Grounds for divorce

[Northern Crofter]

I am trying to understand the nuances here. Is a husband who abuses his wife (physically, but also mentally in certain cases) in no way breaking the covenant he made to God regarding her?

Yes, and divorce would be allowable. But remarriage would not. There is no place in Scripture that I know of that allows for remarriage after divorce unless adultery (or death) has occurred (during or after the marriage).

 

[Northern Crofter]

First time poster so apologies if this has been asked before but if a spouse has refused any intimacy for years and refuses to even talk about it, would that be abondamment?

It depends. Scripture makes it clear that divorce and remarriage are allowable on a conditional basis. Is the lack of intimacy due to the wife's health (physical or mental)? If so, the "in sickness and in health" clause (whether you used those words or not, I see them as part of the covenant of marriage based on Christ's teaching in places like Matthew 19.8 and 5.32 which return us to the creational ordinance of marriage: "but from the beginning it was not so") would prevent divorce. Willful neglect is another matter. A close friend experienced this - after a year or so he and his wife separated. Within 2 weeks she was sexually active with one of her colleagues. Again, I believe it is rare for there to be a divorce for reasons other than immorality where immorality does not soon follow, at which point the remaining party may remarry according to God's gracious provision. Abandonment is a grounds for divorce, but it is not grounds for remarriage.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I would say even *if* abuse is not technically grounds for divorce/remarriage, it’s grounds for the abused spouse to get out of the situation for their own safety. With patience and time, it’s possible that the abuser will see the error of his ways and repent or probable that they will find someone else to marry/live with, thereby freeing the wronged spouse to divorce and remarry.

 

[MyCrows]

I am trying to understand the nuances here. Is a husband who abuses his wife (physically, but also mentally in certain cases) in no way breaking the covenant he made to God regarding her?

To clarify, I am in large agreement with David also. Divorce is permissible after either abandonment by an unbeliever, or adultery. In either of those cases, the offended party is no longer bound(free to remarry). 1 Cor. 7:15

However I do believe that in *some* cases, a spouse can force the other into leaving, primarily by abuse. This is to be handled by the church leadership and discernment is required.

If the abuser refuses to repent and take their covenant partner, and provide for them, it seems that this may be an offense worthy of excommunication eventually. See Timothy 5:8.

At which point the spouse who was essentially cast out is justified to divorce their offending partner, because they have proven to be unrepentant.

I'm not talking about two believers who remain in good standing with the body of Christ. Church discipline plays a role. The lack of church discipline is one reason for the rampant divorce and immorality.

 

[Taylor]

If the abuser refuses to repent and take their covenant partner, and provide for them, it seems that this may be an offense worthy of excommunication eventually.

Recalcitrant unrepentance is always grounds for eventual excommunication. It’s really the only grounds. No one is ever really excommunicated for particular offenses, but only for unrepentance in those sins. Even stealing from a gum ball machine, if the offender refuses to repent after shepherding, he should eventually be excommunicated.

 

[MyCrows]

This is my point exactly.

Recalcitrant unrepentance is always grounds for eventual excommunication. It’s really the only grounds. No one is ever really excommunicated for particular offenses, but only for unrepentance in those sins. Even stealing from a gum ball machine, if the offender refuses to repent after shepherding, he should eventually be excommunicated.

This is what qualifies the situation as abandonment by an unbeliever. At this point they would be treated as a heathen or tax collector.

Again, this would have be to abuse that warrants the other spouse leaving the environment. (Hence the forced abandonment)

 

[pgwolv]

Yes, and divorce would be allowable. But remarriage would not. There is no place in Scripture that I know of that allows for remarriage after divorce unless adultery (or death) has occurred (during or after the marriage).

Okay, so when you say someone who commits adultery is covenantally "dead," you mean more than that he has broken his marital covenant with God and that this breaking is the reason why the spouse is free for remarriage?

 

[pgwolv]

Divorce is permissible after either abandonment by an unbeliever, or adultery. In either of those cases, the offended party is no longer bound(free to remarry). 1 Cor. 7:15

However I do believe that in *some* cases, a spouse can force the other into leaving, primarily by abuse. This is to be handled by the church leadership and discernment is required.

If the abuser refuses to repent and take their covenant partner, and provide for them, it seems that this may be an offense worthy of excommunication eventually. See Timothy 5:8.

At which point the spouse who was essentially cast out is justified to divorce their offending partner, because they have proven to be unrepentant.

I'm not talking about two believers who remain in good standing with the body of Christ. Church discipline plays a role. The lack of church discipline is one reason for the rampant divorce and immorality.

Thank you, this is my view also. It must be very difficult to decide at what point excommunication has to occur.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Okay, so when you say someone who commits adultery is covenantally "dead," you mean more than that he has broken his marital covenant with God and that this breaking is the reason why the spouse is free for remarriage?

The marital covenant is not made with God - it is a promise made with your spouse with God as a witness (see WCF 22.1). There are many allowable reasons for divorce and many ways in which the marriage covenant can be broken. But not all reasons for divorce/ways the covenant is broken are also reasons for allowing remarriage. Christ, in agreement with Moses, limits remarriage after divorce to those whose covenant of marriage has been broken by adultery. Adultery, like murder, is a capital offense. Someone who commits adultery is considered "dead" (whether the punishment is meted out by the civil magistrate or not) and the "surviving" spouse is free to remarry. A woman who is divorced (for any reason) is no longer under the authority of the man she was married to (see Numbers 30.10), but she is still under the authority of God (as is the man) Who does not permit her to remarry unless the moral grounds for doing so (her divorced husband remarries/commits adultery) or the natural grounds (death) are met.

 

[pgwolv]

Adultery, like murder, is a capital offense. Someone who commits adultery is considered "dead" (whether the punishment is meted out by the civil magistrate or not) and the "surviving" spouse is free to remarry.

I am not sure what bearing this has on the case. If a man murders someone, would his wife then be free to remarry someone else because he is considered "dead"? What about other capital offences, according to OT law?

 

[MyCrows]

The marital covenant is not made with God - it is a promise made with your spouse with God as a witness (see WCF 22.1). There are many allowable reasons for divorce and many ways in which the marriage covenant can be broken. But not all reasons for divorce/ways the covenant is broken are also reasons for allowing remarriage. Christ, in agreement with Moses, limits remarriage after divorce to those whose covenant of marriage has been broken by adultery. Adultery, like murder, is a capital offense. Someone who commits adultery is considered "dead" (whether the punishment is meted out by the civil magistrate or not) and the "surviving" spouse is free to remarry. A woman who is divorced (for any reason) is no longer under the authority of the man she was married to (see Numbers 30.10), but she is still under the authority of God (as is the man) Who does not permit her to remarry unless the moral grounds for doing so (her divorced husband remarries/commits adultery) or the natural grounds (death) are met.

What is the purpose of divorce?

And what bondage is the offended party free from in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16?

 

[Northern Crofter]

I am not sure what bearing this has on the case. If a man murders someone, would his wife then be free to remarry someone else because he is considered "dead"? What about other capital offences, according to OT law?

To answer that would take another thread to discuss the level of continuation of the moral law. Back to what is clear in Scripture, divorce is allowable for many reasons, but remarriage is not. There is only one allowance for divorce and remarriage, and that is adultery. I'm not sure how anyone could dispute that Biblically, although I believe there can be dispute over what constitutes adultery.

 

[pgwolv]

Back to what is clear in Scripture, divorce is allowable for many reasons, but remarriage is not.

Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Mat 5:31-32: "31 It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Does Jesus say "But I say to you" because the Pharisees interpreted the allowance of Moses to include remarriage?

EDIT: For completeness' sake, I want to add two other sections on divorce and remarriage in the Gospels.

Mat 19:3-12 "3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”"

Mark 10:2-12 "2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”"

 

[Northern Crofter]

I appreciate that you included the larger context of Christ's teachings on this issue. As He often did, Christ did not directly answer the question He was being tested with. The Pharisees asked, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” (Matt. 19.3). Christ's answer is not merely about divorce - He instead addresses the larger issue of divorce and remarriage. I believe the essence of Christ's teaching is, "Yes, you can divorce for many reasons, but if you do, you cannot remarry except for one cause - adultery." This should make divorce rare and protect as much as possible in a fallen world the original picture of marriage ("Have you not read... from the beginning...") as the closest thing we have to God's love. The major reason people divorce today (and apparently back then) is to to be able to legally remarry "...but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt.19.8).

"Does Jesus say "But I say to you" because the Pharisees interpreted the allowance of Moses to include [always allow] remarriage?" That is my understanding. I believe adultery is the only reason to allow divorce and remarriage and is explained by Christ when He states: "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Adultery destroys the "one flesh" unity by adding a third party. "Let not man separate" does not mean man can not sever this bond - it means they should not (as with all of the commands not to murder, steal, etc.). If they do, there is a consequence. They offender should be killed or treated as dead (I do not believe it is fair to extrapolate to other capital offenses, though I understand the logic).

 

[MyCrows]

I appreciate that you included the larger context of Christ's teachings on this issue. As He often did, Christ did not directly answer the question He was being tested with. The Pharisees asked, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” (Matt. 19.3). Christ's answer is not merely about divorce - He instead addresses the larger issue of divorce and remarriage. I believe the essence of Christ's teaching is, "Yes, you can divorce for many reasons, but if you do, you cannot remarry except for one cause - adultery." This should make divorce rare and protect as much as possible in a fallen world the original picture of marriage ("Have you not read... from the beginning...") as the closest thing we have to God's love. The major reason people divorce today (and apparently back then) is to to be able to legally remarry "...but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt.19.8).

"Does Jesus say "But I say to you" because the Pharisees interpreted the allowance of Moses to include [always allow] remarriage?" That is my understanding. I believe adultery is the only reason to allow divorce and remarriage and is explained by Christ when He states: "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Adultery destroys the "one flesh" unity by adding a third party. "Let not man separate" does not mean man can not sever this bond - it means they should not (as with all of the commands not to murder, steal, etc.). If they do, there is a consequence. They offender should be killed or treated as dead (I do not believe it is fair to extrapolate to other capital offenses, though I understand the logic).

How can Jesus say in essence, "Yes, you can divorce for many reasons ", when we are explicitly told in 1 Corinthians 7:11, that "a husband is not to divorce his wife"?

And what exactly is the bond that the offended party is freed from in that same chapter in Corinthians in regards to willfull desertion?

 

[Northern Crofter]

How can Jesus say in essence, "Yes, you can divorce for many reasons ", when we are explicitly told in 1 Corinthians 7:11, that "a husband is not to divorce his wife"?

And what exactly is the bond that the offended party is freed from in that same chapter in Corinthians in regards to willfull desertion?

While I Corinthians 7 is largely dealing with believers married to unbelievers, "Marriage is honorable among all..." (Hebrews 13.4), and was established as part of the created order before out first parents sinned. Divorce is a result of sin. I Corinthians 7 does not explicitly forbid divorce. In agreement with Christ, Paul forbids divorce and remarriage: "...if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband..." (v.11). Christ has already taught that if adultery enters the equation, then she would not have to remain unmarried.

If by "bond" you are referring to v.15, I believe the translation "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart: a brother or a sister is not in subjection in such things" is more accurate. A woman who is divorced (for any reason) is no longer under the authority of the man ("not in subjection") she was married to (see Numbers 30.10), but she is still under the authority of God (as is the man) Who does not permit her to remarry unless the moral grounds for doing so (her divorced husband remarries/commits adultery) or the natural grounds (death) are met. Divorce can provide gracious relief from a partner who abandons the covenant of marriage, but it does not follow Biblically that remarriage is allowable except in cases where adultery has occurred (prior to or after the divorce).

 

[Polanus1561]

"As an example, consider Mike, who deserts his wife Jane. Both are professing believers, members of Grace Presbyterian Church. This desertion does not literally fall under the terms of 1 Corinthians 7:15, for Mike and Jane are fellow Christians. But Jane is not without recourse. She has the privilege and the responsibility to call on the church for help. The elders offer counsel and try to restore the marriage. But Mike is adamant. So the church institutes discipline against Mike, following the procedure of Matthew 18:15–20. Admonitions and rebukes are insufficient, and so the procedure leads to excommunication: “If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). From that point on, Jane and the church regard Mike as an unbeliever, and their marriage becomes a mixed marriage. Then Mike’s desertion of Jane falls under the provision of 1 Corinthians 7:15, and Jane may recognize the fact of that desertion by filing divorce papers.

It is important for us to keep in mind the context of the church fellowship, as we explore other questions, for example that of spousal abuse as a ground of divorce. Although it might seem as though marriage and divorce are transactions only between two individuals, that is not the case. Marriage is a covenant with public vows. Divorce, too, involves people other than the couple directly involved. There are children, relatives, and indeed the whole church fellowship who have an interest in the situation. Both marriage and divorce can have consequences for many people, and those consequences can rebound upon the couple themselves.

Consider the debate as to whether spousal abuse can be a ground for divorce. Certainly physical abuse is a violation of the sixth commandment. So a husband and a wife sometimes, tragically, must be removed from one another to preserve life. The church should facilitate such separation when p 781 that is necessary and provide counseling to encourage reconciliation. But if, say, Jack, will not be persuaded to quit harming his wife Linda, the church should institute discipline against Jack. If this discipline leads to excommunication, the question could well arise as to whether Jack has in effect deserted Linda, in terms of 1 Corinthians 7:15.

Although we (with the WCF) speak of “desertion” as the action taken by the unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 7:15, what Paul actually speaks of there is divorce, whether official or unofficial. The “separation” in verse 15 may or may not be geographical. The important thing is that it is a renunciation of one’s marital vows. So even if Jack remains in the same house with Linda, the question arises whether his actions amount to a de facto divorce.

Each case of this kind must be decided on its merits. It is possible that Jack, even though he is abusive, may still consider himself bound to Linda by marriage. He may claim that in other ways he is still faithful to her. But the session, or other ruling body of a church, must make its own assessment of the situation. Spousal abuse is inconsistent with marital fidelity. Not every inconsistency is ground for divorce, surely. But sometimes violation of marital vows becomes so severe that no real commitment remains. When the church judges that Jack no longer respects his marriage vows, it may declare that he has divorced Linda, and that she may consider the marriage ended. At that point, she may file divorce papers to make the termination official.

The PCA Report says that divorce may be necessary “to protect a blameless spouse from intolerable conditions.”19 But, realizing that this principle could open the floodgates to all sorts of grounds for divorce, the Report then insists that “the list of sins tantamount to desertion cannot be very long.” Obviously, what is tolerable to one person may be intolerable to another. So the Report tries to distinguish between objective and subjective sources of intolerability, a very difficult distinction to make with any cogency. I am not satisfied with the Report’s reasoning at this point. What is needed is a focus on the question of whether the unbeliever makes a credible claim to be upholding his marital vows. When that claim is no longer credible, because of physical or verbal abuse, emotional entanglements with people other than the spouse, failure to provide, literal desertion, and so on, the church may declare the original marriage null and void and the partners free to remarry. But, as the WCF says, these forms of “desertion” must be such as “can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate.” The church should recognize divorces in these cases only when all available remedies have failed."

- Frame, DCL 780

 

[py3ak]

I don't have a lot of time for back and forth, but two points might bring some clarity for observers of the thread.

1. Any argument that has different criteria for divorce and remarriage is essentially redefining divorce to be "bed and board separation" rather than an actual dissolution of the marriage bond. If the bond is, in fact, dissolved, it cannot bind to singleness.

2. A divorced person commits adultery if the divorce was unwarranted. Divorcing someone for inadequate reasons is breaking the marriage bond.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I don't have a lot of time for back and forth, but two points might bring some clarity for observers of the thread.

1. Any argument that has different criteria for divorce and remarriage is essentially redefining divorce to be "bed and board separation" rather than an actual dissolution of the marriage bond. If the bond is, in fact, dissolved, it cannot bind to singleness.

2. A divorced person commits adultery if the divorce was unwarranted. Divorcing someone for inadequate reasons is breaking the marriage bond.

Can you demonstrate these principles from Scripture? 1. When Christ says "except" is this not establishing different criteria? 2. So if someone divorces and it is unwarranted but they remain unmarried/celebate they are guilty of adultery? Is the concept of marriage being a "bond" the same as it being a "covenant"?

 

[chuckd]

I'm not sure the question in my OP has been addressed. Divorce was permitted by Moses because of their hearts. Some husbands hate their wives and a divorce prevents a bad situation from getting worse.

Christ responds "but from the beginning it was not so." God joined them together, male and female, the man leaves his closest relations and holds fast to a relationship even closer, one flesh, and he loves the wife until death.

"From the beginning it was not so", but neither was a corrupted and sinful nature. I'm failing to see how we no longer need the accommodation Moses established, even in the Christian dispensation.

Matthew Henry answers that Christians simply won't have hard hearts toward their wives. Then why does Christ give the exception for adultery? Christians won't have hard hearts, but it's possible that they may commit adultery?

 

[MyCrows]

I'm not sure the question in my OP has been addressed. Divorce was permitted by Moses because of their hearts. Some husbands hate their wives and a divorce prevents a bad situation from getting worse.

Christ responds "but from the beginning it was not so." God joined them together, male and female, the man leaves his closest relations and holds fast to a relationship even closer, one flesh, and he loves the wife until death.

"From the beginning it was not so", but neither was a corrupted and sinful nature. I'm failing to see how we no longer need the accommodation Moses established, even in the Christian dispensation.

Matthew Henry answers that Christians simply won't have hard hearts toward their wives. Then why does Christ give the exception for adultery? Christians won't have hard hearts, but it's possible that they may commit adultery?

A christian won't be hard hearted as far as the new man is concerned, the new nature created in Christ Jesus in true righteousness and holiness.

However, due to the remaining corruption of the flesh, we are still capable of heinous sin.

Christians are empowered by the Holy Spirit to live more and more to righteousness, and die more and more to sin. But it doesn't mean we never sin.

 

[Polanus1561]

I'm not sure the question in my OP has been addressed. Divorce was permitted by Moses because of their hearts. Some husbands hate their wives and a divorce prevents a bad situation from getting worse.

Christ responds "but from the beginning it was not so." God joined them together, male and female, the man leaves his closest relations and holds fast to a relationship even closer, one flesh, and he loves the wife until death.

"From the beginning it was not so", but neither was a corrupted and sinful nature. I'm failing to see how we no longer need the accommodation Moses established, even in the Christian dispensation.

Matthew Henry answers that Christians simply won't have hard hearts toward their wives. Then why does Christ give the exception for adultery? Christians won't have hard hearts, but it's possible that they may commit adultery?

A Puritanboard thread diverging from the original questions of the OP? Say it aint so.

 

[Notjack]

It depends. Scripture makes it clear that divorce and remarriage are allowable on a conditional basis. Is the lack of intimacy due to the wife's health (physical or mental)? If so, the "in sickness and in health" clause (whether you used those words or not, I see them as part of the covenant of marriage based on Christ's teaching in places like Matthew 19.8 and 5.32 which return us to the creational ordinance of marriage: "but from the beginning it was not so") would prevent divorce. Willful neglect is another matter. A close friend experienced this - after a year or so he and his wife separated. Within 2 weeks she was sexually active with one of her colleagues. Again, I believe it is rare for there to be a divorce for reasons other than immorality where immorality does not soon follow, at which point the remaining party may remarry according to God's gracious provision. Abandonment is a grounds for divorce, but it is not grounds for remarriage.

Thanks - no health issues just doesn’t like me or have any interest in anything close to marriage other than $$ being available in the bank.

 

[ZackF]

A Puritanboard thread diverging from the original questions of the OP? Say it aint so.

It wasn’t me this time!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm not sure the question in my OP has been addressed. Divorce was permitted by Moses because of their hearts. Some husbands hate their wives and a divorce prevents a bad situation from getting worse.

Christ responds "but from the beginning it was not so." God joined them together, male and female, the man leaves his closest relations and holds fast to a relationship even closer, one flesh, and he loves the wife until death.

"From the beginning it was not so", but neither was a corrupted and sinful nature. I'm failing to see how we no longer need the accommodation Moses established, even in the Christian dispensation.

Matthew Henry answers that Christians simply won't have hard hearts toward their wives. Then why does Christ give the exception for adultery? Christians won't have hard hearts, but it's possible that they may commit adultery?

I don't think the Sinai legislation has been sufficiently exegeted by reference to MHenry's opinions. According to Christ, marriage is a creation ordinance having an ideal expression in a permanent/life-long male-female union. This predates Moses.

What does Sinai legislation say, and why does it say it (on the topic of divorce)? There's a prior understanding that divorce is defined as: the legal/formal dissolution of the marriage bond, the same bond that was intended to be permanent. How can the Holy Nation countenance such a thing in constitutional law? If there be so great evil that divorce is contemplated, shouldn't rather there be the imposition of capital punishment--thus, "till death do us part?" But the maximum penalty was obviously not always sought. And if Joseph of Mt.1:19 is a true indication, a divorce could even be a "righteous man's" choice.

Divorce under the right circumstances was a means of mercy. If not for sin, divorce would be inconceivable. Divorce became necessary because sin (since the fall) is part of human reality. Divorce in the Law of Moses is present to regulate behavior that would otherwise soon descend into little more than partner-swapping (or a situation not unlike the present licentious culture around most of us) on a whim; as well as the potential violence contemplated by MHenry's supposition.

The reality of sinful hearts in need of social regulation is what Jesus had in mind when he referred to "hardness of heart." He also had in mind certain abuses of the very Mosaic regulation meant to restrain men and women from breaking their vows, besides opening an avenue of mercy; which law had been turned on its head and made into a permission slip for abusers and the merciless. Jesus affirms the creation ideal, and declares that his kingdom would not be a place of toleration of such abuses, neither of marriage, nor of divorce if so be that members of his church were found victims.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

They answered, “Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away.” But Jesus told them, “Moses wrote this commandment for you because of your hardness of heart. 6However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” When they were back inside the house, the disciples asked Jesus about this matter. 11So He told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart; but it was not this way from the beginning. 9Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” 10His disciples said to Him, “If this is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry.”

It has also been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy But if the unbeliever leaves, let him go. The believing brother or sister is not bound in such cases.

So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.

I apologize if I am not really seeing all of these reasons for all of these things to fall under the above. These look very clear, especially in their context. Maybe I will never see it and just be that weird guy about this issue. But, given the prevalence of differing opinions, the weakness of the flesh, and the innate sexual desires of mankind; all I can lean on is the text; and the text looks very clear; even having it seems, more text to clarify its position than complementarianism vs egalitarianism. But, if any wondered, this is where my opinions stemmed from. I'm sorry I just have to let God be true in this case, and every man a liar.

Plot twist, Christ is talking to abusive men, not abused women

 

[Polanus1561]

https://www.pcahistory.org/pca/studies/divorce-remarriage.pdf

 

[davejonescue]

Plot twist, Christ is talking to abusive men, not abused women

And in verse 12 where he says "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery..." would be talking about abusive men how?

"Quest. 20. Who be they that may or may not marry again when they are
parted?

Answ. 1. They that are released by divorce upon the others Adultery,
Sodomy, &c. may marry again. 2. The case of all the rest is harder. They
that part by consent, to avoid mutual hurt, may not marry again: Nor the
party that departeth for self-preservation, or for the preservation of
estate, or children, or comforts, or for liberty of Worship, as aforesaid:
Because it is but an intermission of Conjugal fruition, and not a total
dissolution of the Relation: And the innocent party must wait to see
whether there be any hope of a return. Yea, Christ seemeth to resolve it,
Matth. 5. 31, 32. that he is an Adulterer that marrieth the innocent party
that is put away: because the other living in adultery, their first
contracted Relation seemeth to be still in being. But Grotius and some
others think, that Christ meaneth this only of the man that over-hastily
marrieth the innocent divorced Woman, before it be seen whether he will
repent and reassume her: But how can that hold, if the Husband after
Adultery free her? May it not therefore be meant, that the Woman must stay
unmarried in hope of his reconciliation, till such time as his adultery
with his next married Wife doth disoblige her. But then it must be taken as
a Law for Christians: For the Jew that might have many Wives, disobligeth
not one by taking another."

Baxter - A Christian Directory

 

[Northern Crofter]

But the maximum penalty was obviously not always sought. And if Joseph of Mt.1:19 is a true indication, a divorce could even be a "righteous man's" choice.

I largely agree with this post, but I also think it is important not to conflate the case of Joseph and Mary with what what is discussed by Christ and the Apostles regarding divorce. Joseph and Mary were betrothed (Mt.1.18; Luke 1.27) not married (see Mt.1.20 "fear not to take Mary as thy wife.).

Though the practice of betrothal/endowment is mostly foreign to our present Western culture, it is very clearly delineated from marriage in Scripture (see Exodus 21-22 and Deuteronomy 20 and 22). Joseph considering quietly ending the betrothal may have been a gracious act, but this is different than writing a bill of divorcement which is never mentioned in relation to betrothal (as reflected in the WCF - see below). The Law very clearly distinguishes between adultery ("If a man be found lying with a woman married to a man, then they shall die..." Deut.22.22), unfaithfulness during betrothal ("If a maid be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the town and lie with her, then shall ye bring them both out unto the gates of the same city, and shall stone them with stones to death..." Deut.22.23-24), and fornication ("If a man find a maid that is not betrothed, and take her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her, shall give unto the maid’s father fifty shekels of silver: and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her: he can not put her away all his life." Deut.22.28-29, see also Ex.22.16-17). A betrothal was taken as seriously as marriage, but it was still separate.

In the case of Mary and Joseph, Joseph could not prove who the other man was so there could be no trial. He did have the right to accuse her, but if he could not prove the charge, he would risk his own life - see Deut.22.13-21. Accusing Mary of unfaithfulness during their betrothal, even if unproven, would have permanently damaged her reputation for the rest of her life, but it also would have exposed Joseph to the danger of making an unprovable accusation. I think we often overlook Joseph's predicament. He was indeed a righteous (and wise) man.

While I am not a total reconstructionist, I think there is much to be gained from examining the expounding of the moral law in the legal code given to Israel, especially with regard to the 4th Commandment and matters such as divorce and remarriage. For starters, I believe this would help us understand why our forefathers in the faith left us such delineated statements (notice that they recognize the possibility of adultery before marriage) as found in WCF 24.5: "Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead."

 

[MyCrows]

And in verse 12 where he says "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery..." would be talking about abusive men how?

"Quest. 20. Who be they that may or may not marry again when they are
parted?

Answ. 1. They that are released by divorce upon the others Adultery,
Sodomy, &c. may marry again. 2. The case of all the rest is harder. They
that part by consent, to avoid mutual hurt, may not marry again: Nor the
party that departeth for self-preservation, or for the preservation of
estate, or children, or comforts, or for liberty of Worship, as aforesaid:
Because it is but an intermission of Conjugal fruition, and not a total
dissolution of the Relation: And the innocent party must wait to see
whether there be any hope of a return. Yea, Christ seemeth to resolve it,
Matth. 5. 31, 32. that he is an Adulterer that marrieth the innocent party
that is put away: because the other living in adultery, their first
contracted Relation seemeth to be still in being. But Grotius and some
others think, that Christ meaneth this only of the man that over-hastily
marrieth the innocent divorced Woman, before it be seen whether he will
repent and reassume her: But how can that hold, if the Husband after
Adultery free her? May it not therefore be meant, that the Woman must stay
unmarried in hope of his reconciliation, till such time as his adultery
with his next married Wife doth disoblige her. But then it must be taken as
a Law for Christians: For the Jew that might have many Wives, disobligeth
not one by taking another."

Baxter - A Christian Directory

2. The case of all the rest is harder. They
that part by consent, to avoid mutual hurt, may not marry again: Nor the
party that departeth for self-preservation, or for the preservation of
estate, or children, or comforts, or for liberty of Worship, as aforesaid:
Because it is but an intermission of Conjugal fruition, and not a total
dissolution of the Relation: And the innocent party must wait to see
whether there be any hope of a return.


This does not address willful desertion. There is not consent in willfull desertion.