Divorce: Scarlet Letter or Valid Option?; pt. 4


This is the fourth of a four-part series; here are the links to part 1part 2,  & part 3.

At the end of my first post in this series, I said that I wanted to get around to discussing the import of the phrase “hard heartedness” and its relationship to the intentional violation of the marriage vows. Because of my verbosity, I didn’t feel I could extend the next two articles to get to that subject, but now is the time to go there.

In my last post, I demonstrated how Matthew told the story of Jesus debunking the Talmudic Reasoning that was applied to God’s Law by rabbis that created an “Any Cause” clause in support of their version of No-Fault divorce. And as we saw, after Jesus blew up the “Any Cause” clause, the Pharisees sprung their trap:

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Well, they thought it was a trap.)

However, He came right back at them:

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Permission, Not Command

I hope you caught the difference between what the Pharisees and Christ said. The Pharisees say that God commanded a man to divorce his wife, but Jesus said that it was optional. It is “allowed”, it is an option.

I don’t want to get all New Testatment-y on you, but Jesus is in the reconciliation business. Marriage is no bed of roses, and Lord knows, there is something to the old adage “Familiarity breeds contempt.” After all, who among us (other than my wife) hasn’t had to pray, “Father, give me the strength to keep from using my strength to murder Hubs/Wifey!”

But to approach divorce? This isn’t some small matter of an irritant, such as leaving the toilet seat up or not squeezing the tube from the end. To get to the point of ending the marriage involves more than pique, it involves breaking the marriage covenant/contract vows.

When a man and woman marry, they pledge to undertake certain responsibilities and fulfill certain roles for the other, in order to enter into this union. These vows, in OT times, were specified in scripture, and supported by rabbinic teachings, and written down in marriage contracts called ketubahs (read Marriage: Covenant or Contract, #2); in fact, they still are. And failure to fulfill these vows constituted the breaking of the covenant and the end of the marriage.

Jesus’ approach to this, however, was the option of reconciliation. Yes, divorce is a choice that the offended party may pursue. But if there is still love and care for the other, and if the offending spouse is willing to enter back into covenant and fulfill his/her vows, then there isn’t necessarily a command to issue a divorce; there is a chance for reconciliation and restoration.

Did I say that this was Jesus’ approach? Well, this was also the approach of God the Father, in the Old Testament. Read the story of God’s relationship with Israel and Judah, and trace His attempts to reconcile with His faithless wives, in Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Over and over, He tries to bring Israel back into covenant, but finally sends her away:

Thus says the Lord:
“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce,with which I sent her away?
Or which of my creditors is it
to whom I have sold you;
Behold, for your iniquities you were sold,
and for your transgressions your mother was sent away.
(Is. 50:1)

Using Hosea as an object lesson, God demonstrated His attempts to call Israel back from her unfaithfulness, time and again. But the time finally came when He severed the marriage covenant between Him and Israel.

Whose Hard-Heartedness?

Jesus told the Pharisees, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives….” This appears to say that God ceded His will to hard-hearted people who insisted on the option of divorce or they wouldn’t accept Him as God. As I said in my last post, I don’t buy that.

What does it take to break a covenant? In the case of Israel in the OT, it was hard-hearted refusal to repent, to turn from other gods and return to the one true God, JHWH. Although He gave them chance after chance, sent prophet after prophet to warn them, to chastise them, they went merrily on their way to their own doom and enslavement.

The hard-hearted are those who refuse to honor their covenantal marriage vows, who refuse to honor their pledge to their spouse. We know that in OT times, there were four promises/expectations of a marriage covenant/contract. They were

sexual faithfulness (Ex. 20:14; Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:9)
provision of food (Ex. 21:10-11)
provision of clothing (Ex. 21:10-11)
conjugal rights (Ex. 21:10-11).

If you read the Ex. 21 reference, you will see that it is speaking about “slave wives” and the right of slave wives to leave freely, without price. If you are tempted to say some like, “Well, that was just for slaves,” then you need to recall that I said these were the laws of “OT times.” Very quickly after the giving of the Law, the leaders and judges of Israel realized that the rights of a Hebrew wife should not be less than those of a slave wife, and in Hebrew marriage documents, ketubahs, for three thousand years, now, these three things (food, clothing, and conjugal rights) have been placed in Jewish marriage contracts.

As an interesting sidebar to this discussion, the Talmud even has a passage on the minimum frequency a husband owed his wife sexual pleasure:

“The times for conjugal duty prescribed in the Torah are: for men of independent means, every day; for laborers, twice a week; for donkey drivers, once a week; for camel drivers, once in thirty days; for sailors, once in six months.”

(Sailors, of course, took long journeys).

All this is to say that when a man and woman pledge to each other, vow to each other, to love and care for each other, they are promising to fulfill certain obligations and responsibilities to the other in order to maintain the marriage. In the eyes of God and in the eyes of Israel, to intentionally fail to honor the covenant promise entitled the spouse who had been sinned against to declare the covenant broken and the relationship at an end.

Covenant Breakers Break Covenants

In response to my last post, one commenter said that he was interested in getting my thoughts on what would constitute “sexual immorality with regards [to] a legitimate basis for divorce.” He also referenced Matt. 5:28 (even looking with lust constitutes adultery) and said that just about everyone could be divorced, if we went by that standard.

Well, thankfully, we don’t use that standard. In His response, Jesus referenced the continuous, unrepentant, hard-hearted choice to violate God’s covenant as the standard for divorce. If a husband has the morals of an alleycat and makes no bones that his porn and affairs are his way of life, then that is valid reason for divorce. If a wife decides to say that sex is no longer going to occur in the marriage, then the husband has valid reason to divorce his wife.

The Three A’s

All Christians agree that Adultery, breaking the marriage vow via an affair, is an acceptable reason for divorce, so that doesn’t need to be discussed. A second reason that there might be somewhat less agreement on, as far as validity for divorce, is Abuse, whether physical or emotional. But under the laws of divorce as given by Moses, this would fall under the broad heading of failure to provide care, a la Ex. 21:10-11.

A third one reason that I believe to be a valid reason for divorce is Abandonment of the marriage bed. (Hence, the Three A’s, as I refer to them: Adultery, Abuse, Abandonment). The Greek word, pornea, has been analyzed ad nauseum, and I’m not going to do it here. Suffice to say that the word means more than adultery, and has been translated as “sexual immorality” in a number of translations.

Does abandonment of the marriage bed rise to the level of sexual sin, like adultery? At the very least, it is the failure to fill the expected role of friend and lover that is sworn in the marriage vow. And it is clear that the writer of the Torah thought so (Ex. 21), and, to my astonishment, so did one of my Heroes of the Faith. In his tractate, The Estate of Marriage (1522), Martin Luther wrote this:

The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:1 :17].

“Only first he should admonish and warn his wife two or three times”!! Well, what do you know? Luther was advocating for the Shot Across The Bow™ long before anyone on TMB! And do you see what he also advocates? Making her stubbornness a matter of common knowledge! He is calling for a Matt. 18 confrontation with a sinning wife. How many preachers and teachers do you hear calling for that in this day and age?


In my first post in this series, I said, “rather than divorce being a sin, it is a valid option to a hard-hearted, intentional violation of the marriage covenant/contract. An unfortunate option, yes, but a valid one.” As I believe I have shown, God does not see divorce as a scarlet letter sin committed by a hard-hearted reprobate, but the final sad action needed to formally end an irreparably broken relationship.

Divorce is not a happy act, nor is it a vengeful act. But it is sometimes a needed act, and we, as a Church, as the Body of Christ, need to realize that we need to reach out, not with the traditions and teachings of men, but with the healing power of God’s word.



Filed under Marriage & Sexuality

14 responses to “Divorce: Scarlet Letter or Valid Option?; pt. 4

  1. I suppose that marriages with “average” problems might not find Mt.18 to be an onerous burden. I tend to think Mt.18 is more for reconciling two people when neither has authority over the other. If divorce is needed or sought, I wish the secular government had no part. Going to the church would be better.

    I Cor.11:3 shows more than a “chain of command”. I think it describes the nature of the headship in each of those relationships. Bringing a church, or it’s elders in for something more than counselling and teaching can end up with triangulation and coercion. I’ve had to deal with that just looking for counsel! Those kinds of burdens can damage a marriage a lot more and easier than they would in other kinds of relationships, IMO.


  2. Thinking about this a little more, something occured to me. The four things that were determined to be the core obligations of the marriage were mostly from the perspective of the wife. Even the expectation of conjugal rights continues the thought about ensuring the first wife won’t be disregarded by her husband in favor of another wife added to the family.

    This got me wondering about 2-3 things.

    1. With respect to providing, a man should clearly provide. But there is no treatment of the topic of a man who hasn’t provided because of injury, because of disaster (crops ruined), etc.. The sin is really about devaluing an old wife compared to the new. If the first wife is completely, even lavishly provided for, but the provision of sex, food, clothing show that she has been “demoted” compared to the new wife, this is still a problem. So I wonder how the rebbis considered the situations when a husband is struggling or injured.

    2. I wonder why the expectations do not mention anything with regard to the spiritual needs for love, etc..

    3. Maybe the reason that Moses wrote the law without direct, explicit requirements for divorce is because he expected that people who are walking in His way will be able to discern the required wisdom. The more details are defined, the more “loopholes” can be found by the unscrupulous.


    • I’m a little late to the party, Object, but I can address # 2. I take your comment to be a reference to Romantic or Courtly Love. If this is not what you intended, then please disregard. There is no biblical requirement to provide Romantic Love to your spouse. Agape is a given among Christians in general, and Eros is looked upon as a good thing (bonus?) in marriage (Song of Songs) but by no means mandated. The idea that “Love is the only thing that can sanctify sex or marriage” is a relatively new invention that was almost universally dismissed even 2 generations ago. There is no provision in Gods Word for making your wife’s feelings or emotions (“needs” like romance, dates, flowers, and other things) a primary concern in your Marriage. Don’t mishear me. We must still live with them “in understanding, showing honor to the women”, etc and “not be harsh”, and everything else that is commanded. But there is a reason that marriage 101 is about only two things, and neither of them are emotions – Duty and Commitment.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Wraith,

        I’m certain you are sincere in thinking of your advice as “Marriage 101″… I started out with a lot of the same assumptions and even some of the same supporting thoughts and conclusions. Time, scripture, and experience have been instrumental in changing my perspective.

        I don’t want this to turn into a rant about how wrong you are. As I said, I started out believing similar things. I do want to describe a little about why my views are different, though.

        The easiest to see is probably the reliance on history or the historical to define what should be. Those things only show what used to be. The historical situation might have been better than what we have now, but that is largely moot if it doesn’t match what God wants.

        You mention the historical role of romance in marriage, and the sanctification of marriage or sex by love. It is not new news to me, and I have my doubts that it is an accurate description. Still, if it is accurate, what should that mean to me?

        Similarly, you rely on the greek words that are commonly translated as “love”. This is in my wheelhouse because I studied linguistics. I can tell you confidently, there is no dictionary or lexicon that can teach you more about love than just how to say/use the word. The Greeks had a broken, awful concept of love and what was good and acceptable. Their language was a tool for communication, and it doesn’t sanctify anything.

        As far as the mandate for love is concerned, I think it is so obvious that we often miss the forest for the trees. God made man male and female. The purpose goes way beyond just duty and commitment. If spouse has emotions, then he/she has emotional needs. Those needs are not peripheral or negligible any more than the need for commitment… which also satisfies an emotional need. Can a person really say she loves her husband while maintaining the attitude that his emotional needs are his own problem to deal with? (Sex mostly satisfies an emotional need, BTW.) This is *much*more* than just living in an understanding way.

        This devotion to satisfy a spouse’s needs, emotional or otherwise, is a core feature of marriage, regardless of what greek words are used, or what history looked like. Neglecting/abandoning a spouse’s needs on any level is a cold thing to do, and sinful. Neglect throws temptation in the face of the neglected spouse. It would be better to tie a millstone around one’s neck, and jump in the sea.

        I don’t know anyone who got married believing that duty and commitment were all that God wants in our marriages (they usually don’t believe that until the marriage at least gets stale). We get married believing that the other person will stay and *love* us. Staying with a loving, cherishing spirit towards our spouse is part of the *duty* we are *committing*to*.

        I’m in a time crunch. Hope that didn’t come across as scattered as it seemed to me. 🙂


  3. Pingback: Amputation As An Analogy | The Curmudgeonly Librarian

  4. Pingback: Divorce: Scarlet Letter or Valid Option?, pt. 1 | The Curmudgeonly Librarian

  5. Pingback: Divorce: Scarlet Letter or Valid Option?, pt. 2 | The Curmudgeonly Librarian

  6. Pingback: Divorce: Scartlet Letter or Valid Option?, pt. 3 | The Curmudgeonly Librarian

  7. uniballer1965

    Good luck finding a church that will even perform the Matthew 18 church discipline task. When my now ex-wife was having her affair, I followed the steps, I went to her seeking that she end the affair and work on the marriage. I took the minister who married us to confront her, and then went to our current pastor who refused to act, suggesting the church doesn’t get involved in things like this.

    In the 13 or so years since that, I’ve heard of very few people who have gone through the church discipline process.

    Is the modern church too fearful of actually following scripture.

    I’m sure someone will say their church does. The question is, is that a typical church response, or is their church unique in this area of scripture relative to churches in America today?

    Liked by 2 people

    • alchemist

      Our church does follow the Matthew 18 church discipline steps, but it is rare. It is actually a mark of a healthy church in some people’s (including my) opinion (along with preaching of sound doctrine, sacraments and prayer).

      Our church is not unique in this, but it is rare. For rather obvious reasons. If you have a church with 3000 members, you *can’t* get involved in affairs like this. If you play the numbers game, you are obviously not going to risk offending people by enacting church discipline for any reason. If your church does not have membership vows/ requirements it becomes difficult to enact discipline procedures. Being a congregational church (i.e. no presbytery or higher authority and no confessional documents) enacting church discipline becomes more difficulty and introduces a temptation to spiritual abuse. Especially if no-one dares challenge the pastor on anything.
      You also need: 1) a strong commitment to the church body from the members and a commitment to community/ fellowship 2) discipling and mentoring occurring regularly 3) to actually follow the scriptural guideline for electing elders and deacons. All of these things are difficult, requires a lot of effort, wisdom and humility.

      It is no wonder that the church in America is in trouble. It’s also no wonder that some churches have decided to “affirm” homosexuality etc. You can’t very well fuss at homosexuals if you haven’t lifted an eyebrow at co-habitation, pre-marital sex, sexual refusal, porn use and affairs for decades.

      Liked by 1 person


      Good luck getting them to be of any use for all the “other than an affair” issues either. TCL posts about women rule, men drool and marital gnostic ism sounded all too familiar. Don’t know what to do. Sexless marriage steps are difficult enough to deal with, but how is a man supposed to do ANY of that with a “man hating” church?

      I encourage everyone to look at the forgiven wife (Chris Taylor) post about the comments of husbands in Sexless marriages. I do not know how to get the link to work here, but I have seen it linked in a couple of places on this site I think. Caring for your husband’s heart or something to that effect I think it is called. My situation is similar to comments about wife being great friend etc but you would be lonely as spouse if you were in a relationship with her. But I could probably identify with at least a sentence from every comment. Really liked the “oaisis” haiku too. At least you will know you aren’t the only one pushing this boulder.

      Feel free to edit the link in if you are still monitoring these “old” comments.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Hi, LS. Sorry that you are in this situation, but the answer to your question about what to do in a man-hating church is simple: Leave and take your dollars with you. As I noted in that Women Rule series, mainstream Christianity knows that it has to play for pay: no pay, no play. And be vociferous as you go. Let folks know that you believe that the church has become unbiblical.

    As to the Forgiven Wife links, Chris has created a special page on her blog that aggregates all the posts that you are referring to, including the Caring for Your Husband’s Heart post. The url is: https://forgivenwife.com/new-to-this-blog-start-here/understanding-your-husbands-hurt/



      I have, but she won’t. Ever. So the well at the oasis is continually poisoned I guess. They even had a preacher come through that had to be thrown out for affairs and such.

      Don’t much know what to do or try any more.

      Resigned I guess is what I am now. Not sure if juice would be worth the squeeze anyway. I was like the starving guy staring through restaurant window on Chris’s post when we started. Didn’t know then to expect more of the same either. Marital Gnosticism post and women rule posts really hit home for me. As well as lead like I want you to. Personal Billy Graham. All of it so far, really.

      Your “hard to hear” series and Miss Chris’s husbands hurt page should be mandatory reading in pre-marital counseling as far as I am concerned. Out loud by each party with witnesses tests to pass after. Boy if parts of that were in the wedding vows, wouldn’t that make for some uncomfortable squirming in the pews at the wedding, huh? HA! How is that for snarkism?

      After 32 years of “Holy Deadlock” now, I don’t know. Tired, so tired.

      I didn’t want us to be this way. I wanted so much more and thought she did too. Good old bait and switch like flipping a switch. I can remember her telling me “you’re married now, sucker” like it was yesterday. She said it jokingly and I thought she was. Guess I was. Am a sucker. If I knew then I probably should have filed for an anullment or something and saved us BOTH a lot of pain maybe. That might have done something then because she didn’t have the kids she wanted and might have forced her to deal with some of this since anullment would have been a big no-no.

      From one curmudgeon to another, thanks for replying. No need to post any of this out.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s