Attitude to divorce in Orthodoxy
In recent decades, for young couples, getting married in a church is a kind of tribute to fashionable traditions.
The newlyweds buy special wedding dresses for the sacrament, choose a beautiful temple and gather guests. Among such couples, there is a very small percentage of those true believers who truly understand what obligations the oath given before the Lord imposes on them - to be with their spouse until their last breath. The vast majority of people think that dissolving a church marriage is as easy as getting a divorce through the registry office - simply fill out a petition according to the sample and get the desired freedom. But the reasons for the dissolution of a church marriage must be more than serious. The attitude of the Orthodox religion towards family breakdown is categorically negative. Several centuries ago, divorce was almost never allowed by clergy. It was especially difficult for women. Even the death of a spouse was not always a sufficient reason for a woman to get married again in church. Widows were looked at condemningly, because they had to grieve for the deceased until the end of their days.
According to Christian canons, a family union is concluded only once. But man is a sinner, and out of compassion for his imperfections, deviations from the rules are sometimes allowed. Getting a divorce after a church wedding is possible only in exceptional cases when there are compelling circumstances.
How to dissolve a church marriage unilaterally
As already mentioned, there is no “church divorce”. Accordingly, there is no need for the separated husband and wife to contact the Temple of God in order to formalize the dissolution of the married couple , either together or separately.
Advice! If it is necessary to recognize a church marriage as having lost its canonical force, you should contact the diocesan administration at your place of residence with a corresponding petition, indicating the reasons for separation from your spouse. also necessary to present a certificate of divorce (issued by the registry office), a wedding certificate (if it is preserved) and other documents related to the reasons for the divorce.
Necessarily! You will need to obtain the permission and blessing of the diocesan bishop (bishop) for a remarriage, as well as a wedding, if one of the former spouses dares to create a new family according to Orthodox canons. Considering that the Church adheres to the principle of blessing for a second marriage only those who are not guilty of the reasons for the dissolution of the first, obtaining permission will not be so easy.
Grounds for dissolution of a church marriage
Reasons for divorce in church marriage.
- The husband or wife changed their religion or renounced the Lord, declaring themselves a complete atheist.
- One of the spouses renounces worldly life and enters a monastery. If such circumstances arose, the second party was allowed to remarry.
- The inability to fulfill one’s marital responsibilities due to the characteristics that a man/woman had at the time of entry into family life. Simply put, if a husband or wife has hidden from the other half their congenital or acquired physical disabilities, which prevent them from leading a full family life, this gives the other party the right to dissolve the family union, because in such a family the main thing cannot appear - heirs.
- One of the spouses is sick with AIDS, syphilis or leprosy, but hid the disease from their spouse. This is associated with a threat to health and life for both the other party and the couple’s future children.
- An abortion performed by a woman despite her husband's prohibition. Thus, the church frees a man from living with a child killer and gives him the opportunity to start a new family.
- Insanity of one of the spouses, which makes him mentally inadequate for the rest of his life.
- There is a medically proven fact of alcoholism or drug addiction, which puts the lives of family members at risk.
- The husband/wife was sentenced to a long prison term for committing a serious crime - murder, rape, causing grievous bodily harm.
- Forcing the chosen one to an indecent life. We are talking about situations where a husband forces his wife to engage in prostitution or participate in sexual orgies. The reasons that prompted the spouse to behave this way are not particularly important for the church. This may be an unhealthy passion for sexual perversion or profit, which is an equally compelling reason for the dissolution of a church union in Orthodoxy.
- The use of physical violence in the family, documented.
- Entry by one or both spouses into a new marriage.
- The presence of a close relationship between husband and wife, which was not previously known.
- The husband/wife has been missing for several years. It was assumed that they were dead.
- Adultery by one of the parties. However, even if the reason for the church divorce was the infidelity of one of the spouses, the clergyman will convince the man and woman to reconcile and save the family for the sake of their own children.
Divorce in other religions
All world religions agree that divorce is sinful, but due to the weakness of human nature, it is pointless to put an absolute ban on divorce. If attempts to reconcile the spouses and return them to the family are unsuccessful, and an exceptional situation has developed in the family, the clergy will allow you to renounce these vows.
Important! The procedure will be preceded by a conversation with the confessor, and in the case of the Catholic Church, an entire church court, but ultimately the divorcees will still be met halfway.
Do Catholics have debunking in the church?
The Catholic Church treats divorces, on the one hand, much more uncompromisingly, and on the other hand, softer than the Orthodox Church. For Catholics, civil divorce and separation is considered normal. In some cases it will not even be a sin. But debunking, taking away one’s vows before God, is completely unacceptable.
After a Catholic wedding, the only possibility is to have the marriage declared invalid, annulled, and such a verdict will be made not by one clergyman, but by an entire tribunal.
Proceedings to annul a Catholic marriage often drag on for years.
Even if the guilt of one of the parties is objectively proven, no one guarantees a divorce. The reason for the breakup is most often betrayal, but other reasons are also possible - impotence, violation of obligations. In cases of domestic violence, mental illness, alcoholism or drug addiction, the Catholic Church may suggest that the sick spouse undergo treatment and the other one wait.
In more complex, non-standard situations - resign yourself, endure and learn the lesson that life is trying to teach with this or that problem.
Is it possible for Muslims to get divorced?
Despite the popular belief that Islam does not allow any divorce after nikah, especially those initiated by a woman, this is not entirely true.
Allah has a negative attitude towards the collapse of a family, but getting a divorce if necessary is quite possible. It is enough for a man to say “you are divorced” or “you are single” for a “buffer period” to begin, during which the couple can change their minds and repair the broken love boat. At the same time, the husband is not at all obliged to explain his decision, although such behavior is extremely unwelcome and can lead to certain social problems and consequences.
A woman, if she wants to get a divorce, should seek help from an imam. He takes responsibility for protecting her interests in the divorce proceedings. The reason for separation may be the husband’s insufficient financial security or any other incompatibility.
Important! The family in Islam is sacred, marriage means the union of two families, and therefore divorces are so rare and they are used only as a last resort.
Church remarriage
When it comes to how a church divorce occurs, the concept of “debunking” immediately comes to mind for many ordinary people. However, this concept does not mean divorce at all, as the church says. Debunking is a re-wedding in the Orthodox Church after a divorce, blessed by the bishop. The sacrament takes place the same way as the first time, without one significant detail - crowns are not placed on the heads of the young people.
People who decide to divorce after a church wedding face exclusively spiritual consequences. In Orthodoxy, three weddings are allowed, provided that the believer is under 50 years of age. Orthodoxy does not allow entering into a church marriage more than three times - this is a grave sin before God. For such a sin, penance may even be imposed on the believer. History knows an eloquent example when in 1575 church punishment was imposed on Ivan the Terrible, who allowed himself a fourth marriage.
The history of the stereotype and the reason for its occurrence
Since 1722, by order of Peter I, the first church metric books were created, in which records were made of changes in people's lives: birth, marriage, death.
This function belonged to the Orthodox Church until 1917, when the decree “On civil marriage, on children and on maintaining registers of deeds” was adopted, allowing the registration of marriage in the municipality. Considering that the revolution left its mark on people’s lives: churches were closed, any kind of pomp was condemned, sooner or later people stopped registering marriages in Russia in any way at the beginning of the twentieth century (there were no churches, but there were traditions of going to the registry office not vaccinated). For this reason, many so-called “civil” marriages appeared, that is, families that were not registered in any way. It is very important to know that the Church has always recognized these families as full legal marriages - this was done because the church authorities understood the current situation.
Gradually, the question of creating a family, preserving it, or divorce smoothly passed from church hands to civil hands; and given Soviet propaganda and the ban on everything Orthodox, it is clear that people could not possibly know the church canons on this issue and church traditions.
Photo: wabby.ru
And when the USSR collapsed and people got the opportunity to freely go to church, and not only register marriages, but also get married, then for some strange reason they did not do this en masse.
This was explained by the fact that, they say, if you get married, then it will be impossible to get a divorce. The reason for this incorrect opinion is simple: the spiritual and moral education of the population at that time (and even today nothing has changed much) was at zero level, and no one really wanted to force themselves to go to the temple and find out there how everything really is in reality — either he was shy, or he considered himself already the smartest, or he simply believed that weddings were a relic of the past.
From all this, you probably already understood that the Church in some cases allows divorce of spouses. What kind of cases are these?
- These include neglect and mistreatment.
- The Church wants to be fair
- Why was Jesus silent about the injured party's right to divorce?
- Didn't Jesus only allow one ground for divorce?
- The Apostle Paul taught four grounds for divorce
- Defining Biblical Grounds for Divorce
- How to define “marital love”?
- So what should we tell victims of abuse?
- Behind the façade
- Conclusion: God Knows Our Secret Sufferings
Chapter 8. Four Biblical Grounds for Divorce
These include neglect and mistreatment.
I once received an email containing the following story:
I was an adult Sunday School teacher at a Baptist church, and our pastor once invited me to a board of deacons that was about to hear a difficult case. One young woman was constantly threatened by her alcoholic husband. One day, when she was visiting her sister, he came for her with a gun. She ran out into the field, where he caught up with her, knocked her to the ground, put the gun to her head and pulled the trigger - but the gun misfired. He served several months in county jail. The pastor explained to me that our church has a strict and uncompromising view on divorce, namely that divorce is always a sin, and therefore we must advise this woman to reconcile with her husband after his release from prison. When I thought about it, I could not even imagine that God could demand such a thing from this woman, and so I told them so. As a result, it was decided that she had the right to live separately from him, but did not have the right to divorce him, and therefore was obliged to live in this situation until his death. I decided that this was still better for her than staying with her husband, but I was not completely sure that even such a decision was correct.
Although cases like this are extreme, any Christian counselor will tell you that abuse in marriage is very widespread and that large numbers of people live in fear under the roof of their own homes. A husband or wife who is the victim of physical abuse or emotional torture at the hands of their partner lives as if they are in a double prison cell with their worst enemy. As much as we might like to believe otherwise, this happens in Christian homes too, although it would be difficult to give precise statistics since people are often too embarrassed to admit it, even to a friend or relative.
The Church wants to be fair
The Church could not really understand what to do in such situations for many centuries. Origen, the greatest of the church fathers who lived in the early 3rd century AD, wrote about this directly in his comments on Matthew 17. He wondered why Jesus did not allow a husband to divorce a wife who tried to poison him or who killed him. one of his children, because “it would be illogical to endure such a monstrous sin, which seems much more serious than adultery or fornication.” Although he could not understand how such a thing could be righteous or just, Origen concluded that we should still be obedient to the teachings of Jesus, since to do otherwise would be “wicked.”
Nowadays, most Christian teachers will say something like this: “I know this sounds harsh, but unless your believing spouse has committed adultery, the New Testament clearly tells us to continue to stay together and trust God, who tied the knot between you." Andrew Cornes, who has written a wonderful book in support of this traditional church teaching, makes one exception - he says that if, as a result of abuse, your life is already in danger, then you are allowed not to live together, although you cannot divorce at all equals. Others extend this exception to all cases of mistreatment. We may be sympathetic to this way of dealing with the problem—after all, it does seem fairer to the victim of abuse to allow separation, although not divorce—but it is not a biblical solution.
A married couple cannot separate from each other without divorce because the Apostle Paul specifically said that married couples should not be separated (1 Cor. 7:10-11). So if we take the traditional interpretation of the New Testament seriously, then no one has the right to separate from a spouse, even if he treats her/him badly.
We have already seen that God gave clear and just laws in the Old Testament to limit the destruction caused by the sin of neglect and abuse: the injured party had the right to decide whether he wanted the marriage to end or not. Would God actually abandon this wise and practical approach in New Testament times, or does it continue to be a principle that can guide the church today? In this chapter we learn that neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul renounced these Old Testament principles, and the Apostle Paul's words suggest that he believes they are still valid today.
Why was Jesus silent about the injured party's right to divorce?
It seems surprising that Jesus would ignore such an important ethical principle established in the Old Testament, especially by giving such serious warnings about neglecting even the smallest of commandments. The time the Pharisees ask Him about divorce "for any reason" would be a great opportunity to say something, because as we saw in chapter 5, Jesus took this opportunity to tell them about many different aspects of the doctrine of marriage and divorce, even those about which they did not ask Him. He took the opportunity to tell them about the ideal of lifelong marriage, that divorce is never forced, and that marriage is not forced, and also taught about monogamy and, of course, the correct interpretation of “any cause of sexual immorality.” - that this phrase means nothing more than “sexual immorality” (or “adultery”), and not some other “any reason.” So if Jesus believed that neglect and abuse were valid grounds for divorce, why didn't he say anything about it?
The most likely reason that He said nothing about it—or said something but the gospel writers didn't think it was important enough to write down—is that it was so generally accepted that it didn't even need to be discussed. There are several other generally accepted truths that Jesus does not mention anywhere, such as the doctrine of the oneness of God. Everyone agreed on the doctrine of the unity of God, so Jesus had no need to teach about it. He also didn't say anything about rape or manslaughter, but that doesn't mean He doesn't care about the victims of those crimes.
The topics that Jesus spoke about (marriage is optional, divorce is not mandatory in the case of adultery, polygamy is unacceptable, and neither is divorce “for any reason”) were areas where His teaching ran counter to the teaching of either all or some of the Jews 1st century AD There was no dispute over the validity of neglect or abuse as grounds for divorce in any
ancient Jewish document of that time, for the same reason that there was no debate about the unity of God - these were principles with which everyone tacitly agreed.
Jesus' silence regarding grounds for divorce such as neglect or abuse does not indicate that Jesus did not recognize their validity, but rather that He accepted
them, as did all the other Jews of his time.
Didn't Jesus only allow one ground for divorce?
If Jesus recognized other grounds for divorce, what about His assertion that there is only one
the real reason for divorce when He said (in Matt. 19:9 and parallel passages) that there could be no divorce "except for the guilt of adultery"?
Although at first glance this seems like a contradiction, it is only so if Jesus meant that adultery is the only ground for divorce in all of Scripture.
while from the gospels it appears that adultery is the only cause spoken of
in Deut. 24-1.
As we saw in chapter 5, the gospels record the entire discussion as if it pertained only to the divorces of Deut. 24:1.
First, the Pharisees open the discussion with the question: “Is it permissible to divorce your wife “for any reason”? - which directly pointed to the ambiguous phrase from Deut. 24:1, “for any reason of sexual immorality.” Also, the Pharisees’ question “is it permissible to divorce your wife...
"indicated that they were specifically interested in divorce, which could only be initiated by a man.
Since divorce on the grounds given in Exodus 21 could be initiated by either
a man
or
a woman, the question shows that they were interested in the grounds of divorce specifically given in Deut. 24:1, because such a divorce could only be initiated by a man.
As we learned in chapter 5, Jesus initially ignored the question and began to talk about marriage—a topic He considered more important than divorce—but the Pharisees again tried to bring the conversation back to Deuteronomy 24:1 by reminding Jesus of the “letter of divorce.” The bill of divorce is mentioned only in this place, and is not found in Exodus 21 or anywhere else in the entire Law of Moses. All this indicates that the Pharisees wanted only one thing from Jesus - a specific answer about how to properly understand the phrase “for any reason of sexual immorality” in Deut. 24:1.
Jesus gave them this answer, and they immediately understood it, because it was the same as that of those Pharisees who followed the teaching of Shammai, and who said that divorce on the basis of Deut. 24:1 is invalid, “except for the guilt of adultery.” , i.e. A divorce “for adultery” is valid, but a divorce “for any reason” is not.
When the followers of Shammai said that there is no divorce "except for the guilt of adultery," they did not mean that they rejected the validity of other biblical grounds for divorce, because we have records of their disputes with the followers of Hillel about these other grounds - about neglect of providing food and clothing. This debate is not about whether it is permissible
whether divorce was based on neglect of marital duties - this was generally accepted - but about what exactly was considered neglect. They argued about what minimum amounts of food and clothing should be provided, and what amount of "conjugal love" was necessary to avoid being guilty of "neglecting" one's spouse.
It is a little surprising that in the Talmud, some rabbis about a century later believed that the early followers of Shammai actually denied all grounds for divorce in Scripture except sexual immorality. These rabbis lived approximately 200 years after the Shammai cause died out, so their mistake is understandable. By that time, all the Jews had already followed the teachings of Hillel and had long forgotten what the followers of Shammai taught. They quoted their slogan - "nothing but the guilt of adultery" - taking it to mean "this is the only kind of divorce in all Scripture
"
They forgot that the original context of the Shammaite slogan was a controversy over the types of divorce specified only in Deut. 24:1.
Christian interpreters have made the same mistake when interpreting Jesus' words. Like later rabbis, they forgot (or did not understand) that the context of the phrase “nothing but the guilt of adultery” is an answer to the question of the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1. Jesus used the same phrase as the followers of Shammai in the same context (the Deut. 24:1 controversy), with the same people (the Pharisees) and at the same time and place (1st century AD Palestine). .e.). So we are forced to conclude that both Jesus and the followers of Shammai meant the same thing, i.e. “in Deut.24:1
only one valid ground for divorce is given.”
Neither He nor the followers of Shammai meant that " in all Scripture
there is only one valid reason for divorce."
We have concluded that Jesus' words in Matthew 19:9 (and parallel ones) exclude only divorce "for any reason," but does this mean that He accepts the grounds for divorce given in Exodus 21:10–11? Based on the reasoning of this chapter, perhaps we can assume that He accepted them, because if He did not, He would have specifically said so. This law given in Exodus is not as self-evident for us as it was for the Jews who lived in the 1st century AD, therefore this conclusion does not seem so self-evident to us. Fortunately, the Apostle Paul refers to it specifically.
The Apostle Paul taught four grounds for divorce
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul refers to the three grounds for divorce from Exodus 21 when he answers the Corinthians' question about leaving their spouses (see chapter 6).
Exodus 21:10:
“If he takes another for him, then she should not be deprived of food, clothing and marital cohabitation.”
He reminded those who wanted to end a physical relationship with their husband or wife that they had taken an oath to share "marital cohabitation" with each other (verses 3-5), and later in the same chapter when he talks about what is best in Given the current famine, putting off wedding plans, he reminded them that marriage includes a promise to clothe and feed their partner—he calls this “taking care of the things of this world, how to please” each other (verses 32–34).
Readers of Paul's letter would instantly recognize these words as a reference to these grounds for divorce, even if they were not Jewish, because this became the ground for divorce in both Greek and Roman law. This law spread throughout the known world thanks first to the Babylonian and then the Persian empires, then came into Greek culture and, finally, into Roman law. These three grounds for divorce were written down in both Jewish and Greco-Roman marriage contracts. This meant that if you suffered neglect from your husband or wife, you could sue in any court - Roman, rabbinical, Egyptian, or, for all we know, any
another civilized country of the 1st century AD.
Therefore, although Paul does not specifically say that neglect in these three areas can be grounds for divorce, the fact that he speaks of them as marital responsibilities means that he accepted and agreed to them. The text of Scripture from which they originate (Exodus 21:10-11) speaks specifically about the freedom of a person from such a marriage in which he is neglected - i.e. the fact that they are marital duties is the secondary meaning of the text, the primary meaning is precisely that this is a basis for divorce. If Paul had not accepted them as grounds for divorce, he would not have used these verses in his teaching on marital responsibilities.
Along with these three grounds for divorce, Paul also seems to have accepted divorce in cases of adultery. Although he does not specifically say it, most scholars believe that he permitted it because Jesus permitted it. Another reason to believe that he allowed it is that like the above three grounds, adultery was also a generally accepted ground for divorce. Therefore, as with all other biblical reasons for divorce, Paul would have to be specific about his disagreement with them if he did not want believers to take them for granted.
Paul says virtually nothing about divorce itself, and he may have deliberately avoided the topic so that his teaching would inspire hope. By emphasizing marital duties, he hoped that the need for divorce on the grounds of violation of them would never arise. Of course, such a need should not be
arise if believers follow his teachings.
Was he clearly emphasizing that Christians should not be the source of family destruction? And so he emphasized the four biblical marital duties
rather than the four biblical grounds for divorce, hoping that the need for divorce would not arise.
Of course, it should not
arise if believers follow his teachings.
However, Paul did not expect unbelievers to obey this teaching and, as we saw in chapter 6, he told believers that if they were abandoned by their unbelieving spouses, they were “not bound” (1 Cor. 7:15). As we will see in the next chapter, this phrase refers to divorce, i.e. Paul tells believers that they can view abandonment as a valid divorce. He doesn't say why, but it was obvious to any reader living in the 1st century AD, and it is obvious to us now as we understand the principles of Exodus 21:10 - if a person has been abandoned, he has the right to divorce on the grounds of neglect .
To summarize the above, the Apostle Paul accepted all four Old Testament grounds for divorce. He accepted “unfaithfulness” as a basis because Jesus allowed it (Deut. 24:1) and he also accepted “neglect in the provision of food, clothing and marital cohabitation” of Exodus 21:10–11.
Defining Biblical Grounds for Divorce
How can we define and apply these four grounds for divorce now in the 21st century?
What “infidelity” is, of course, is clear to everyone, although sometimes it is too easy to condemn adultery and not pay attention to the fact that neglect on the other hand could cause alienation, and then lead to adultery. Although neglect on the part of one spouse does not justify adultery by the other, it is important to realize that the blame usually does not lie solely with one party.
“Providing food and clothing” is summed up by Paul in the words “to care for” and “to please” one another (1 Cor. 7:32,34). As we saw in chapter 6, Paul does not set clear rules for determining the right amount of care (as the rabbis did), but says that our goal is to please one another, which means that he was more important than motives, i.e. a desire to care rather than legalistic details.
Defining “providing marital cohabitation” is more difficult than for other marital duties, especially if someone is using it as grounds for divorce. The rabbis went to great lengths to determine how many times a husband should make love to his wife, establishing different permissible breaks for different professions. Most men were required to perform their duty twice a week, although donkey "drivers" were only allowed to do so once a week (because they often had to leave home for several days to deliver goods), and the unemployed were required to perform their duty every
night.
There were no such rules for women, perhaps because the rabbis considered them insatiable creatures who constantly pestered their husbands.
The rabbis were reluctant to allow divorce on the basis of refusal to fulfill the duty of "conjugal love" and in such cases tried to resolve the conflict by talking to the "offender" or by imposing gradually increasing fines. Therefore, if a woman constantly refused her husband, the rabbinical court decided to reduce her ketubah
(matrimonial inheritance), and if the husband refused, the court decided to increase her
ketubah
a little every week.
We can find the principles behind such demands because a husband who never allows his wife to buy cosmetics, medicine or any entertainment items such as books or CDs has not, strictly speaking, neglected to provide food and clothing. Likewise, a man who makes love to his wife once a week but never shows her any attention or affection is fulfilling his duty of “conjugal cohabitation,” but it would be too legalistic to say that he is meeting her needs. The principle behind “food and clothing” can be called “material provision”, and the principle behind “conjugal love” can be called “physical affection”. When neglect begins to cause harm, it is called abuse—neglect of material support can become physical harm, and neglect of physical affection can become emotional harm.
How to define “marital love”?
The Apostle Paul does not specify the frequency of marital love or suggest penalties for failure to engage in it, as the rabbis did, but he does tell both partners that they should view marital love as if it were a duty the spouses owed each other (1 Cor. 7). :3–5). Paul in no way says that anyone has the right to demand
marital love, but says that spouses
owe
each other such support because love is what we give, not what we take.
The term “marital cohabitation” should not be defined as narrowly as “sexual intercourse” because it may be impractical and inappropriate in cases of illness or potential harm. Physical affection can be shown in many different ways, and often a warm hug will be valued much more highly than sexual intercourse.
The most difficult question is how far the principle of “physical affection” should be extended. The word for "cohabitation" in Hebrew in Exodus 21:10 (onata
) is very difficult to translate because it is very rare, but the most accurate translation would be “conjugal love,” and that is how the rabbis interpreted it. We can accept their interpretation as an indication of its meaning, partly because they had access to ancient traditions of understanding the word, but mainly because neither Jesus nor Paul saw the need to correct anything in their understanding on this issue. The rabbis expanded this concept of "love" to include respect because they allowed a woman to divorce a husband who asked her to do humiliating things or if he did not allow her to visit her relatives. Peter may have had this understanding of respect or honor in mind when he said, “In the same way, husbands, treat your wives wisely, as the weaker vessel, showing them honor” (1 Pet. 3:7).
What about couples who have "fallen out of love" with each other - can they get divorced on the grounds of lack of "love"? It would be quite difficult to say how our modern understanding of “being in love” fits into the texts of the Bible, although one might perhaps conclude that this is what we are talking about when we talk about “physical affection”. However, when we remember that Jesus emphasized that divorce could only occur in cases of "hard-hearted" violation of marital vows, it follows that He would be against divorce simply because someone has "fallen out of love" with someone else. and there is no violation of marital vows or harm caused to either spouse.
Therefore, although the obligation to provide “spousal love” in Exodus 21:10 can be seen as a principle of “physical affection” or perhaps even “respect,” it should not be extended so far as to weaken the understanding of marriage as a lifelong union. Marriage is based on promises, not just feelings. When the heat of passion cools, it is not a sign that the marriage is coming to an end, it is a sign that the marriage needs nurturing. No one sells their home just because the heating system needs repairs!
So what should we tell victims of abuse?
Now that we understand that the grounds for divorce in the Bible include the principles of material support and physical affection, what should we say to a woman who is married to an abusive man? First, we can tell her that God's law takes his sin into account. God's ideal in marriage is for husband and wife to be faithful to each other and, as we learned in the Old Testament, to care for each other by providing food, clothing, and marital love. If these vows are broken, grounds for divorce arise.
Since there is no question that an abusive husband is "neglecting" the responsibility to provide for her, she should understand that she has
the right to divorce him, since Paul recognized divorces in cases where unbelievers neglected their spouses. This also applies to Christians who break their marital vows - just because Paul hoped Christians would not behave in this way does not mean that they are incapable of it; Paul simply expected better from them.
We must not forget, however, that Jesus emphasized forgiveness, as we saw in chapter 5, so we should not advise a woman to divorce her husband the first time he breaks his vows. However, if he continues to sin hard-heartedly (that is, stubbornly and without repentance), Jesus said that she could divorce him. In practice, we need to rely on the person to decide when he can't take it anymore, because we can't know everything that happens within a marriage. We cannot know how much mental pain a person experiences and even physical cruelty often remains invisible or unspoken.
Behind the façade
We will never know how many of our friends return home to desperate and sometimes dangerous circumstances. The façade of a “happy” marriage is often maintained by the entire family because they are ashamed to admit that something is wrong. A highly respected and successful man may return home to scold or beat his wife and children, while a modest, quiet woman may date her lover regularly or attack her husband with violent hostility on any occasion. But these are stereotypes, and no one looking from the outside can ever guess what is happening behind closed doors.
One man told me, rather shyly, about his past wife, who on the outside was a respected and reserved woman, but at home everything was as she wanted thanks to her terrible character. If it seemed to her that her husband was not fulfilling her demands quickly enough, she began to scream and hit with everything that came to hand. He was brought up to understand that you shouldn't lay a hand on women, so he just tried to defend himself while she beat him until her anger subsided or she got tired. Three times she broke his arm, which he tried to hide behind. Once she even managed to break his leg - although I don’t understand how - and he didn’t even tell me at the hospital what really happened.
He did not divorce his wife because he believed that a Christian should not divorce on the grounds of abuse. One day, when he was once again in the hospital, his friend from another church told him that one day she would most likely kill him, and God could not have meant that this was His will. He listened to his friend’s advice, left her, and then divorced her. When he did this, his church rejected him because they knew nothing of her cruelty, and they began to consider her the unfortunate victim of a completely baseless divorce. The story has a happy ending - he found another wife and is now enjoying a wonderful life together. Without a doubt, God blessed his new marriage, and he and his wife are now active members of another church.
There is another example of a false facade from real life. The pastor of a large church often abused his wife. She suffered injuries severe enough to end up in the hospital more than once. His ministry was blessed with many converts and a large congregation, but his “happy” married life was a sham. Not many people know what his wife went through, but God does.
Only God truly knows the heart and as Jesus said, evil comes from within and loves darkness. We cannot leave the right to decide when a marriage is over and when not to the pastor or church leadership - this can only be determined by the affected people themselves, in prayer before the Lord. Only they and the Lord know what their life really is. Only they know whether their spouses are remorseful, and only they have to live with the consequences of their decision.
Conclusion: God Knows Our Secret Sufferings
Our Lord knows the problems we face in our homes, the things we never allow others to see because it is shameful. People often feel that they are somehow forcing their partner to be abusive or adulterous, and sometimes this may be partly true, but it does not justify it. Often we can do something to heal the situation, but sometimes nothing can be done, and our Lord knows this too.
God gave us a very realistic law in the Old Testament, and He didn't throw it away when Jesus came to change us. We have not all been changed into His image, and our world will still remain full of sin until His Kingdom fills the earth and every knee bows to Jesus. Until then, we still need some of the God-given laws of the Old Testament: laws about murder, about causing harm, about neglect and abuse in marriage. The details of these laws do not always translate literally into our society, but Jesus emphasized the principles and summarized them (which we looked at in detail in chapter 4).
“God is not a ruler who sits on His high throne in isolation, ignorant of the suffering of His people. He hurts with us, even when we are forced to divorce, because He had to go through this too. God loves you and knows your suffering. He wants to help you, and so He has given us practical laws to help you deal with your pain.” - Here
What do we say to a person suffering from neglect or abuse in a marriage.
Table of contents
Under what conditions do Muslim families break up?
Modern living conditions, irresponsibility and frivolity, ease of marriage, inattention to the chosen one or chosen one, disregard for parental opinion have led to the fact that today in a Muslim family getting a divorce is not a sin and not an exception.
Muslims get divorced quite often without experiencing any remorse. The reasons can be very different. Marriage in these countries is losing its godly meaning. Among the most common reasons for divorce in a Muslim family are the following:
- non-compliance with the laws of Allah, neglect of the duties that are assigned to the wife and husband during marriage. The husband must support his wife and children, the wife must obey her husband in everything and respect him. But in reality, everything is completely different: the husband does not provide his wife with anything and insults both her and her relatives. The wife argues with him, refuses to do housework, leaves home without his permission, and so on;
- newlyweds do not feel responsible and do not take the marriage ceremony seriously. Quite often there are situations when young Muslims get married for one single reason - to get to know each other better, live together and not consider it a sin, and if they don’t like it, they quickly run away without finding out the reasons. Such a marriage is initially aimed at divorce;
- selfishness, which is manifested by the wife and husband in relation to each other, not the desire to change their habits, listen to the opinion of the other half and respect it. All this quite quickly leads to quarrels and scandals, as a result of which the family breaks up;
- The reason for divorce can easily be the wife's work. In a Muslim family, where a woman earns money, the husband stops providing for her and begins to treat his responsibilities through his fingers, negligently. On the initiative of the wife, the spouses divorce, since she is able to provide for herself and the children;
- national hostility, when parents categorically do not want to accept a person of a different faith as a daughter-in-law or son-in-law. Such marriages are not uncommon today, but most often, at first, the newlyweds hide their situation. And when everything is discovered, relatives of the older generation insist on divorce and the marriage breaks up;
- There are times when a marriage takes place very quickly, and then suddenly it turns out that they don’t even have anything to talk about. The reason may be different social status, different faith, education, age, etc.;
- a lost tradition of paying a serious ransom. A modern marriage is not only easy to register, but also easy to dissolve without regret. In cases where, when entering into a marriage, large sums are not spent on ransom, gifts, purchasing housing for a young family (and in Muslim families, newlyweds receive their housing from relatives), its improvement, the material value of the event is lost, and nothing prevents a divorce. For example, upon marriage, a young Muslim wife received an expensive car as a gift from her husband’s relatives. If she decides to get a divorce in the future, she will have to return the car, and this is no longer always possible. Accordingly, you can postpone the divorce;
- Having a second wife also often leads to divorce. But some Muslim men don’t even understand why they need a second wife. Most often, this happens against the backdrop of numerous problems when leaving for another country to work. Moreover, the second wife is quite often ignored when providing financial support. She is not entitled to an apartment or a house like her first wife. She does not live with her husband permanently, but only temporarily dates or lives with him while earning money. The second wife is simply neglected; she quite often works on her own and provides for herself. That is, the status of a normal family in such a situation is not entirely appropriate. And often a woman simply gets tired of all the problems, she strives to get a divorce, and her husband may not be able to withstand the jealousy of his women and their demands;
- leads to divorce and the long absence of the husband from the family;
- simple and large selection of candidates. More recently, parents selected the other half for their children. They did this very carefully, sometimes for a very long time. Modern young people are much more relaxed and have a simpler approach to this issue. Finding a Muslim husband or wife today is not a problem. There are many places where people can meet: social networks, dating sites, marriage agencies. On the one hand, such a huge choice is good, but on the other hand, people stop appreciating each other - I didn’t like it, I’ll get a divorce and find a better one.
All of the above reasons are compelling reasons for making divorce in a Muslim family look not like a sin, but like a normal phenomenon. And although it is prohibited in both Islam and the Catholic Church, values cease to play any role. People get married and divorced to suit their whims, without worrying about how they will live in the future.
Attention! Due to recent changes in legislation, the legal information in this article may be out of date! Our lawyer can advise you free of charge - write your question in the form below:
