Biblical Marriage and Divorce

[Gatekeeper]

Marriage as it is today honors the covenant relationship and spiritual union between two people in love. The relationship between two people in love is a beautiful and wonderful thing. How much more beautiful, miraculous, and wonderful is the actual and "literal" marriage (Merging) itself, when two people In love effectively become one and birth a child between them? I think that both the covenant relationship (The spiritual union) and the birth of a child (The literal union) work together to form a "biblical" Marriage.

A person can certainly be spiritually joined (Through love) to another without children, and that union is no less significant than those who actually birth a child. But, man was told to be fruitful and to multiply and to subdue the earth. It is written that the man is to cleave unto the "Woman"" and become one flesh. It is my view that this is referring to birthing a child, whereby two souls become one soul.

Jesus tells us, "What God has joined together, let no man separate." (Forcefully remove). A true biblical marriage is the partnership formed between two people when two people have been joined together by love and by the birth of a child. Therefore, divorce is only a divorce when parents cut ties entirely, and a child is (forcefully removed) from one of his/her parents in life.

Take me for instance: I am no longer romantically involved with my ex "wife", but we are still joined together (United) "through" and also "In" our son. We are His parents, and we both share in our parental responsibilities.

God has joined us together in our son; we work together for his good despite the lack of romantic love between us. What we share now is a different kind of love for one another. It is not dependent upon romance, or sexual relations, but revolves around our son who has enabled us to be joined for life through him.

Even though We are no longer "mates" who take part in sexual relations, we are still married (United and Merged) through our son. In other words, we have not cut ties entirely, so as I understand scripture, we are not truly divorced. We are merely no longer romantically involved.

A piece of paper, a priest, or justice of the peace certainly does not make a marriage legitimate. I think today's concept of marriage is but a shadow in relation to biblical marriage. I also think that there are many who feel needless guilt over their participation in the type of divorce that takes place today. True divorce is a very rare thing according to my view, even in today's societies when couples seem to change partners like their underpants. If there were no children involved and ties have not been broken completely, then the divorce is not truly a divorce. (At least in my mind and as I understand scripture)


GK

 

[citizenzen]

A piece of paper, a priest, or justice of the peace certainly does not make a marriage legitimate.

Oh well, some how I'll have to find solace in my less than adequate, childless, first marriage of 12 years, officiated by the county clerk in our back yard.

If my wife and I only knew what a hollow sham we are part of.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

CZ,

I agree. A promise is a promise.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Oh well, some how I'll have to find solace in my less than adequate, childless, first marriage of 12 years, officiated by the county clerk in our back yard.

If my wife and I only knew what a hollow sham we are part of.

A legitimate marriage is made through love, citizen zen. Whether a child is part of or not, you are united spiritually through love. It's not the paper, or the priest, or the Justice of the Peace that legitimizes your spiritual union, but rather the love you and your partner share.

GK

 

[Gatekeeper]

CZ,

I agree. A promise is a promise.

To love and to cherish? Indeed, it is through love that two people remain united .... Both those with children and those without. One is no less legitimate than the other. Even so, divorce can only be applied to those who bear children. Divorce refers to the willful, and forced separation of a parent from child. This is simply my view, Nick. I'm not asking you to view it in like manner, but that we make a discussion of the topic itself.

Two cents,

GK

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Gatekeeper,

It is a poignant idea, that a divorce from a spouse often means a defacto divorce from / loss of a child too.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I think today's concept of marriage is but a shadow in relation to biblical marriage.

When I say shadow, I mean that the concept of marriage in today's society has become watered down to the point where people are "married" and "divorced" multiple times. The spiritual union of a man and a woman is not taken as seriously as it ought to be taken. (Love bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things). Yes, romantic love often fades, but true love endures. If man were judged by today's concept of divorce, few would cut the muster.


GK

 

[Gatekeeper]

Gatekeeper,

It is a poignant idea, that a divorce from a spouse often means a defacto divorce from / loss of a child too.

In which case I would suggest that both parties work together for the good of the child. Parental responsibility falls on both the mother and the father .... despite the differences they may have.

 

[wil]

I think I hear the point that is being made, and that you CZ can understand it.

It isn't that your marriage is any sham....it is that havng a child is a merger of two people manifest physically, and therefor this is the continuation of the life of that marriage despite whether the marriage continues or not.

How much connection would my ex and I have if it weren't for the children. While I can't say exactly I'm pretty sure it would have been a lot less. When I contemplate this...she moved 20 minutes away...into another county, another school district. My response was to move as well, and find a place so my kids could just take one bus from school to her house and another bus to my house...turns out I found a place a mile away on the same bus route. So depending on whose house they were to be at they just got off at different stops... If I really consider it after she left and our divorce was final (possibly even before) I would have just packed up and moved thousands of miles away to continue my life and had little if any contact with her.

But as our lives, our marriage, our connection is continued with the children, the experience is vastly different.

 

[citizenzen]

I think I hear the point that is being made, and that you CZ can understand it.

Personally, it all sounds like a bunch of rationalization.

But just as GK said, that is just my view.

ra⋅tion⋅al⋅ize
–verb
1. To ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.​

 

[wil]

Personally, it all sounds like a bunch of rationalization.

But just as GK said, that is just my view.

ra⋅tion⋅al⋅ize
–verb
1. To ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.
​

Ok CZ, (wil nods head while rolling eyes)

Our kids aren't the result of the union between two people, and they don't have any affect on maintaining the connection between those people.

Yes, CZ, you are correct as always. What was I thinking.

 

[citizenzen]

What was I thinking.

Once again, you were not. And you forgot your question mark.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Personally, it all sounds like a bunch of rationalization.

But just as GK said, that is just my view.

ra⋅tion⋅al⋅ize
–verb
1. To ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.​

The view I presented is both scriptural and logical according to my understanding. If you disagree make your case, Citizen zen. I will consider your view, so long as the view you present is based on scripture and/or logic. I am certainly not accurate in all my views, so it might be helpful to me for you to counter my position on marriage and divorce with a little substance. That way I'll have something more to chew on.

Seriously,

GK

 

[citizenzen]

I also think that there are many who feel needless guilt over their participation in the type of divorce that takes place today.

GK, the I believe the crux of your post lies in this line. Reading your post leads me to believe it is more of a "pep talk" meant to relieve your guilt over your broken family than anything else.

I think today's concept of marriage is but a shadow in relation to biblical marriage.

Today's "concept of marriage" is still to love and honor, through richer and poorer, thick and thin, till death do you part. What aspect of that concept is a shadow in relation to biblical marriage? What couple marries vowing to "divorce as easily as we change underwear"? They don't. People enter into marriage with the best intentions, but due to personal weaknesses and lax social mores, they don't honor the vows they solemnly swore to.

Just like you didn't.

Then you rationalize your failure in an attempt to feel better about the whole thing: you're not really divorced... you're really still married. I suppose your family really didn't experience all that trauma. Your son really didn't feel the pain of seeing his parents and home split up.

Meanwhile, according to you, my wife and I — and millions of other people — who have stuck through thick and thin apparently live in a shadow of a marriage because we never had children.

It's BS, GK. But, at least it helps you get through your day.

 

[Dream]

People take things they 'Have' for granted. The possibility of divorce raises the appreciation of the marriage. That is not the only thing divorce is for. Divorce is a way of letting the other person out when you can't or won't hold up your end. It is ultimately a way of loving them when otherwise you cannot. It shouldn't be easy or cheap, but its important sometimes. Additionally where divorce has a stigma in society, abuse is more likely. People will wield the stigma of divorce against their spouses sometimes, to keep them in control. Marriage should not be like that, and in that case divorce is better.

Plus, marriage is intimate, so there's no regular way for a third party to really understand the dynamic within a marriage. That's the practical reason why when people are divorced, they ought to be considered socially single & available. No questions asked. I have known married people that were held together by evil bonds, not marital ones. That to me is a perversion of marriage, so I'd respect a person who goes through divorce instead. At the same time, I don't have any way of knowing who divorces for what reason. I leave it up to them.

Several things lead me to think that this is a Biblical way to approach marriage. There is the law of divorce in Deuteronomy. There is Paul's comment about dying to a marriage in Romans 7:1-3. There is the fact that in the NT there is no distinction between widows and divorcees, as far as I can tell. Also, from Genesis through Malachi, it also appears that the divorced have the same status as widows or singles. Jesus argument with certain members of the leadership of his day focuses upon the hardness of their hearts. There is no way he would have completely overturned marriage and divorce laws, because a messiah isn't allowed to do that. Anybody who says he actually overturned laws and yet is messianic, I pity.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Pocket full of sunshine aren't you

GK, the I believe the crux of your post lies in this line. Reading your post leads me to believe it is more of a "pep talk" meant to relieve your guilt over your broken family than anything else.

It is what I have come to believe, citizen zen. I've never felt guilt over the loss of my ex "wife". I did however, go through a great deal of emotional pain. So much so that after she left me, a mental meltdown ensued, lasting for many years. I initially felt as if I lost the only thing good in my life, but this just wasn't the case. In reality I am still connected to her through my child, and our relationship is stronger now than it has ever been. He (My son) is the true marriage (merging) of my ex an myself, and we, through and in him, will always be connected.

You base your assumptions on what exactly? You think I felt guilt over losing the love of my life? Give me a break! You can do better than that, citizen zen. I can tell you with all certainty that guilt has never been an issue when it came to my ex and I. Even so, the truth remains that many do feel 'religious' guilt over their so called divorces. I simply find this guilt to be unnecessary because unless ties have been broken completely, and a child forced to be separated from one of the parents entirely, then there was no 'real' divorce (Forceful removal/putting away) to begin with.

If marriage today is not a watered down shadow of what 'real' marriage is suppose to be made of, then divorce as we know it would not be common place. This much is evident, no? Wedding vows are romantic and all, but they are rarely followed through. We honor the vows we gave through our child, citizen zen. Our child has become the focus of our relationship. It is no longer just about me or us, but about them marriage itself (Our child).

The marriage between my ex and I has been substantiated through our child. Our marriage (Union) is based on our Child AND Love and is scripturally supported. While Yours is based on love alone. Our child solidifies our merging and he citizen zen is certainly NOT a failure. The relationship my ex and I share today is stronger than it has ever been, and this is due to our child. I rationalize nothing, it is you who rationalize. Although you are connected to your wife spiritually, you have not become one 'flesh' though a child and truly merged together. You have a covenant relationship between you. I have a marriage solidified by our child. We have literally been merged together, and this is what it means to be married according to my understanding of scripture.

Meanwhile, according to you, my wife and I — and millions of other people — who have stuck through thick and thin apparently live in a shadow of a marriage because we never had children.

Your entire retort is bullsh!t, CZ! If you are still together than obviously it isn't shallow is it? You make light of my child, while I commend 'you' on your perseverance with you and yours. You call me a failure, and I call you a success. You take digs at me and my child, while I have done nothing but show you what a biblical marriage is. If you are offended at my scriptural viewpoint, then take it up with thos ewho wrote scripture. Again, you have offered nothing but your assumptions, and emotionally charged opinion in your post.

You lack substance (Again) which is no surprise

GK

 

[Gatekeeper]

People take things they 'Have' for granted. The possibility of divorce raises the appreciation of the marriage. That is not the only thing divorce is for. Divorce is a way of letting the other person out when you can't or won't hold up your end. It is ultimately a way of loving them when otherwise you cannot. It shouldn't be easy or cheap, but its important sometimes. Additionally where divorce has a stigma in society, abuse is more likely. People will wield the stigma of divorce against their spouses sometimes, to keep them in control. Marriage should not be like that, and in that case divorce is better.

Plus, marriage is intimate, so there's no regular way for a third party to really understand the dynamic within a marriage. That's the practical reason why when people are divorced, they ought to be considered socially single & available. No questions asked. I have known married people that were held together by evil bonds, not marital ones. That to me is a perversion of marriage, so I'd respect a person who goes through divorce instead. At the same time, I don't have any way of knowing who divorces for what reason. I leave it up to them.

Several things lead me to think that this is a Biblical way to approach marriage. There is the law of divorce in Deuteronomy. There is Paul's comment about dying to a marriage in Romans 7:1-3. There is the fact that in the NT there is no distinction between widows and divorcees, as far as I can tell. Also, from Genesis through Malachi, it also appears that the divorced have the same status as widows or singles. Jesus argument with certain members of the leadership of his day focuses upon the hardness of their hearts. There is no way he would have completely overturned marriage and divorce laws, because a messiah isn't allowed to do that. Anybody who says he actually overturned laws and yet is messianic, I pity.

Scripture is somewhat clear on the issue of marriage I think ... That it consists of both a spiritual union and a literal union through the birth of a child. What God has joined together (A child) let no man be removed from. Solomon had many woman whom he surely loved, but did all his woman bear children by Him? The same is true with Abraham; He had more than one woman also.

People make a big fuss over marriage as if a true marriage is validated by a piece of paper. Well, it isn't ... it is validated by love and by the birth of a child. Marriage is the birth of two souls in one. Even so, we do enter into covenant relationships through the love between two individuals. Sometimes the relationships and/or literal unions involve more than two people (As in polygamy) which is no less legitimate according to scripture. [IMO]

GK

 

[citizenzen]

Re: Pocket full of sunshine aren't you

You base your assumptions on what exactly?

The base of my assumptions is when you take a very sensitive and painful personal experience, filter it through questionable religious interpretation and then serve it up on a public forum, your bound to serve a dish that leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth.

Needless to say I think your points were overly broad and self-serving. Had I been a bit wiser I'd have left your post alone, knowing that any answer other than a confirmation would have come to no good end. Perhaps we'll be able to engage in a more meaningful dialogue sometime in the future.

My apologies, GK, for not knowing when to keep my mouth shut.

 

[Avi]

Re: Pocket full of sunshine aren't you

My apologies, GK, for not knowing when to keep my mouth shut.

(With the new avatar you can't even stick a banana in your mouth )

 

[Gatekeeper]

Re: Pocket full of sunshine aren't you

The base of my assumptions is when you take a very sensitive and painful personal experience, filter it through questionable religious interpretation and then serve it up on a public forum, your bound to serve a dish that leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth.

Needless to say I think your points were overly broad and self-serving. Had I been a bit wiser I'd have left your post alone, knowing that any answer other than a confirmation would have come to no good end. Perhaps we'll be able to engage in a more meaningful dialogue sometime in the future.

My apologies, GK, for not knowing when to keep my mouth shut.

So, lets discuss biblical marriage in a meaningful way, then. The experience of thinking I lost my life partner was painful, but only because of emotional insecurity at the time. I've long grown past that emotional insecurity. Also, the crux of my views didn't come form that painful past, filtered through religious interpretation, but by questioning the status quo and through diligent study of the scriptures themselves.

If my op left a bad taste in your mouth, perhaps it is due to your own sensitivities? Your own emotionally charged and cherished views points? I have merely presented my interpretation of what a biblical marriage and a biblical divorce consists of. Now it has been placed beneath the microscope for further scrutiny. So, lets examine the interpretation presented so we can clarify and further define what a truly biblical marriage consists of.

Nothing ventured; nothing gained, citizen zen ...

GK