Is abuse a Biblical reason for divorce?

[musingsofacac]

A lot of people who have little knowledge of the Bible would have the knee jerk reaction of "Yes of course it is OK to divorce for abuse". But for those of us who want to make sure our marriage does not end unbiblically it can be a stickier question since the Bible never expressly states that divorce can occur for the reason of abuse.

Let me be clear – I have no use for a man who beats his wife. It’s not Biblical, it’s not Christian – period.

I used to think the Bible was silent when it came to abuse but recently I was doing a study on Slavery in the Bible and I found this passage:


Exodus 21:26-27(NASB)

26 An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

If a male or female slave (that would include a slave wife, also known as a concubine) were physically abused by their master they had the freedom to leave, the master had to let them go. I had a thought while reading this passage, if a slave wife, which was lower than a free wife was to be freed for physical abuse, why would we expect anything less for a free wife who had more rights?


So while this passage is not specifically talking about marriage, it is talking about abuse and I don’t think it is a stretch to say a free wife had the same right as a slave wife to leave if she was physically abused. Now I don’t think this is talking about a slap on the face or something less than bodily damage that leaves some kind of scaring or permanent injury.


What do you think?

 

[ValleyGal]

If I slapped my child, it would be considered abuse and my child would be removed. If you slapped a cop, it would be considered assault and you would be arrested. If a spouse is slapped every day for 20 years, it might not leave a scar, but it sure is considered abuse and is against the law. I don't care if it's one small slap or if it's a near-death beating - it is not acceptable and absolutely is just cause for divorce, even biblically. I would not even use the "slave" verse cited in your post as justification because women are not slaves.

Harming your spouse is just cause for divorce. It is not the abused person who breaks that marriage covenant; it is the one who abuses because it violates their vow before God and man that they will love and honour their spouse. Hitting is not loving or honouring. Period. The abuser is the one who will stand before God to account for the broken marriage.

 

[musingsofacac]

If I slapped my child, it would be considered abuse and my child would be removed. If you slapped a cop, it would be considered assault and you would be arrested. If a spouse is slapped every day for 20 years, it might not leave a scar, but it sure is considered abuse and is against the law. I don't care if it's one small slap or if it's a near-death beating - it is not acceptable and absolutely is just cause for divorce, even biblically. I would not even use the "slave" verse cited in your post as justification because women are not slaves.

Harming your spouse is just cause for divorce. It is not the abused person who breaks that marriage covenant; it is the one who abuses because it violates their vow before God and man that they will love and honour their spouse. Hitting is not loving or honouring. Period. The abuser is the one who will stand before God to account for the broken marriage.

Well the Bible does not allow divorce for "not loving or honoring" specifically. So for those of us who take it more literally that would not be a valid reason for divorce.

That's why I pointed to the verse regarding female slaves and their abuse. Yes I realize that women in America are not slaves(even though we did at one time have female slaves) but I was using it as illustration that if a slave could not be abused or they would have to be set free, there is no reason to think this would not also apply a wife who was a free woman.

 

[ValleyGal]

The Bible does allow for divorce over a broken covenant. You might want to read this link. It's a very literal study of divorce.

Divorce Book | Divorced Christain | Christian Divorce Advice | Divorce Guilt

 

[Svt4Him]

God cares more about the people in the marriage than He does for the marriage. If there's abuse, leave.

 

[dayhiker]

musing .. thanks for posting that verse, I'd not thought of it that way. But I like the way you think.

I also agree that an abuser has broken the marriage covenant.

 

[Svt4Him]

The Bible does allow for divorce over a broken covenant. You might want to read this link. It's a very literal study of divorce.

Divorce Book | Divorced Christain | Christian Divorce Advice | Divorce Guilt

This is a great site that looks into what the Bible actually says. Look at their various articles.

 

[moerunamida]

If I slapped my child, it would be considered abuse and my child would be removed. If you slapped a cop, it would be considered assault and you would be arrested. If a spouse is slapped every day for 20 years, it might not leave a scar, but it sure is considered abuse and is against the law. I don't care if it's one small slap or if it's a near-death beating - it is not acceptable and absolutely is just cause for divorce, even biblically. I would not even use the "slave" verse cited in your post as justification because women are not slaves.

Harming your spouse is just cause for divorce. It is not the abused person who breaks that marriage covenant; it is the one who abuses because it violates their vow before God and man that they will love and honour their spouse. Hitting is not loving or honouring. Period. The abuser is the one who will stand before God to account for the broken marriage.

That is a great example of the husband not loving his wife as 'Christ loving the church'. Christ would never slap the church...that's an odd visual.

 

[LinkH]

A lot of people who have little knowledge of the Bible would have the knee jerk reaction of "Yes of course it is OK to divorce for abuse". But for those of us who want to make sure our marriage does not end unbiblically it can be a stickier question since the Bible never expressly states that divorce can occur for the reason of abuse.

Let me be clear – I have no use for a man who beats his wife. It’s not Biblical, it’s not Christian – period.

I used to think the Bible was silent when it came to abuse but recently I was doing a study on Slavery in the Bible and I found this passage:

Exodus 21:26-27(NASB)

​

If a male or female slave (that would include a slave wife, also known as a concubine) were physically abused by their master they had the freedom to leave, the master had to let them go. I had a thought while reading this passage, if a slave wife, which was lower than a free wife was to be freed for physical abuse, why would we expect anything less for a free wife who had more rights?

So while this passage is not specifically talking about marriage, it is talking about abuse and I don’t think it is a stretch to say a free wife had the same right as a slave wife to leave if she was physically abused. Now I don’t think this is talking about a slap on the face or something less than bodily damage that leaves some kind of scaring or permanent injury.

What do you think?

Slavery and marriage aren't the same thing, of course. Also, in that passage, the slave who is beaten and doesn't receive those kinds of injuries doesn't go free. It's a tough passage, and a tough issue. II Peter 2 talks about talks about slaves being beaten. The audience of the letter probably weren't living under Torah slave laws, but rather Roman practices. Peter tells slaves that are beaten for doing good that this is commendable before God, and pointed those who were suffering to Christ as an example. It appears right before a passage on marriage, too, but the passage on marriage says nothing about domestic violence. Hopefully they didn't usually treat their wives like that.

The idea of a man beating his wife, the typical or at least stereotypical domestic violence problem, stirs up a lot of emotions. In men, also, it can stir up anger in addition to a desire to protect the innocent. But we can't just rewrite what Jesus said or what the rest of the Bible says out of our emotions, even our emotional desire for justice.

I don't believe domestic violence is grounds for divorce and remarriage. I do understand someone going somewhere to be safe. Paul says, "but if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband." If a husband (or wife) is cruel or violent, that doesn't erase the bond of being one flesh.

 

[LinkH]

It is not the abused person who breaks that marriage covenant; it is the one who abuses because it violates their vow before God and man that they will love and honour their spouse.

I'd like to point something out about vows, not abuse per se, but vows.

The Bible never teaches that a vow is the basis for marriage. That's western culture. The Romans used to say some words before a pagan priest. "Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia", the woman would say. The Roman Christianized wedding had a Christian elder/priest solemnize the event with the couple saying their vows or promises.

One common sin is not loving your neighbor as yourself. Don't many sins derive from not loving your neighbor? Saying harsh words displays a lack of love. Well, when couples get married, many of them agree to love, honor, and cherish one another. Let's one day a couple who made those vows get in a fight and say some unloving things. Does that mean they can get a divorce since they broke their vows?

When we read the Bible, nothing says that a marriage is formed by stating vows. Marriage is referred to as a covenant, but in the Old Testament, that was made with a bride price (in the case of virgins) when the groom paid the bride's father the bride price for virgins and she became his betrothed. Jewish tradition is to have a written agreement for what the man agrees to provide, but we don't know if that goes all the way back to Moses, and the Bible doesn't present it as the basis for marriage.

 

[ValleyGal]

I do not believe the site is "pro-divorce." I believe it provides information that helps people understand how unclear the English version of divorce actually is. The Greek people may not hold to an anti-divorce mindset - not because of how the Bible terms things, but because they are working towards the ideal. And rightly so. But that does not mean that God's limits on divorce are as barbaric as "tradition" has them to be.

There is absolutely far more room for divorce than "tradition" dictates. And it is liberating....it is for freedom that Jesus sets us free, including freedom from oppressive marriages where there is irreconcilable conflict, and unresolved selfishness and other major issues that people can't live with. God is a God of grace and mercy; divorce is one of those methods of extending mercy where there is need.

Now, I am not advocating (and I do not think the site is either) that people should run to the divorce court at the first sign of trouble or unresolved conflict. Jesus indicated it should be for things like adultery and hardness of heart. God divorced Israel for her continued, unrepentant flirtations with other gods. Iow, divorce is the last option when all else has failed.

 

[LinkH]

There is absolutely far more room for divorce than "tradition" dictates. And it is liberating....it is for freedom that Jesus sets us free, including freedom from oppressive marriages where there is irreconcilable conflict, and unresolved selfishness and other major issues that people can't live with.

The issue is not whether an interpretation is traditional. Tradition for the sake of tradition is not the solution. The issue is what Jesus actually meant. I can't find any evidence that the Christians who actually spoke and wrote in the language the New Testament is written in in their own language agree with the assertions about Greek found on the website. These seem to be some new-fangled interpretations that fit well with the current thinking of the world.

What kind of freedom to Christians have? Is it freedom from the bonds of marriage if things are difficult, or is it freedom even in the midst of difficult situations? John experienced this freedom, but he was imprisoned on Patmos. Paul had the freedom when he and Silas were bound for preaching. We are to be free from sin, free to serve God. We are free to serve Christ, not to disobey Him.

God is a God of grace and mercy; divorce is one of those methods of extending mercy where there is need.

Mercy can also be not getting a divorce. God's grace can help one endure selfishness in marriage.

Jesus indicated it should be for things like adultery and hardness of heart.

Jesus called a man putting away his wife 'except it be for fornication' and marrying another 'fornication', as the KJV puts it. That's a word used to translate the Greek inappropriate contenteia.

What does he say about hardness of heart? Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed divorce, but from the beginning it was not so.


God divorced Israel for her continued, unrepentant flirtations with other gods. Iow, divorce is the last option when all else has failed.[/quote]

 

[dayhiker]

From my reading of history there is already a couple of translations in the original text of Mat.19. The Jews were debating Dt.24:1. Not any others Torah verses used to explain what divorce was. What Jesus is responding to is a debate that is going on in the Jewish community that He lived in. They were speaking in Aramaic. This debate that Jesus was asked about what his position on only lasted a few years around the time that Jesus lived. Putting away is the key word for one side of the debate and divorce is the key word for the other side of the debate. To put away was to kick ones wife out without giving her a certificate of divorce. It was easy and the guy didn't give her back any dowry that she was owed. It meant that if she got remarried she was committing adultery because she had not divorce. This is all in the Jewish writings of the time. The other side followed Moses and said to divorce a man gave her a certificate of divorce and her dowry. The certificate of divorce was simple and archeologist have hundreds of them. "You are free to marry any man." That is all it said. A few had a variant of marry any Jewish man. This woman coudn't commit adultery because she had documentation of her divorce that she could show anyone who asked.

So the Gospel witters have to translate the Aramaic in to Greek. The Greek don't know the history of the Jewish debate on Dt.24:1 and what it was about because they were not interested Jewish debates. But the Jews that were bring the Gospel to them could give an explanation to the Greeks. Now the Gospel spread among the Greeks so fast that it soon out ran the the Jewish understand of the context of the question Jesus was asked.

So the author of the above web site knows his Greek and has studied the Jewish writings of the time of Christ. Can't get any better than that.

 

[HannahT]

Jesus called a man putting away his wife 'except it be for fornication' and marrying another 'fornication', as the KJV puts it. That's a word used to translate the Greek inappropriate contenteia.

What does he say about hardness of heart? Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed divorce, but from the beginning it was not so.

From what I understand of Jewish culture 'no fault divorces' were common, but also frowned upon.

When a man 'put away' his wife he either did one of two things. Allowed her the 'get' so that she may remarry, or didn't give her one - in which she couldn't. If she did marry anyway she was in adultery. Children from that union were also considered illegitimate. It was a source of great shame, and her children were branded for the rest of their days...and their future generations as well. So the 'get' was and IS still within the Jewish community a BIG deal!

It was also common that a women found in adultery would be 'put away', and not given the 'get' due to the adultery. So its hard to say if that is not what he was talking about with this verse.

Its hard for us to wrap our minds around many aspects of this culture, because it was also 'shame and honor' based much like the middle east is now.

If a man was beating his wife for example during this time? She could enlist the help of the Rabbi, and if all else fails and the husband was unrepentant? The rabbi - and the community - could pressure him to allow her the 'get'. At this point he could NOT remarry her either, because it was not allowed (that is also in scripture). Some men of course would refuse to give the 'get', and they were pretty much be stunned within their community. That was a much bigger deal then compared to today. Most of the time the man did back down, and allow the 'get' to be given to the wife. There are even records of him being harmed if he didn't. This was a community affair.

Depending on the religious leaders of the time there was more mercy towards those that were abused, and they didn't rely on so much spiritual pixie dust like we have today. The family safety would be first and foremost in God's eyes, and we tend to struggle with the aspects of separation due to fear of divorce. Safety within that mindset is secondary, which should be shameful...and its not. Its rather mind boggling to me. I mean some individuals can break habits, and MOST individual even with less harmful ones struggle giving them up. Yet, the fear of divorce is more scary than a possible funeral if someone gets killed. Which sadly has happened, and changed many a Pastor's viewpoint. Gosh! Can't imagine why!

The church today struggles with this aspect of life/culture that back in the day...its radically different. The differences are huge at times, but its also easier to go with the belief system we are comfortable with. That's human nature, and unfortunately as much as Christian claim it isn't so? Its easier to go with what society has been telling us about 'what the bible says' without the proper context of culture. Matter of fact I have found some pastor's stating the culture aspect of the time doesn't matter. Its THAT hard to let go.

I can understand why understandings of text are transformed, because we didn't always have the knowledge of those times. Sadly, even with that evidence some truly struggle. Yet, that is so human isn't it!

 

[dayhiker]

HannahT ,, thanks for the very good post.

 

[Violet74]

/

 

[Violet74]

Hi...i was in an abusive marriage for 15yrs, physical, emotionaly, verbally, sexually, and i was 15 , he was 20 when we met and took advantage of me. I ended up pregnant my 1st time at 15yo. He beat me the 1st night i had moved in with him, and a month after ou r baby was born , we got married. He never asked me to marry him, went for a ride and suprise he pulles up to a small church and says we are getting married right now. So i obeyed, and not once in 15 years have i ever called the police or left him and never planned to. I was married to him for life. And i was very loyal and honered him and reallly put alot of effort into being a good wife and to make him happy. The last day we were together it was real real bad and i only had 3 options. Stay and die, or run and die or run and live. The Lord spoke to me , and said, "This man does not love you" and i did not heaistate , i ran and not once looked back. I called 911 on him he went to jail for 2yrs. 10yrs later and still ive never looked back. If God wouldnt have spoke to me, i would had never left and stayed married.for life black and blue. ...love ur wife as u love urself

 

[rubyinprogress]

Each one must come to their own conviction based on their own study of Scripture. Here are some thoughts...Jesus said that Moses granted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. A lot of times from the pulpit this is used to keep a woman in a destructive marriage. She has to forgive, etc or she is hard hearted. But what if we look at this with fresh eyes. Research shows that abuse follows a cycle of violence and remorse (notice I didn't say repentance). The violence increases and the remorse and "honeymoon" phases shrink. Each cycle serves to further harden his heart. A man who abuses his wife is demonstrating a hard heart, and God granted divorce for her protection as well as to possibly bring him to repentance. Also what about in Malachi where it says God hates divorce. It is not directed at women who are divorcing abusive men, but at men who are "dealing treacherously" with their wives.

One final thought. Although God hates divorce, He loves people. Jesus honored women in a culture that held a low opinion of them. He died for each woman who is now or ever has been in an abusive marriage. He said he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly. What in everything we know of the teaching of Scripture other than one understanding of one verse, says that Christ expects a woman to stay and be abused rather than get a divorce? The only verse in Scripture that can be interpreted to exclude abuse as "Biblical grounds" is Matthew 5 and there are different views of what that means. Was he talking about legal divorce? Some commentators say that He was commenting on the practice of "putting away" without the writ of divorce. In any case, I think sometimes marriage is made into an idol.

 

[PollyJetix]

My husband left me after many years of emotional abuse. I suspect he is mentally ill, but I don't know... I do know his dad was diagnosed with Schizophrenia. And ex-hubby is very paranoid. When he left, he hid from me, for fear I would kill him. That was 15 years ago.

He got a no-fault divorce a year later.
I raised the two kids through their teen years alone.
The child support stopped after 2 years. (He said I didn't deserve it.)

I let him go. I did not pursue him for child support, although, looking back, it would have been good for him if I had.

I was just thankful he left me alone.

I was raised very strict Mennonite, and thought that all divorce was wrong... and that all remarriage was continuous adultery.

I have come to a very different conclusion, on the basis of the Word.
Exodus 21:7-11 allowed a slave wife to sue for divorce papers on the basis of neglect and abuse.

If a Law was given for a king, the Jews interpreted it as applying only to kings. Not to anyone else.
If a law was given for those who served as judges in the gates, then it applied to all who were in government. But not to other citizens.
If a law was given specifically to freemen, it applied to all freemen, including government and even kings, but not slaves.
And if a law was addressed to slaves, it applied to not only slaves, but to freemen as well.

Now, the law in Exodus 21 was addressed to a slave wife. And not just any slave wife. It was spoken to the 1st slave wife, who had lost her position to a younger 2nd wife.

This is the woman who could go to the judges at the gate, charge her husband with abuse and/or neglect, and obtain not only her freedom, but divorce papers. Because, as a wife, she was not free without divorce papers.

Judaism has always seen this law as applying not only to 1st slave wives, but to every women.
Because every law applies not only to the social class addressed, but also to every class above it.

Therefore, there is Biblical basis for divorce for abuse and neglect.

Now... as to New Testament teaching.

Paul addressed 4 groups of people in 1 Corinthians 7.
1) the unmarried and widows
2) the married
3) the rest
4) virgins

some observations:
A. What Paul spoke to one group, he did not mean to apply to all the other groups.
B. "the rest" were not the same group as "the married." Therefore, since "the rest" were obviously those who were married to unbelievers, then "the married" group only consisted of those who were married to believers. Adn that which was spoken to those married to believers, was VASTLY different from that spoken to "the rest!"
C. virgins are not included in "the unmarried and widows."
How do we know? Because Paul said that to virgins, he had no command from the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:25)
Yet, he had a command from the Lord to "the unmarried and widows".
D. The definition of "unmarried" is found in v. 11. This is a woman separated from her husband.
E. Speaking to those who are married to unbelievers, Paul instructs: If the unbeliever is not pleased to dwell with you, let them go. Because God has not called us to bondage, but to peace.

You see, as a Mennonite divorcee for 10 years, I was no longer married, but I was in bondage. And that bondage brought incredible turmoil. I saw myself as still bound to this abusive marriage, so that I could not be free, until he died. Every interaction brought turmoil to my heart, wondering if he was changing, if he wanted to come back. If he would step into my home and abuse me again, if my heart would be broken all over again.

I found out that God had called me to peace. I am not bound to him. That marriage is dead. I can bury it.
Which is only just. Widows can bury their dead and move on. I can too.

I am free. Thank God.

 

[olds8598]

This morning I am working on a kernel of doubt in my faith. I haven't been here in many months. I felt the Lord put on my heart to share this previous posting. God bless.

Enough is Enough