Physical Abuse In Marriage..

[catlover]

Is it grounds for divorce?

 

[HuntingMan]

Does the bible permit putting away a spouse for abuse?
By WmTipton

Actually, it does seem to give grounds for 'putting away' for things like abuse, ect.
This is the passage in question;

But to the rest I say, not the Lord, if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, let him not leave her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the husband; else, then, your children are unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace. For what do you know, wife, whether you will save the husband? Or what do you know, husband, whether you will save the wife?
(1Co 7:12-16)

The passage and the context of it was an answer to the Corinthians (See 7:1 "But concerning what you wrote to me") about being able to leave if they were saved and the spouse was not.
They felt that they were 'defiled' in being with this person in the marriage based on other teachings about 'touching no unclean thing' and related passages.
This is why Paul tells them that their children are clean and that their spouse is 'sanctified' (not in a SAVED sense, but just to ease their minds so they didnt divorce) by the saved spouse (1Co 7:14).
These believers were assuming they could just up and leave their existing marriages if they became saved and their spouse had not.
Paul is only showing there that they are not to leave if the unsaved spouse is happy to remain with them in the marriage...dont just divorce them because they are unsaved...we may be instrumental in bringing them to salvation.
But Pauls statement IS conditional. If the unbelieving spouse is abusive we DO have right to leave that marriage...ie 'divorce'...which is what LEAVING the marriage is...we would be in the very same 'agamos' state that the woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 would be...UNmarried.

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.
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
(1Co 7:12-13)

The wording there clearly shows that if she is 'pleased' then let him not put her away.
This statement is conditional.

"if"
G1487
ei i
a primary particle of conditionality;
if, whether, that, etc.:--forasmuch as, if, that, (al-)though, whether. Often
used in connection or composition with other particles, especially as in
G1489, G1490, G1499, G1508, G1509, G1512, G1513, G1536, G1537. See
also G1437.

It doesnt not simply state 'let him not put her away' but adds the condition of being 'pleased' to his not putting her away.
If this were an absolute statement, that he not put her away then it should be stated as such, but its not. A condition is very apparent in the actual text.


So what does this word 'pleased' mean?

G4909
1) to be pleased together with, to approve together (with others)
2) to be pleased at the same time with, consent, agree to
2a) to applaud

the word clearly shows a mutually pleasant experience.
She is pleased along with him...at the same time....'together'.
If one spouse is being beaten, they would hardly be "pleased together with" the person who is beating them....so why does Paul show the condition of mutual pleasing if there is no condition at all ?

In taking the actual greek into account, we clearly see a condition added to Pauls stating that this man not 'put away' his wife. The condition being that the marriage is pleasing mutually... the greek does not show a one sided thing at all.
Paul then shows the same thing in reverse for the believing wife in this situation....

And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
(1Co 7:13)

"leave him" there is the same as 'put away' in the previous verse.

G863
aphie?mi
Thayer Definition:
1) to send away
1a) to bid going away or depart
1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife
1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire
1c) to let go, let alone, let be
1c1) to disregard
1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
1c2a) of teachers, writers and speakers
1c3) to omit, neglect
1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
1e) to give up, keep no longer
2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3) to leave, go way from one
3a) in order to go to another place
3b) to depart from any one
3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
3d) to desert wrongfully
3e) to go away leaving something behind
3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion
3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one
3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
3i) abandon, leave destitute

The context of 'divorce' as a whole in scripture is either the casting out of a spouse or the leaving of a marriage with the intent of 'putting away' that marriage (altho there are some who try to pretend the two are not the same intent)

For a bit of proof that this is consistently the case, we jump back up to verse 7:11 and see that this woman who has departed her marriage is deemed 'unmarried' by Paul....Agamos/single/unwed/ARAMOC

G22
agamos
Thayer Definition:
1) unmarried, unwedded, single

I think the greek makes it very clear that in a situation where a believer is married to an unbeliever who is abusing them that the condition above that Paul presents does give 'grounds' for divorcing the spouse (leaving the marriage)

Pauls condition of if it is "pleased" (meaning mutually) is the 'grounds' for putting away this spouse if they are abusing and its not pleasing.
The "leaving" of the believer would cause them to be "agamos" or unwed/single/unmarried according to Paul thus showing that they are quite divorced when they left with that intent.

In a case of two believers tho, there is a call to reconcile or remain unmarried.
Of course, some folks move on because they no longer wish to be abused and it is very easily argued that if a man can continually and repeatedly batter his wife then he is not showing evidence of actually being a believer/follower of Christ based on the fact that CHRIST shows that we will know men by their fruits.

Those in Corinth were putting away a spouse when they became born again, even if the marriage was otherwise fine.
Paul tells them in this passage to not end their marriages simply because they found Christ and their spouse had not.
If the marriage is ok otherwise, if it is ‘pleased’...then do not put away this spouse but stay with them because the believers influence might be used to bring salvation to this person.

The conditional statement made by Paul clearly shows that there might be a situation whereby the believer may put away this spouse.
If the marriage is abusive it is hardly mutually ‘pleased’ and as such the condition is not being met as presented by Paul.

Regardless of what some teach, there ARE conditions whereby divorce is permissible and as such is not ‘sin’ for the one carrying the divorce out. Just as we know the Lord God did not ‘sin’ against an adulterous Israel when He gave her a bill of divorce.

 

[archaeologist2]

Is it grounds for divorce?

no. one has to go to God and seek His reasons for staying in the marriage. we as believers will be/are persecuted for our faith in Jesus, are we free to leave the faith because of that abuse? no.

one shows love by endurance and how will the unbelieving sopoiuse be one if that love is removed?

the Bible tells us to do good to those who do evil , that is the course i would recommend spouses follow when abused. ask God how to do it, for the strength and endurance needed so one will win their husband/wife to Christ.

I think the greek makes it very clear that in a situation where a believer is married to an unbeliever who is abusing them that the condition above that Paul presents does give 'grounds' for divorcing the spouse

this is so wrong and says paul contradicts Jesus.

i am involved in a discussion on another thread withthis poster so this is all i will say here.

 

[catlover]

no. one has to go to God and seek His reasons for staying in the marriage. we as believers will be/are persecuted for our faith in Jesus, are we free to leave the faith because of that abuse? no.

one shows love by endurance and how will the unbelieving sopoiuse be one if that love is removed?

the Bible tells us to do good to those who do evil , that is the course i would recommend spouses follow when abused. ask God how to do it, for the strength and endurance needed so one will win their husband/wife to Christ.



this is so wrong and says paul contradicts Jesus.

i am involved in a discussion on another thread withthis poster so this is all i will say here.

A woman having the stuffing beat out of her is not "for Jesus" it's pointless.
That's dangerous way to look at violence in the home as well...

 

[dayhiker]

I personally could never tell an abused spouce that they have to stay with an abusive person. I also don't see God telling people that they have to put up with an abusive person. Yes there are people that will repent when they see a good being returned for evil. I'd heard those testimonies and give praise to God. But there are also Hitlers who wouldn't repent when they see good. Those are the people that I believe its OK to leave. So I like Huntingman's reading of 1 Cor.7

dayhiker

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

I don't know that it is biblical grounds for divorce - most of my reading in my own situation dealt with an unbelieving spouse and/or adultery. However, it is certainly reason to physically separate for safety and people who would suggest that a woman (or a man - it does happen) stay in physical proximity to a spouse who is beating them are not reading the same Bible I am.

 

[Armistead]

Is it grounds for divorce?

Yes....and common sense to boot.

 

[HuntingMan]

this is so wrong and says paul contradicts Jesus.

i am involved in a discussion on another thread withthis poster so this is all i will say here.

Frankly YOUR view is the one that makes Paul contradict Jesus.

Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' (chorizo).
Paul turns around and says 'let the unbeliever depart' (same word chorizo).
So IF what you believe (from what Ive seen so far) is true, then Paul DOES contradict Christ by telling the believer to allow what Christ has supposedly said for man NOT to do....

"Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart"
Jesus versus Paul ?
By WmTipton



Assertions/Conclusions of this Article
Here we will show that not only can one put asunder a marriage (that its possible), but Paul even gives instruction to do just that in certain cases. These seemingly different statements ("Let not man Put Asunder" vs "let the unbeliever depart")are actually about the same exact thing...putting asunder/Chorizo...as proven very conclusively by the greek.


Supporting Evidence
1.0
There is an errant teaching out there that claims that when Jesus said 'let not man put asunder' regarding marriage, that He 'meant' man CANNOT put asunder.

L: “When God joins two together, they are now ONE. What GOD joins, man CANNOT separate”

What we will show briefly in this article that there IS an occurance in scripture where it is shown absolutely that man can indeed 'put asunder' what God has joined together.
See 'put asunder' in each of these passages?

So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mat 19:6 EMTV)

(Mar 10:9) 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united together, let not man separate(G5563-CHORIZO)."
(Mar 10:8-9 EMTV)

Bear in mind that, in the context these are in, Jesus and the pharisees are discussing putting away of a wife there in BOTH of those passages. The context of 'put asunder' is putting away of a marriage/wife, nothing less.
Jesus is CLEARLY discussing not putting asunder of this 'one flesh' that is being spoken of there.

The word is (G5563)chorizo and it only appears a few times in scripture.

G5563
χωρίζω
chōrizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one’s self from, to depart
1a) to leave a husband or wife
1a) of divorce
1b) to depart, go away

That word 'put asunder' is the EXACT same word for "depart" in 1 cor 7:11

(1Co 7:11) But and if she depart(G5563), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

...in other words, Paul has just said this woman has done the exact thing that some claim that Jesus said men CANNOT do....'put asunder'.

Notice Paul makes no claim that she 'cannot' put asunder (depart), but clearly presents that IF she DOES do so, then this is the situation....she is to remain "agamos" (literally "UNmarried").
*IF* putting asunder were IMPOSSIBLE for man to do...then why doesnt Paul REstate (*IF* that were Jesus actual meaning) this fact ?
WHY does he simply say *IF* she puts asunder then ...... ?
*IF* no man can put asunder, then Paul makes absolutely no sense here whatsoever. He should have simply stated that it was impossible to do so.
The word in question pretty much just means to "place room between", "depart" or to "separate"...its not some magical phrase that Jesus used to make a marriage bond unbreakable...

What I find striking is that Paul could have used a number of other choices in demonstrating that this woman had left her husband...but chose the one word that was used in rendering Jesus' words about putting asunder.
Was it coincedence or intentional? Was Paul literally reaching out and using the one word that would make it clear that putting asunder IS indeed possible?
We wont know until that day, for sure...but we do know now that regardless of what some say, that Paul has shown that man CAN 'put asunder'....that is factual.
Certainly a call to reconcile is made to the believers...but this doesnt negate what is clearly presented in Gods word....man CAN indeed put asunder (separate) by Pauls own words.


2.0
Now that its been established that man can indeed ‘put asunder’ (chorizo) a marriage, we move on to something even more astounding. Clear instruction for the believer to actually allow the unbelieving spouse to ‘put asunder’ the marriage.

Heres a very remarkable passage that blows L’s statement above, that man CANNOT separate right out of the water. And not only that, it is our very own Paul giving INSTRUCTION for this believer to let it be so.

1Co 7:15 KJV But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Remember “chorizo”G5563 our word from above ? Can you guess what greek word ‘depart’ there is rendered from ?
You got it...the very same ‘chorizo’ (put asunder from Jesus’ statement ‘let not man put asunder&#8221 is right there in Paul own instruction to let the unbeliever do.

So we not only see absolute proof that man CAN put asunder a marriage, but we now have Paul even telling the believer to let the unbeliever do so !
This hardly sounds like a ‘cannot’ situation to me.

Now, of course this is not our Lords desire for marriage that it would ever have to be ended, but clearly He had enought forsight to show Paul to let the believer do EXACTLY what He Himself had told man not to do.

Why?
Because Jesus knows that no matter what we do as believers, there will always be unbelieving spouses who will not honor the covenant of marriage.


3.0

As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.

(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband:
(1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)

(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.
In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.
To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer.
"BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

4.0
Another point of interest is in verse 7:11 where it says 'let her remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband" the actual greek means 'let her remain unmarried or to the man let her be being conciliated"
It is often pushed that the use of 'her husband' there means that she is still married to the man, but that is not proven from the actual Greek at all. The greek word for 'man' is also used for 'husband'.
Paul used 'agamos' to describe this woman for a reason.

 

[HuntingMan]

A woman having the stuffing beat out of her is not "for Jesus" it's pointless.
That's dangerous way to look at violence in the home as well...

Ive seen some fallacies that actually promote the idea that a woman should stay and even die at the hands of her brute....and these hellspawned lies actually claim she is living 'gods will' for her life in doing so....

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Separation yes. Divorce no.

 

[HuntingMan]

Separation yes. Divorce no.

There is no such thing as a 'legal separation' in Gods word.
The woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 who left her marriage is 'unmarried' according to Paul.

 

[archaeologist2]

A woman having the stuffing beat out of her is not "for Jesus" it's pointless.
That's dangerous way to look at violence in the home as well...

you are thinking with your own understanding not God's. how would the south american iindians have learned of the Gspel if elliot and his friends took this view? they were killed as they stepped off the plane andnever preached the gospel yet, that tribe converted later n after God raised up others to replace them.

many of the converts were the very indians who killed elliot and friends.

your question also only addressed if it was grounds for divorce--it is NOT. adultery is the only avenue one can take and that does not mean the abused spouse can go out and committ adultery to get a divorce.

as for staying in the relationship that is up for God to decide not the person or her friends. when one is the servant of GOd they listen to His voice as they are His servants and the servant rarely knows the masters reasons.

it may not seem fair or right, but God knows what He is doing.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

There is no such thing as a 'legal separation' in Gods word.
The woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 who left her marriage is 'unmarried' according to Paul.

The practical effect of that passage is equal to my view though.
If you have to leave to keep from being beaten to death or whatever, you still can't "remarry" hence separation not divorce.

 

[HuntingMan]

The practical effect of that passage is equal to my view though.
If you have to leave to keep from being beaten to death or whatever, you still can't "remarry" hence separation not divorce.

Actually, one can divorce ANY old reason they want to....even sinful reasons. So it isnt a matter of what one 'CAN' or cannot do.
The issue is whether one can divorce and not be sinning in the process over abuse. I think the evidence shows that they can.

 

[Tavita]

We are talking about abuse in 'marriage' here, not taking the gospel to indigenous peoples!
A man who beats his wife has violated the terms of his marriage, just as Israel violated the terms of her marriage with Yahweh who then divorced her. You could say Israel was divorced through adultery (which is idolatry), but there is much much more to an abusive man than simply his fists ( and I know first hand).

 

[Orville]

Is it grounds for divorce?

Of course it is, and scripture is totally unnecessary to find the answer.

 

[Tavita]

The practical effect of that passage is equal to my view though.
If you have to leave to keep from being beaten to death or whatever, you still can't "remarry" hence separation not divorce.

I wasn't aware Jesus gave new 'laws' under the New Covenant that are equal to the law under the Old. We may as well have stayed with the old letter of the Law.

 

[brinny]

no. one has to go to God and seek His reasons for staying in the marriage. we as believers will be/are persecuted for our faith in Jesus, are we free to leave the faith because of that abuse? no.

one shows love by endurance and how will the unbelieving sopoiuse be one if that love is removed?

the Bible tells us to do good to those who do evil , that is the course i would recommend spouses follow when abused. ask God how to do it, for the strength and endurance needed so one will win their husband/wife to Christ.



this is so wrong and says paul contradicts Jesus.

i am involved in a discussion on another thread withthis poster so this is all i will say here.

i disagree with you. It honors God not to allow oneself to be in bondage to someone deliberately abusing another. It's a prison at that point. God sets prisoners free.

Thank God for Huntingman's wisdom. He is a blessing.

 

[cobweb]

What about when there are children involved and they are being abused as well?

 

[catlover]

you are thinking with your own understanding not God's. how would the south american iindians have learned of the Gspel if elliot and his friends took this view? they were killed as they stepped off the plane andnever preached the gospel yet, that tribe converted later n after God raised up others to replace them.

many of the converts were the very indians who killed elliot and friends.

your question also only addressed if it was grounds for divorce--it is NOT. adultery is the only avenue one can take and that does not mean the abused spouse can go out and committ adultery to get a divorce.

as for staying in the relationship that is up for God to decide not the person or her friends. when one is the servant of GOd they listen to His voice as they are His servants and the servant rarely knows the masters reasons.

it may not seem fair or right, but God knows what He is doing.

You are entitled to your belief but I believe that is warped and God probably doesn't desire people-let's include men in this because men do get shot or run over by their wives from time to time.

Physical violence and death for the sake of an unhealthy marriage is sick and serves no purpose. It's like saying murder and rape serves a purpose for God.