(1) The purpose of marriage is to provide a completeness of being — Genesis 2 — He makes them one flesh, inseparable in this life. That was the thrust of Jesus’ statement that what God had joined together could not be undone by human efforts; it echoes in what Paul states regarding a fornicator being joined to a harlot. The penalty for adultery, under the Law, was death, not divorce, and both transgressors were to die.

(2) The granting of a divorce mechanism, because of the “hardness of their hearts” (trans. “self fulfillment”, “self centeredness”) was a way of extending mercy, because the accusation of unfaithfulness prior to marriage was difficult to defend against, and divorce was a protection to the woman so accused. Nevertheless, once having been married, and having been given the divorce certificate, the perspective of Jesus was that the paper meant nothing in reality; if she were to remarry, she would commit adultery, and any man marrying her committed adultery, because in God’s eyes she never ceased being the wife of the first man she married.

(3) The interesting part is that Jesus immediately afterward deals with oath-breaking. When a man and woman bind themselves before witnesses to carry out their marriage, the breaking of that oath (so you call it a vow, does that change anything?), especially using such terms as “until death parts us” makes the oath-breaker a liar. Liars are fuel for the Lake of Fire, from what I’ve read. (So next time you sign on the line to renew your license plates or driver’s license, pay attention to what you are vowing to do!)

(4) Under God’s plan, the onus for family stability was on the husband. He is responsible for everything that occurs within his family. He may not like that responsibility, and society may try to take it from him, but once he commits to marriage, the responsibility is his, and he will give account to God for it. Read 1 Cor. 7 carefully; if an unbelieving spouse runs away because of the believer’s commitment to Christ, the believer is not required to insist that they stay. That does not, however, free the one left behind to break their vows.

(5) One last thing. Under the Law, the divorced wife could remarry, but could never go back to her first husband. Again, consider the reason — hardness of heart. God’s intent was to avoid confusion in family relationships. His lesson with respect to Hosea and Gomer was an illustration of the extent to which grace and forgiveness was part of His character. Repeatedly in the Old Testament He tells Israel to come back to Him despite the national idolatry. The ability of a wronged spouse to forgive the sinning partner should be an outgrowth of the recognition of how far Jesus went to secure our own forgiveness. Restoration of a broken marriage provides the ultimate earthly parallel to the restoration of our own fellowship with our Creator. To legitimize divorce is to overthrow grace and place oneself back under the Law as a means of self-salvation, and the one who breaks the smallest commandment is guilty of breaking all of them.

(6) Maybe you need to have your Dad and Mom pick out a nice girl for you and make the arrangements with her family. Then you might not be so conflicted over all this stuff.

My logic was starting with divorce and working chronologically backwards, not starting with compatibility and moving forwards. I was merely pointing out how divorce’s determining factor, according to Jesus, is sex. It’s obviously a very important, if not the most important, component of a marriage relationship (if it’s the lynchpin for ending that relationship). So shouldn’t we be paying much more attention to it before we get married?

First, by “I think it’s interesting how much emphasis and importance Jesus places on sexual intimacy at the end of the marriage relationship,” are you referring to adultery? Well, I don’t think for a minute that the primary reason adultery occurs is because of a lack of sexual compatibility. Generally, other needs are not being met within the marriage, so one person begins to seek that elsewhere. But whichever needs are not being met, I believe that the root problem is often a lack of communication.

Next, yes, God initiated a divorce in the instance mentioned above. And yes, he recognizes a reality that diverges from his original plan for marriage and therefore establishes some regulations for how it should be carried out (Matt. 19:3-9). But I think the actual instances where that is the “correct” or even an “acceptable” choice are very limited. True, our culture differs from Bible times in many ways, and we need to learn how to apply the truths of Scripture to what has become our reality. Obviously, there are extreme situations, of abuse or infidelity for example, that may warrant divorce, but defining exactly what constitues abuse or infidelity is a little trickier. I’m not going to attempt to do that here. I will say, however, that I believe “incompatibility” is an unacceptable excuse for divorce. I think people in our culture have gotten lazy: relationships take work, and we should expect that and be prepared to make the effort before entering into marriage. And our culture has also made divorce too easy and acceptable a “solution.”

And finally, love. We put so much emphasis on this “feeling,” and yet love is also a choice. (Kind of like anger…) Once you have chosen your spouse and have made a commitment to that person before God, you’d better continue to choose love even when the feeling doesn’t come so easily. (Not YOU, but in general. You know.)

Read Matthew 19:4-8 to see Jesus’ response to the Pharisees on this very question. He said “It was not this way from the beginning.” Its important not to read scripture out of context, so reading verse 9 without reading the whole chapter doesn’t really work.

mdog, I appreciate that your link to Jeremiah brings up the full context of God’s “divorce” with Israel. Notice that Israel was unfaithful and “committed adultery” with other gods and got what they had coming to them.

And yet, though it all, God asks His unfaithful to return … wow.

not looking to get into an exegetical debate… i really am just throwing it out here for discussion. obviously, Israel could not be sexually unfaithful to God; and yet here He is, issuing a certificate of divorce. God initiated a divorce. clearly God is just and righteous… so, what is it about Israel that prompted God to make such a decision, and what do we do with that?

i have no answers, only questions.