Home » Thomas Ross » No Divorce–Just Legal Separation!

No Divorce–Just Legal Separation!

Scripture plainly teaches that God hates divorce, e. g. Mark 10:11-12:

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

But what about “legal separation”? Can a believer justify separating himself or herself from his or her spouse, going to law in custody battles, and in other ways remaining unreconciled, as long as “legal separation” and not “divorce” is what this is called?  Consider the following passages.

1.) 1Cor. 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Cor. 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1Cor. 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Cor. 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Cor. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Note that “let …” is the English way of rendering a 3rd person imperative in Greek–in other words, these are not just allowances, they are commands,  infallible orders in God’s Word.  “Let not the wife depart from her husband … Let not the husband put away his wife” are not options, but commands, commands just like the commands not to commit idolatry, not to steal, to confess Christ, etc.Note as well that a believing spouse is not suggested, but commanded to “not leave” even an unconverted spouse–and what kind of unconverted people are we talking about? What kind of people are the unconverted at Corinth? They were “unrighteous … fornicators … idolaters … adulterers … effeminate … abusers of themselves with mankind … thieves … covetous … drunkards … revilers … extortioners” (1 Cor 6:9-10). Even spouses who are unconverted and are engaging in such filthy perversion and gross wickedness come under the command, not the option, but command, “Let not … leave.”The only person who is seen leaving is the unconverted spouse.  Leaving is what an unconverted person would be characterized by, not a converted person who can love, suffer, patiently endure wrong, etc. like Christ because of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.Note as well that leaving does not result in a better situation for the household. Staying with even a spouse who is a fornicator, adulterer, thief, etc. results in the household being “sanctified” and the children being “holy.”  It is better for the children for the two to stay together, even if one spouse is engaged in such gross wickedness.  Nothing in the text says anything about separating until the other person gets better or changes.  On the contrary, the only mention of change in the evil of the one spouse is if they stay together (1 Cor 7:16):
1Cor. 7:16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
where the “whether” is the Greek particle for “if” with the assumption of the reality of the condition (1st class conditional)–in other words, “whether/if thou shalt..” with the assumption that staying together will result in the positive change (1st class), not “whether/if” with this presented as only being possible (3rd class) or unlikely (4th class conditional).  The only thing the text says happens when the two are not together is children who are unclean instead of holy and the other spouse not making positive change.
2.) Mal. 2:13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
Mal. 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal. 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
Mal. 2:16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Note that Jehovah, the God of Israel, says that “he hateth putting away.”  Note that Jehovah does not say that He only hates giving a certificate of divorce.  He says that He hates–He finds detestable in His holy Being–“putting away.”  A simple search for this word (shalach, Piel stem) indicates that “putting away” appears in passages such as:
Gen. 12:20 And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.
Ex. 10:7 And Pharaoh’s servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?
Josh. 24:28 So Joshua let the people depart, every man unto his inheritance.
and many others.So what God “hates” is not just signing a divorce certificate, although He certainly does hate that.  He hates “putting away.” He hates it when spouses “depart” or “go” from each other, and when this happens, not only do they do something that He “hates,” but they do something that greatly compromises the “godly seed”–something also seen, as noted above, in 1 Cor 7.  “Putting away” meaning literally “departing” or “going” etc., not just “divorce,” as something hated by God is also seen in 1 Cor 7 above, where “put away” is paralleled with “depart,” not being “reconciled,” “dwell with,” “not .. leave,” etc.So what God hates, what He calls “treachery” to the marriage vow in Malachi 2, is not just divorce, but “putting away.”  Consider the contextual curses related to the sins of the chapter like “putting away” include:
Mal. 2:2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
Mal. 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.
The text indicates God calls putting away of a spouse treachery, and He curses those who do it, corrupts their seed, spreads dung on them, and takes them away.
3.) Psa. 15:1-4 LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
Psa. 15:2 He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
Psa. 15:3 He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
Psa. 15:4 In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
Note that this passage says that those who “speak truth” and “swear to [their] own hurt, and changeth not” are those who will “dwell in [God’s] holy hill,” and are contrasted with the “vile person.”  The upright person swears to his own hurt and does not change, while the vile change and when swearing is to the vile person’s own hurt, he changes, unlike the righteous.So if someone calls together a large group of witnesses, and then swears to God something such as, in part:
“I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God’s holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith.”
Even if one later thinks he or she should not have made this vow it does not matter. The righteous swears to his own hurt and does not change.  The vow has been made and must be kept even to one’s own hurt.  Christ’s people know that their time on earth is about losing their life, taking up the cross–which is terrible, humiliating suffering and excruciating death–to follow Jesus Christ. So even if keeping one’s vow means one will be in awful misery, he needs to keep his vow that was sworn to one’s hurt, and not change, since Jehovah calls spousal separation “treachery” in Malachi 2. It is better to endure lifelong misery than to sin. It is better to suffer a horrible death like crucifixion than to sin. While God gives comfort to His obedient people in suffering, and it is not likely that staying in a marriage will mean life-long suffering for a believer, even if it does the believer is to swear to his own hurt and not change.  This life is nothing compared to eternal life, and suffering for 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 100 years is nothing compared to eternity.  It is better not to make a foolish vow, but once it has been made it must be kept, because life is not about our feeling comfortable, but about the glory of God.If we have the following attitude:
Is. 66:2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
it is very clear that “legal separation” is hateful to God. Believers who file for “legal separation” are sinning against the Lord.  If a spouse is running at you with a meat cleaver screaming he is going to kill you, you can run away so you don’t get killed. If you are getting beaten up, you can flee to prevent that from happening because of the Biblical principle in the Sixth Commandment to preserve life from murder (Exodus 20:13).  You do not get to leave if you have an unsaved spouse who is mean, who says terrible things to you, or anything like that. Obey God. Reject legal separation, just like you reject divorce. God rejects them both.
TR

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives