But I understand your desire to hold fast on this issue. I was listening to a radio preacher recently, and he counseled this woman who insisted that the Holy Spirit told her that it was OK to divorce her unsaved husband (who wanted to remain married). When he told her that the Holy Spirit will never contradict the Bible she A. said "you don’t know what it is like to live with an unsaved man for 40 years!" and B. "But I prayed and God told me it was OK!" He stuck to his guns and she to hers, and you can tell how it ended.

So I understand your point, but I cannot join you in it.

I do not know how scripture deals with abandonment. I personally have viewed abandonment as a de facto unbiblical divorce that frees the abandoned and condemns the abandoner and whoever the abandoner takes up with. In other words, I view abandonment as the same as adultery/sexual immorality.

Here are my thoughts on the issues of abandonment.  Consider this:
1 Timothy 5:8 (New American Standard Bible)

 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

I hope we can agree that was directed towards men.  If a man fails to provide for his household, he is NOT a Christian and WORSE than a heathen.  Not to say if a man is trying but unable to provide he’s bad, but if he abandons his household, the above applies.

Now again consider this:
1 Corinthians 7:12-16 (New American Standard Bible)

 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.

 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.

 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

I think we’ve always found it acceptable if a saint is put away by an unbeliever, if they let that unbeliever go and even OK if the saint remarries.  By apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 7:25 and John 20:23) Paul declared that Christians can let an unbelieving spouse go if there is no desire on the unbeliever’s part to keep the marriage together.  (One of so many examples of why we can’t act like anyone today is an apostle, there are no more apostles, that office is closed and the foundation already laid by them.)  The apostle Paul declared that in such cases the saint is not under "bondage".  Meaning they are free to move on and remarry.  It’s not like when 2 saints are married and one desires divorce.  When it’s 2 saints, the other should strive to have reconciliation and bring the one who desires the sin of divorce to turn from that evil.  (We’ve already reviewed the Matthew 19:9 concession and know that’s there, so we don’t need to go there again.)

So when you consider abandonment BY A MAN puts that man at a position worse than an unbeliever and and he’s gone, so he’s obviously not wanting his wife.  It seems to me scripture fully supports the woman going her own way.  I feel this also applies in cases where a man is flat out trying to murder his wife.  When a man is trying to literally murder his wife, he’s certainly not providing for her or desiring to keep her.  I see this as a concession for women only.  I don’t see this as something a man could exercise given the scriptures noted.  The man is the head, if it goes bad, it’s on his head.  The only concessions given to a man are sexual immorality by his wife or if his wife is an ubeliver that leaves him, but she’s not the one responsible for providing to keep the household, the man is.  So if a wife who claims the faith leaves her husband, the man can’t treat it like she’s an unbeliever, she’s not the designated household provider to begin with.  Of course he can separate if his wife is trying to kill him, but not divorce.

But if a person leaves temporarily intending to return until various issues are worked out … is that a sin?

I’m going to assume that your statement above was to read "..intending NOT to return until to return until various issues are worked out … is that a sin?"

I’m hoping I’ve offered enough scriptural proof throughout these comments without rehashing it, to simply say that neither spouse is to abandon the other if they know that their spouse honestly desires reconciliation.  Marriage is very much about sacrifices and self denial.  The standard is to seek reconciliation, not concessions.  God still hates divorce as much now as when mentioned under the old covenant in Malachi 2:16.

Again, we are dealing in general terms, for all we know Ms. Velasquez may have left never intending to return. As she went on tour with Salvador while her marriage was on the rocks and married Nic Gonzales before the ink was dry on her divorce papers, that is a reasonable inference to draw.

But in general terms, if a person decides never to return, then it is abandonment. I do not know how scripture deals with abandonment. I personally have viewed abandonment as a de facto unbiblical divorce that frees the abandoned and condemns the abandoner and whoever the abandoner takes up with. In other words, I view abandonment as the same as adultery/sexual immorality.

But if a person leaves temporarily intending to return until various issues are worked out … is that a sin? Even if it is, it is a sin against God and not against holy matrimony as sexual immorality is a sin against holy matrimony (and abandonment also).

IC, something just dawned on me.  Was His words for the man because it seems like the man in the scriptures were pursuing divorce more and I cannot say that I have read anywhere that the woman was allowed to pursue it.

The Matthew account is written to men because it was documented as an account for the Jews.  Since under Mosaic law only the man could initiate divorce it was written in a manner to keep with their existing custom.  And yes men were very out of hand with it. 

The account in Mark was directed towards Gentiles.  With the Gentiles such as Romans, a man or woman could initiate divorce.  So it was written with more of that (paraphrasing) "if he does this or if she does this", versus how in Matthew it’s mostly directed towards the man.

Really the man is the head of the household. Ephesians 5 shows how it relates directly to Christ’s relationship with the church and this is why certain men being church leaders is such a critical issue.  Even in places where women were allowed to do various things, like even divorce her husband, instruction always was that the man is to be respected as the head of his house and certain men as church leaders.  We can’t deny that Adam was first and Eve created to help Adam, because Adam was pretty lame on his own .  And women hate when I say it, but God had Paul say it, Eve took a taste of the forbidden fruit first, 1 Timothy 2:13-14.  So Healtheland has a point with the fact that in divorce the man always must be found at fault because he’s the head.  Man must give to woman like Christ for the church to the point of death.  Man bears the burden to provide for his house too. (Although the wife may work, for the man it’s never optional, always mandatory.) For all the headship, comes all the heavy burdens and all the weight of blame when there is failure.  I just found our example to be a what did you expect to happen matter, given she left an unbelieving spouse. 

Yes with Melvin’s situation, some folks think that saying something about it will hurt his feelings.  However, it really shows the weakness in his opponent’s argument, because everybody knows about that and God willed that unfortunate circumstance because Melvin had to be the man doing what he’s doing with his blog.  And from his painful situation, he’s been pressed to help countless saints and we all thank God he’s contending for the faith as vigorously as he does.  Talking about his wife is like telling him why he’s got additional inspiration to keep it up.

Healtheland, do you feel that Jaci leaving her spouse contributed to his infidelity if the statements made about them are true?

I read 1 Corinthians 7 and I can’t square what has been said against it.  She had an unbelieving spouse.  She was not to leave him.