in every case, that her children "should never tolerate" it and that they be permanently taken from her? If so, on what biblical grounds? And what biblical grounds justify the statement: "physical abuse should never be tolerated under any circumstances and that the abused spouse should immediately separate themselves"?

I agree that some scary forms of physical abuse would justify separation, but the phrase "should never be tolerated" is simply contrary to scriptural teaching. If a wife feels that God is calling her to graciously endure mistreatment for the sake of Christ, I don't think anyone should tell her otherwise. She may not be crazy. She just may be desiring to follow Christ's example, rather than to follow modern "conventional wisdom." Christians should be prepared to tolerate many wrongs against themselves for Christ's sake (1 Peter 2:19-21). Love "endures all things" (1 Cor.13:7).

I disagree with your following statement:

"...the true meaning of 'Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of your hearts' in Matthew 19:8 is that divorce is often the recourse of spouses who are at the effect of extreme insensitivity - 'hardness of heart' - on the part of the other spouse!"

When we are purporting to give the "true meaning" of a passage that might be ambiguous, it is important that we look carefully at the wording of the passage. Read it more carefully: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives..."(Matt.19:8).

The statement makes it clear that it is the hardness of the heart of the person seeking the divorce (not of their spouse) that is in view. The suggestion that a person may divorce a spouse because of the hardness of the spouse's heart leaves the door wide open for anyone to declare that their spouse is "hard-hearted" and then to justify seeking a divorce. If such were the case, no marriage would be safe, where one party might think the other to be too stubborn.

Just curious...have you been married? Divorced? Knowing this would help me and others know where your counsel is coming from, since it is clearly extrabiblical.

[Guest]

Very sound teaching, Steve.

In todays world some people are looking for any excuse to be
free from a spouse, not so years ago as people took covenant
vows seriously... If there is physical violence remove yourself
from that spouse but GOD does warn about being unequally yoked.
Divorce? No, only adultry. Prayer, Yes GOD is faithful and we wont suffer beyond what we are able.

[Guest]

Damon,

I don't disagree that there are times when separation or divorce may be justified and where remarriage is an option for a divorced person. I simply don't like to regulate when these things should or should be done by the use of a term as vague as "suffering." Even the term "physical abuse" can be too imprecise.

I understand what you're saying. I wasn't intending my comments to be interpreted legalistically, however. I'm just speaking from the heart.

No man should ever treat a woman roughly, but there may be cases where this might occur without endangering the woman or introducing the likelihood of a pattern. I once had a wife who sometimes over-disciplined the children. The children would have called these instances "physical abuse," and I am not sure that she did not overstep a line that would justify that term (it is a vague term), though there was clearly never any threat to life or limb involved.

I've seen the same thing, and I agree. That wasn't the kind of physical abuse I was talking about, though. I meant things like deliberately burning someone with an iron, locking someone in the closet and depriving them of food, beating someone to the point of, and with the deliberate intent of, leaving serious bruises, etc. I understand if my comments may have been somewhat misleading, but again, they weren't meant to be applied legalistically.

I agree that some scary forms of physical abuse would justify separation, but the phrase "should never be tolerated" is simply contrary to scriptural teaching. If a wife feels that God is calling her to graciously endure mistreatment for the sake of Christ, I don't think anyone should tell her otherwise. She may not be crazy. She just may be desiring to follow Christ's example, rather than to follow modern "conventional wisdom." Christians should be prepared to tolerate many wrongs against themselves for Christ's sake (1 Peter 19-21). Love "endures all things" (1 Cor.13:7).

What's the point of "enduring all things" though? What's the context of the entire chapter? Charity! And what does "charity" mean? It means outgoing concern for others. Love in action, basically. Enduring grave mistreatment just for the sake of "suffering for Christ" (which may only be one's perception and not reality) - or because one cannot imagine how to change one's circumstances - is pointless. Enduring grave mistreatment in the hope that the other person would be shamed into repenting, for example, is worthwhile. And it better not be just a pipe-dream kind of hope, either. The person should have some evidence to believe that the abuser could change and repent. That evidence might only be based on direct inspiration from God, but it had better be based on something! Otherwise, why stay in a relationship where one's Christian witness will do no good? Or worse, when staying in that relationship puts others - like young children who don't know enough to cope with what's going on - at risk.

Although we seem to be coming at this from two very different angles, I actually think we agree. Am I right?

When we are purporting to give the "true meaning" of a passage that might be ambiguous, it is important that we look carefully at the wording of the passage. Read it more carefully: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives..."(Matt.19:8 ).

The "you" in this passage is collective and not singular, so it could technically be interpreted either way. But let's take the case where the person actively pursuing the divorce is the hard-hearted one, as you're positing. Then it would actually have been a merciful thing for him to leave and thus open the door of opportunity for a less hard-hearted man to marry the divorced wife, in OT times. But nevertheless, it wouldn't be the ideal situation because the hard-hearted husband would not be held accountable for facing his own sin, his own insensitivity. He, in turn, would be causing his wife to sin by turning to someone else for love, provision and protection instead of abiding in a God-ordained relationship, as Jesus said.

Just curious...have you been married? Divorced? Knowing this would help me and others know where your counsel is coming from, since it is clearly extrabiblical.

No, I'm single. However, not only have I witnessed divorce several times as an adult, my parents are divorced - and it's the fault of both of them, not just my dad's fault because he initiated the divorce. But sadly, neither one of them could see that, and there was no one in their lives to show them what was going wrong with their relationship. Because my dad couldn't see his part in it or how to help my mother to overcome her own emotional hangups, he was unwilling to trust God to work things out for the better.

Damon

[Guest]

Prayer, Yes GOD is faithful and we wont suffer beyond what we are able.

You've obviously never witnessed a serious problem with physical abuse of a spouse. That's why I counseled immediate separation in such cases. (And for like the tenth time in my posts on marriage and divorce, separation is not the same as divorce. I hate having to clarify that every time because people aren't smart enough to figure it out for themselves. I'm clarifying it in advance this time before anyone can get twisted because they can't make the distinction.)

Damon

[_Steve]

Hi Damon,

I'm sorry about your parents' marriage failure, because I am deeply grieved by every marriage failure. Being the child of a broken home, you have experienced one side of the divorce disaster. However, I could have guessed from reading your thoughts on marriage and divorce, that you probably had not been married (or divorced) yourself. People who have never had children often feel that they are experts on the subject of how others should rear their children. The acquiring of experience often tends to change their tone somewhat.

Your views and sentiments on the subject of marriage and divorce have the sound of those of an onlooker, not a participant. Not having experienced such things, of course, is no fault on your part, but it distances you somewhat, and gives your ideas a more academic and theoretical character--or, seen as you might see it, a more objective character. I know, from many of your other posts, that you don't much like anyone questioning your expertise, and I don't mean to offend you with any of these comments. I could be too subjective, but these are my observations.

We do agree on much of what you have said, of course. It is the areas of difference that I feel the need to respond to. If we were in complete agreement, I would allow you to have the last word and concentrate my attention on other matters.

I think we have some of the same ideas, but we are coming from two different starting points. I think you have a more pragmatic approach, which makes it possible to say something like [if there seems no hope of the nasty souse repenting] "why stay in a relationship where one's Christian witness will do no good?" A pragmatic approach toward marriage asks, "what good is accomplished?" and "good" is generally defined in terms of temporal well-being and happiness of the participants. I believe that God is indeed interested in the happiness and the well-being of all parties to the marriage, including the children, of course. I am just concerned that, when we go beyond the scriptures in counseling unhappy spouses, we leave things much too vague, and may end up giving permission for a split-up where God does not sanction such.

I know, as you have emphasized, that there is a difference between divorce and separation. However, having been divorced wrongfully more than once in the past 30 years, and having spent as long in ministry, including ministry to troubled spouses, I know two things about separation that many Christians who advocate it apparently do not know.

First, the majority of men or women who separate from their spouses actually end up divorcing. This is true even where there is no grounds for divorce. What occurs is that the unsatisfied or unhappy spouse, once having moved out and found a measure of "relief" from the pressures of the home, is often little-motivated to return, and, more often than not, simply stays away, eventually filing for divorce as the desirability of that option grows on them.

Second, separation without proper justification, is a sin, just as unwarranted divorce is. The Bible speaks directly to the matter of what may justify a divorce, but it gives no specific information about what may justify a separation. It should be obvious that a frivolous separation by one spouse, against the wishes of the other, is a violation of specific scriptures defining the duties of married parties.

The Bible commands married people to "dwell together according to knowledge" (1 Pet.3:7), and to not deprive one another of intimate contact, except by mutual consent, for a prearranged period of prayer and fasting (1 Cor. 7:3-5). It is clear that this would only allow for "separation" where both parties agreed that this would be helpful, and during which both would be devoted to prayer and fasting. The inclusion of fasting would suggest a relatively short "separation", and thus Paul says, "and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you..."(1 Cor.7:5). Any prolonged separation increases the intensification of such temptation, from which Paul instructs spouses to protect each other. Thus, Christian spouses, before choosing the "separation" option, ought to well consider Jesus' command, "What God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt.19:6).

When couples are merely unhappy in a marriage (many who claim "abuse" from their spouses are really merely unhappy--I know this for a fact), separation gives them a "breather" that may enhance their happiness to the point that they have no motivation to return and "fix" the problem that caused their initial unhappiness. On the other hand, when leaving is not an option, the pressure in the marriage can provide the incentive for seeking counsel, change and reconciliation.

You mentioned certain forms of abuse that are indeed heinous. In fact, they are criminal. In a biblically just society, a man (or woman) ought to be arrested for such abuse. The penalty inflicted upon him or her, in such a case would be, "eye for eye, stroke for stroke, hand for hand, wound for wound, burn for burn, life for life" (Ex.21:23-25). Very few spouses would continue burning their partner or their children with an iron, if, every time they did it, they were themselves subjected to the same treatment by the law enforcement agencies.

Since such justice as God prescribes would be regarded as "barbaric" by our modern, "enlightened" society, the other option for the abuser would be prison. This would bring about a protective separation of the spouses, but it would not be one caused by the victim, but by the perpetrator.

In a society such as ours, where most perpetrators of abuse seem to evade legal penalties, it would seem appropriate for the church to approve a voluntary, protective separation in cases where law enforcement (rightly applied) would have caused a righteous separation anyway. I don't expect every Christian to agree with this logic, but it seems a valid application of scriptural principle to me. On biblical grounds, I could not approve of any separation of spouses that is not due to dangerous criminal activity.

My approach to marriage, like my approach to all Christian duties, is not pragmatic, but principled. I believe that Christians should do what is righteous, upon principle, whether it appears to be doing any good or not. It is impossible for us to predict whether God may miraculously move on behalf of those who obey Him. Pressure to violate His principles should always be recognised as a test of our faith. If we obey Him despite the unpleasantness or perceived hopelessness of our situation, we pass the test, and give God something to honor in our situation. If we cave-in under pressure, we fail the test. We will have to take the test again, or else live with a failing grade.

I am not coming at this subject merely academically. I have proven myself willing to put my money where my mouth is and was willing to remain with what would popularly be referred to as an "emotionally abusive" wife for twenty years...and I would have stayed for another forty, if she had not left. I have lived two decades knowing what it's like to be completely ungratified and unfulfilled in a seemingly hopeless marriage, and yet to remain faithful to the sacred vows upon which the union was established. I know how it feels to spend twenty years looking at happier marriages than my own and secretly thinking, "What they have is all I ever wanted in this world, and I will never have it. May the Lord be glorified in my losses."

Marital fulfillment is the closest thing to heaven on earth that we can desire, but there is no guarantee that we shall have heaven on earth. We are on earth only a short time. It is enough that we shall have heaven later.