It is biblical to leave a truly abusive spouse. But be careful.
It is biblical to leave a truly abusive spouse. But be careful.
This is merely a snippet from 2 years ago when I did my 3 hour teaching on “Divorce and Remarriage: Everything the Bible says about It” back from May of 2020. This video may raise more questions than it answers for some people but I promise I’ve got the answers to those questions and more in the big video.
Here’s a link to the FULL VIDEO with time stamps to help you find just what you need. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2pC6ZikbYo
I’m Mike Winger and my goal is to help you learn to think biblically about everything. I’ve got a free searchable database of over 600 videos on my website https://BibleThinker.org
Less than 24 hours into being married he put his hands on me.. Get help, go to a DV shelter and if one DV shelter says no, or like in my case the cops say no and send you back to the abuser, report the cops and go to a different county’s policeman if you have to. As long as there’s breath in your lungs, there’s hope. Let’s pray for our brothers and sisters who are struggling in this even those who aren’t seeking God’s face must be saved in Jesus name
There is no way I am staying in an abusive marriage.
Self destruction is satanic.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10-12 the woman is commanded not to leave her husband and the next verse seems to contradict this verse by saying "if she does leave." It commands her not to leave and then it tells her what to do if she does leave. However, this is not a contradiction if you look at the original Greek for the phrase "if she does leave." The verb is in the middle voice which would better read, "if something causes her to leave." Violence or danger would definitely be something that would cause her to leave. The next phrase is the one that would cause a dispute, because it tells her "to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband." Over the years, I have seen women divorce their husbands because of violence and remarry. After a time their first husband was saved and converted, but there wasn’t any waiting wife for them to be reconciled with. For this reason, I believe that separation is justified but divorce is not. However, if the violent husband divorces her, she is free to remarry as stated in 1 Cor 7:15, "God has called you to peace." Leave the decision to terminate a marriage up to God.
Ever been told, "but Love Beareth all things…Endureth all things."
1 Corinthians 13:7
In regards to being unable to divorce for physical abuse…?
Oof. Biblical arguments Challenging me.
How many woman had died (be it suicide or being murdered) because people like you giving this kind of advice?
What about the pain and suffering reflect God and his will?
The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ’s death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel.
The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses’s precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death.
The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ’s death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ’s death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus’s fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses’s precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15.
Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod’s brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife.
Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one’s unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15.
Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16.
The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let’s look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions.
The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God’s law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24.
Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ’s teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark’s Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew’s Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.
Jesus said itsonly okay to divorce if there’s sexual immorality… if someone is being abused, get help. Not disobey Jesus.
Thank you!
Yes there’s a huge difference between regular disagreements and quarrels and being verbally, mentally, physically abused. I have been enduring this for 5 years and all he can say over and over again is that he can "at least acknowledge" it’s wrong. But he has never stopped. I have stayed up until now feeling that I have to because I’m a Christian and need to pray for him to be delivered. But at what cost? My daughters are growing up with this and I’m being degraded constantly. This just can’t be ok with Jesus.
Wonder if a lot of times the abuse is more of a symptom of another problem. Eh? Yep the Bible is clear we are not to be unequally yoked, and might venture an assertion that typically the woman is the believer in the couple, however as a Christian she doesn’t consider the issue about marrying and unbeliever… As I’d also assert a godly man in a marriage would never abuse his wife, or to be more specific i wouldn’t want my prayers hindered or ignored by God. So in general if/when there is abuse either spouse (or both for that matter) is not a Christian. So if there is abuse in a marriage, hard really hard to not think of this:
Gal 5:18) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
19) Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior,
20) idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions,
21) envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
So in the end would be more curious if the couple are both God fearing obedient believers. Of so then there would be no violence as i’d assert such actions or fruit/deeds of the flesh are evident and testify the person is not a believer…
Sadly, I divorced Christianity and biblical thinking……..
u think ?
Yes because abusive unions aren’t valid unions
I wish this was more widely taught. So often the abused hear, God hates divorce, how often should I forgive?, let man not separate what God has joined, and the verses about believers staying married to non-believers for the children (1 Cor 7:14). I don’t think I have heard one preacher say anything about it being okay to leave mental or physical harm until this video.
Please can someone offer me advice? I don’t think my marriage qualifies as abuse, but it is awful and loveless. He did not even have sex with me on our honeymoon and has rejected me countlessly, we have only had sex a few times and have been married 2 years. He has also refused to work a job and has left me for extended periods of time (more than 3 months) cause he said he wanted to experience living on the west coast. I begged him to come back and he didn’t care, said he didn’t even miss me. He has brought my self esteem so low that I feel like a piece of dirt, so utterly worthless. I doubt that Jesus, the Holies of Holies, could want me when my own husband doesn’t. He is harsh with me and sometimes gets mad if I cry, doesn’t ever consider anything I say or want, it’s always only about him. I got married after high school and I just graduated as a sophomore in college and I really don’t know what to do as I am so hurt having a husband that so openly doesn’t love me. I’m only 21 and some times the thought of 60+ years of my life with him is so awful to me it makes me want to die. I don’t know what to do.
My wife became abusive to the point that they took our daughter and placed her in foster care. My wife took off and I spent two years getting my kid out of the foster care system and part of that was promising to leave the state. Me and my daughter left and I spent another year getting a divorce, but it ate me up and I was so unsure if I made the right decision. I am no longer unsure, thank you so much for this. I am in tears. I did not want my marrige to fail and prayed for it to come back, but there is no going back and I know the abbuse would continue and if they took my kid into foster care again I would not get her back.
This is one of the best videos I’ve ever watched. The Lord is with you, pastor WInger.
This can definitely be applied to abusive elders in different cultures. In my culture, families remain under the authority of their elders (mostly uncles and older men).
Even though I’m not in an abusive marriage, my husband comes from a verbally abusive and neglectful family. I still find this video so encouraging. My husband and I made the decision to move away from his mother last night. We’re secretly looking for a small place we can afford. In my culture, it’s the responsibility of the youngest son to care for his parents as they grow old. All of my husband’s life, he’s been gaslighted and verbally abused into submission by his uncle’s (some who are pastors) and his mother while they also demand him to stand up and be a man. He feels abandoned by his siblings because they don’t give him any support… They only want him to live a life suitable in their eyes. I have witnessed it so many times in the two years we’ve been married and I’ve also been gaslighted by them to submit to their demands… I have been praying if our decision is the right one because I am so afraid of facing more verbal abuse and gaslighting for "rebelling". The verses you read from really helped push all of my doubts away. Please pray my husband doesn’t give into the abuse… He’s been so broken by it and now he needs to fight to protect me and our marriage…
You’re constructing an excuse for divorce. God’s desire for mercy does not outweigh Christ’s explicit instruction regarding only 2 allowable reasons to remarry (adultery and death). If you look at the abuses allowed throughout scripture, enduring singleness in case of marital collapse is just an expectation. I don’t believe the bible anymore and would never endorse the biblical teaching, but every single time I look back at christianity, I see such cowardice on it’s leaders. You are trying to be somewhat normal when the scripture does not allow it. You are not being distinct from the world, but assimilating christendom to society much like the church did with Constantine, but without his influence. This is why you’re churches are slowly getting more and more empty. I was a christian when my wife divorced me unbiblically and the church as well as it’s god did what is expected, nothing. I only look at christian channels to remind me that I’m much better off now that I am not in the hypocrite academy known as Christs church. If hes real he is ashamed of you. I know you do this with good intention, but you’re shooting your religion in the foot.
I know that this video raises other unanswered questions such as…
How do you go from saying a person can flee an abusive spouse to saying they can divorce one? https://youtu.be/N2pC6ZikbYo
What about the idea that marriage is literally unbreakable and that people who divorce are still married in God’s eyes? https://youtu.be/N2pC6ZikbYo
What about the 500 other questions I’ve got about this and a bunch of different passages of Scripture related to it? https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHtBvJzugPJp9P5X1T-hA91j
As someone whos wife accused him of abuse to divorce and mind you not even one time did I think of abusing my wife, I disagree. Separation is biblical not divorce. But if a wife leaves her husband let her remain single or be restored to her husband. Christian women in droves are now claiming the were abused and everything is being considered abuse including their unhappiness. Violence should not be tolerated but confronted with the church and the law. If the husband refuses to repent separation should take place until the sinner corrects their behavior. No where in the word of God does GOD say its OK to depart for anything outside of continuous sexual sin, even then he desires forgiveness and restoration.
Hello Mike! Thank you for your Godly work and ministry……Question on this teaching. Can Peter 2:20 be applied to an abusive marriage? (applying this verse to a physically abusive relationship ) Peter 2:20, NIV: But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
Also if the abuse is ’emotional’ ("emotional abuse" seems to be a relative term that can be pulled out for almost anything)……would you apply the same teaching as given in your teaching?
Thank you, Mike, for your insight on this important topic. I would agree strongly that in cases of abuse, the victim in the relationship owes it to themselves and their children to get to safety. However, what are your thoughts on an alternative to divorce, even in such cases, where the victims stays with their parents or anywhere where they are safe? Being apart from the abusive spouse yet not divorced?
I believe when God gives rules, I’ll let Him make the exception (if we are to even call it that) rather than I become the excuser.
I refer to when the pharisees told Jesus that Moses gave them a paper of divorce, His response was, "That is because of the hardness of your hearts!" God was never OK with divorce, in fact, he commanded against it. I understand that not everything can be simple black and white however I also prefer to find alternatives where harm and sin can be avoided while God’s law is also not broken.
Those are not exclusive. Avoiding harm does not need to mean a breaking of God’s law and, vice versa, submitting to God’s law does not need to mean I have to endure unnecessary harm and danger. One can obey God’s law (not divorcing) while getting to safety (avoiding harm).
Thoughts?
My borderline wife explodes on me all the time for the smallest things, not letting me talk and following me from room to room screaming at me. It makes me so sad, and I get suicidal thoughts because I feel hopeless. I’ve brought up divorce, but always felt it was wrong, and I’m honestly scared because she threatened to hurt me as much as possible and leave me penniless if it came to that. Please pray for us.
Woman can abuse men too
This teaching is unscriptural and unbalanced.
I thank you for this and your 3hr deep dive on the topics.
I was in an abusive relationship, my wife would throw things, hit me, gaslight me, and say I was not a Christian since I did not support certain progressive cultural movements.
she finally left after I would not break and kept my faith of saying what the Bible says is right is right and what it says is wrong is wrong.
I was also then attacked by many Christian leaders too, since they don’t think men can truly be abused and if a divorce happens it is the man’s fault, doing the whole "FireProof-isms" of "you should have tried harder", "your wife rebelled because you are not following God correctly", or "the man’s job is to love the wife no matter what, just like Jesus to the Church". They took all free will and choice from my wife and blamed me for her actions and what she did to me. This is my major gripe against Church marriage counsellors, so seeing you avoid all those was really encouraging.
I appreciate your words and your lessons, they have been a balm and soothing to my soul, helping me get over much of the trauma that has caused and frankly still working through.
Abuse of any kind, physical, verbally &/or mentally should be forgiven but the consequences of that sin will live until the day of judgment. But abuse in marriage regardless of your spouse’s situation, there should be counselling from a Christian perspective.
First, the woman is to be submissive to her husband. She is not allowed to divorce her husband for any reason (1 Cor. 7:10) and if she does disobey God and get a divorce, she is to either remain unmarried or reconcile back with him when possible (1 Cor. 7:11a, Matthew 5:31-32). That means a woman cannot divorce her husband for abuse or adultery. Second, only men can be pastors, teachers, or church elders. The Bible talks about men being leaders and travelers having a right to bring their wives. It does not say that women who were evangelists had the right to bring their husband. So, there is a gender (male) only ministry part of the church. Women were to stay at home and raise the children. Being that women were staying at home (homemakers) many women received persecution from unbelieving (or back slidden) husbands. They were told to submit to them and to remain married. Not to separate from them (1 Cor. 7:2-8) unless the husband agrees and only for a short period of time. So, a woman separating from her husband for abuse would be unbiblical. She can use some wisdom, but most of these types of women received persecution at home, and not out in the public arena. Men were to work out in the field to provide for the wife and children at home (Gen. 3). It was his curse alone. Not the women. She was cursed with pain in child bearing and obeying her husband who had rule over her.
What about a husband that is emotionally unavailable. Neglects your need for affection etc. emotional abuse is Far worse than physical, don’t get me wrong it’s bad as well but to live everyday with someone who deprives you of love is mentally and emotionally sickening and has long lasting affects. I married him after 6 months believing he was who he portrayed to me and now I’ve been living with this rejection for 3 years. Don’t get me wrong he will jump on sex but it’s without emotion. I feel used and I’m sick of it. I can’t even let him touch me sexual anymore, he repulses me
The divorce and remarriage for adultery doctrine is based solely on the supposed guilt of the wife in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. However, the wife, in the above scriptures, is clearly not guilty of fornication because the Jews (that Jesus was speaking to) were still living under the law, and if fornication was discovered, there was a moral obligation to report the offender according to Deuteronomy 22:13-24. The wife, who would have been found guilty of fornication, was subsequently stoned to death, according to the law, which had still governed the Jews up until Christ’s death on the cross. The same for a woman caught in adultery, according to Leviticus 20:10. How could a wife, guilty of fornication, or adultery, under the law of Moses, be given a writing of divorcement and be caused to commit adultery with whosoever marries her, that is divorced? Jesus is clear, in these examples, that the wife is not guilty of fornication, but is still caused to commit adultery if she marries another man now that she is divorced. This is the only way that Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 keep harmony with Romans 7:2-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:39.
Unlike the synoptic gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written to evangelize the Gentiles, Matthew was written to the Jews, and has of 24 characteristics that identify it as intended for the house of Israel.
The ancient Jews called the betrothed (engaged) "husband" and "wife" according to Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Matthew 1:18-25, and Luke 2:5-7.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses’s precept of divorce and remarriage) was never for fornication or adultery. Allowing those guilty of fornication and adultery to remain living and become a prospect for remarriage was against the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22:13-24 and Leviticus 20:10, which commanded that those who were found guilty of fornication and adultery be put away from Israel, and stoned to death.
The law of Moses was not given to the world, only to the Jews. From the exodus, to Christ’s death on the cross, the law of Moses governed the Jewish people. Christ’s death on the cross caused the Jews to become dead to the law of Moses, so they could be joined to Christ under a New Covenant. This is what Jesus’s fulfillment of the law of Moses, including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Moses’s precept of divorce and remarriage), means. Paul gave several warnings to Christian believers against keeping the ordinances of law of Moses as justification, over following Christ and his commands under the New Covenant with Christ. Keeping the ordinances of the law is no longer possible, for Israel, and that is why Christ prophesied that the temple would be destroyed. These scriptures make it clear that if you choose the law over Christ, that you must keep the whole law: Romans 7:4, Galatians 3:1-9, Galatians 3:10-29, Galatians 4:1-7, Galatians 4:21-31, and Galatians 5:1-15.
Being unequally yoked to unbelievers is not a cause for divorce, once two become one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, according to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14. Many one-flesh covenant marriages between unbelievers are recognized by God in the scriptures, most notably the marriage covenants between Herodias and King Herod’s brother Philip, Potiphar and his wife, Ahab and Jezebel, and Ruth to her deceased husband Mahlon by Boaz when he took her to be his wife.
Some are teaching that 1 Corinthians 7:15 implies that those who are abandoned, by an unbelieving spouse, are "no longer bound" in a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The reason this is in conflict is due to the way some translations word it, which gives it an entirely different meaning, and context. 1 Corinthians 7:15, says, "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." As you can see, the actual scripture says "not enslaved" which means that the husband or wife is not enslaved to sin with the unbelieving spouse, and is free to worship Christ in peace. Subsequent translations have changed the words to imply that they nullify the marriage covenant, which is not at all the case. The issue that this creates is with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which says, "10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." As you can see, those who claim 1 Corinthians 7:15 shows the Apostle Paul giving those who are abandoned permission to remarry, do not understand the command that Christ gives is to an abandoned husband, in 1 Corinthians 7:11, and that he "must not divorce" his wife, and his wife is commanded to "remain unmarried or else be reconciled" to her husband. The theory that 1 Corinthians 7:15 nullifies two as being one-flesh, due to one’s unbelief, puts the Apostle Paul directly at odds with Christ, and himself, by implying that Paul has issued an opposing command to verses 10-14 in verse 15.
Some also teach that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is referring to both divorced men and virgin women, and not exclusively to men and women (virgins) who have never been married. This has been falsely taught for some time in churches as referring to anyone who is not currently in a marriage, which, for them, also includes those who are divorced. This is a very false assumption, and puts these verses in a different context, that is at odds with both the teachings of Christ and the apostle Paul. We see Paul refer to virgins, which signifies the unmarried who have never before been wed, which is the proper context here. We see Paul saying clearly that it is good for virgins, which is also speaking to never before wed men here, "that it is good for a man so to be." He goes on to say, "Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." Who is he referring to here? Men who, like himself, have never married. The word "bound", in these verses, is a clear reference to betrothal (engagement) and not to a one-flesh covenant of marriage. The ancient Jews were considered bound as husband and wife during the betrothal (espousal/engagement) before becoming one-flesh in a covenant of marriage, through consummation. This is affirmed by the context of the term "bound" seen in Numbers 30:14-16.
The Jewish couples in ancient Israel, who were betrothed (engaged) were also bound together until death, either by execution for fornication, or by other causes. Then Paul says, "But and if thou marry, thou has not sinned", which is who? The men who had never married in the congregation at Corinth. So he begins with verses 25-26 speaking exclusively to men that have never married. Paul then says, "and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned", which is speaking directly in regard to virgin women who have never been married, within the congregation, not divorced women. Notice that verse 34 says, "There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Paul speaks plainly when he says "there is a difference between a wife and a virgin." Paul goes on to say, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry." This is speaking of a virgin who has become of age to bear children when it says, "let them marry." This is a clear command, to a single man, who has taken a virgin to be his wife. Paul then says, "Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well." This is referring again to the single man who decides it is better not to marry, but to stay betrothed (engaged), under the present distress, by saying that he "hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin." Paul then says, "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better", which again means single men, in the congregation, who have betrothed a wife, do well if they marry, and those who choose not to marry their virgin brides do better, under the current climate. For more proper context of the word "bound", let’s look further down in this chapter to verse 39, which says, "39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39). For so long, these scriptures, between verses 25-38, have been twisted and used to enable divorce and remarriage, by wayward churches and teachers, and have caused many to stumble and to be trapped in unscriptural unions.
The use of the woman at the well, in regard to marriage, falsely implies that Christ was endorsing remarriage after a divorce. This teaching is in defiance of Matthew 22:23-28, which shows a woman who had been widowed seven times, and entered into each subsequent marriage without any scriptural conflicts with God’s law of marriage (one-flesh covenant) seen in Genesis 2:23-24.
Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12 both record Christ’s teaching that day beyond the Jordan. There is no mention of the words "fornication", "writing of divorcement", or "divorced" in Mark’s Gospel because Mark was not written to the Jews (as Matthew’s Gospel was), but to evangelize the Romans, and likewise Luke to evangelize the Greeks, who had no knowledge of the law of Moses in Deuteronomy 22 or Deuteronomy 24. All of these facts draw a clear understanding that remarriage after a divorce, under the New Covenant with Christ, is a scripturally false and baseless teaching. Please use wisdom when living in any situation against what the scriptures command.
As a child who survived domestic violence from many step parents of my mom I thank you for the advice. Its not just the women who suffer. The children suffer too. In my case it was a daily beating by my drunk stepfather mad at me for bring home schoolwork.
abuse…you can separate, but remain single or reconcile…it is not a ….pass….on divorce and remarriage…..
The bible forbids divorce except for infidelity… abuse doesn’t cut it.
One should put the children’s needs first…
I have so many thoughts on this topic. I have wrestled with my decision over and over. I think God intervened, showing me that leaving to protect my children’s sensibilities and minds was the right thing, at various points.
I was never perfect, but I nearly stopped believing in God…so…
I haven’t remarried, but…
And…marriage is not "forever" and it’s not "eternal." Jesus refuted the latter notion and the fact that marriage is a covenant means it can be broken.
God desires us to remain married for life. He hates divorce, but He also hates violence–which are stated together in Malachi.
While some say you’re reading into the Scripture, I disagree. (Disclaimer: I am not a Bible scholar, but I love the Bible and Jesus and learning about all of them.)
"Come, let us REASON *together*." Even if you disagree with someone leaving their abusive spouse, have compassion on each other. Many of us are wracked with guilt and self-doubt, which is punishment enough.
However, I find it very callused that some will "celebrate" their divorce. To me, it’s a very sad thing. It’s like a death where the person just ends. Why would you celebrate that?
At any rate, this video was a balm for me. Thank you!
I decided to leave because of the yelling and screaming has given me anxiety and panic attacks . This prophet is God told me to go and pray and work it out . They just don’t get it
If there is dangerous abuse (without adultery), you can leave but not divorce. You can preserve "essential health" with separation, you don’t have to jump right to divorce.
If you say there are exceptions to the rule then you open the door to divorce for far lesser offences/ perceived abuse. Divorce is a very last resort but reconciliation should be sought first and repeatedly, this doesn’t mean you have to put yourself in harm’s way while doing so.
I don’t understand how the principle of "doing good is an exception to the rule" justifies this particular case. Is it good to divorce? I would say it is good to leave/separate at times.
I also don’t understand the point that we can disobey the government and parents if they contradict the Word. The government and parents always remain our government and parents, we can’t divorce them. Plus, an abusive spouse does not necessarily require you to disobey the Word. You can disobey them and leave, not divorce.
I am in a no way saying you shouldn’t leave but going as far to say that divorce is okay doesn’t appear justifiable.
The churches i grew up in, the pastors said it broke their hearts that there was no biblical excuse to divorce for abuse. They had no choice but to advise staying and praying or separation but remain faithful.
Can you do a break down and reaction of “WHO CREATED CHRISTIANITY – AHMED DEEDAT” !!
Thank you Mike Winger! All I’ve got to say is THANK YOU!!!
I agree with Mike on a variety of things but I have to partially disagree here. I 100% agree that spouses should flee from abusive spouses but I wouldn’t go as far as saying they should divorce them. I think they should be separate but prayerfully wait for their spouse to repent rather than divorce and pursue another relationship. Yes the Bible makes exceptions but it’s also very clear that marriage after divorce is idolatry which is a sin and the Bible does not make exceptions for sins.
Does this only apply to repeat offenses? What if you were only abused once? I’m struggling to understand if I should stay?
I was legit abused I even left a religion that didn’t care about women being abused . They didn’t believe in divorce regardless of the situation. A husband is supposed to love and treat his wife like Christ loved the church. Regardless if you life and your children’s life is in danger please leave. We have a all knowing and loving God who will understand. Please be safe .
Therapist here . WHEN is abuse never serious ? I am astounded by the way you feel the need to categorise abuse at all
if someone is questioning whether they are being abused , the likelihood is that they probably are !
A way I approached this recently was with the thought of what Jesus said about how divorce was permitted through Moses because the people were of hard hearts… Ideally a Christian marriage should have two people with soft hearts (not perfect of course, but generally mature, emotionally intelligent and more importantly, renewed by the Spirit)… But it doesn’t always turn out that way, and I think in cases of [cold-hearted unrepentant] abuse (which on its own is already a breach of the marital covenant to love and protect), the case ought to be taken to God, humbly and in all "pain and honesty", for an annulment to be made
I stayed in a marriage for 23 years where from 16 to 39 my ex-husband used me for every sexual exploitation that ever came to his mind and as a punching bag whenever he felt like he needed to release his anger. He cheated on me with everything that moved and had children outside of marriage. And I still stayed because our church condemned divorce and I was taught that we are supposed to pray for these monsters.
no, when david entered and eated the bread he and his troop where in sacralized state or holy war… so because of that sacrality that legitimated it.