Abuse and the Issue of Divorce and Remarriage

In light of Grudem altering his opinion on the matter, I thought I would clarify an issue. Many people use the abuse card to argue from emotion rather than revelation as to whether there are exceptions to divorce and remarriage.  So let's address whether abuse is a loophole to anything the Scripture says so as to imply that there maybe is a reason for divorce and remarriage. I have argued again and again that Scripture has no exceptions to its universal and absolute commands that no man is to separate/divorce what God has joined together. So where does the situation of abuse or a spouse threatening the life of the other factor into that?

Before we do, however, let me state that Grudem's lexicographical argument is fallacious. He commits an illegitimate referential transference that he deduces from perhaps an illegitimate totality transference, where he tries to assign some universal referent to the word τοιούτοις "in such cases" that is not bound by the context. The context is clear that "in cases like this" refers to any case where an unbeliever divorces a believer. It has nothing to do with what the believer is doing. Is the unbeliever "fleeing" (which is a ridiculous way of translating χωρίζω, the word for divorce here) because the believer is beating their spouse? That is hardly in view, and so τοιούτοις does not even refer to abuse when applied to its immediate referent much less one outside the parameters of the context. This is evangelical word fallacies run amok.  

1. It needs to be pointed out that divorce does not presuppose the possibility of remarriage. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 very clearly argues against this idea that divorce and remarriage advocates constantly argue. So revelation is clear. All the worldly wisdom that is usually offered here is irrelevant.

2. Christ's statements are not situational. He is not addressing a particular instance of divorce and remarriage. He is answering a universal question, "Is there ANY reason a man can divorce his wife?" He clearly answers in the negative, which shocks everyone, from his disciples to the Shammaitic Pharisees who already have a very narrow view of divorce and remarriage (i.e., only in the case of adultery). So Christ's statements are meant to be understood universally and absolute as that is what the context indicates.

3. No one is at fault when he or she is divorced by the other person. The prohibition is that no Christian is to divorce, whether they are married to a believer or unbeliever; but one cannot control the actions of a spouse who is disobedient to Christ.

4. The question then becomes, What is marriage? To which I would answer that marriage is a Suzerain-Vassal covenant, where the male, as the stronger party, agrees to provide for and protect the female who is the weaker party in exchange for becoming one with that male and offering up tribute to him. What this looks like in practical terms is that the male provides food, shelter, clothing, and sexual relations in the hopes of having a child (Exod 21:10-11). She provides him tribute by becoming a worker at home/manager of the household and sexual tribute also in the hopes of children (1 Cor 7:3-5; Titus 2:4-5; 1 Tim 5:14). Romantic, I know, but that is the core of a biblical marriage, not the entirety of what it may yield.

5. This means that divorce is when one of the parties permanently and intentionally breaks the covenant agreement so that their part of the covenant is no longer being met, i.e., they have withdrawn their part of the agreement. An official certificate is merely the solidification of one's intention to make it permanently so, but it is possible for many to attempt to draw all of the benefits out of the other person who may be still keeping their end of the bargain, and this is truly an evil, as the one has divorced the other even while receiving the benefits of a broken covenant with him or her. In other words, even though he or she has divorced his or her spouse, he or she still wants the benefits of marriage.

6. What this means is that someone threatening the life of their spouse, almost always the husband, has divorced his wife, even if he lives with her. This is not agreeing to live with the person and keep his end of the covenant, and so it is not what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, where he addresses the unbeliever's willingness to "live with" the believer. "Live with" designates the keeping of the covenant bargain. It is not merely to live in the house with the person while the covenant is broken. That's a roommate, not a spouse. So any unrepentant physical abuse of a partner (and I don't merely mean that the husband says he's sorry after every time he beats her--I mean real repentance with actions taken to prevent it from happening again) is, in fact, the man divorcing the woman. The bargain was for him to protect her in the same way that a nation protects a weaker nation. If that larger nation turned against the weaker, it would be understood that the larger nation has broken the covenant and is no longer observing it.

7. Hence, being divorced, the wife is free to leave or let him go. This has nothing to do with her divorcing him. He has divorced her. It also has nothing to do with remarrying, as she is still one flesh with her husband even though they may be divorced, as both Jesus and Paul teach.


Hence, physical abuse that threatens rather than protects the spouse (i.e., not verbal abuse, which is the spouse sinning but not a physical threat) is divorce. The question is whether the wife wishes to seek reconciliation after removing herself from the situation, or remain unmarried/celibate, as both Jesus and Paul would argue in the case of anyone who was divorced.

So Grudem's argument is unnecessary and this is not an exception to the rule. The female believer is not divorcing an abusive man, who the Bible assumes is not a Christian in obedience to the Word, and therefore, an unbeliever (no Christian beats his wife, as this has made him one who has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever-- 1 Tim 5:8 certainly applies). The unbeliever/apostate has divorced his wife by physically threatening her life. The commands of 1 Corinthians 7 apply. She can let the divorce stand and move out, but she must remain unmarried/celibate because she is still one flesh with a man with whom she was once married. To be joined to another is adultery.