Gods Protection of Women

GOD’S PROTECTION OF WOMENWhen Abuse Is Worse Than Divorce

MMarriage is meant toprotect a lifetime oflove. The permanence

of a husband-wife relationshiprests on a covenant of mutualcommitment that is designed tosurvive normal and even seriousmarital conflict.

Sometimes, however, verbal and physical abuse do to a marriage what murder orrape does to a life. What then?What if efforts to save a marriageresult in the compounded loss ofpeace and trust in the home?

In the following pages, Herb Vander Lugt, longtimechurch pastor and RBC seniorresearch editor, opens the Bibleto show that Moses, Jesus, andPaul all recognized that somemarital conditions are worsethan divorce.

Martin R. De Haan II

CONTENTSA Family Needing Help . . . . . . . . . 2

The Long History Of Marital Abuse . . . . . . 3

Protection OfWomen Under The Law Of Moses . . . . . 6

Protection For A Daughter Sold Into Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Protection For WomenPrisoners Of War . . . . . . 8

Protection For Unloved Wives. . . . . . . . . 9

Protection For WronglyDivorced Women . . . . . 12

New Testament Protection OfWomen . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Protection From Divorce For Any Reason . . . . . . . 16

Protection From Hardnesss Of Heart . . . 19

Protection On Grounds Jesus Didn’t Mention . . 23

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 26

Managing Editor: David Sper Cover Photo:Terry BidgoodScripture quotations are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by ThomasNelson, Inc. Used by permission.All rights reserved.© 2005 RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, Michigan Printed in USA

Q0807 God'sProtectionpp.qxp 11/21/05 1:22 PM

© RBC Ministries. All rights reserved.

A FAMILYNEEDING HELP

IIt was nearly 11:30 p.m.when I answered ourdoorbell. I opened

the door and saw a youngmother with a battered face standing there with two frightened little boys.

I recognized the woman.She and her husband hadbeen attending the church I pastored. They had bothimpressed me as beingwarm and friendly. I hadseen no outward sign oftrouble. That night, however,she told me a story of familysecrets. She admitted thather husband occasionallybeat her, and that hesometimes terrified her and the children by holdinga knife to her throat.

In the days that followed,I learned that this woman’shusband tried to prevent her from leaving him byappealing to the Bible. He insisted that because

he had not been sexuallyunfaithful, she had nobiblical right to divorce him.

When this man saw thathis wife was serious aboutgetting help for herself andtheir children, he movedaway without leaving aforwarding address. Sheeventually obtained adivorce and took on thedifficult full-time job ofrebuilding her life and caring for her children.

Over the years, I’ve seen other families insimilar circumstances. I’ve heard stories of womenwho have been urged bywell-meaning counselorsand friends to forgive theirabusive husbands and toconcentrate on being a more loving and submissive spouse.

I’ve also seen the despairand loss of faith that haveoccurred when women have had to choose either to endure their abuse or tolose their church family.

2



In more than 50 years ofpastoral experience, I havedone everything I could tohelp couples work throughnormal, even serious,marital conflict. I have seenthe damage that occurs tochildren when their parentstake a casual attitudetoward divorce. But I havealso seen the consequencesof attempts to save abusivemarriages at the expense ofwomen and children whoare just as vulnerable aswidows or orphans.

In this study, therefore, I want to show you how Icame to the conclusion thatsexual unfaithfulness andabandonment are not theonly biblical grounds to beconsidered when it comes tosaving or ending a marriage.We will look not only at theideal of marital permanencebut also at the biblicalevidence that Moses, Jesus,and Paul all recognized arange of marital conditionsthat are worse than divorce.

THE LONGHISTORY OFMARITAL ABUSE

IIn every age, there havebeen men who wereprotective and kind to

their wives and children, justas there were husbands whowere abusive. In ancientcultures, however, men hadfar more rights than womenor children. Victors in battleoften killed the men of anenemy tribe, raped some ofthe women, and took othersas concubines and slaves. Men generally viewedwomen as property, insistingon absolute sexual fidelityon the part of a wife, whilemaking no such demand of themselves.

Although exceptionsexisted, usually in royalhouseholds or families ofwealth, the legal rights ofwomen were slow to emerge.Even in the United States,women did not have theright to vote until 1920.

3



Interestingly, anexception occurred in the Puritan community ofcolonial America. Puritanconcern for civic andfamilial godliness causedthem to take the word of awoman seriously in cases ofslander, sexual infractions,and divorce. In the spirit ofthe Reformation, Puritansdidn’t see marriage as anindissoluble sacrament butas a civil contract that couldbe terminated if either partydid not fulfill fundamentalduties of marriage. Althoughcruelty was not a recognizedground for divorce in thePuritan era, there were thosewho thought cruelty to awife was a type of desertion.Such legal protection ofwomen did not survive the decline of Puritanism.Instead, it was replaced bycourts that gave men thebenefit of the doubt.

Over time, however,the influence of technologyand the demands of a

wartime economy onceagain changed the way men and women related toone another. Many womenbegan working outside thehome. Their daughters, in turn, began to seeeducational and professionalopportunities that theirgrandmothers never knew.

Along the way, many women have had to overcome more thangender bias in society.They’ve also had to livedown a misunderstanding of the biblical phrase, “helpmeet” (Gen. 2:18,20 KJV). In response to this oversight,biblical scholar Dr. WalterC. Kaiser describes therichness of meaning foundin the ancient Hebrewlanguage:

The Hebrew word helper (in Gen. 2:18,20 as a designation of thewoman) is used only 16more times in the OldTestament. In those casesit is always a designation

4



of God as the One whosaves, upholds, andsustains His people (as in Ps. 46:1). There is nosense in which this wordconnotes a position ofinferiority or subordinatestatus. The word suitablefor literally means “in front of,” signifyingone who stands face to face with another,qualitatively the same,his essential equal, and therefore his“correspondent” (Hard Sayings Of TheBible, pp.666-67, IVP,Downers Grove, 1996).Another misinterpretation

involves a commonmisreading of the curse God pronounced on a fallenworld (Gen. 3:16). After ourfirst parents sinned, Godsaid to Eve, “Your desireshall be for your husband,and he shall rule over you.”

In the past, many of us misunderstood the intentof the words, “And he shall

rule over you.” We saw maledomination as a divine orderto be accepted rather thanas a part of the curse thatwas to be resisted.

The God of Genesis told our first parents that because of their sin the human experience from that point on wouldinvolve pain, sorrow, anddiscord. Women would have increased pain inchildbirth. Men would have to work hard to get a harvest from the earth.While trying to provide forand protect their families,men would also have tofight the inclination todominate their wives.

We expect farmers toresist weeds. And we paydoctors to lessen a woman’spain in childbirth. By thesame logic, we need to fightagainst the belief that it is aman’s right to rule anddominate his wife.

5



PROTECTION OFWOMEN UNDERTHE LAW OFMOSES

TThe apostle Paulreminds us that allScripture is inspired

by God and full of wisdomfor living in a fallen world (2 Tim. 3:16). With thisreminder, let’s review someoften-overlooked provisionsin the law of Moses. WhileJewish rabbis have seensignificance in thesepassages, the church has often focused on themarital ideal rather thanthose conditions which,according to Moses,required protection for even the most weak andvulnerable women in Israel.

As Genesis reveals God’soriginal intent for marriage,Exodus and Deuteronomyshow principles of maritaljustice in a fallen worldwhere women were oftenregarded as property.

PROTECTION FOR A DAUGHTER SOLDINTO SLAVERYIn the days of Moses,financially burdened mencould pay their debts byselling their daughters tofellow Israelites. While sucha practice is unthinkabletoday, buying and sellingwives was common in the ancient Middle East. Moses, however, imposedlimitations on this practiceto soften the cruelty. For theprotection of women whoafter being sold by theirfathers were no longerwanted by their husbands,Moses wrote:

If a man sells his daughterto be a female slave, sheshall not go out as themale slaves do. If she does not please her master,who has betrothed her tohimself, then he shall lether be redeemed. He shallhave no right to sell her toa foreign people, since hehas dealt deceitfully with

6



her. And if he hasbetrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to thecustom of daughters. If he takes another wife,he shall not diminish herfood, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And ifhe does not do these threefor her, then she shall goout free, without payingmoney (Ex. 21:7-11).Because this text lists

three foundations of maritalduty, Jewish scholars haveseen it as a model of themarriage covenant.

Rabbis have also seen in Exodus 21:7-11 a principle of interpretationthat reasons from the lesserto the greater. In otherwords, if legal protection is provided for a slave wife,how much more would itapply to a free wife in Israel.

With that background,let’s take a closer look.Whoever purchased andmarried a slave woman

had to provide her with “food” (the Hebrew wordhere signifies high-qualityfood), “clothing,” and“marriage rights” (probably a reference to regular maritalrelations so that she couldhave children). If thehusband violated hisresponsibility to make suchprovisions, he was to let hiswife “go out free.”

Writing in the December1997 issue of the Journal OfThe Evangelical TheologicalSociety, Joe M. Sprinkle,then associate professor of Old Testament at ToccoaFalls College, wrote:

The expression “she is to go free” [NIV] canmean no less than formaldivorce. The point beingmade is that if thiswoman, sold as a slave-wife, is no longer to be awife she cannot be keptas a slave on the pretextthat she is the man’s wife.Instead, she is to begiven her freedom. The

7



purpose of this law, then, was humanitarian:to assure that a womansold for the purpose ofmarriage would not betaken advantage of bybeing reduced instead to ordinary slavery. Thusunder these conditions,and for the sake of thewoman involved, Godcommanded the Israeliteunwilling to give thewoman full wifelyprivileges to divorce her without return of the original bride price.

Ideally, of course, itwould have been betterfor the man to fulfill hismarital obligations andnot divorce his wife. This law by no meanscondones the man’sabandoning of his maritalduties. But biblical lawsare not utopian. In thereal world, people oftenrefuse to do the rightthing. What this law doesis to indicate that where

due to human sinfulnessand stubbornness a manrefuses to maintain hismarriage, divorce can beprescribed as the lesser of evils (p.534).At a time when we need

to renew our commitmentto strong families andmarriages, some will think itdangerous to call attentionto Mosaic laws that openthe door to divorce. Keep in mind, however, that suchlaws strengthen the valuesof marriage by making itclear that God did not givea man license to ignore hismarital commitments.

PROTECTION FORWOMEN PRISONERSOF WAR In addition to providingprotection for a daughterwho was sold, Mosaic lawprovided marriage, divorce,and remarriage protectioneven for foreign womencaptured by Israelite soldiersas prisoners of war.

8



When you go out to waragainst your enemies, andthe Lord your God deliversthem into your hand, andyou take them captive,and you see among thecaptives a beautifulwoman, and desire herand would take her foryour wife, then you shallbring her home to yourhouse . . . . and she shallbe your wife. And it shallbe, if you have no delightin her, then you shall sether free, but you certainlyshall not sell her formoney; you shall not treat her brutally, becauseyou have humbled her(Dt. 21:10-14).This is another

practice that is difficult for us to imagine. But itintroduces a merciful touchto the unpleasant reality ofwar in ancient times. Godwas reaching down into afallen, violent culture. It wasa world in which the victorsof war often killed any

enemy capable of wielding asword and did whatever theypleased with the women and children. In its setting,therefore, this legislation washumanitarian in nature.

According to Moses, even a woman who wastaken as a wife from thespoils of war was to be giventhe protection of law. If herhusband became dissatisfiedwith her, he had to treat heras he would a wife from hisown people. He was notallowed to subject her tobrutal treatment. Instead,the law required him to giveher a certificate of divorce.

PROTECTION FORUNLOVED WIVES Moses wrote another lawthat would have caused aman to think twice beforedivorcing his wife.

When a man takes a wifeand marries her, and ithappens that she finds no favor in his eyesbecause he has found

9



some uncleanness in her, and he writes her acertificate of divorce, putsit in her hand, and sendsher out of his house, whenshe has departed from his house, and goes andbecomes another man’swife, if the latter husbanddetests her and writes hera certificate of divorce,puts it in her hand, andsends her out of his house,or if the latter husbanddies who took her as his wife, then her formerhusband who divorced hermust not take her back tobe his wife after she hasbeen defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord (Dt. 24:1-4).It is noteworthy that

this law apparently did not require the husband to prove that he had validgrounds for a divorce.Neither did it subject eitherthe man or the woman tocommunity discipline. Theonly restriction was that the

man who so divorced hiswife forfeited the right toremarry her if she marriedsomeone else in the interim.

But what is implied in the phrase “she has been defiled”? (v.4). SinceMoses did not condemn thewoman’s second marriage,we can be sure that it wasnot a statement about hermoral condition after herdivorce. Instead, the point of the law was to assure that she would never againbe an eligible wife for herfirst husband. The NewEnglish Bible reflects thisidea when it states that thefirst husband “is not free totake her back to be his wifeagain after she has becomefor him unclean.”

This restriction seems to formalize what the manhimself had implied whenhe originally found “someuncleanness in her” (v.1).Since the term uncleannessis left undefined, it has been the subject of rabbinic

10



debate over the centuries.We can probably safelyconclude, however, that the husband is not makinga public accusation ofadultery. The law of Moses required death foradulterers, not a provision of divorce (Dt. 22:22).

Whatever the reason was for the husband’sdissatisfaction, it’s importantto keep in mind that Moses’toleration of divorce was not an indication that Godwas approving a man’s rightto divorce for any reason.Jesus clearly declared thatGod made this allowancebecause of the hardness ofmen’s hearts (Mt. 19:8).

A question might be asked as to why this law placed such a strongprohibition on the potentialremarriage of this couple ifthe wife was subsequentlyremarried, divorced, or evenwidowed. One possibility is that such a restrictionwould discourage a casual

attitude toward divorce andremarriage. The law mayalso have had the intent of protecting the husband’snew wife from beingrelegated to a secondaryplace should the man decide he wanted to return to his “first love.”

Of course, thisconcession does not mean that God abandonedHis ideal for marriage asexpressed in Genesis 2:24and repeated by Jesus:

Have you not read that He who made them at thebeginning “made themmale and female,” andsaid, “For this reason aman shall leave his fatherand mother and be joinedto his wife, and the twoshall become one flesh”?So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.Therefore what God hasjoined together, let notman separate (Mt. 19:4-6).God’s ideal and intent for

marriage has never changed.11



What has changed,however, are the conditionsthat occur when hard-hearted people break andare broken by the timelessprinciples of God. The samelaw that offers penalties formurder, theft, perjury, andadultery also providesconsequences when thepurpose and covenant ofmarriage are broken bycontempt and abuse.

But if God allows andeven provides for divorceunder such circumstances,what are we to make ofMalachi’s quote of a Godwho “says that He hatesdivorce”? (Mal. 2:16). Let’stake a look at the context.

PROTECTION FOR WRONGLYDIVORCED WOMEN In the days after Israel’sexile to Babylon, some ofthe men of Judah begandivorcing their wives andmarrying worshipers of othergods. This social condition

so compromised the spiritualhealth of Israel that thepriests and prophets of Godexpressed alarm (Ezra 9:1-2,10-12; Neh. 13:23-27). Ezra,the priest of God, was sooutraged that he demandedthat the men of Israeldivorce their “pagan wives” (Ezra 10).

At about the same time,the prophet Malachi alsoexpressed anger at the wayJewish men were divorcingtheir wives and marrying the daughters of paganneighbors. So Malachideclared, “The Lord God of Israel says that He hatesdivorce, for it covers one’sgarment with violence”(Mal. 2:16).

Here the prophet of God shows God’s heart forwomen who are wrongfullydivorced by their husbands.From this text, however,many have concluded thatGod condemns all divorceand regards it as aninherently immoral action.

12



Listen again to ProfessorSprinkle as he comments on Malachi’s statement that God hates divorce.

However one rendersv.16, what is condemnedin context is notnecessarily every divorceunder every condition—as if the text is opposedto the actions of Ezra and Nehemiah 13—butspecifically the divorce of innocent Jewish wivessimply because theirhusbands prefer foreignwives to their Jewishones. There are thus twopoints of condemnation:(1) They are marryingpagan wives who willundermine Israel’sreligion and theircovenant with God, and(2) they are too cavalierin repudiating withoutcause the marriagecovenant with theiroriginal Jewish wives. Wecannot conclude from thisverse, however, that God

opposes divorce in anyand every circumstance.The context is a limitedone. God is opposed to these particulardivorces, not any andevery divorce regardlessof circumstance.Otherwise, one makes this text contradict the passages alreadyconsidered above wheredivorce is prescribed.Some divorces are

wrong. Some are necessary.All are to be mourned. Noone knows this better thanthose who have been there.Such persons don’t need our condemnation. Theyneed others to join them in grieving lost love andbroken dreams.

Some will ask, “But why are we looking at OldTestament law?” Well, whenthe apostle Paul said that all Scripture is inspired byGod and is full of wisdomfor living in a fallen world (2 Tim. 3:16), he had Moses,

13



the Psalms, the Proverbs,the Prophets, and the NewTestament writings in view.So if we ignore the OldTestament, we will be likesomeone who picks up a250-page novel and startsreading at page 200. If we don’t keep the OldTestament in view, we will miss the way Jesuspersonifies and fulfills thespirit and intent of Moses.Only when we consider thewhole counsel of God canwe see that the Mosaic lawsof divorce are the other sideof the coin of foundationalvalues of home and family.

While recognizing thatmarital permanence is God’sideal, Moses also recognizedthat there are hard-heartedconditions worse thandivorce.

The next step is to seehow the timeless principlesof Moses complement thewisdom and teaching ofChrist.

NEW TESTAMENTPROTECTION OFWOMEN

GGod’s love andprotection for both men and

women is seen clearly in the life and teachings ofChrist. As One who came to fulfill the heart and spiritof the law, Jesus showed arespect and considerationfor women that was notcommon to His community.On one occasion, Heshowed compassion to awoman caught in adultery(Jn. 8:3-11). On another, He showed care and respectfor a woman who had beenmarried multiple times (Jn. 4:7-30).

Ironically, however, manywomen in our own day havebeen confronted with a Jesuswho seems to be on the sideof the husbands who areabusing them.

Consider, for instance,the following woman. To

14



identify with her plight,imagine that she is your own daughter:

She doesn’t know where to turn. And sheblames herself for ending up in an abusive marriage.

You know your daughterisn’t perfect. But what youhaven’t seen is how oftenshe’s cried, and how hardshe’s tried to make hermarriage work. For the last12 years, she’s prayed thatGod would give her thepatience and grace to staywith the man she promisedto love for the rest of her life.

Sometimes, however, shewishes she had never beenborn. Her husband tells herhe doesn’t love her and thathe’s sorry he ever marriedher. He calls her names anddeprives her of affection. Yet,whenever he’s in the mood,he expects her to meet hissexual demands. When shetalks about getting help, hethreatens to tell her friendsthat she’s mentally ill or that

she’s having an affair. Shedoesn’t doubt that he wouldlie to protect himself. Heleaves bruises and deepwounds others cannot see.

When your daughter hasconfided in church leaders,they have advised her to be more submissive and notto criticize him or provokehis anger. They usually ask if he’s been sexuallyunfaithful, but she doesn’tthink he has. Some haveasked if she thinks he’sreally a believer. She tellsthem that he says he is.When she asked one elder why those questionswere important, he told her that without sexualunfaithfulness or theabandonment of anunbelieving spouse, shedidn’t have biblical groundsto leave her husband. Thesame church leaders toldher that separation was notan option because it wasoften the first step to adivorce. Almost as often,

15



they have reminded her thatJesus teaches us to forgive.

This may not be your daughter. But she’ssomebody’s child. And now she needs help.

It’s just as true, though,that her predicament opens a Pandora’s box of questions.If we use the Old Testamentto open the door to divorce,how many additionalmarriages will be lost? Howcan we know that a womanwho is claiming abuse is notmerely looking for an excuseout of an unhappy marriage?Doesn’t Jesus help us holdtroubled homes together byraising the standard ofmarital permanence? Let’s take a closer look.

PROTECTION FROM DIVORCE FOR ANY REASONIn Jesus’ Sermon on theMount, He repeatedlyshowed how religious menhad misused the laws ofGod to create a cover

for their sin. One of Hisexamples related to theprevailing rabbinic view of a text we have alreadyconsidered. An influentialgroup of rabbis was teaching that on the basis of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, arighteous man could divorcehis wife for any and allreasons. So Jesus observed:

It has been said,“Whoever divorces hiswife, let him give her acertificate of divorce.” But I say to you thatwhoever divorces his wife for any reason exceptsexual immorality causesher to commit adultery;and whoever marries awoman who is divorcedcommits adultery (Mt. 5:31-32).It’s not difficult to

understand that Jesus istaking issue with the rabbis’“divorce for any reason”teaching. But what did Hemean when He said that aman who wrongly divorces

16



his wife “causes her tocommit adultery”? Was Jesusdisagreeing with Moses, whoallowed such men to divorcetheir wives? And was Healso saying that Moses wasallowing a kind of divorcethat turned wrongly divorcedwomen into adulteresses?

We can begin to answerthese questions by lookingclosely at the context. Jesuswas explaining that God’skingdom was characterizedby righteousness—rightrelationships with God andwith others—that begins inthe heart. He challengedreligious teachers who werefocusing on the letter of thelaw while ignoring its intent.When Jesus said that theone who looks at a womanlustfully has alreadycommited adultery (5:28)and that if a man’s eyecauses him to sin he should gouge it out (v.29),He was focusing on the root of harmful behavior.

By such statements,

Jesus was offering insightrather than legislation. Noreasonable human court orchurch council could requiresurgical removal of an eyeas a punishment for lust, orexcommunication from thechurch for adultery of theheart.

Jesus was thereforehelping His listeners focuson deeper issues of the souland to see the damage self-righteous husbands weredoing to their wives whenthey divorced them forsomething less than sexualunfaithfulness.

Professor Dallas Willarddescribes the damage thathusbands in the first centurydid when they forced their wives into the stigma of being divorced. He writes:

In the Jewish society of Jesus’ day, as for most times and places in human history, theconsequences of divorcewere devastating for the woman. Except for

17



some highly unlikelycircumstances, her lifewas, simply, ruined. No harm was done to the man, by contrast,except from time to time a small financialloss and perhaps bitterrelationships with the ex-wife’s family members.

For the woman,however, there were onlythree realistic possibilitiesin Jesus’ day. She mightfind a place in the homeof a generous relative,but usually on grudgingterms and as little morethan a servant. She mightfind a man who wouldmarry her, but always as“damaged goods” andsustained in a degradedrelationship. Or shemight, finally, make aplace in the communityas a prostitute. Societysimply would not then,as ours does today,support a divorcedwoman to any degree

or allow her to supportherself in a decentfashion (The DivineConspiracy, p.171,HarperCollins, 1997).In this light, consider

again Jesus’ words, “But I say to you that whoeverdivorces his wife for anyreason except sexualimmorality causes her to commit adultery; andwhoever marries a womanwho is divorced commitsadultery” (Mt. 5:32).

It seems unlikely thatJesus was intentionallyadding to the burden ofwrongly divorced women, or that He believed the men who married them were guilty of adultery.Neither is it biblicallyconsistent to think that Hewas taking issue with Mosesfor allowing divorce andremarriage. If we insteadstay with the context, it ispossible to see that our Lordwas confronting the self-righteousness of hard-

18



hearted men. He wasfocused on those who were“adulterizing” their wives bycausing them and those whomarried them to live in astate that falls short of God’soriginal intent.

PROTECTION FROM HARDNESSOF HEARTIn Matthew 19, we find a specific example of therabbinic view of divorcewe’ve been considering.Beginning with verse 3,Matthew described religiousleaders who tested Jesus tosee if they could put Him ina position of disagreementwith Moses.

The Pharisees also cameto Him, testing Him, andsaying to Him, “Is itlawful for a man todivorce his wife for justany reason?” And Heanswered and said tothem, “Have you not readthat He who made themat the beginning ‘made

them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reasona man shall leave hisfather and mother and be joined to his wife, andthe two shall become oneflesh’? So then, they areno longer two but oneflesh. Therefore what Godhas joined together, let notman separate.” They saidto Him, “Why then didMoses command to give acertificate of divorce, andto put her away?” He saidto them, “Moses, becauseof the hardness of yourhearts, permitted you todivorce your wives, butfrom the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces hiswife, except for sexualimmorality, and marriesanother, commits adultery;and whoever marries herwho is divorced commitsadultery (Mt. 19:3-9). Here we see that the

Pharisees were trying to pitJesus against Moses. A few

19



verses later we read that His disciples, who sharedthe attitudes of the Phariseeson marriage, also needed to be reminded of God’soriginal intent (Mt.19:10-12;Mk. 10:10-12). So Jesuspresented two sides of thecoin. He emphasized theideal of marital permanencewithout disagreeing with the wisdom of Moses inallowing divorce.

Commenting on the allowance made for hardness of heart, Dr. Willard notes:

No doubt what wasforemost in His [Jesus’]mind was the fact that thewoman could quite wellwind up dead, or brutallyabused, if the man couldnot “dump” her. It is still so today, of course. Such is “our hardness ofheart.” Better, then, that adivorce occur than life bemade unbearable. Jesusdoes nothing to retractthis principle. . . . No

one regards a divorce assomething to be chosenfor its own sake . . . . But of course a brutalmarriage is not a goodthing either, and we must resist any attemptto classify divorce as aspecial, irredeemableform of wickedness. It is not. It is sometimesthe right thing to do,everything considered(ibid., pp.169-70). When Jesus called

His listeners back to God’soriginal intent for marriage,therefore, He was not takingissue with Moses. The twowere taking different roles.Jesus was speaking as ateacher of righteousness,exposing the hypocrisy ofmen who had not only lostsight of God’s ideal but alsoof their own hearts.

In first-century Israel,rabbinic practice had ignoredMoses’ provision for women.Contemporary Jewish lawmade no provision for

20



unloved and abused womento divorce their husbands.Only women with wealth or status could take this stepby working through Romanauthorities. We have alreadyseen, however, that whileMoses did not allow awoman to write a certificateof divorce, he gave the eldersof Israel a legal basis to freea woman from the neglect,contempt, and abuse of acruel husband.

So why in Matthew 19did our Lord allow fordivorce only on grounds of sexual unfaithfulness?Why didn’t He mention thegrounds listed by Mosesbefore Him or by Paul afterHim? (1 Cor. 7). Again, theanswer is in the context.Jesus was not responding towomen in distress. He wasspeaking to self-righteousmen who were trying to useMoses to justify their right todivorce for any reason.

This was not the onlytime Jesus carefully chose

words that met the needs ofHis listeners. Look at whathappened a few verses later.

Immediately after His conversation with the Pharisees, we read inMatthew 19:16 that a self-righteous, wealthy rulercame to Jesus and asked,“Good Teacher, what goodthing shall I do that I mayhave eternal life?”

From our point of view,the question seems like aperfect opportunity for our Lord to explain thatsalvation is found not bypersonal merit but by faithin God’s Messiah. Yet,because Jesus understoodthe man’s self-righteousheart, He didn’t tell him allHe could have said abouteternal life. Instead, Jesustold the man to keep the lawof God. When the man saidthat he had done that, Jesustold him to sell everythinghe had and to follow Him.

Because we understandthe context of our Lord’s

21



conversation with the richyoung ruler, and because Hedidn’t take the occasion toteach salvation by gracethrough faith, we don’t use Jesus’ response as thedefinitive teaching aboutsalvation.

A similar context andintent must be kept in viewwhen we read in this samechapter: “The Pharisees alsocame to Him, testing Him,and saying to Him, ‘Is itlawful for a man to divorcehis wife for just anyreason?’” (Mt. 19:3). Jesus’answer was given to self-righteous Pharisees, not to awoman requesting protectionfrom an abusive husband.

But what about the statement of Jesus in Luke 16:18 where Heseems to declare that everyremarriage after a divorce is an act of adultery?

Here again, in thepresence of Pharisees, Jesuswas offering insight ratherthan legislation. He exposed

as idolatry their love ofmoney. He angered themnot only by saying, “Youcannot serve both God andmoney” (Lk. 16:13 NIV), butalso by adding, “You arethose who justify yourselvesbefore men, but God knowsyour hearts” (v.15). ThenJesus continued:

The law and the prophetswere until John. Sincethat time the kingdom ofGod has been preached,and everyone is pressinginto it. And it is easier forheaven and earth to passaway than for one tittle ofthe law to fail. Whoeverdivorces his wife andmarries another commitsadultery; and whoevermarries her who isdivorced from herhusband commitsadultery (vv.16-18).Because Jesus here

affirmed the whole law, wecan safely assume He wasnot taking issue with theMosaic allowances for

22



divorce and remarriage that we have alreadyconsidered.

So what was Jesussaying? He was confrontingthe hearts of the Phariseeswho not only broke the firstcommandment by their love of money but also theseventh commandment bythe casual way they weredivorcing their wives. They were adulterizingthemselves, their wives, and their wives’ futurehusbands by divorcing for any and every reason.

In principle, love ofmoney is idolatry, andunjustified divorce andremarriage is adultery. Butthese insights were spokento confront self-righteoushearts. Luke 16:18, likeMatthew 5 and 19, are not meant to be God’s onlyor final word on marriage,divorce, and remarriage. As we are about to see, the apostle Paul discussedadditional issues.

PROTECTION ONGROUNDS JESUSDIDN’T MENTIONIn another often-overlookedpassage, the apostle Paulgives us a New Testamentexample that is consistentwith both Moses and Jesuson marriage and divorce. In his first letter to theCorinthians he wrote:

Now to the married Icommand, yet not I butthe Lord: A wife is not todepart from her husband.But even if she doesdepart, let her remainunmarried or be reconciledto her husband. And ahusband is not to divorcehis wife (1 Cor. 7:10-11).Note what Paul wrote

here. On the basis of theauthority of Christ, heinstructed husbands andwives not to divorce eachother. But then he went on to say that if a woman did leave her husband (forunspecified reasons) andobtained a divorce (through

23



Roman law), she shouldremain unmarried or bereconciled to her formermate.

Paul’s counsel to thechurch raises questions.Why, when linking hisinstructions to the Lord(v.10), did he make nomention of the “except forfornication” clause? Andwhy did he warn againstremarriage when, by doingso, he seemed to ignore thedivorce-and-remarriageprovisions of Moses?

Because of the attentiongiven to these laws by thefirst-century rabbiniccommunity, we can be surePaul was acquainted withMosaic divorce law. And thevery fact that Paul based hiscommand on the authorityof Jesus makes it obviousthat he knew and acceptedwhat Jesus had said. Thesefacts suggest that he waswriting about somethingother than the grounds for divorce recognized

by both Moses and Jesus.To understand the intent

of Paul’s comments aboutmarriage, divorce, andremarriage, we need to look at the context of hiswords. He began chapter 7by saying, “Now concerningthe things of which youwrote.” This commentindicates that he was writing to answer questionsraised by followers of Christin Corinth.

What Paul wrote nextshows that the Corinthianswere asking questions aboutmarriage and the role ofsexual intimacy withinmarriage (vv.2-3). In aCorinthian culture markedby sexual indulgence, someapparently were advocatingsexual abstinence, evenwithin marriage, as being the most complete way of expressing their devotionto Christ.

Paul’s response was bothidealistic and practical. Hesaid he wished all people

24



could give undistracteddevotion to Christ. But he was also realistic enough to know that itrequires special grace to live in an unmarried state(1 Cor. 7:7-9). He thereforerecommended marriage, andmarital intimacy, for thosewho could not give single-minded devotion to Christwithout being overwhelmedby sexual temptation.

It is in this immediatecontext that Paul urgedwives not to divorce theirhusbands, and then addedthat if they did leave theywere to remain unmarried or be reconciled (vv.10-11).

Paul then went on to address additionalsituations that Jesus had notmentioned. With sensitivityto the Spirit of Christ, hewrote, “But to the rest I, notthe Lord, say: If any brotherhas a wife who does notbelieve, and she is willing to live with him, let him notdivorce her. . . . But if the

unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or asister is not under bondagein such cases. But God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:12,15).

By saying, “a brother or asister is not under bondagein such cases,” Paul relievedthe conscience of thoseliving with unbelievingpartners who no longerwanted the marriage. Byadding, “God has called usto peace,” the apostle clearlyrecognized the intent of themarriage covenant.

So, in response to questions from theCorinthians, Paul discussedadditional issues of marriageand divorce that our Lordhad not addressed. In theprocess, he joined Mosesand Jesus in becoming part of the whole counsel of God for understandingthe ideal of marriage and the conditions under whicha relationship may be lost.

25



CONCLUSION

AAs we have seen,abusive male

domination ofwomen is just as much apart of the curse as weeds in the garden and increasedpain in childbirth.

Many, however, in trying to return to the ideal of marital love andpermanence have not seenthe wisdom God Himselfshowed in circumstances of marital abuse.

Mosaic case law showsthat it is better to end amarriage than to force ahard-hearted man to livewith a wife he no longerloves or wants. To protectthe woman from beingsubjected to ongoingcontempt, or from beingreturned to her family orsociety as an unwantedmarried woman, Mosespermitted a formal certificateof divorce that declared themarriage ended. With this

allowance of divorce camethe legal freedom to remarry.

I believe that a failure torecognize this Old Testamentbackground has led manystudents of the Bible toignore the wisdom of Mosesand to misunderstand theteaching of Christ on thesubject of divorce andremarriage.

Yes, divorce reflects aserious and costly departurefrom God’s original design.But the solution to theproblem is not found inmisrepresenting the heart of the law or in ignoring theplight of unloved or abusedwives. Neither can we rightlymaintain that sexualunfaithfulness and thedesertion of an unbelievingmate are the only groundsfor a divorce.

Just as Jesus did not give the whole picture aboutsalvation to the man whowondered “what good thing”he could do to be sure ofeternal life (Mt. 19:16-26),

26



neither did He give the whole picture to men whomisunderstood the intent andspirit of divorce law (vv.3-12).

Jesus came into a first-century Jewish communitythat often reflected littleregard for the rights ofwomen. Therefore, He gavesuch men only one basis onwhich they could divorcetheir wives.

Jesus, however, was notsaying that Moses made amistake in allowing divorcefor hardness of heart.Neither was He addressingwives whose husbandsrefused to honor theircovenantal commitments.Moses had already spokento those conditions.

I know that in our day,many have bought into theeasy-divorce philosophy. Asa pastor, I have been deeplyconcerned over husbandsand wives who divorcedtheir spouses to marryothers with whom they had“fallen in love.” I have seen

them manufacture a host of rationalizations to justifywhat they did. In manycases, it was evident that they had becomedisappointed and bored with their marriage. With no better reason than theirown self-centeredness, theyshowed willful distrust inGod and an utter disregardfor the lasting hurt inflictedon their spouses, children,relatives, and circle offriends.

But I have alsoencountered equally sad situations in whichendangered women and children were urged to stay in abusive marriages,because there was noevidence that the husbandhad been guilty of sexualunfaithfulness.

For far too long, well-intentioned pastors andchurch elders have laboredunder the assumption thatthere are only two biblicalgrounds for divorce and

27



remarriage: sexualunfaithfulness or desertionby an unbelieving spouse.

Patterns of progressiverevelation show us thatJesus was building onMoses, and that Paul, inturn, wrote about additionalpractical issues that Jesusdidn’t address in His wordsto the Pharisees.

Some years ago a pastorasked me, “Have you takenthe strictest position possiblein what you have written onthe subject of divorce andremarriage?” I said, “No, but I have tried to presentthe biblical position.” Heresponded, “Then I’m notinterested. The only way weare going to stop the divorceepidemic in our churches is by taking an absolute no-remarriage position andputting all divorcees on theshelf, as far as service in thechurch is concerned.”

I do see the “divorceepidemic” as a grave evil.And I remain committed to

working hard to salvage asmany marriages as possible.But I believe it is neitherbiblical nor Christlike toignore the plight of thosewho are faced with theongoing contempt andabuse of a covenant-breaking mate.

While we have in thisstudy focused on God’sconcern for abused wives, it is also true that He isconcerned when the wifebecomes hard-hearted and abusive. I know aheartbroken pastor whosewife divorced him becauseshe was dissatisfied with hissalary and had fallen in lovewith her wealthy employer.I know another man whosewife of 20 years divorcedhim because she said shepreferred the freedom ofbeing unmarried. In hiscase, she left him no choicebut to cooperate with thedivorce process.

Over the years, I havealso seen many victims of

28



divorce (both men andwomen) treated as second-class church members afterenduring an unwantedbreakup of their marriage.

Many church leaderscontinue to regard alldivorce and remarriage as actions that disqualifydivorced people from anyleadership positions in the church.

I understand thatchurches often make suchdecisions out of a desire to remain faithful to theScriptures. Many pastorsand elders have felt torn by a desire to show mercyand compassion while alsofeeling bound by what theybelieve to be the clearstatements of the Word of God. Such leaders havehonestly believed that there are only two biblicalgrounds for divorce: sexual unfaithfulness or desertion by anunbelieving spouse.

Yet, as we have seen,

such restrictions have been formed without enough consideration for the biblical context in which Jesus spoke and Paul wrote. Words meant for self-righteous religionists who were willfully divorcingtheir wives for any and allreasons have been wronglyapplied to persons livingunder the terrible weight ofhard-hearted contempt andabuse.

Once again, I believe that well-intentioned peoplehave failed to take intoconsideration the contexts in which Jesus talked about the sin of adultery. Theyhave also failed to learnfrom Moses that even ahard-hearted divorcedissolves a marriage in God’s eyes.

Many church peoplecontinue to maintain thatany person remarried after a divorce lives in a state ofperpetual adultery. I believesuch persons need to look

29



again at what Moses said on behalf of God in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In this passage, a divorce so completely dissolves a marriage that the onlyrestriction imposed on aman who divorces his wife is that he is forbidden fromever marrying her again if she has been remarried,divorced, or even widowedin the meantime.

Please believe me when I tell you that I in no wayam trying to weaken ourresolve to build permanenthealthy marriages. I havebeen deeply moved by theself-giving love of both menand women whose spousebecame handicappedthrough illness or accident.In one instance, the wife,before the age of 30,developed both multiplesclerosis and rheumatoidarthritis, which rapidlydebilitated her. Thathusband and father madearrangements at his job

that allowed him to get hischildren ready for schooland to be home at noon tomeet the needs of his wife.He remained a pleasant,gracious person and nevergave the impression that lifehad cheated him.

Working to rescue atroubled marriage is worththe effort. For pastors and counselors, the ideal,whenever possible, is to help couples overcomenormal and even seriousmarital conflict. We mustnot easily relinquish the goal of a restored, healthy,lifelong marriage for everycouple.

Neither, however, shouldwe attempt to misuse themoral authority of thechurch to deny membershipor fellowship to those whoare mourning the loss oftheir marriage to an abusive,covenant-breaking spouse.

But what if a woman falsely claims emotional orphysical abuse as an excuse

30



to get out of her marriage?That’s certainly a possibility,but it’s not going to be thenorm. Most women havemany reasons for notwanting a divorce. They arefar more likely to cover uptheir shame than to makeup stories. They have toomuch to lose when it comes to their family,church, children, andfinancial security. Many still cherish dreams of abetter day. They need to be believed, unless theyshow they can’t be trusted.

But what if you’re still not sure you could evergive encouragement to awoman who is thinkingabout leaving her marriagefor anything other thansexual unfaithfulness or the abandonment of anunbelieving spouse? What if you find yourself thinkingthat it’s more faithful tolisten to the Word of Godthan to your heart?

If that’s what you’re

thinking, it’s good that you want to obey Godabove all else. That’s whythis booklet was written. The Word of God teaches us to listen not only to theletter of the law but also toits intent.

As we conclude, let’s take one more look at ourLord’s example. In Luke13:10-16, we read that Jesuswent into a synagogue onthe Sabbath and healed a woman who had beencrippled for 18 years. Whenthe ruler of the synagoguesaw what Jesus had done,he objected that the visitingrabbi had violated the no-work law of the Sabbath.Jesus, however, showed that it was the leader of the synagogue whomisunderstood the heart and spirit of Sabbath law(Lk. 13:15).

In a similar incident,Jesus asked, “Which of you,having a donkey or an oxthat has fallen into a pit, will

31



not immediately pull himout on the Sabbath day?”(Lk. 14:5).

In Mark 2:27 Jesus said,“The Sabbath was made forman, and not man for theSabbath.” By saying this,our Lord showed that He is more concerned aboutpeople than He is about theletter of Sabbath law. Hewas angry with those whoput more value on keepingthe law than on showinglove toward those the lawwas made to protect.

When someone we love is struggling with severe marital abuse, it’s not difficult to see theconnection between hersituation and that of thecrippled woman who washealed by Jesus on theSabbath day.

In a similar way, we cansay that marriage was madefor men and women, notthat men and women weremade for marriage. The Godof the Old and New

Testaments has shown us inso many ways that in hard-hearted circumstances, He is more concerned aboutpeople than He is about the letter of marriage law.

Thankfully, our God does not apply the strictletter of the law to any of us! Because Christ died inour place, God offers mercyrather than condemnation to all who come to Him inrepentance and brokenness.

Abusive husbands,therefore, can find theforgiveness of God—even if they have lost theirmarriage. Such mercy is alsoavailable to those who haveput more value on the law ofmarriage than on the peoplethe law of marriage wasmade to protect.

May our Lord help us toknow when to work hard forreconciliation and when tobe willing to grieve withthose who are experiencingthe pain of lost dreams andbroken promises.

32



www.discoveryseries.org/catalog

USA: PO Box 2222, Grand Rapids, MI 49501-2222Canada: Box 1622, Windsor, ON N9A 6Z7

Get your free BibleResources catalog!

Discovery Series booklets can be valuable guides to help you learn what the Bible says about abroad range of topics.Each 32-page bookletcan be used in yourpersonal Bible study or in a small-group setting.

Your free BibleResources catalogincludes a brief

description of each Discovery Series booklet.To get your copy, write to us at the address belowand ask for a catalog. Or follow the link below torequest your copy today.

www.discoveryseries.org/catalog

Gods Protection of Women

Documents

Transcript of Gods Protection of Women