IN the year leading up to my divorce, I spent a lot of time searching the Bible for answers to my numerous and multiplying questions. As mentioned in my previous post, “It was a year I spent investigating every little detail of God’s intentions for marriage, Jesus’ instructions regarding divorce (Mark 10), Paul’s writings on divorce, and quizzing my pastor on the exact meaning of this Greek word and that Greek word.” As some of the questions I had have been raised by various readers in the comments on this previous post I thought they may be worthy of a post of their own. This is that post. Before we begin, let me say upfront that I do not have all the answers, I am not a theologian, but I am a woman who has struggled through divorce with the intention of being godly, even in the midst of it. I wanted to have my acts dictated by God’s good and right instructions. My greatest fear during this time was that I would divorce out of bitterness and hurt with a hardened heart and that I would ignore God’s word, or get it wrong out of ignorance.
. . That is not to say I didn’t have any hesitation about obeying God’s word. I had plenty! I was angry, confused and disillusioned. One of my biggest questions was, “How can I trust and love a God who says I can divorce my husband if he commits adultery but not if he tries to kill me?” It simply did not make sense. How could a good God make such a rule? Surely, murder, or attempted murder, abuse and assault were just as bad as adultery?
. . I knew I had Biblical grounds for divorce as my ex-husband had been unfaithful; however, I couldn’t help thinking, “What if? What if he had never cheated on me? Would I be forced to stay with him?” These questions lead to others, such as:

If I left my ex-husband to keep my children and myself safe, would I be forced to stay married but separate from him permanently?
Would this mean I could never have the hope of remarrying, if I ever wanted to?
Isn’t it kind of hypocritical to be separated but not divorced?
How is permanent separation different to divorce anyway?

But the most aching cry of my heart came from the question, “Why doesn’t God care if my husband tries to kill me?” It didn’t sit right with my experience of God as a loving, caring God. He must care. He does. Slowly, I began to learn this.
. .. The Bible passages I was stuck on were Matthew 5:31-32,

"It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I [Jesus] tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

...and Matthew 19:3-9

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

...also Mark 10:2-9

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

and Luke 16:18

18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Then there is also 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 to consider:

10To 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 any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

These words are hard. They seem to state very clearly that there is no other grounds for divorce than that of adultery or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse.

. . Some scholars argue that Jesus’ words in the gospels seek to regulate the occurrence of divorces already prevalent in society at the time in which he was speaking. It is thus important to understand the historical context of the text before trying to figure out how the text applies to us today. Let us do this now.
Jesus is referring to the practice, as communicated in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, of men divorcing their wives because they “dislike” their wife and wish to trade her in for a better model. Divorces were occurring for trivial reasons and these kinds of divorces were leaving women destitute.

. .. Ken Crispin, in his book, Divorce: The Unforgivable Sin?, observes that this passage in Deuteronomy states the grounds for divorce as being that the man finds something “indecent” in his wife. Crispin states that “the Hebrew words so translated were ervath dabhar,” meaning, “the nakedness of the thing,” “some uncleanness”… ‘or “some indecency,’” (p26). Apparently there had been an historical disagreement as to what these words actually meant: followers of Shammai asserted that divorce was only permissible in cases of adultery; the followers of Hillel asserted that “a man should divorce his wife only if she had been guilty of some misconduct but the misconduct might be quite minor,” (Crispin, p26); and finally, “Rabbi Akiba had the wonderfully [note the scepticism] straightforward view that a man may divorce his wife for no other reason than he found another woman more beautiful,” (Crispin, p26). Isn’t it funny how similar these reasons are to those we often hear today. OK funny is the wrong word. Sad. These reasons were prevalent in Jesus’ day too. Thus, the Pharisees try to entangle him in the debate on divorce. This historical debate is widely recognised and may be found in numerous Commentaries.
. . Crispin then argues that in the Matthew 5 passage in which Jesus addresses this historical debate, “the word which is translated as “adultery” or “unchastity” is actually poerneia,” (p28). Earlier Crispin has explained that the word poerneia is a Greek word “from which …we derive our modern word pornography,” (p28) He continues, “That word referred to sexual immorality and like the Hebrew concept of ervath dabhar would have included adultery but have extended to other forms of misconduct.” He states that we do not have an English word with “comparable meaning,” (p28). Crispin asserts that Jesus’ use of the word poerneia is deliberate. For, Jesus could have used the word moichea, which “meant simply adultery.” In fact, this word “moichea was used by Jesus only three sentences earlier when Jesus said, ‘But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’”
. . This is all very complex and has been the subject of much scholarly controversy. However, if Crispin is correct and Jesus is deliberately using poerniea instead of moichea then our reading of the Matthew passages may be influenced. Essentially Crispin is arguing that something is lost in the translation of Jesus’ words from Greek to English and that Jesus’ intended meaning involves more than just adultery. Crispin then asks the question, “If Jesus intended to permit divorce only in cases of adultery, why did he change to the more general word only three sentences later? The only possible answer to that is he did so because he wanted to express a wider concept, namely the concept of shameful or indecent conduct already contained in the Law that had been given to Moses,” (p 29).
. . Crispin then asks, “What then are the limits of this ground of shameful or indecent conduct? Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament contains any further explanation other than that implicit in the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. The most difficult question,” he states, “is whether it has to be misconduct of a sexual nature,” (p 29). So as not to misrepresent Crispin’s argument and befuddle it with my own words I will quote Crispin extensively until his conclusion:

“Both the Hebrew and the Greek word have strong sexual connotations and that seems to have prompted various translators to pick words such as “unchastity” or “adultery” as the closest English synonyms available. It seems to me, however, that the concept should not be looked at in the abstract but in the context of a marriage which is, of course, an essentially sexual relationship. In that context it seems to me that the word may be taken to include any kind of misconduct or immorality which is so serious that it pollutes or perverts the marriage relationship. If that construction is correct, it would mean that a Christian should not contemplate divorce unless there was a misconduct that was so serious that it virtually undermined the whole marriage. On the other hand, it would mean that a [husband or] wife need not feel locked into a marital relationship with a [wo/]man who was repeatedly guilty of gross violence towards [him/]her and/or their children merely because [s/]he had not committed adultery.”

. . Crispin’s contention is well worth considering. It fits with the idea that marriage is a covenant between two people and reflects the idea that gross acts of abuse or violence against a partner whom someone has promised to love, cherish and be faithful to break this covenant in such a way that the two who were joined together may be torn, perhaps irreparably, apart. This is not to say that reconciliation should not be sought. Our God is a God of restored relationships and love and he can restore broken relationships. Reconciliation should be sought especially when we realise how serious God considers the breaking of a covenant, as discussed in my previous post relating to Genesis 15. If we keep all of this in mind I think it is possible to have a scriptural view of when it is permissible to divorce without watering down the commands of Jesus while at the same time avoiding the legalism of the Pharisees.
. . In reading this, please remember that I am not a scholar of Greek or Hebrew which is why I have quoted Crispin rather than assert my own opinion. I do not claim to hold an absolute answer. I am a Christian woman who seeks earnestly to follow the example of Christ, to live a life of obedience that honours God because I am convinced that He loves and cares for us, moreover, He is God and deserves to be worshiped for that fact alone. In the year leading up to my divorce I sought to understand the Bible and act accordingly, I did not want to divorce because my heart was hardened. What I have written serves simply to share some information I have found. I do not feel competent in advising as to how others should act. If the issues and questions discussed here touch you, please seek advice from trusted pastors, ministers, counsellors and friends; read widely; interrogate everything asking God to guide you and give you wisdom - and pray.
. . Finally, the only advice I wish to give is to those who may be experiencing abuse: If you are faced with a dangerous situation find somewhere safe you can go to give yourself time to think and consider your situation. Do not put yourself or your children at risk. Seek safety.
. . What I can say, without a doubt, is that whatever position you are in God is interested in you. I know this because I see how Jesus treated people when he walked the earth. Remember the woman caught in adultery. Like her, we are able to approach Jesus and find forgiveness, comfort and life. I know this is how God would treat us because Hebrews 1:3 tells me that “The Son [Jesus] is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” He shows us, as Kim discussed not so long ago, what God’s nature is like. When we look to Jesus and see how he treats those around him we see how God would treat us if he were to walk the earth, for this is who Jesus is: God become man. I find this so comforting and so compelling. I am drawn to Jesus because of his great love, compassion and mercy. I am sure he would never turn away a hurting heart.