Domestic Violence a Guide to Safety

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi,

I am writing a document currently to address the issue of domestic violence. To ensure that protection is given to women who seek it, but that it is firmly and biblically-based. Please read the following. And help me see any weaknesses that may need change.

Domestic Violence and the Victim
This document seeks to create a structured way that a Domestic Abuse Victim can be protected from abuse within a Biblical framework. First, we will start with a verse that may seem counter-intuitive the verse has come into contention in recent times, due it its misuse by some people in some cases, it has been said to enable Domestic Abuse to continue. The real purpose of the scripture is to keep marriages that are salvageable together and prevent frivolous exit from vows. The problem with Domestic Violence and this verse are that some legalistically apply the command, not allowing any grace for a violence victim, who may be in a situation that is no longer salvageable. We will show firstly that the spirit of scripture is that of protection, then present a framework for Domestic Abuse recovery that does not violate the scripture.

As we mentioned, some will quote strictly Jesus words that follow to justify that a spouse must stay with their partner in all situations,

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Mat 19:9

It will be seen in their eyes as so binding that even domestic violence must be tolerated, to maintain the integrity of this scripture. But it is not the case that violence must be tolerated, the Bible must be examined in light of all scripture. For a start, the Bible tells us to love our wives or spouse (Eph 5:25&28, Col 3:19). Anyone who understands the scripture knows that God's word is protective, and made to draw people together. The command regarding adultery being the only exit from marriage was given by Jesus to help preserve the marriage, but Paul himself was forced to redefine this specific marriage law in 1st Corinthians. Due to issues that were occurring in the church, Paul allowed separation for another cause. This shows us that Jesus's marriage laws have some flexibility if a valid case can be found for the exception. For understanding, Paul said that if a nonbelieving husband wishes to leave their now Christian wife, that the wife is under no obligation to the man, and may continue their life. Because there is a measure of flexibility in the command, we now have to ask ourselves, what is a more worthy reason to end a relationship, a theological disagreement, or violence against a spouse, violence which violates God's command to love your partner, and breaks God's desire for peace in relationships. We can see that the Holy Spirit, who was speaking through Paul, had "another reason", other than adultery to leave a relationship, it was listed because of trouble in the church, he said people in the situation of 1 Cor 7:15 were no longer in bondage or bound to their partner. The scripture follows:

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. 1Co 7:15

Domestic Abuse is a problem that needs to be addressed, in society and the church. When we look to the end of Paul's scripture in 1 Co 7:15 we see it finishes with this comforting passage regarding a spouse and marriage. "it is God's pleasure that we may be at peace with one another. ". Because of Paul's addition to scripture, we see Jesus's words in Matthew 19:9 do not suggest there would be no other cause for separation, nothing ever, but rather it was stating we should not be seeking easy exits from marriage. Adultery was the goal post He set, it was set high so that small things like “no longer feeling in love”, could not be used as an exit from marriage. Regarding legalistically enforcing the command it pays to take note of Jesus's words regarding the Jewish Law: "Instead of offering sacrifices to me, I want you to be merciful to others?". Mat 12:1-8 He showed in this statement that the Law is not about the strict observance of commands, but rather the commands are about the protection of people, and small deviation to protect others is not a sin. Matthew 19:9 itself is a protective verse used to protect marriage and children, from divorce over trivial matters.

It should also be noted that Domestic Violence is a sin (Eph 5:25&28, Col 3:19), as stated here in the Bible.

A husband must love his wife and not abuse her. Col 3:19

The Bible states if we see our brother sinning we should use a procedure to try to restore them, but if they refuse to change they should be classed as a sinner, not a Christian (Matt 18:15-17). A Christian who a) is abusive is sinning, b) if they refuse to change after church council the Bible tells us they are to be classed as an unbeliever. As such we could apply the verse of 1 Cor 7:15 to them directly, allowing for separation if they no longer want change. The procedure outlined below states how to apply such a principle, in the context of Domestic Violence. Although applying the principal to the protection of the spouse, I would be slow to call the offender an unbeliever, although still applying the principle as it applies to an unbeliever. The reason I say this is some people perpetrate violence based upon their own problems and insecurities, and we don't wish to add to these with spiritual guilt.

In a domestic violence situation, given the serious nature of the offense, I feel the following steps should be taken:

1. If the victim feels unsafe, the victim should first be removed from the element of danger, they should not be left in the home, or situation where they may face violence. It may also be needful to involve the police, or courts, to obtain a restraining order.
2. With the separation in place, the perpetrator should be approached for counseling, counselling aims to see if there is a possibility of redemptive outcomes. These outcomes cannot be just verbal accent to a goal to do better, they must be followed through with the genuine change of lifestyle. The victim should never be placed back in the home or reach of the perpetrator if there is potential for violence to re-occur.
3. So the spouse is not infinitely bound to an abusive situation, it is my opinion that the abusive partner should be given a period of 6 to 12 months to reform. During which time the spouse should not seek out another partner according to the principle of 1 Cor 7:11, they must act as if still married, and must remain faithful to their abusive partner, but not placed in danger. In situations where the abusive partner is experiencing a period of mild Mental Illness or they still express a heartfelt desire to remain married, it is asked that the spouse be open to extending the time given for reform. In the case of Mental Health issues it is often seen that Christian’s experiencing Mental Illness do recover, and having spousal support is important in that process. In the case where the abusive partner still wishes to maintain the relationship, it is likely they can change, if not immediately, at least with time, so should be given the benefit of the doubt. Separation of marriage vows in my opinion should only occur where the partner has lost all feelings for their partner, and are abusive to the extent they want no reconciliation and are unwilling to change their behavior, similar to 1 Cor 7:15. There may also be cases where an abusive partner is unwilling to be counseled, or are manipulative, it is my opinion that in such situations that the abused spouse should make their own assessment of the situation. But if no reconciliation is possible after the time of separation, then the following, in my opinion, can be used to end the relationship. Note however that the abused spouse is free to make their own mind up according to their view of scripture, and what they feel the LORD would want them to do.
4. But I feel, the spouse should be comforted that although Jesus did say adultery was the only case for divorce, we see that:
   1. Paul states another case for the severing of marriage vows in 1 Cor 17:15, so Biblically it is not the ONLY case listed in scripture
   2. If an abusive partner has both, refused to change, i.e. are remaining in the sin of Domestic Violence, and no longer seek change (Matt 18:22), they should be classed as a non-believer Matt 18:15-17) and the following scripture can be applied to the situation 1 Cor 7:15. However, to maintain scriptural authority, the ending of the marriage can only come if the sinning partner decides they no longer want the marriage (1 Cor 7:15). If there is still a desire for a relationship I believe there is still hope for change or reform. In a situation where the partner still wishes to preserve the relationship the spouse should remain separate for protective reasons, but give time for reform, i.e. not seek out another partner and not divorce, while their current partner holds onto hope they should remain single (1Co 7:11). However, if it becomes evident that the abusive partner is only maintaining the relationship to continue in their ability to abuse, and they show no signs of making any effort to change, then I think common sense should prevail, and divorce could be filed. We do not want to empower abusive behaviors. A divorce may provide more legal protection than separation in a lot of ways. Even a simple example; a separated but not divorced spouse can be held accountable for debts accrued by their spouse, even if they didn't know about those debts. Such mechanisms can be used to continue to control and punish a victim from a distance.
   3. Jesus said of the Law, that He is not after strict observance, but rather the Spirit of protection afforded by the Law (Mathew 12:1-8), stating "Instead of offering sacrifices to me, I want you to be merciful to others? It is clear that “enforcing” Mathew 19:9 in a legalistic, hard-headed, way can result in harm to victims of Domestic Violence.
   4. Paul goes on to say “it is God's pleasure that we may be at peace with one another.”
   5. Domestic violence is a breaking of the contract of “be[ing] at peace with one another” stated in 1 Cor 17:15
5. I believe as long as an attempt is made to see if the relationship can be recovered if the domestic violence victim cannot be protected they should leave the relationship without guilt.
   1. Forcing celibacy according to scripture like 1 Cor 7:10-11 (which is designed to recover relationships) on the spouse, in my opinion, is lacking the spirit of justice, and may cause them to rightly hate Christ. In a similar way to the following scripture, which encourages remarriage of widows, I suggest that Domestic Violence victims be given their life back: “Don't put young widows on the list. They may later have a strong desire to get married. Then they will turn away from Christ” 1Ti 5:11 Even Paul allowed remarriage under the situation of 1 Cor 7:15
6. A note on adultery, if at any point in the process the abusive partner commits adultery, i.e. due to being unable to control their lusts. I feel the victim should be counseled to exit the relationship immediately according to Mat 19:9. There is now no pretext left for restoring a harmful relationship. It is my belief than no plea from the abuser should be accepted.

Ultimately I do feel a spouse who is experiencing Domestic Violence, should be free to choose their own path in life, before their own conscience and God. It is not for the church to put heavy bonds on such a person, our job is to provide guidelines to help make wise choices, that benefit all parties involved. Ultimately it is their decision.

Common Objections
Some feel that in all situations that the woman may never remarry. Quoting verses similar to:

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

My response to this is:

The above scripture is written to help with the reconciliatory process, it a) prevents a couple from remarrying b) intending to cause reconciliation.

In Domestic Abuse situations where the partner may be impossible to live with and has no heart for change. I feel it is unjust to bind the spouse to never remarry clause indefinitely, and to a reconciliatory law. For there is a limited case for reconciliation.

Furthermore I feel it is unjust and will seem to be a punishment on the spouse to prevent remarriage in non-reconciliatory situations. That it could cause the spouse to feel punished by God, and possibly cause a leaving of the faith. Similar to the following scripture:

Don't put young widows on the list. They may later have a strong desire to get married. Then they will turn away from Christ 1Ti 5:11

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi,

I am writing a document currently to address the issue of domestic violence. To ensure that protection is given to women who seek it, but that it is firmly and biblically based. Please read the following. And help me see any weaknesses that may need change.

Domestic Violence and the Victim
Basically it is my opinion that in Domestic Violence situations a person should 1) seek a way to leave the environment, 2) allow time for the partner to realize they must change, 3) if they show no signs of changing, the victim has freedom to leave.

To support this biblically I will use a few passages.

But first let's clarify the three above steps.

1. The victim should first be removed from the element of danger, they should not be left in the home, or situation where they may face violence.
2. With the separation in place, the perpetrator should be approached for counselling, the aim of counselling is to see if there is possibility of redemptive outcomes. These out comes can not be just verbal accent to a goal to do better, they must be followed through with genuine change of life style. The victim should never be placed back in the home or reach of the perpetrator if there is potential for violence to re-occur. It must be stressed in counselling that the marriage will be terminated (on the request of the victim) if violence does occur. There is no place in the church for violence, and if the wife wishes to walk away in this step, without attempting to reconcile she may do so.
3. If the wife feels unsafe continuing in the relationship she may leave.

Some will quote strictly Jesus words that follow,

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Mat 19:9

They will say it is binding, meaning a wife cannot leave their husband, for any other reason other than Adultery, they will say even domestic violence must be tolerated. But this is not the case, the bible must be examined in light of all scripture. The bible has other reasons that a woman may leave their husband. Paul said that if a nonbelieving husband wishes to leave their now Christian wife, that the wife is under no obligation to the man, and may continue their life.

But if the one who is not a Christian has a desire to go away, let it be so: the brother or the sister in such a position is not forced to do one thing or the other: but it is God's pleasure that we may be at peace with one another. 1Co 7:15

So this shows that the Holy Spirit, who was speaking through Paul, has "other reasons", other than adultery to leave a relationship.

1 Co 7:15 ends with this comforting verse regarding a wife and marriage. "it is God's pleasure that we may be at peace with one another. "

It is clear that a) adultery is not the only exit from a marriage, b) that God also calls us to be at peace with one another.

Domestic violence is not in any shape or form "living at peace", which we see is God's desire. However note I did say in my first paragraph, that it would be optimal to enable the offending partner time to change, but if they will not, a wife should move on without spiritual guilt.

I believe that this covers the spirit of the bible, leave to safety, do not return to the relationship if there is potential for violence, but give time for reflection and change to the offender, then removing yourself entirely through a divorce if the partner will not change. Remember adultery was not the only biblical case for total separation.

However this doctrine still is not easy escapism, the Spirit of Jesus words in Matthew 19:9 still stands. It has to be a fairly serious reason to break up a marriage, not just “I don’t like my husband anymore”, or “he does not treat me like he used to”, it would have to be an abusive relationship, that breaks God’s contract of “peace with one another”. The key is to try to build relationships not destroy them.

To reduce controversy, I suggest you avoid any of Pauls writings. But I agree with your conclusions and procedure.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

To reduce controversy, I suggest you avoid any of Pauls writings. But I agree with your conclusions and procedure.

The fact is that the whole of the Bible is God's word, and we should not shy away from controversy, God has a reason for everything. Paul was a mouthpiece for God. We can see from his writings, that submission is not allowing violence, he was the one who said "Husbands should love their wives, and not be harsh toward them", a true Christain would never beat his wife into submission. As we can see above Pauls writings show that God sees benefit in some forms of marital separation. Yet the spirit of Jesus words still stand, even in Pauls writing do not allow for what I called easy escapism, or leaving your partner for simply small conflicts.

 

[All Glory To God]

So to the OP I think your quote on Paul is misinterpreted and not only that puts the Apostle in opposition with Christs authority. If that statement above is your opinion than fine,divorce is available and streamlined for those seeking that option but I think it is inaccurate to use scripture to support this position as that is not the context what Paul is speaking about.

So go back further than just the one verse

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.
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.
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.
15 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.

This says the man literally needs to be a self professing non-Christian. You can't just claim the man is a non-Christian because of your opinion of the situation. Try accusing a member of being a non-christian on this forum you be most likely be banned.

Can you define and describe what D V is because the heathens invented it and has no Biblical connection? Very broad and varying terms have been used for D V.

 

[com7fy8]

With the separation in place, the perpetrator should be approached for counselling, the aim of counselling is to see if there is possibility of redemptive outcomes. These out comes can not be just verbal accent

I think you mean "assent" or "consent".

An abuser can use verbal "accent" to to charm you into supposing he is sincere . . . using a sincere tone or accenting of his voice . . . so he can get back alone with his victim.

And how much do you deal with the victim? Possibly, the victim's ways of doing things made the victim able to fool oneself into marrying the abuser. These ways might still be operating to get the victim into other sorts of trouble. So, I would say, no matter what the abuser does, you can take time to get to know her well enough to help her see the ways which helped her marry the abuser and which can now help her have other problems. And there is plenty of scripture to help with this.

I talked with one woman who said she got her divorce from an alcoholic, if I remember right, but then she could not understand how every male companion she got involved with turned out to be an alcoholic. I offered to her that her ways with her character made her able to be attracted to how those alcoholics were able to fool her. And she needed to find out with God how to relate and how to evaluate who to trust.

Why not help women to know how to make sure with God, before they marry an abuser? Prevention is better than cure, I would say. Have you been helping people with how God's word says to make sure about who they marry?

 

[com7fy8]

Maybe I have noticed something. I read a lot about how abuse is wrong, and what to do to the abuser . . . after the abuse has happened. And there are threat policies to notify abusers of what will happen if an abuser hurts someone. But I notice something, here > it seems the abuser is being treated like he or she is the one who is going to make the choices.

I would say do not give an abuser an opportunity, in the first place.

And no I do not mean to have umpteen ways to control people so abusers can't get into abusive relationships.

Not to mention . . . by the way . . . there are ministerial people who deny that you can be expected to make sure with God so you don't marry a wrong person.

Prevent, by finding out how to make sure with God, so you don't marry an abuser. God is able to communicate and personally guide us. But we need to have the character which makes us able to submit to God, to hear Him, and to obey. And this comes with personally submitting to God all the time - - as well as He changes us to be able to do this. Then, we have experience with submitting to God, in the small things, so when a big thing comes, like who to share with in a relationship, we already know how to seek God and do what He has us doing. And we simply go with God, about each person.

And even if we make a mistake for a moment, we can be corrected by our Father so we get back on track. This way, we won't even get started in a relationship with an abuser. Because we are so busy with doing all the loving things which God has us doing > an abuser will not be able to keep our attention for longer than maybe a brief conversation in church or on the Net, before the Holy Spirit will move us along.

So, in case a victim has ways of not submitting to God > > even after getting away from an abuser, the victim can still be a victim of one's own self and one's own ways, I would consider.

I have gotten into numerous wrong relationships, before I knew Jesus takes care of His sheep. His sheep, even, not just leaders, hear His voice. There is no inequality about this > > > Jesus speaks to and personally guides His brothers and His sisters

But there are things an abuser can use as bait . . . things the Bible would make us wise to so we are not seduced by Satan's bait. So, I would say find out what are the treasured items an abuser was able to use to lure a victim; victims might readily tell you what fooled them > "Oh, he was so . . . " "He promised me . . . " "He could talk the Bible . . . ". There are so many things which are "appearance"; and Jesus says not to judge by appearances, right?

And it is not only that ones evaluate by appearance, so predators can even pass themselves off as being pastors, but people can treasure those outward appearing things, so they can be used even to bait a victim into a marriage.

Sow, I would say . . . help ones to be wise to appearances and foolish treasures, so abusers can not fool them, in the first place . . . prevention better than cure.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

So to the OP I think your quote on Paul is misinterpreted and not only that puts the Apostle in opposition with Christs authority. If that statement above is your opinion than fine,divorce is available and streamlined for those seeking that option but I think it is inaccurate to use scripture to support this position as that is not the context what Paul is speaking about.

So go back further than just the one verse

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.
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.
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.
15 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.

This says the man literally needs to be a self professing non-Christian. You can't just claim the man is a non-Christian because of your opinion of the situation. Try accusing a member of being a non-christian on this forum you be most likely be banned.

Can you define and describe what D V is because the heathens invented it and has no Biblical connection? Very broad and varying terms have been used for D V.

Ok, what about Jesus, when he pardoned the woman caught in adultery. He was in opposition to His own authority. Which demanded that the woman be stoned, the Law demanded her death. This shows me that scripture should not be rigidly enforced to peoples hurt, but should be understood in the nature and character of God.

The purpose of Jesus command that there should be no reason other than adultery for divorce is to prevent people from divorcing over trivial matters.

But what we see is that Paul gave "another" valid reason for divorce if the unbelieving husband left the marriage, the person was free in regard to their future direction.

What this shows is that with God there were "other" reasons a person could have to divorce. Paul stated that God has called us to peace in a marriage.

Now I am not suggesting people can divorce if they experience a little lack of peace, but domestic violence is an entirely different issue. I am sure God himself would say "that is not living in peace".

So what is your advice let the wife stay with the abuser? And be beaten?

But as for your comment to define domestic abuse I would generally only define it as hitting and striking, but there may be cases where emotional abuse is so severe that it also could be termed as DV. But in nonphysical confrontation I would rather see counseling rather than divorce.

 

[All Glory To God]

Ok, what about Jesus, when he pardoned the woman caught in adultery. He was in opposition to His own authority. Which demanded that the woman be stoned, the Law demanded her death. This shows me that scripture should not be rigidly enforced to peoples hurt, but should be understood in the nature and character of God.

I believe he said cast stones at her but when they when they were convinted by their consciebes and voluntary left,then he dismissed her. There is no discepnacy in Gods law here,you are just in eror in your keeness to make a point. Can we stay on the topic of Divorce please?

The purpose of Jesus command that there should be no reason other than adultery for divorce is to prevent people from divorcing over trivial matters.

This is your commentary, He said because they are now one flesh.

But what we see is that Paul gave "another" valid reason for divorce if the unbelieving husband left the marriage, the person was free in regard to their future direction.

It never actually says the person can remarry after separation though,only part ways from a non-Christian wife/Husband. You don't get to leave and remarry,not by Gods law anyway. The person has to die first before the vow is void.

What this shows is that with God there were "other" reasons a person could have to divorce. Paul stated that God has called us to peace in a marriage.

Nope.

Now I am not suggesting people can divorce if they experience a little lack of peace, but domestic violence is an entirely different issue. I am sure God himself would say "that is not living in peace".

People can divorce or separate for anything they want to now,just don't claim it has Biblical justification for it.

So what is your advice let the wife stay with the abuser? And be beaten?

I think what would be very helpful is the people who are using words like abuse and D V should define what they mean at least.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I believe he said cast stones at her but when they when they were convinted by their consciebes and voluntary left,then he dismissed her. There is no discepnacy in Gods law here,you are just in eror in your keeness to make a point. Can we stay on the topic of Divorce please?




This is your commentary, He said because they are now one flesh.




It never actually says the person can remarry after separation though,only part ways from a non-Christian wife/Husband. You don't get to leave and remarry,not by Gods law anyway. The person has to die first before the vow is void.



Nope.



People can divorce or separate for anything they want to now,just don't claim it has Biblical justification for it.




I think what would be very helpful is the people who are using words like abuse and D V should define what they mean at least.

I feel you are too harsh, Jesus never intended to stone the woman caught in adultery, it was His love that saved her.

God has common sense, it is common sense to remove a woman from a true DV environment. Men have no right to beat women, certainly not using the pretext of scriptures birthed from a loving God.

BTW: I added a definition of DV to the article above, as you suggested.

 

[com7fy8]

15 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.

To depart might not be physical departure. Ones can depart from the faith without leaving a church. So, I have to consider what >

What this shows is that with God there were "other" reasons a person could have to divorce. Paul stated that God has called us to peace in a marriage.

How about if an abuser has pretended, on purpose, to be a kind and tender person, and has charmed a whole church into buying his acting? That would be fraud, and betraying one's word to love > often enough, ones vow to God how they will so love one another. So, if someone is an abuser and knows this full well, but vows an outright lie . . . I offer how premarital deception could even be a stoning offense under Mosaic Law > Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

This says the man literally needs to be a self professing non-Christian. You can't just claim the man is a non-Christian because of your opinion of the situation. Try accusing a member of being a non-christian on this forum you be most likely be banned.

Paul does not directly say he needs to be a professing non-Christian. It says he is an unbeliever. Ones can pretend to be believers, in order to fool a person into marrying them. This is done. And if it turns out later how that was a fraudulent thing done by the evil person . . . there is someone who can not even depart, if he has not even gotten started.

And our Apostle Paul clearly says what is true of a man who does not provide for his own family. He is "worse than an unbeliever" > so, he has not even gotten started in marriage so he can depart from it, I now consider.

And God's word is clear how our Father corrects His own children > or else > "you are illegtimate and not sons," God clearly does say, in Hebrews 12:4-14 which also gives plenty about what is the result of real correction which is done by God and not mere human effort.

An issue is, of course, if the victim is genuinely being corrected and matured by God . . . versus being a cooperator . . . an enabler . . . who has helped the abuser to get into such a situation, because the victim dove into the marriage without making sure with God our Father who personally guides us while we obey Him (Romans 8:14, Philippians 1:9, Colossians 3:15, Philippians 2:13).

Can you define and describe what D V is because the heathens invented it and has no Biblical connection? Very broad and varying terms have been used for D V.

Arguing is abusive, and potentially the bad example of arguing can help to ruin children so they grow up not knowing how to relate in Christian love. And then they can be in the dark so they can marry an abuser.

So, instead of trying to draw some line at beatings and screaming and clubbing and strangling someone . . . any ungentle unhumble relating is anti-love >

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." (Colossians 3:19)

So, no bitterness is ever excused for a man!! As soon as he can tell something in him is trying or acting to turn him bitter, right away he needs to stop and sacrifice anything, at all, in order for God to stop that bitterness stuff. And be faithful to Jesus our Groom, by refusing to have any affair with bitterness . . . or arguing and complaining and blaming.

And if someone does not change from such wrong ways of relating, the person is potentially departed from "faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6) Because if we are God's children, we are guaranteed how God is easily able to correct us > Hebrews 12:4-14.

So, I now consider how departing can mean going the other way, even while still in a household. And I mean without getting correction, and the person keeps on going away.

But like I say > a person can make sure with God so he or she does not get with a cruel and brutal person, in the first place. But in case I do fool myself together with a wrong person . . . it was my responsibility to pray and make sure with God. So, my real problem is my own self. I can make sure with God, all the time > discovering how God in us "works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (in Philippians 2:13)

I offer that while God is working in my willing and doing, He will not have me going on and on with an evil person. With God, I will not let myself be isolated with that person > I will be wise to not give in to the charm and promises which would have me fall in infatuation stuff which . . . isolates me - - emotionally and socially. Instead, we learn how to love any and all people > Matthew 5:46 < this helps to keep us from falling into favoritism for some one person while we are in love with dreams we want to come true > instead . . . we seek God's dream to come true > Romans 8:29 < and we share as family, then, not isolating in blind dating.

 

[All Glory To God]

I feel you are too harsh, Jesus never intended to stone the woman caught in adultery, it was His love that saved her.

God has common sense, it is common sense to remove a woman from a true DV environment. Men have no right to beat women, certainly not using the pretext of scriptures birthed from a loving God.

BTW: I added a definition of DV to the article above, as you suggested.

Well Christ didn't use those words but he did say for the witness to commence the stoning. Jesus Christ was a strict legalistic,although he does not require the same standard from his followers how do figure he can be sinless without keeping the law himself?

Thanks for that add to the OP and I don't think it is a healthy thing for a man to beat on his wife either but some people think the husband being in charge is abuse,so they completely deny headship in any form so I don't know how a marriage could realistically work at that point,from a Biblical perspective anyway. That is how far this radical feminism has got to and infiltrated Christianity.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Well Christ didn't use those words but he did say for the witness to commence the stoning. Jesus Christ was a strict legalistic,although he does not require the same standard from his followers how do figure he can be sinless without keeping the law himself?

Thanks for that add to the OP and I don't think it is a healthy thing for a man to beat on his wife either but some people think the husband being in charge is abuse,so they completely deny headship in any form so I don't know how a marriage could realistically work at that point,from a Biblical perspective anyway. That is how far this radical feminism has got to and infiltrated Christianity.

God would have us follow the word as close to the letter as we can, but He is not a strict legalist. The law was made to protect man not to cause slavish obedience.

Mar 2:23-28 And it came about that on the Sabbath day he was going through the grain-fields; and while they were walking, his disciples took the heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to him, Why are they doing what it is not right to do on the Sabbath? And he said to them, Have you no knowledge of what David did, when he had need and was without food, he, and those who were with him? How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and took for food the holy bread, which only the priests may take, and gave it to those who were with him? And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; So that the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I don't think it is a healthy thing for a man to beat on his wife either but some people think the husband being in charge is abuse,so they completely deny headship in any form so I don't know how a marriage could realistically work at that point,from a Biblical perspective anyway. That is how far this radical feminism has got to and infiltrated Christianity.

I agree that the world does this often, in many ways, be it domestic violence, the discipline of children, homosexuality, everything goes against God. Taking things to an unhealthy limit, trying to make God look bad.

 

[All Glory To God]

First of all I disagree arguing is abuse. One only needs to read John 8 to see Jesus having a very long voluntary argument,at no point claiming what he or the Pharisees are doing is wrong. In fact your post was in argument against mine so......are you abusing me? Of course not.

And I also disagree that depart means divorce. Paul makes it clear that only when the spouse is dead the vow is ended. Of course if the person desires to separate and divorce they have the option to so but I don't think Gods law fits with that.

To depart might not be physical departure. Ones can depart from the faith without leaving a church. So, I have to consider what >
How about if an abuser has pretended, on purpose, to be a kind and tender person, and has charmed a whole church into buying his acting? That would be fraud, and betraying one's word to love > often enough, ones vow to God how they will so love one another. So, if someone is an abuser and knows this full well, but vows an outright lie . . . I offer how premarital deception could even be a stoning offense under Mosaic Law > Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
Paul does not directly say he needs to be a professing non-Christian. It says he is an unbeliever. Ones can pretend to be believers, in order to fool a person into marrying them. This is done. And if it turns out later how that was a fraudulent thing done by the evil person . . . there is someone who can not even depart, if he has not even gotten started.

And our Apostle Paul clearly says what is true of a man who does not provide for his own family. He is "worse than an unbeliever" > so, he has not even gotten started in marriage so he can depart from it, I now consider.

And God's word is clear how our Father corrects His own children > or else > "you are illegtimate and not sons," God clearly does say, in Hebrews 12:4-14 which also gives plenty about what is the result of real correction which is done by God and not mere human effort.

An issue is, of course, if the victim is genuinely being corrected and matured by God . . . versus being a cooperator . . . an enabler . . . who has helped the abuser to get into such a situation, because the victim dove into the marriage without making sure with God our Father who personally guides us while we obey Him (Romans 8:14, Philippians 1:9, Colossians 3:15, Philippians 2:13).

Arguing is abusive, and potentially the bad example of arguing can help to ruin children so they grow up not knowing how to relate in Christian love. And then they can be in the dark so they can marry an abuser.

So, instead of trying to draw some line at beatings and screaming and clubbing and strangling someone . . . any ungentle unhumble relating is anti-love >

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." (Colossians 3:19)

So, no bitterness is ever excused for a man!! As soon as he can tell something in him is trying or acting to turn him bitter, right away he needs to stop and sacrifice anything, at all, in order for God to stop that bitterness stuff. And be faithful to Jesus our Groom, by refusing to have any affair with bitterness . . . or arguing and complaining and blaming.

And if someone does not change from such wrong ways of relating, the person is potentially departed from "faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6) Because if we are God's children, we are guaranteed how God is easily able to correct us > Hebrews 12:4-14.

So, I now consider how departing can mean going the other way, even while still in a household. And I mean without getting correction, and the person keeps on going away.

But like I say > a person can make sure with God so he or she does not get with a cruel and brutal person, in the first place. But in case I do fool myself together with a wrong person . . . it was my responsibility to pray and make sure with God. So, my real problem is my own self. I can make sure with God, all the time > discovering how God in us "works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (in Philippians 2:13)

I offer that while God is working in my willing and doing, He will not have me going on and on with an evil person. With God, I will not let myself be isolated with that person > I will be wise to not give in to the charm and promises which would have me fall in infatuation stuff which . . . isolates me - - emotionally and socially. Instead, we learn how to love any and all people > Matthew 5:46 < this helps to keep us from falling into favoritism for some one person while we are in love with dreams we want to come true > instead . . . we seek God's dream to come true > Romans 8:29 < and we share as family, then, not isolating in blind dating.

 

[All Glory To God]

God would have us follow the word as close to the letter as we can, but He is not a strict legalist. The law was made to protect man not to cause slavish obedience.

Mar 2:23-28 And it came about that on the Sabbath day he was going through the grain-fields; and while they were walking, his disciples took the heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to him, Why are they doing what it is not right to do on the Sabbath? And he said to them, Have you no knowledge of what David did, when he had need and was without food, he, and those who were with him? How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and took for food the holy bread, which only the priests may take, and gave it to those who were with him? And he said to them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; So that the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.

Jesus Christ was a strict legalist,meaning,he himself always kept every law never broke any law and did not sin. A saviour is not much use if he sins like us is he?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Jesus Christ was a strict legalist,meaning,he himself always kept every law never broke any law and did not sin. A saviour is not much use if he sins like us is he?

Does God ever sin? The answer is no, obviously. But God has often allowed men to break laws without the full consequence being metered out. Take David again as an example, he Murdered and committed adultery. The law commanded that he be killed himself, yet God let him live. The same with the woman caught in adultery, by law she should have been killed, yet God let her live, he never intended to kill her. We should be slow to judge one another. Yes, we should obey the law, it is God's will. But there is humanity in the mix, and we should not enforce commands in such a way as to cause harm. If a command is causing real harm, we need to reassess whether God would have us put such a harsh interpretation on the scripture. Now I am not suggesting we disregard God's command if someone claims harm, no, rather if it is causing real harm, like protecting a domestic violence perpetrator, we have to ask if God ever intended the scripture to be used in that way.

I guess coming back to my argument, we see that there was an example where a wife could move on with their life when it was not adultery. If an unbelieving man no longer wanted the relationship.

All this shows is that through scripture there is one case, that was not adultery that was a permissible reason for separation. Showing, not that Jesus made a false command, but rather it should not be interpreted in a harsh or unloving way that protects an abuser. By saying there is "no other reason", not one, for God himself, had another one reason, through Paul.

 

[All Glory To God]

Does God ever sin? The answer is no, obviously. But God has often allowed men to break laws without the full consequence being metered out. Take David again as an example, he Murdered and committed adultery. The law commanded that he be killed himself, yet God let him live. The same with the woman caught in adultery, by law she should have been killed, yet God let her live, he never intended to kill her. We should be slow to judge one another. Yes, we should obey the law, it is God's will. But there is humanity in the mix, and we should not enforce commands in such a way as to cause harm. If a command is causing real harm, we need to reassess whether God would have us put such a harsh interpretation on the scripture. Now I am not suggesting we disregard God's command if someone claims harm, no, rather if it is causing real harm, like protecting a domestic violence perpetrator, we have to ask if God ever intended the scripture to be used in that way.

I guess coming back to my argument, we see that there was an example where a wife could move on with their life when it was not adultery. If an unbelieving man no longer wanted the relationship.

All this shows is that through scripture there is one case, that was not adultery that was a permissible reason for separation. Showing, not that Jesus made a false command, but rather it should not be interpreted in a harsh or unloving way that protects an abuser. By saying there is "no other reason", not one, for God himself, had another one reason, through Paul.

Well again I disagree that the Corinthians scripture says the person can divorce. It does not say depart,divorce, start courting again and remarry which is what you mean when you say "move on" it just says depart. And even if there was any confusion Paul says the marriage stands until death.

This is going back to the way of moses, just putting people away with a bill. Not because of godly legal divorce but because of convenience.

I don't know if you believe in the biblical model for marriage, that being husband love the wife and wife obey the husband. If you do I have a question: if a husband is loving his wife but the wife is stubborn and rebellious refuses to submit the husbands headship what should the husband do to resolve this wife's resistance? If you do not believe in headship, how should a marriage be structured?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Well again I disagree that the Corinthians scripture says the person can divorce. It does not say depart,divorce, start courting again and remarry which is what you mean when you say "move on" it just says depart. And even if there was any confusion Paul says the marriage stands until death.

This is going back to the way of moses, just putting people away with a bill. Not because of godly legal divorce but because of convenience.

I don't know if you believe in the biblical model for marriage, that being husband love the wife and wife obey the husband. If you do I have a question: if a husband is loving his wife but the wife is stubborn and rebellious refuses to submit the husbands headship what should the husband do to resolve this wife's resistance? If you do not believe in headship, how should a marriage be structured?

In cases where a wife is not submissive, the husband must continue to love his wife, that is his duty. He need not do anything to change his wife. That is between her and God.

as for your insistence that the scripture about the unbelieving husband leaving still results in the marriage being binding is just not true it clearly states the partner has no obligation to them in that instance.

 

[All Glory To God]

In cases where a wife is not submissive, the husband must continue to love his wife, that is his duty. He need not do anything to change his wife. That is between her and God.

Why is the husband obliged not seek a divorce when the wife effectively voids the marriage contract by not submitting to his headship but the wife can seek and be granted a divorce when the husband does not fulfill his role?

as for your insistence that the scripture about the unbelieving husband leaving still results in the marriage being binding is just not true it clearly states the partner has no obligation to them in that instance.

We may as well omit this part of the discussion for now because we simply do not agree.

 

[com7fy8]

First of all I disagree arguing is abuse.

I am talking about what God's word means by "disputing" >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)