DavidinBulgaria
New Member
Is it ever scriptural for a Christian wife to leave her Christian husband?
Thanks in advance,
David in Bulgaria
Thanks in advance,
David in Bulgaria
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Can a wife leave her husband?
- Thread starter DavidinBulgaria
- Start date
- Status
PolyPride
Member
DavidinBulgaria said:
Leave as in divorce or leave as in just to separate without a divorce?
I believe the Bible mentions that only the husband can initiate a divorce in a marriage, so the wife can not divorce, biblically-speaking. In all cases in the Bible that I've read about involving or instructing on divorces, it always talks about how the husband should do it. When it comes to separation, I believe a wife is free to do that anytime she wants, especially if there's harm involved in the marriage, but the only thing is she would not be able to remarry another man until the divorce has gone through.
If a wife is a non-believer and she leaves her husband, then some believe that at the point that the non-believer leaves the marriage that the marriage is over or "dissolved" so no divorce would really be necessary (although legally it would, but not biblically). Both the the spouse who was abandoned and the spouse who left (the non-believing wife or husband) can remarry (1 Corinthians 7:13-15).
DavidinBulgaria
New Member
PolyPride,
Thanks for your quick response.
You responded, "When it comes to separation, I believe a wife is free to do that anytime she wants, especially if there's harm involved in the marriage, but the only thing is she would not be able to remarry another man until the divorce has gone through."
That is exactly the question I was asking--is it ever scriptural for a Christian wife to leave (not divorce) her Christian husband. You said you thought she could leave anytime she wants, but my question is, "is it scriptural for her to do so?"
In His service and yours,
Dave
Thanks for your quick response.
You responded, "When it comes to separation, I believe a wife is free to do that anytime she wants, especially if there's harm involved in the marriage, but the only thing is she would not be able to remarry another man until the divorce has gone through."
That is exactly the question I was asking--is it ever scriptural for a Christian wife to leave (not divorce) her Christian husband. You said you thought she could leave anytime she wants, but my question is, "is it scriptural for her to do so?"
In His service and yours,
Dave
PolyPride
Member
DavidinBulgaria said:
I haven't seen any biblical passages that speak about a wife separating from her husband in any context of an instruction or prescription, but I don't believe that the silence on the issue (although I'm open to accepting that it's covered through an implication of some other instruction) necessarily means that a wife is prohibited from separating. There are verses such as Ephesians 5:24 that mentions for a wife to submit to her husband in "everything", but then you have to draw an exception otherwise there would be a conflict if a husband is trying to get his wife to submit to him in something that involves a sin and the Bible telling everyone to not sin. The best answer I could give for now is not Scriptural because I don't believe there is a scriptural basis for it nor against it, so I believe that the answer can only be answered by personal discretion, depending on the situation. One example of that situation would be that exception that I mentioned for when I wife shouldn't submit to her husband. If the husband is deviating from God's commandments of how to treat his wife, leading her or trying to get her to sin, trying to harm her or the children, then my personal discretion would be for the wife to separate from the husband. Another alternative would be to turn the husband over to the authorities, law enforcement, what have you, and that in effect would also mean she's separating from him, since that husband would likely go to jail.
DavidinBulgaria
New Member
PolyPride said:
Poly,
By asking the question the way I did--"is it scriptural for a Christian wife to leave her Christian husband?" I intenionally meant to imply that the husband--the Christian husband--had not done anything that was unrighteous to warrent her leaving. With that in mind, how would you respond to my query?
In His service and yours,
Dave
PolyPride
Member
DavidinBulgaria said:
I'll honestly have to say that I'm not sure. I'm inclined to to say that biblically-speaking, it would be immoral for a wife to separate from her husband under the terms of your question, and I say this because she is suppose to submit. There may be a loophole though, for example, what I would require of my wife may not be in the same that every other guy would require of their wife, because if my wife's acts were in part dependent on being submissive to me, then I'd tell her it's my will that she separate from me if she feels that she doesn't want to be with me anymore. I'd even hand her a divorce because I don't want to force any woman to be in a marriage of "bondage."
I do have a theory of mine that some of God's commandments are optional, and then there are those commandments that are mandates. A believer can choose to do contrary to God's optional commandments and not be punished, although in some cases, it may be shameful. I first got this idea after reading Deuteronomy 25:5-10, and seeing how God specifically gives instruction for brothers to marry their brother's wife if the brother passes away, and yet He leaves the option open for the brother to decide and decide against it even, and mentions that the elders should attempt to persuade him, and if that didn't work the brother could still decline to marry his deceased brother's wife, and all he'd get is spit on. I don't consider being spit on after declining to follow a commandment from God, declining the persuasion attempts of the elders, and rejecting your brother's wife is much of a punishment, especially one that would lead you to being "expelled" out of Israel or the Church, and also lose your salvation. I think the wife and submission/separation topic ties into this in that it's only an optional commandment or a commandment that God leaves up to wives on if they want to follow or not, and it's also one of those that if we decide against, He doesn't punish us for. Otherwise, what punishment would a wife get for not being in submission to her husband or for separating from him? Would she lose her salvation or would her act be at best be shameful like the brother who refuses to marry his brother's wife in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 is? For now, I'm inclined to believe the latter.
1 Cor. 7:10-11
10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
She cannot lawfully leave, if she does she definately cannot remarry and can only reconcile to her husband, the husband cannot divorce her for leaving. The verse is not saying that it is ok for her to leave as long as she remains celibate, it is saying contrary to our own human wisdom, the woman is not "separated" from the husband, even though to our eyes they are not together. Thus she must remain celibate or be an adulteress, the lawful marriage still in effect.
I have heard that remaining celibate is the requirement for a woman to be lawfully away from her husband, and if she does this, she is not in the wrong. I believe this to be a twisting of the meaning of this scripture. This is not a qualified on how to be lawfully separated, but a further requirement that she remain single or reconcile, in support of God's marriage Law, do not tear asunder.
10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
She cannot lawfully leave, if she does she definately cannot remarry and can only reconcile to her husband, the husband cannot divorce her for leaving. The verse is not saying that it is ok for her to leave as long as she remains celibate, it is saying contrary to our own human wisdom, the woman is not "separated" from the husband, even though to our eyes they are not together. Thus she must remain celibate or be an adulteress, the lawful marriage still in effect.
I have heard that remaining celibate is the requirement for a woman to be lawfully away from her husband, and if she does this, she is not in the wrong. I believe this to be a twisting of the meaning of this scripture. This is not a qualified on how to be lawfully separated, but a further requirement that she remain single or reconcile, in support of God's marriage Law, do not tear asunder.
There is disagreement as to what a husband may be doing and still have "done nothing wrong".
What happens when a man is beating, hitting, kicking, dragging, and knocking down his wife? We know of men, Messianics and Protestants both, who claim that is within a man's rights.
We've seen Protestant pastors come and tell a woman, still black and blue from a beating, that God required her to submit to her husband, forgive him, and "give him another chance" by returning to his household. And that if she refused, she was going against God, and at least had to remain unmarried and without covering for the rest of her life. And likely destined for hell.
All I can say is, those folks serve another God than do Cindy and I. Theirs doesn't appear to start at compassion and work from there. Ours does. So if this situation figures at all in the scenario you question, whether or not Scripture specifically addresses it, and whether or not a given society condones it, not only would we advise her to leave, but also to get a divorce and later find herself a husband who will provide a COMPASSIONATE Godly covering for herself and her children.
If, however, your question involves nothing more than she's bored at home and hot for someone else, than no, she's not free to do so. Nor because she doesn't want HIM to exercise HIS valid rights by taking a second wife.
BTW, though it is less common, we've also seen the reverse situation, where a wife beats the husband. Same advice goes.
What happens when a man is beating, hitting, kicking, dragging, and knocking down his wife? We know of men, Messianics and Protestants both, who claim that is within a man's rights.
We've seen Protestant pastors come and tell a woman, still black and blue from a beating, that God required her to submit to her husband, forgive him, and "give him another chance" by returning to his household. And that if she refused, she was going against God, and at least had to remain unmarried and without covering for the rest of her life. And likely destined for hell.
All I can say is, those folks serve another God than do Cindy and I. Theirs doesn't appear to start at compassion and work from there. Ours does. So if this situation figures at all in the scenario you question, whether or not Scripture specifically addresses it, and whether or not a given society condones it, not only would we advise her to leave, but also to get a divorce and later find herself a husband who will provide a COMPASSIONATE Godly covering for herself and her children.
If, however, your question involves nothing more than she's bored at home and hot for someone else, than no, she's not free to do so. Nor because she doesn't want HIM to exercise HIS valid rights by taking a second wife.
BTW, though it is less common, we've also seen the reverse situation, where a wife beats the husband. Same advice goes.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I wonder why we Christians even bother with our Bibles, as we always find a way to do whatever we want to do. The original question David in Bulgaria asked was, "Is it ever Scriptural for a Christian wife to leave her Christian husband?" The answer is "NO!" Scripture clearly says this is not allowed (contrary to what some are claiming, Scripture is NOT silent on this issue), so when the question was asked "Is it ever Scriptural", the answer must be no. It is NEVER Scriptural.
But on the whole, we don't really care much for what Scripture says, unless it aligns with what we already intend to do. When Scripture clearly says something is wrong, then we just invent excuses for not obeying the rules whenever it suits us. After all, if someone really wants to do something badly enough, they are going to justify it to themselves. Everyone is the exception. Nobody is the rule. Look at divorce and remarriage in the Church today. Jesus may as well have said absolutely nothing, as I've yet to meet any woman with two living husbands who claims His words actually applied in THEIR case.
I've seen some people hold firm to one single passage and won't bend from it in the least, because it serves their purposes, and I've seen the exact same people completely ignore dozens of verses on a different topic because they want to do it anyway. Divorce, remarriage, abortion, homosexuality -- all on the rise in the Church because we have become morally bankrupt. Moral relativism reigns in today's Church.
So can a Believing wife ever SCRIPTURALLY leave her Believing husband? No. Scripture even demonstrates in 1 Peter that a wife was to submit to her CROOKED, DISOBEDIENT husband even if he beats her (see the previous verses regarding a master and slave). Is the husband wrong for his behavior? Absolutely he is wrong. Does this fact give her some kind of loophole to violate covenant? Absolutely not! Her requirement to be submissive is not dependent on his requirement to lead and love. 1 Pet. 3:1 specifically tells her to submit in the same way as the beaten slave. Two wrongs do not make a right.
It appears we can read our Bibles and usually even agree with what it says. But when it comes time to give advice, we throw Scripture right out the window.
Wow. Just wow.
In His amazement,
David
But on the whole, we don't really care much for what Scripture says, unless it aligns with what we already intend to do. When Scripture clearly says something is wrong, then we just invent excuses for not obeying the rules whenever it suits us. After all, if someone really wants to do something badly enough, they are going to justify it to themselves. Everyone is the exception. Nobody is the rule. Look at divorce and remarriage in the Church today. Jesus may as well have said absolutely nothing, as I've yet to meet any woman with two living husbands who claims His words actually applied in THEIR case.
I've seen some people hold firm to one single passage and won't bend from it in the least, because it serves their purposes, and I've seen the exact same people completely ignore dozens of verses on a different topic because they want to do it anyway. Divorce, remarriage, abortion, homosexuality -- all on the rise in the Church because we have become morally bankrupt. Moral relativism reigns in today's Church.
So can a Believing wife ever SCRIPTURALLY leave her Believing husband? No. Scripture even demonstrates in 1 Peter that a wife was to submit to her CROOKED, DISOBEDIENT husband even if he beats her (see the previous verses regarding a master and slave). Is the husband wrong for his behavior? Absolutely he is wrong. Does this fact give her some kind of loophole to violate covenant? Absolutely not! Her requirement to be submissive is not dependent on his requirement to lead and love. 1 Pet. 3:1 specifically tells her to submit in the same way as the beaten slave. Two wrongs do not make a right.
It appears we can read our Bibles and usually even agree with what it says. But when it comes time to give advice, we throw Scripture right out the window.
CecilW said:
Wow. Just wow.
In His amazement,
David
PolyPride
Member
djanakes said:
If "scriptural" is synonymous with "moral", then I'd ask is it "moral" for a wife to "separate" from her husband? The answer is, yes. It's hard sometimes to recognize "exceptions" to commandments or to notice which ones are optional because the exceptions are usually separated (placed in a whole other book, section, etc,) from the command they relate to. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 indicates that it is not immoral or a sin for a wife to separate from her husband. The verse clearly mentions that a wife is NOT to separate and that is what God commands, but if she does (that's where the exception or condition or optional point comes in) then notice the verse doesn't mention that she is in sin, or that she is to repent, or be "expelled" out of the Church for not repenting, but all it mentions is that she is to remain "unmarried" which would include "separation". IF a wife separating is immoral or a sin then why would God prescribe "separation" as a punishment, when the wife separating is a sin? Shouldn't He be telling her to repent instead of remaining in sin (i.e. separation from her husband)?
The wife does have the option of returning back to the husband according to that same verse.
One verse you're referring to is 1 Peter 2:18, and I have to wonder if that verse is even talking about a husband and wife, because it clearly mentions "slave" and "master". A master doesn't have to be married and a "slave" doesn't have to be a wife or even a woman for that matter so you may be reading more into the verse than its intended meaning.
A
Anonymous
Guest
1 Cor. 7:10-11a: "And to the married I command, not I, but the Master. A wife should not separate from a husband. But if she IS indeed separated, let her remain unmarried or be restored to favour with her husband"PolyPride said:
As you noted, 1 Cor. 7 point-blank tells the wife not to separate from her husband. It also says that if she is separated, she must remain unmarried. Do you understand this to mean she has permission to separate in the future, just so long as she remains unmarried? Or do you see this as saying that, in the event she has already separated herself, she must remain unmarried or reconciled? Notice it doesn't say "But if she separates" (as something she may do in the future), but rather it says "But if she IS indeed separated" (a present tense separation that had already occurred in the past). It's the difference between "If you DO" versus "If you HAVE". There is no allowance or permission for her to separate anywhere in this passage.
1 Pet. 2:18-20: "Servants, be subject to your own masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the crooked ones. For this is favour, if because of conscience toward Elohim anyone bears up under grief suffering unrighteously. For what credit is there in enduring a beating when you sin? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure, this finds favour with Elohim."PolyPride said:
1 Pet. 3:1: "In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that if any are disobedient to the Word, they, without a word, might be won by the behaviour of their wives"
In His love,
David
NorthernWarrior
New Member
<Gets his popcorn...> This is going to be interesting. 
PolyPride
Member
djanakes said:
I don't quite get what you're saying, because whether or not the wife is already separated (past tense) or would separate in the future, a sin is still a sin, whether done in past, present, or future. Then you have God prescribing that she remain unmarried (which would include "separation"), and why would God prescribe a "sin" as a punishment. Whether a sin is done in the past, present, or future, shouldn't God be telling the wife who abandons her husband to repent by not remaining in a separated state from her husband? I know the Bible doesn't prescribe, suggest, or recommend for a wife to separate from her husband, but 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 leaves that option open for her to do and more importantly to do with impunity (without punishment) or losing her salvation, or being expelled from the Church, etc.
Also, if you read the NIV, NASB, and even the NKJV for 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, you'll see that it's not talking about a wife who's already separated as in past tense, but is just giving a "hypothetical" situation of if the wife separates. I understand the KJV which I think you quoted may have written that in a past tense but I see that as a moot point, because of what I explained in my points above.
djanakes said:
1 Peter 3:1 is a conditional command if you factor in other points of the Bible. The Bible mentions that not to sin, so what if a husband is leading a wife to sin, then should she be subject to him and sin? Also, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 leaves the option "open", which is not the same as prescribing or even suggesting, but leaves the option open with impunity (without punishment) for the wife to separate from her husband.
A
Anonymous
Guest
;
I'm with Northern Warrior here. Time to break out the Popcorn. Let's ask Jesus to sit here and watch the show with us, shall we? I'd like to hear what He would say. I do know that He said a bruised reed He would not break, nor quench a smoldering something or other.
So, while you guys are duking it out theologically, I'm going to ask Him about the young lady who brought her two children to stay with us, but kept going back to the miserable excuse for humanity she'd married until he tried to drown her in the bathtub with her 8 year old daughter watching. I believe she was 24 or 25 at the time. Oh, did I mention he was a pretty regular user of methamphetamine? I wonder, Jesus, Should she stay with him? Raise her two children without a good father if one becomes available so that the only knowledge of fathering they ever know is him?
How about the pregnant mother who placed the Christmas ornaments high enough on the tree so their 1.5 yr old wouldn't drag them off, break them, and cut herself. When daddy saw it, he went into a rage, pulled a gun, and threatened to kill her, their daughter, and their unborn child if she didn't move them back? That was only one of many horrors. But, at the advice of their Pastor, she stayed with him until there were 4 kids, all now in their teens or later, all twisted and seeming to think it's just fine to beat up on and cuss Mom. (Well, one has finally gotten straightened out.) After all, Daddy has their whole lives! Whaddaya say, Jesus? Was the pastor right? Or should she have left? And if the latter, at what point? 1st crazy abusive incident? After 5 years?
I wonder if, faced with practical situations like this, Jesus would turn to Peter and say, "Bro? Got yer sword handy? Go take care of it, wouldja? Then she won't have to worry about leaving him. Or maybe I'll just take My handy little whip and explain how My Father feels about those who abuse His daughters. Trust Me! He gets more upset about that than about money-changers in the temple!"
But of course, that's all my imagination. Y'all duke it out theologically. Me? I'm just gonna sit here with my popcorn and watch the show.
So, while you guys are duking it out theologically, I'm going to ask Him about the young lady who brought her two children to stay with us, but kept going back to the miserable excuse for humanity she'd married until he tried to drown her in the bathtub with her 8 year old daughter watching. I believe she was 24 or 25 at the time. Oh, did I mention he was a pretty regular user of methamphetamine? I wonder, Jesus, Should she stay with him? Raise her two children without a good father if one becomes available so that the only knowledge of fathering they ever know is him?
How about the pregnant mother who placed the Christmas ornaments high enough on the tree so their 1.5 yr old wouldn't drag them off, break them, and cut herself. When daddy saw it, he went into a rage, pulled a gun, and threatened to kill her, their daughter, and their unborn child if she didn't move them back? That was only one of many horrors. But, at the advice of their Pastor, she stayed with him until there were 4 kids, all now in their teens or later, all twisted and seeming to think it's just fine to beat up on and cuss Mom. (Well, one has finally gotten straightened out.) After all, Daddy has their whole lives! Whaddaya say, Jesus? Was the pastor right? Or should she have left? And if the latter, at what point? 1st crazy abusive incident? After 5 years?
I wonder if, faced with practical situations like this, Jesus would turn to Peter and say, "Bro? Got yer sword handy? Go take care of it, wouldja? Then she won't have to worry about leaving him. Or maybe I'll just take My handy little whip and explain how My Father feels about those who abuse His daughters. Trust Me! He gets more upset about that than about money-changers in the temple!"
But of course, that's all my imagination. Y'all duke it out theologically. Me? I'm just gonna sit here with my popcorn and watch the show.
A
Anonymous
Guest
1 Cor. 7:10: "And to the married I command, not I, but the Master. A wife should not separate from a husband."PolyPride said:
Verse 10 explicitly tells her NOT to separate.
1 Cor. 7:11a: "But if she IS indeed separated, let her remain unmarried or be restored to favour with her husband"
Verse 11 says if she is separated anyway, reconcile or remain unmarried.
Which of these verses do you believe gives her permission to separate from her husband? Should the implicit override the explicit? We have an explicit command from the Master in verse 10. If she has separated herself, she may not now be able to be reconciled to his favor. But neither is she permitted to marry another. That much seems quite clear from the text.
As with all Godly authority, the higher authority supersedes the lower authority. If the husband commands the wife to sin, she is obligated to obey God rather than man. This in no way releases her from her obligation to submit in all other areas, any more than we can ignore local government simply because they pass one ungodly law that we cannot obey.PolyPride said:
So no, she should not sin. And yes, she is still to be subject to him.
In His love,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
Did He want that for His Son?CindyW said:
1 Peter 2:18-3:1: "Servants, be subject to your own masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the crooked ones. For this is favour, if because of conscience toward Elohim anyone bears up under grief suffering unrighteously. For what credit is there in enduring a beating when you sin? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure, this finds favour with Elohim. For to this you were called, because Messiah also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps, who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth, who, being reviled, did not revile in return; suffering, did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His body on the timber, so that we, having died to sins, might live unto righteousness - by whose striped you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your lives. In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that if any are disobedient to the Word, they, without a word, might be won by the behaviour of their wives"
It takes a strong husband or wife to live this out!
Always in His love,
David
PolyPride
Member
djanakes said:
You didn't factor in what I said about what the different English versions of the Bible. If you read the NIV, NASB, and even the NKJV for 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 you'd see that it is not speaking about a wife who has already separated or a past tense act, but those versions speak about IF the wife separates which is different than saying that she already has. Also, as I've already asked, why would wives who separated at different points of time, one in the past, and one potentially in the future, be treated differently? A sin is a sin whether done in the past, present, or future, correct (although you're assuming that "separation" is a sin), and wouldn't you need to repent from the sin and NOT continue in it whether you committed it in the past, present, or future?
djanakes said:
Now you're beginning to see that there are commands that are conditional, but now the only problem is that you're not factoring in ALL of the conditional ones or "exceptions". We both agree that the Bible clearly mentions for NO one to sin, even if a husband tells a wife to, but what you're leaving out is that 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 also presents another exception where a wife doesn't submit to her husband and more importantly she does so with "impunity" (without punishment). If it's not a sin, and she doesn't get punished for it, why would it be an act that it would be immoral for her to do? Doesn't God see as punishable all acts of immorality, then if so, why would He prescribe for a wife to remain "separated" from her husband if it's a sin?
NorthernWarrior
New Member
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't there an argumental distinction between what is scripturally stated and what should be done in any given situation?
(It wasn't my intent to trivialize anyone's suffering over the popcorn statement, merely to illustrate the perceived forthcoming dynamic shift)
(It wasn't my intent to trivialize anyone's suffering over the popcorn statement, merely to illustrate the perceived forthcoming dynamic shift)
- Status