NOTE: I have just released a book which compiles (and edits and expands) these posts. It is called “Disqualified? What the Bible Says about Divorce, Remarriage and Ministry.” It is available on Amazon.com. The Kindle version will be released in the next couple of days – not sure what the hold-up is there. This book reviews the biblical evidence on divorce and remarriage, beginning with the cornerstone in the Old Testament – the twin principles of God’s intent of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman and the understanding of the brokenness caused by sin. It then lays the foundation with an examination of the passage in Deuteronomy 14:1-4 which necessitates a “grounds” for divorce. Jesus builds the structure in his teachings, reiterating the intent of God’s creation – lifelong covenant – but also establishing the divorce exception as a grounds for divorce. Then Paul puts the finishing touches on the structure with his extensive teachings in 1 Corinthians 7, adding abandonment as a second grounds and dealing with other significant issues. I also address the issue of abuse and how that should be handled. Having surveyed the biblical evidence, I then turn my attention to 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, examining what the phrase, “Husband of one wife” means, and give advice both to the divorced who want to serve in the church and to churches dealing with this issue.
If you are reading these posts, I think you will find the book “Disqualified?” helpful.
It has been a while since I wrote anything in my series on “Divorce, Remarriage, and Ministry.” You can follow the link to the last article which also has a link to all the articles in the series. Today, I want to take up a topic that has been raised in previous discussions of the subject, one that has aroused emotion, passion, even anger. The question is whether abuse – physical or verbal – is grounds for divorce. Am I overly optimistic that we can discuss this issue biblically and rationally?
Ground Rules
Let me state something very clearly, before the debate here even gets started. Abuse of a woman by a man is despicable and inexcusable. When God gives someone authority, they are to use that authority as a servant, as Christ did. He is Lord of all, yet he came to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. When we use the authority that God has given us in our homes to oppress, belittle, or hurt in any way, we offend God. Husband are to love their wives and seek to be a blessing to them.
Too often, men have asserted their authority in the home in an ungodly way, throwing their weight around, demanding their wives serve their needs, and controlling them in every way. That is not the godly design.
We are not going to waste time discussing whether the abuse of a woman is ever justified. Nor need we engage in a contest to demonstrate who is most passionate in their opposition to abuse. It’s wrong. It’s disgusting. It angers God and is contrary to his intent for marriage.
And it angers us in such a way that when we hear of a woman being abused our instinct is to say, “Leave the jerk and go be happy!” (Many of you may want to substitute a stronger word than jerk, but that is a harsh as I go.) We want to tell someone who is abused that they are free to leave the abuser and find someone who will treat them in a better way.
But that is not the way we do biblical exegesis. We do not interpret the Bible on the basis of our emotions. The force or fervor of my feelings cannot be the rubric by which the Bible is interpreted. We have to study the Word and let sound hermeneutical principles govern, not our emotion.
Nor can our personal experiences (which are usually the source of the emotions mentioned above) be the guide to interpretation. There is not a form of abuse that you can mention that has not happened to someone among my family and friends. I have had to handle some horrific situations in counseling. I am not without experience or emotion on the topic. But we must exegete the scriptures and interpret our experience by its teachings. We cannot establish our experiences as authoritative and force the Bible into their mold.
Of course, all of us agree with this in theory, but when it comes to this topic, emotions and experiences are often pushed to the forefront.
What I would like to suggest to you is a biblical pattern which I believe teaches how a woman should handle an abusive marriage. We can discuss the scriptures as our standard.
The Biblical Principles
In one of my previous posts on the topic, I summarized the survey of biblical evidence on the topic. I will not argue the facts of that post again. I have demonstrated that the scripture consistently teaches the following:
Marriage is designed by God and is meant to be a permanent covenant between a man and a woman. ‘Till death do us part.”
There are only two grounds given in the scripture by which a divorce is permissible. These two actions break the marriage covenant in such a way that the innocent party is freed from the covenant. Christ established adultery as a grounds for divorce. Paul added to that, in 1 Corinthians 7, the act of abandonment. Both acts end the marriage.
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul establishes a third situation in which a marriage might end. In verses 10-11, Paul makes an offer to women who cannot live with their husbands – one he does not give to men.
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
Husbands are not permitted to divorce their wives, but wives are permitted to separate from their husbands on grounds beyond that of either adultery or abandonment. If she separates on these grounds, she must either live single, or seek to reconcile with her husband. Questions arise from these verses.
First, why would Paul give an option to women that he does not give to men? Paul establishes in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 (and other places) that men and women have different roles in marriage. Women must submit to their husbands as to the Lord, while men are called to lead their wives and family in the ways of the Lord. Since a man has that authority within the home, he must stay at it. But since the woman is called to submit to her husband, she is also given the way of escape from the marriage if that authority is unbearable.
So, that leads to the second question. In what circumstances may a woman invoke this passage’s permission to leave? The answer would seem to flow naturally from the answer to the first question. If a man uses his authority in the home to oppress or abuse a woman in such a way that she finds living with him unbearable, she is given the right to leave the home.
Finally, then, what are her options if she leaves the home on this basis? That is clearly defined in verse 11. She may either live as a single woman or she may seek to reconcile to her husband. Her marriage here is not recognized as ended and she is not permitted to divorce.
So, What about Abuse?
1) We ought not add a third grounds for divorce if the Bible does not.
The Bible gives two reasons for divorce; adultery and abandonment. Many have essentially added a third ground for divorce, abuse. We are always on shaky ground if we assume that our wisdom is greater than that of the writers of the scriptures. There is, among some, a sense of ethical superiority towards the biblical days – as if we simply know more and have better insight today than those benighted folks did 2000 or 3000 years ago. That is arrogant.
We must not permit that which the scripture does not, or go beyond the Bible. We have no biblical authority to tell a woman that her husband’s abuse frees her from that marriage. It does not.
2) We ought not abuse the biblical teaching on authority to demand that women stay in abusive homes.
Far too often, that has happened! Pastors have told women that God wants them to submit to their abusive husbands and have sent them back into situations in which great harm was done to them and their children. But 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 gives women options here, one which we should make known to them.
A woman is permitted to leave an abusive home and live separately. I have suggested this very thing to women when their husbands are abusive of their authority. God calls women to submit to their husbands’ authority, but does not call them to submit to physical abuse or extreme cruelty.
3) A woman who separates from her abusive husband has two biblical options.
She may decide that living single is better than living with her husband. Or, perhaps, if her husband goes through genuine repentance and spiritual transformation, she will return to him. She has those options. The option she does not have is to find another man.
4) If an abused woman separates from her husband on these grounds, the church should support, encourage and help her, not judge her.
Too often, women have experienced judgment from the church when they have made known accusations of abuse. The church ought to help abused women in every way they can. They ought to surround them with acceptance and support. They should, if needed, come to their aid financially. They should confront the abusive husband and call him to repentance.
5) The same principles apply when a child is the one being abused.
No woman should stay in a home in which her child is endangered by an abusive man. It is fundamental to a woman’s nature to protect her children. It would be despicable to suggest she should leave her children in danger. The principles of 1 Corinthians 7:1o-11 would apply here.
6) The idea that abusive men cannot change is a denial of Christ’s power.
The idea that is commonly held in the world, “once an abuser, always an abuser,” is even advocated by some in the church. Obviously, when someone abuses a woman or child, they are contemptible and deserve to be held to account by the law and the church. But we believe that Jesus changes lives, and that has to mean that he can change the heart of an abuser, even one who abuses children.
I am not saying that a woman who has been abused (or especially one whose children have been abused) should return to her husband because he says he’s sorry and promises to change. But neither should she assume he can never change. God changes lives. He changes hearts. He transforms behavior.
It is right for a woman to demand that an abusive man give every evidence that his change is genuine before she believe him. There should be pastoral oversight and counseling as appropriate. But if we say that an abuser can never change, we are limiting the power of the Cross.
So…
The church has too often given more support to the abuser than to the abused. That should not be. When a woman is abused, she should receive sound biblical advice and support from the church as she goes through the horrible challenge. But we must apply the teachings of the Bible even to difficult situations such as abuse. We cannot simple give permission the Bible doesn’t or substitute our feelings for its teachings. The Bible gives a path for abused women to follow, and we should encourage them to follow it.
Good discussion, but I think it proceeds from the wrong question. We live in an era of no-fault divorce. The reality is that the permeating influence of society has filled the church with plenty of people divorced & remarried for unscriptural reasons. I don’t think adding or failing to add a “third Biblical ground” for divorce will alter the situation. In other words, I fear that any pronouncements we make on one side of the issue or the other will be irrelevant since it will have no real impact on the incidence of divorce and remarriage. And what are we… Read more »
Dave:
I really appreciate both the approach and the content of this series. If we as Christians are to take a public stand regarding the issue of marriage, it’s imperative that we first have a solid biblical understanding of marriage and all its facets. You’ve taken some very sensitive subjects—this one in particular—and handled them in a sincere, non-confrontational, and biblical manner. Kudos.
You could argue that abuse is abandonment. I would.
A few people have suggested that spousal abuse could fall under the umbrella of “abandonment.” I would be cautious to make such an argument, for the following reasons: 1) We use the term abandonment colloquially to refer to Paul’s teaching on the subject in 1 Corinthians 7. But it’s not a very precise word, and it’s not a very useful term when it comes to hermeneutics. When Paul speaks on the subject, the specific word he uses typically translates as departs, separates, or leaves, (depending upon your particular translation). Therefore, if we want to compare a particular act, such as… Read more »
Chorizo is also the Spanish word for “sausage.” You’re making me hungry. 😉
Honestly, I double-checked, triple-checked, and quadruple-checked that transliteration in a Strong’s before I pressed “submit.” It even felt goofy typing it out.
It still makes me want breakfast.
yeah, I noticed that too.
Mr. Harvey:
Since multiple people have made the same suggestion as you, it was my intention to post my comment at the bottom of the comment stream and not threaded beneath yours. Instead, I accidentally posted it as a reply to your specific comment. (Lesson learned about trying to post quickly while on my lunch break.) I don’t want it to appear that I was trying to single out your comment or that I was trying to attack you individually, and I apologize if it appeared that way.
Could you explain that. Abandonment in 1 Corinthians 7 is the act of leaving a marriage. An abuser dominates his wife but generally does not abandon her.
Seems a stretch to me.
Unless you are making the argument that failing to fulfill the duties of a marriage is abandonment, which essentially leads to a no-fault, divorce for any reason ethic.
I will respond. Just can’t during the day.
First, let’s realize what my argumentation is: from a pragmatic viewpoint, counseling a woman to return to a man who has a history–I’ll argue that an egregious physical injury or repeated and perhaps increasingly aggressive smaller occasions of physical or verbal abuse–borders on lunacy. The closest analogy I can think of is to expect that a serial pedophile is going to get the pedophilia “counseled” out of him and can be trusted around children. The sadism of controlling another person is a for of eroticism. He gets pleasure from it. For me, the reason I argue abuse is akin to… Read more »
When a man is abusing a woman, he is abandoning all that he vowed to her on their wedding day. You know, the love, honor, cherish, etc. parts…
The moment he strikes her physically, attacks her verbally, or God forbid he assaults her sexually, then he has abandoned all that he vowed he would do in their marriage.
I vowed to love, honor, protect, and cherish my wife. The moment I were to backhand her, then I break these four vows and many others.
I would have abandoned my vows and therefore my wife…
Sir, in my gut I want to agree with you that “abandon my vows and therefore my wife” are equivalent, but do you have a biblical basis for equating these two things? Did married people in New Testament times take vows making them into husband and wife? In other words, was it then (and is it now) the ceremony that makes the marriage?
It seems to me, Bill, that you are elevating human constructs – the vows – to a biblical standing. Whatever constitutes the biblical crux of marriage, it is not likely the human vows we say.
Dave,
What was the punishment for breaking a vow in those times and in that culture?
OK, Greg, I understand where you are coming from. Can you give any biblical/exegetical rationale for that view?
That is what I spoke of above. I think it is dangerous when we assume that we know better than the scriptures. If you could support that viewpoint from a biblical perspective, I’d love to see it.
I highly recommend Les Prouty’s link as it gives a very thorough, inerrancy-based discussion of the whole thing, I’ll borrow their conclusion for one bite at the apple: “The fact remains that Scripture does not address the circumstance of an abusive husband. As is the case in any other area of Biblical ethics, one cannot extract from Scripture a comprehensive statement of all possible applications of a divine law. Rather, it is left to the church to apply Biblical norms, with the direction provided by the casuistry Scripture does supply, to the untold number of situations which must be faced.… Read more »
Greg Harvey: An excellent presentation of insights on a tough issue. I had the experience of going among some Baptists that absolutely did not accept anyone who had a second marriage. In fact, I was sitting in the midst of them, when I happened to make mention of my having a second marriage. It was like the Red Sea parting. People actually got up and moved away from me. I have often wished I could have asked them what they would do about God joining their church, seeing how He had two wives (Bigamy) and divorced one of them (Israel).… Read more »
Thanks, Dr. Willingham. I want folks who read what I wrote to realize that my thought process isn’t one of disagreement with Dave by the way. It just provoked the thought “but how should this be handled?” I actually appreciated the thoroughness of the link Les Prouty provided in exploring side issues because…so to speak…it scratched the itch I felt very well in my opinion. But it also illustrated the rabbinical thought comment that I distilled down to something unrelated and–yes I admit it–a bit silly as a reply to Dave. His question of me lead me to take a… Read more »
Greg: I don’t think you distracted from what David said He was doing a rather straight forward presentation of a more narrow perspective…at least that is my understanding. If I had not read his comments elsewhere, I might think he was tending to legalism. But we all do at certain times in our exposition and exegesis. It is perhaps the fault of our analytical methodology. A synthetical methodology is a more difficult matter. One of the things we almost have built in is the desire to be consistent. Someone has said, however, that he who is consistent with himself is… Read more »
Actually, Greg, my statement on separation is based on the teaching of 1 Corinthians 7.
And the Bible is full of statements on enduring abuse, even if it does not specifically address the topic of abuse in marriage.
Off hand, I’d say that the key to the question is the meaning of the Greek word porneia, and (1) whether its meaning is restricted to sexual infidelity, or whether the term could apply to abuse other than that of a strictly sexual nature, and/or (2) whether physical or emotional abuse has a component of sexual abuse even if it is not manifested as infidelity, such that it can be included as an act of porneyo, but I have not researched it formally. My experience and reading suggests to me that much of the abuse, whether physical or emotional, directed… Read more »
Dave, There would need to be a trained team within the church that dealt with abuse within the home of church members and the pastor would need to head that up in order to protect everyone involved. Obviously, reconciliation and restoration would be the goal. Assuming that the man and woman are Christians and it persisted, I would recommend the woman separate from him and the church support her (and her children) until such time the man chooses on his own to seek help. He could be Bi-Polar or have an anger problem or other disorders or he could even… Read more »
“That would protect her from the sin of divorce in a case like this.”
This particular sentence raises a question in my mind. If a spouse is not the person who filed for divorce, is that spouse less complicit, according to scripture? And if so, does scriputre then allow for that freeing that spouse to re-marry?
Stephanie, as this series of discussions has demonstrated, opinions vary. My view is that when one partner in the marriage breaks the covenant, the other is no longer bound to that covenant.
So, if a spouse is cheated on or is abandoned, he or she is free from that broken marriage covenant and is free to remarry.
That is my view based on my studies.
Good question, Stephanie.
I found this scripture from the words of Christ:
“But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 5:32
I don’t think we can get around the adultery issue here. The sin needs to be put on the man for God to discipline, not the woman.
You could also make the argument that, when the abusing husband has been thrown in jail, he’s abandoned his wife. That’d solve that. And I think that should happen to every husband who physically abuses his wife.
Without exception. First time. Every time.
Bob,
I agree in a way, but, that is how our sin against the holiness of God is everyday. In light of that, how would grace fit here?
Always a good word, Bob.
A cautionary tale, regarding the need for discernment and extreme care when it comes to rehabilitated abusers (part of the abuse cycle is known as the “honeymoon” phase, when the abuser becomes contrite and well-behaved for a time before entering again into the spiraling cycle of abuse): In a church I was associated with many years ago (actually, the sponsoring church of a church plant attempt I was making), a woman and her children attended who had broken free from an abusive husband (gotten divorced and relocate). The ex-husband showed up and began attending the church. He seemed to be… Read more »
I certainly understand your point, David. Most men who are abusers do not reform, or sometimes they only reform until they get what they want. None of that precludes the basic truth, though, that God changes lives.
I’m on vacation and don’t have much time, but want to point out one resource that speaks to this issue. The PCA (ok, don’t shoot me) some years ago formed a study committee to deal with divorce and remarriage and may be found at http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/ (scroll down. position papers are arranged alpha). In that paper many aspects were dealt with, including this issue of abuse. I commend it as additional background research material which may be useful. One section dealing with physical abuse is at http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-203.pdf Dave, excellent work here. This is definitely an issue the church must face. We… Read more »
I notice that you don’t bring up Exodus 21 and the understanding of it that was the background to Jesus and Paul’s teaching. I think that passage is inportant to adress, explained better than I could here:
http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/02/contra-mundum-%e2%80%9ctill-death-do-us-part%e2%80%9d-christ%e2%80%99s-teachings-on-abuse-divorce-and-remarriage.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=contra-mundum-%25e2%2580%259ctill-death-do-us-part%25e2%2580%259d-christ%25e2%2580%2599s-teachings-on-abuse-divorce-and-remarriage
Not sure why you would think that Exodus 21 is the underpinning for Jesus’ teaching. Much more likely that it is Deuteronomy 24. And I am familiar with, but not overly impressed with Instone-Brewer’s teachings.
The zone that the church reall struggles with is what to do with people who have divorced for non scritural reasons now that the social mores against such behavior have relaxed? This is where the rubber will meet the road in the life of most churches. Does the reality of a divorce for unbiblical reasons affect how that person may participate in, serve or lead a congregation?
This is the hard part for me and the set of questions that makes me glad for my spiritual leadership who must wrestle with them in my stead.
Forty years ago this year and this summer, my wife and I listened to a pastor tell about how a woman had left her abusive husband and how the pastor and his church got the woman to return to her husband. Then he told how the man murdered his wife, and how he, the pastor, said to his people, “We are never going to do that again.” Abuse is a betrayal of the original commitment to love. If a wife or, in some cases, a husband, decides to return to or stick with an abusive spouse, that should be his… Read more »
I agree with you. A very similar thing happened to a couple in a previous church I attended and murder occurred.
The best thing that can happen is to have the abuser go through a complete psychological evaluation. This will identify so much about him or her so the proper actions can be taken and medication can be prescribed if necessary.
Feel free to check out Malachi 2:16. On one hand it affirms God’s hate of divorce. On the other hand it also denounces a husband’s “faithlessness” and “covering one’s cloak with violence”. Do you believe this verse refers to abuse? I know the Hebrew there is quite difficult, just wondering.
A few thoughts: 1. In no way do I doubt the two “biblical grounds” for divorce given in Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7. However, I do doubt if any of the biblical writers (or the Holy Spirit for that matter) ever intended to give “the list for biblical grounds for divorce.” Matthew gives one (from the lips of Jesus) and Paul gives one, but the NT nowhere ties those together. Jesus was giving his reasoning (to a hostile audience) for God’s purpose for the permanence of marriage, and Paul was giving some pastoral advice for a believer whose unbelieving… Read more »
What about when a man is physically and verbally abused by his? We are seeing more and more of that.