Ex-Pastors’ Wives Share Hope in Abuse

Two ex-pastors’ wives have written a book together sharing insights on how to cope with abuse and adultery. The book is titled, Surviving Shattered Dreams: A Story of Hope after Despair, by Yvonne Partyka and Joanne Klinger.

When the women first met they had no idea how much they had in common. As they became better acquainted they discovered they had both had been married to pastors who committed adultery and were abusive. Eventually, they decided to share their story and the hope they have found in their experience.

According to the linked article, Yvonne and Joanne have singular advice for women, especially pastors’ wives, involved in marriages where there is adultery and abuse. “Don’t try to handle this on your own. Secrecy and cover-up don’t work. You’re not alone, and God is faithful.” The problem of pastors involved in extramarital affairs, pornography, or abuse “is not uncommon,” says Yvonne. “Churches tend to look up to their pastors and don’t want to believe it when problems surface.”

What Does the Bible Really Say? — Husbands Won Without A Word

By Danni Moss
Copyright protected, all rights reserved

This is the second part of two articles (in a longer series of articles), dealing directly with what I Peter 3:1-6 is intending for the behavior of wives. The first article addressed only the mistaken understanding that the word “likewise” implies that wives are to submit to disobedient and abusive husbands as slaves are to submit to harsh masters.

So, if this admonition to wives is not referring back to slaves being told to suffer for righteousness sake, how do we understand what it means when it says disobedient husbands may be won without a word, as they observe our meek and quiet spirit? What does it mean when it says we should obey like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord? Remember, we have to take away from our understanding of this context any presupposition that it is implying wives are to submit to harsh masters.

There are some very interesting things to note in this passage. I Peter 3:1 says, “…if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation (life) of the wives…” I have always heard this taught to mean if a husband disobeys the Word of God he may be won without the words of his wife but instead by her manner of living.

This understanding is grammatically inaccurate. It is not clearly indicated whether the “word” here is the Word of God or the word of the wife – but one thing we can know for sure, both times “word” is used in the same sentence, without any distinction made, they must both mean the same thing.

So either this verse means that the husbands are disobeying the Word of God and may be won without the Word of God by observing the lives of their wives OR the verse means that the husbands are disobedient to the word of their wives and may be won without the word of their wives by watching the lives of their wives. You can’t slice and dice, and mix and match when the verse doesn’t give clear reason to do so.

It could make sense that this is talking about husbands “disobeying” the word of their wife, if by disobeying it means “acting contrary to.” In other words, if the wife has asked for the husband to do something (obviously this would be something in agreement with the Word) and he refuses, she shouldn’t continue to nag.

However, it seems to make more sense if it is talking about the husbands being disobedient to the Word of God. But if this is the correct way to understand the first half of the statement, we must interpret the second half in agreement with the first half. That means the second half of the statement is not saying wives are to be silent. It is saying that the example of the wife should be such that she is a living, breathing expression of the Word, and as such, the disobedient husband can be won back into agreement with the Word of God by watching the behavior of his wife.

This does not disagree with the rest of the passage, either. When the Word talks about a meek and quiet spirit, it does not mean the wife must be silent and never say anything about either the issue at hand or any other subject. If we take out of consideration the idea that this verse said “without a word” to the wife, then we have to take it out of consideration altogether! So this passage never says the wife is not to say anything about her husband’s choices.

From Strong’s Concordance:

Meek – humble
Quiet – undisturbed, peaceable

So a meek and quiet spirit is one which does not rise up in pride or self-seeking, even if offended. Nor is it one that doesn’t speak. It is humble and peaceful. That is all we can read into the statement about a meek and quiet spirit. To imply it means anything more than that is to add to what the Word says.

The fact that this does not mean a wife should not speak out to her husband is, in fact, underscored by the use the Sarah as an example. In Genesis we are given several examples of times when Sarah spoke out to Abraham, and he listened to her. Obviously, this was an understood part of their relationship. But, since she is used as an example here, it is evident that she did so with respect.

We also must look at the word “obey” in this passage. The English language uses the word “obey” twice – first talking about the husbands who disobey, then talking about Sarah’s obedience. However, these are not the same word.

In referencing the behavior of husbands, the Greek uses the word apeitheo which means “to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely):–not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.” So the husbands in questions are willfully disobedient to the Word and to God.

In referencing Sarah’s behavior, which is being held up as an example for all godly wives, the Greek uses the word hupakouo which is a combination of two words meaning literally “to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively.” By deliberately using a different word for obedience in such close proximity to the other Greek word, it would seem that strict, absolute, unquestioning obedience is not the intended meaning of this word. Instead, it implies a behavior which would be consistent with that meek and quiet spirit – a heart that is attentive to the needs and desires of the husband. God does not command wives to obey their husbands to the exclusion of obeying Him. We have one God – and it is not our husband. Where his desires demand direct disobedience of God, we have to obey the higher authority.

We also can remember the larger context referenced in the previous article about this passage – submitting to the ordinances of man. During the time of Sarah’s marriage to Abraham women did not have the legal right to do anything other than submit like slaves. But the picture we have of Abraham and Sarah’s relationship indicates he did not treat her like a slave. Twice he asked her to put herself in danger to protect his own skin. And she did it.

These incidents are not directly referenced in this passage so we cannot assume they are intended to be examples of good choices. But at the same time, in the culture of the day, Sarah had little choice to anything otherwise. And in her desire to protect her husband’s life, she may well have been willing to sacrifice herself.

That would not have made adultery an acceptable option, however. Ungodliness is still ungodliness, as we do not get a pass on our sin choices. Given the fact that the ordinances of man give us more choices in our culture, we cannot just expect God to miraculously step in and rescue us from our choices, like He did for Sarah. We do need to follow her example of not being afraid, but we must do so within the context of also obeying the ordinances of man and the law of God.

It is also important to note before leaving this passage, that it does not say that a disobedient husband will be won. It says the disobedient husband may be won. So to teach that all a wife has to do is blindly submit and her husband will eventually turn to God, is a huge untruth. God addresses a process for dealing with a persistently unrepentant sinner in the church and for marriage to an unbeliever (disobedient is defined as unbelieving), so there is recourse beyond this passage if a husband should persist in gross disobedience to the Word.

When the church teaches women to obey their disobedient husbands absolutely, in silence, and without question, they are teaching in violation of the direct context of this passage (submitting to the ordinances of man) and are putting women in a hopeless dichotomy. How do we absolutely obey a man who demands that we violate the Word? This cannot be. That is a demand of idolatry and one we cannot obey.

On the other hand, it is possible to “hear under, listen attentively” with a meek and quiet spirit to the heart of a disobedient husband. We can do good to those who despitefully use us. We can remain in peace even though he agitates for discord and strife. We can walk in the power of the Spirit (which includes the fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, longsuffering, meekness, self-control, etc.) regardless of the behavior of the disobedient husband. In so doing, our lives will be that living, breathing expression of the Word of God, by which the disobedient husband may be won. This does not demand that we obey him by committing unrighteousness, since to do so would be direct violation of the immediate context (submitting to the ordinances of man) and the law of God which forbids idolatry.

What Does the Bible Really Say? — Wives Submit Like Slaves?

By Danni Moss
Copyright protected, all rights reserved

One passage in the Word that seems a conundrum for wives in an abusive marriage is I Peter 3:1-6.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

There are three issues in this passage in I Peter which appear to consign wives to remaining in an abusive marriage. First is the fact that this passage starts with the word “likewise.” When we look back in the context, it appears this “likewise” is stating that women are to submit like the Word tells servants to submit, even to wicked or harsh masters. Second is the specific statement that wives should be in subjection even to husbands who are being disobedient. Third is the comparison with Sara, whom the Word says obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. In this article, I am only addressing the first of these three. I will address the other two in a separate article.

First, let’s take a look at the word “likewise.” If we look at the Word honestly, we have to see that the entire context begins in I Peter 2:13 and continues through I Peter 3:7. This entire section deals with submission and authority. It is wrong to conclude that the “likewise” of I Peter 3:1 is directly referring to I Peter 2:18, where servants are admonished to submit to harsh masters. The entire context is much more broad than this sole application.

I Peter 2:13 starts by saying that we – believers – are to submit to every ordinance of man. Throughout the remainder of this section which continues through I Peter 3:7, Peter goes on to enumerate all the different ways believers are to submit.

1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.

20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter puts a qualifier on this entire passage right at the beginning of this passage. He says submit to every ordinance of man. So this entire context must also be evaluated in light of how the existing ordinances of man would have influenced each of the specific examples evaluated by Peter.

For instance, in the part about slaves, if we were to take the Word at bare face value, we could assume we have the right as Christians to own slaves. Now, obviously, saying this seems utterly ludicrous – because in our culture we consider the ownership of slaves to be morally repugnant. In our society, owning slaves is a violation of this passage, even though ownership of slaves appears to be an assumed right in these verses. The reason we know owning slaves is a violation of God’s Word, based solely on this passage, is because it would be a violation of the ordinances of man in our society. Slave ownership is illegal.

So, no matter what these verses seem to say to slaves, no slave in the United States should submit to a harsh master – because no one should be a slave in this country. If someone was enslaved in this country (and it does happen) that person should not submit to his master, but should escape at the first opportunity because slavery is illegal – it is against the ordinances of man – in this country. For such a person to obey what appears to be the clear meaning of the Word (submit to a harsh master), would in fact be a violation of the entire point of the passage, which is that we are to submit to every ordinance of man.

Another reason we know that the point of this passage is not that slaves should always submit to harsh masters is because of what the Word says in I Cor. 7:21 —

Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

The Word must be understood in light of the whole. This verse in I Cor. 7 indicates that if a slave has the legal opportunity to become free, he should take it. So God cannot possibly mean that slaves must always remain in submission to abusive masters in I Peter 2. The verses in I Peter 2 have to be understood in light of the qualification Peter put on the passage — submit to every ordinance of man.

Now, on to the section about wives. To assume that the word “likewise” at the beginning of I Peter 3:1 is referring back to slaves submitting to harsh masters is inaccurate. In actual fact, “likewise” makes it clear that the teaching about wives is another example of submitting to every ordinance of man – the point of the whole context. That is the grammatically correct evaluation of the passage.

This can also be supported by the fact that the word “likewise” also starts the verse about husbands.

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

If “likewise” for wives is pointing to the teaching about slaves, then we would have to assume the same about husbands. But it makes no sense whatsoever to apply this to the verse about husbands – where there is no stated or implied command to submit to a harsh or disobedient wife. Yet, it does make sense to understand the word “likewise” ties the admonition to husbands back to the premise of the whole passage – submitting to every ordinance of man.

Again, as we did with the part about slaves, we must look at this passage to wives in light of the point of the context – submitting to every ordinance of man. At the time this was written, wives had less rights than slaves. Slaves at least had the option of buying their freedom or being set free by their owners. Wives had no such alternative. During this time, a wife had no legal (ordinances of man) recourse if she were faced with a disobedient husband. Wives might run away, but they would be returned to their husband if found because a wife was legally owned by her husband. So, this teaching is describing what a wife must do to submit to the ordinances of man regarding marriage, as those ordinances existed at the time this was written.

However, the ordinances of man are not the same in the United States today. And here is an example of why this distinction is critical. Women are taught by the church to submit to their husbands regardless of their husbands’ behavior. They are taught that this is literally submitting to God and to do otherwise is disobedience to God.

However, the result is that women in abusive homes are being required to disobey the ordinances of man to “obey” the assumed meaning of I Peter 3:1-6. A wife is legally responsible for the protection and wellbeing of her children. That includes not just protecting them from physical battery, but also protecting their emotional and social welfare. A wife can be legally prosecuted for allowing her children to continue in an abusive environment.

It is also against the ordinances of man in the United States for a husband to batter his wife – which includes more than just using his fists on her. It is against the ordinances of man for a husband to rape his wife – and this happens often in abusive marriages. A woman who enables her husband to violate the ordinances of man, even in his treatment of her, is herself violating the ordinances of man and God’s direct Word because God says to submit to the ordinances of man and He also is against those who afflict others.

The ordinances of man in the United States give wives recourse not to remain in danger under a husband who is disobeying the ordinances of man. Since the point of this passage is about submitting to the ordinances of man, it is more accurate to understand that the behavior of wives when dealing with an abusive spouse would be different than it was when this was written. To submit to the ordinances of man, a woman in the United States today may be required by God to remove herself and her children from the hands of an abuser. This is the more accurate understanding of the meaning of the entire context of this passage.

What Does the Bible Really Say? — Don’t Put Asunder

By Danni Moss
Copyright protected, all rights reserved

This is the second part of a series addressing the comments made on another post. A commenter using the ID of “Ancient” posted a series of verses intending to set us “women” straight on issues of marriage and abuse. In this article, I will address the second two verses used by Ancient. I wrote about the first of these in part in my previous article, What Does the Bible Really Say? — Wives Submit, but it also overlaps with the third verse, so I will be picking up with somewhat of a duplication, but also including additional commentary.

Ancient, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:24 pm said, in part:

Read the Word of the Lord, sisters:
…Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder…

Once again, when Ancient quotes these verses he picks a couple nuggets out of their context and then misunderstands and misapplies them. Unfortunately, he didn’t come up with these ideas on his own. They are commonly taught in the church.

Gen. 2:24 starts with the word “therefore.” This is a conjunction that indicates this verse is part of a larger thought. So it cannot be separated from the rest. As before, let’s look at the context of Gen. 2:24.

Gen. 2:18-24
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The only way to understand and interpret verse 24 is in light of the entire context of the marriage of Adam and Eve, which begins in verse 18. Verse 18 begins with God finding the first (and only) “fault” in creation. For the only time, God said, “it is not good.” He said it was not good that the human was alone, unlike all the rest of the creatures which were in male/female pairs. Each pair was a complete set. But the human wasn’t in a complete set. He was alone.

So God had Adam name all the creatures. While the text does not say God did this to show Adam his lack, it does say in verse 20 that while Adam named all the creatures “there was not found an help meet for him.” So evidently, God had a purpose in addition to Adam naming all the creatures. He also showed the man that all these creatures were in complete pair sets, and he was the only creation that was not in a complete pair set. There was not another creature like Adam that could be the other half of a whole pair.

Since, in the existing creation there was not a second half to the human “set,” God directly created Eve out of the body of Adam. Why did He do it that way? He could have just spoken into being another human to be the partner of Adam, just as He had done with the rest of creation. There had to be a reason why God did something different this time.

And Adam obviously got the point because he said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” This is underscored in the New Testament where the Word says in I Cor. 11:8-11:

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

And again, the Word says to the husband in Eph. 5:25-33:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Even in the beginning with the creation of Eve from Adam, God was foretelling or foreshadowing the coming of Christ and His relationship with the church. And this relationship between husband and wife is supposed to be a picture of that. The way God ordained the marriage relationship, the husband is to view the wife as literally part of his body — she is completely one with him. She is not merely a partner, she is part of him, just as intrinsically as his eyes or his elbows, or his feet, or his hands, or his brain. She is not merely his partner, she is part of him.

Because the wife is literally to become part of the husband when they are joined, the husband must “leave” his lesser relationships; even his own parents and siblings are not part of his own body.

When he leaves all these other relationships he is to cleave to his wife. I talked about cleaving in more detail in the first article, so I won’t repeat it here. But in brief, to cleave means to absolutely and totally “stick to” and “conform to” the object of cleaving. If the wife is truly part of him he cannot help but cleave to her. If he grasps the significance of this one thing, it would answer all the questions about whether he is to rule or dominate his wife. But that is not the subject of this passage directly.

The way this is written, the Word indicates when the husband leaves his other relationships and cleaves to his wife, then they become one flesh. A marriage where this does not happen leaves the union in violation of the one-flesh relationship God ordained for marriage. And the responsibility for that violation is first, and primarily, on the husband (more on the wife’s part momentarily).

Now, let’s look at the connection of this passage to Mark 10:9. Mark 10:6-9 says,

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10:9 says, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Interestingly, there is a qualification right there in this verse. It says what God has joined together, let not man put asunder. And the context describes a union joined together by God. It is this relationship where the man leaves his other relationships and cleaves to his wife so that they are one flesh.

Also, Mark 10:9 is in a context where Jesus directly referred to Gen. 2. We can’t take the single verse out of the context of the whole. The verses immediately before verse 9 indicate that Jesus’ statement describing the union of Adam and Eve is completely connected to “what therefore God has put together (like He did with Adam and Eve), let not man put asunder. We can’t just tell people not to put asunder, without taking into account the qualifications Jesus put in the same context — the marriage must be one God put together, like Adam and Eve’s union as described in Gen. 2.

We will come back to Mark because there is more to see in this context, but we need to take a little side trip and ask the question, does God put together every marriage union? Besides the fact that the whole context would suggest that a marriage that does not have these qualifications (husband leaving and cleaving) the marriage is not put together by God, the Word also gives us examples which support that conclusion.

If every marriage union were put together by God, God could not have instructed the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives in Ezra 10. Shechaniah spoke that the Israelites had trespassed against God by taking pagan wives. When Ezra, the priest, went to God for direction, he came back and told the men they must divorce their pagan wives. Now, if those marriages were joined by God, He would not have instructed them to divorce.

There is also an indication that a union put together by God can be broken, resulting in godly divorce. For this we have God’s example of his own divorce of Israel in Is. 50:1 and Jer. 3:8. Now how could God have divorced Israel if that union were still in line with the truth of the Word? God cannot violate His own Word. Apparently, it is possible for one of the partners to walk out of that one-flesh union, making that union no longer a godly one, and violate it to the point that a divorce is a godly choice.

Another thing we can infer from this connection is that a wife can violate the one-flesh relationship even if the husband does initiate and maintain it fully and correctly. God certainly was not the one who violated His relationship with Israel. But Israel’s spiritual adultery violated the one-flesh relationship she had with God, eventually resulting in God divorcing her.

In light of all this, the context of Mark 10 has much fuller meaning that is typically taught in church. The entire context is not limited to the portion quoted earlier. Here is the whole context including Mark 10:2-10:

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce, thinking they could trick him. And Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. THEN Jesus went back to Gen. 2, concluding with “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

God allowed divorce because people were violating His ordained plan for marriage and putting asunder marriages that He had put together. Jesus said these people’s hearts were hard. Whose hearts were hard? Those who violated God’s order for the marriage union, resulting in putting asunder. The “putting asunder” is indicated to be a cause of an effect. The “putting asunder” is not the cause – violation of God’s order in marriage is the cause.

We can infer this because God Himself divorced Israel and He instructed the Israelites to divorce their pagan wives – so the divorce itself was not the issue. The issue was the hard hearts which violated God’s order and creation of a real one-flesh marriage. If this were not the case, Jesus wouldn’t have needed to make the statement about hard hearts or reference the Gen. 2 passage. He could have just said divorce is wrong and been done with it. But, as He always did, Jesus went back to the root of the problem.

In the case of Adam and Eve, there was absolutely no question of whether God put them together as a completed pair. But we cannot assume that all other marriage unions meet the specifically stated (multiple times) qualifications for a God-ordained marriage union. A marriage which does not match what the Word describes, is not a godly marriage, regardless of whether both parties say they are Christians. Someone who is living in direct violation of God’s qualifications of a believer and follower of Christ is NOT a Christian, regardless of whether they have prayed a prayer, go to church, and can say all the right theological things to sound good. God says we are to judge by the fruit.

Now, to answer the obvious question or objection to what I just said, I want to clarify that just because a union is not one God has put together, does not automatically mean it is perfectly acceptable to divorce. The Word has directives for dealing with an unbelieving spouse. But that is the subject of other passages of Scripture – and for another day.

But what this does tell us is that a godly marriage should never be put asunder – and that is all it says. We cannot apply it more broadly than the Word does.

What Does the Bible Really Say? — Wives Submit

By Danni Moss
Copyright protected, all rights reserved

Recently, a drive-by poster replied to the article “Does God Want Me to Stay in an Abusive Marriage. His post was so full of twisted and misunderstood Scripture that it cannot go unaddressed. This is especially true since he managed to encapsulate so much of what the church tends to teach or preach at those who are in abusive marriages. As a result I feel this needs the attention of an article of its own.

I have been unfortunately slow in responding, since this is such a big pot of goo. In fact, I will have to break this into a series addressing each part because a single article cannot possibly do it justice. So this is the first installment, addressing just the first two verses Ancient has nipped neatly out of the Word.

Ancient, on May 29th, 2009 at 8:24 pm said:

Read the Word of the Lord, sisters:

Eph 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Remember that even in the case of a marriage between a believer and a non-believer, it is better that they stay together so that the believing spouse might sanctify the unbelieving spouse.

Trust in the Lord, not men. Christ, not attorneys or psychologists, etc. Pray for your husband. Submit yourself to him humbly and tell him you love him and that God loves him.

If he strikes you upon the cheek, turn so that he might strike you upon the other. Forgive him, for Christ was better than ALL of us put together and he died for us on the cross though we deserved nothing but condemnation. Will you only condemn your husband?

We are Christians, not servants of Islam or any other religion which makes a mockery of marriage. Do as the Lord would have you do, as His only begotten Son commanded of all of us no matter the situation.

May the Lord bless you and keep you always.

Danni response:

In this article, I will address only the first two Scriptures misused.

Eph 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

In the first place, I have to point out that all of these individual Scriptures have been plucked out of their context. In every case, the result is deadly. Let’s get a look at the “back story” on this one.

Eph. 5:17-33

Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

OK, right off the bat – that is a whole lot more verses and verbiage than the one bit Ancient snagged out of the middle!

So here goes. First, let’s isolate who this passage is written to. Given the first part, which is intrinsically linked to the admonitions regarding marriage, it is clear this was written to Christian couples, where both husband and wife are believers. The marital specifics were written in the context of a directive to be filled with – under the control of — the Holy Spirit rather than being drunk with alcoholic beverages. It also says to speak to yourselves in songs and hymns, and to give thanks for all things. Then it says to submit to one another.

Now, people like to chop this entire section up, but you just can’t do that. You can’t separate it out into isolated bits when there is no reason to do so. This is all one string of admonition, one context, and it should be interpreted that way.

The Word indicates we are to submit to one another in other parts of the Bible as well. Let me ask you – how much sense does it make for God to say submit to one another — except if you’re a man who is married; and only toward your wife are you not to submit. If God meant that, He surely would have said it clearly because that’s a pretty hefty and complex exception.

But just in case, someone might want to get that out of it – and many people do – the rest of the context should put that idea to rest.

Verse 22 says wives are to submit to their husbands, but the verse doesn’t stop there! This statement has a qualification in it. It says wives are to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. As very simply means “in the same way.” So, how is a wife to submit to a husband who is telling her to do things that are against what the Lord tells her to do, to believe things that are contrary to the truth of the Lord, and to obey him, submit to him, and agree with him in untruth that is in direct denial to the truth of the Word? This admonition to submit has a limitation on it — as unto the Lord. And that doesn’t even take into account that this relationship is supposed to be one that is happening in the context of both parties being controlled by the Holy Spirit, etc. and mutual submission.

Verse 23 and 24 put further qualifications on verse 22. Verse 23 starts with the word “for.” That means it is continuing the thought without pause. Verse 23 says for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church… therefore (verse 24) as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Again this includes the qualification that the wife’s submission to her husband is to be as the church’s submission to Christ – not outside of it! There is no circumstance under which the church would obey Christ outside of the context of the truth because, obviously, Christ would never ask such a thing of the church. But that doesn’t mean that a wife is supposed to obey or submit to her husband if he is going outside the stated perameters and expecting his wife to come into agreement with him outside of, or in direct violation of, obedience to Christ.

There is another important qualifying detail here too. Verse 24 says that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Well, Phil. 2:2-8 puts some context to that statement.

 
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Verses 2-4 describe behavior which is distinctly opposite of the behavior of an abuser. And to make it more potent, these verses are connected to the ones following, which very specifically describe Jesus’ way of being the head of the church.

Jesus was the head of the church, not by being it’s master controller but by making himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a servant, and being humbled in the most extreme way.

This is NOT the model of headship the church teaches. The Word uses the word “head” in the way you would describe a person who is at the “head” of a line. The person at the head of a line doesn’t boss everyone in line behind him. He simply goes first, showing the direction to those with him, and perhaps making a model or path that those behind him can follow. He may clear debris and obstacles from the path so that it is easier for those who follow. But he doesn’t boss around those who are in the line behind him!

This understanding is further supported where the Word specifically states this same understanding in Mark 10:42-45:

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

In case there was any doubt whatsoever of how God intended leadership to be in the body of Christ, Jesus is very specific in this passage. We as believers are not to model leadership, authority, headship, etc. after the pattern of the Gentiles who rule over others. We are to follow Jesus model – be the servant of all, minister to rather than being ministered to, and give up our lives in sacrifice for the benefit of others, not insist that they do so for us. This was Jesus’ model and the Word very specifically says husbands are to follow this pattern!

We also need to remember the cultural context of these statements. We tend to think of the word “servant” as someone who helps out someone else. But in the culture to which this was written this was a truly radical thought because a servant was automatically understood to be a slave. A slave was the equal, or inferior, to women and children.

When the Word makes these statements it is telling husbands (and church leaders, incidentally) to put themselves on the same level, equal to, the slave who serves their wife and children! There is no room in the Word for the understanding that men are supposed to rule over their families or that a wife is to obey or submit to a husband who is being a tyrant – which would be submitting NOT as unto the Lord.

The passage in Ephesians then goes on to describe in more detail how a Christian husband will treat his wife, by drawing more specific comparisons to the way Christ treated the church. This is the behavior that must characterize him in order for her to submit to him as unto the Lord.

A Christian husband must give himself for his wife, he must love his wife as his own body, he must leave his family, and he must cleave to his wife. Frankly, not one of these things characterizes an abuser. Each one of these points is huge in itself.

But just taking the last one – he must cleave to his wife – this pivotal truth is not taught in the church. This verse is directly quoting Genesis 2:24, another verse plucked out of context and misapplied by Ancient. We read these verses all the time, and they are very popular in marriage ceremonies. But no one really teaches about this. A husband must leave his family and cleave to his wife. When he does that, they will be one flesh.

First of all, we have to note that this is not, nor ever implied elsewhere in the Word to be, directed to a wife. This is ALL on the husband. He is the one who has to leave his family bonds and sever that loyalty as first place in his heart. And he must cleave to his wife. That doesn’t just mean he will have sex with her and they will be one flesh. No, it means he must cleave to his wife.

When something “cleaves” to something else it does a couple things. First, it sticks completely – there is no place of separation. Second, it molds itself to the surface to which it is adhering – not the other way around!!!!! An abusive husband has done neither – and he usually hasn’t left his family either.

A godly husband will make his wife his absolute first loyalty. He will be completely devoted to her, without any place of separation or divided loyalty. And he will mold himself to HER, rather than insisting she mold herself to him.

Then, after all this huge pile of very specific admonition to a Christian husband about how he is to treat his wife, there is one final phrase directed to the wife. It says the wife should reverence her husband. Reverence means to respect and honor. Honestly, any wife who had a husband like this passage describes would have little or no trouble respecting and honoring him!

Can you see that this passage has an awful lot to say about the husband’s behavior and very little about the wife’s? Yet verse 22 gets plucked out of context on a regular basis and women are preached at to submit to their husbands in all things and reverence their husbands – with no understanding given to the fact that the wife’s behavior is to be predicated on whether her husband is acting in a way that she can submit to/reverence him as to the Lord — which is the qualification the verse places on her.

This gross misuse of Scripture by Ancient – who learned it from the church – is one example of how the church is being used as an abuser of women and children, because the church is supporting their abuser and sending them back into abuse, increasing their abuse – all in the name of righteousness and against the clear teaching of the Word.

Is Domestic Abuse Just a Satanic Deception?

This came up in a comments conversation yesterday, and it is, unfortunately, a commonly-held idea. So I thought it would be worth expanding a bit and giving a spotlight of its own. Thanks for sharing, Hannah!

HANNAH:

I came across another [person who doesn’t understand. She said wives] are easily deceived just like Eve. [She] almost hinted that women THINK they are being abused, but generally they are just manipulating to make sure they get their way.

MY RESPONSE:

Why would this woman be under the impression wives are “easily deceived” “like Eve?” I do not see a single thing in Gen. 3 that says Eve was particularly vulnerable to deception, as opposed to Adam.

Nothing at all was said to Eve regarding her “weakness” or sin, other than being given her consequences for disobedience. God held her responsible for her choice but did not offer any additional comment or chastisement. It was simple consequences for action, as is always the case for sin.

But in Gen. 3 Adam was rebuked for listening to Eve – instead of obeying God. In his case, this was a sin of idolatry. He chose to obey his wife over God, when God had personally given Him instructions and he had a direct relationship with God on the subject. I believe this rebuke is clearly because of his idolatry, not because of the gender of the person to whom he listened! God takes idolatry very seriously.

At the same time, there is nothing in this passage to support the idea (extrapolated from the text by some preachers) that men who listen to their wives are panty-waists.

Adam was the person to whom God had given the instruction about what to eat and what to avoid – not Eve. We are left completely in the dark as to what Eve did or did not know about what God told Adam, other than that God said she wasn’t supposed to eat of that tree. So we really cannot make guesses as to her guilt or innocence of motive beyond the text. All we have is what is in the text. She knew better, she chose to do it anyway, and she was given consequences as a result of that choice.

God did not offer any additional rebuke to Eve. However, God did rebuke Adam. That rebuke was not because Adam failed to be a good leader to his family (as some pastors like to say). It was not because he failed to be a “big enough man” (as some pastors like to say). It was because Adam committed idolatry – plain and simple. He obeyed man rather than God. God Himself had given Adam a direct command and Adam chose to follow someone else.

Elsewhere in Scripture it says Eve was deceived and Paul expressed concern that Satan could deceive the Corinthian believers in the same way (II Cor. 11:3). Again, there is no implication here that this was a “woman” problem, as opposed to a “man” problem. In fact, Paul was addressing Christians of both sexes — he obviously didn’t think this was a “wives” or “woman” problem!

THE reason this woman has the idea women are easily deceived is because preachers preach that garbage from the pulpit as if it were from the Bible. They support it with passages like the “weaker vessel” verse, etc. and say women are morally weaker than men. This is utterly unsupportable by the Word and takes verses out of context to create a new doctrine out of whole cloth.

However, preachers today do not come by this idea out of their own heads. This is a long-standing, unbroken tradition from at least as far back as St. Augustine in the Catholic church. St. Augustine stamped large on the theology of the church regarding the roles of men and women.

Unfortunately, Augustine’s beliefs on the subject of marriage were colored by two utterly unreliable – and extra-biblical – sources. He viewed his own parents’ dysfunctional marriage as an ideal. His mother absolutely submitted to his father’s rages and taught other women to blindly and unquestioningly do that same. He also thought highly of the philosophy of Aristotle, who espoused the idea that women must be subjugated to men for the sake of the function of community. Aristotle lived before Christ and certainly did not acquire any of his ideas from any Judeo-Christian text.

But these two sources — the marriage of Augustine’s parents and the philosophy of Aristotle — were the unspoken mold that held the hand that wrote the theology of marital roles still being taught in Protestant churches today. (As time allows I will eventually write more extensively on this subject later.)

The person who said “women who think they are being abused are just deceived” is merely regurgitation the male domination/female subjugation doctrine she has been fed from the pulpit as if God said it, and she completely believes it. Unfortunately, she is far from alone in her deception.

Is it Rape When Your Husband Does It?

A cyber friend from the other side of the world sent me a link last night about partner rape. I’ve added it to my list of “Related Websites.” Little did she know the storm she would set off for me.

This is a subject I’ve known I need to write about, but have persistently procrastinated. There are so many other things in the world to talk about. I can talk forever without ever mentioning this subject, surely. Right?

First, I opened her e-mail with the link. I got tense, but added the link to my site; responded to her e-mail. Whew. Made it through OK. Then there was another e-mail from her with an attachment. I opened the attachment. It was an excerpt from the site. Oh, darn. Only one page. OK. I made it through the page. By the end of the page I was physically ill. I almost had to leave the room. I sat back and concentrated on deep breathing and not throwing up.

I got up, unplugged my computer and brought it outside to the patio where I am now, and my stomach is back where it belongs. I guess I really do have to write about this. Because I know I’m not the only one. There are others reading this who know exactly what I’m talking about, don’t you?

It happens in Christian marriages. Sometimes it is forcible violent rape. Mine wasn’t. In some ways I wish it was. Just like I used to wish he would hit me. If he would just hit me I could call the police and everyone would finally believe me. If I just had some visible bruises everyone else would know I wasn’t lying.

After our daughter was born, in one of his screaming rages, Gary swore he would never come near me in an intimate way again. And he proceeded to denigrate me so horribly that I could certainly not initiate anything and retain a shred of self respect. I remained calm, as I had learned to do, and asked him if he realized what he was saying. He affirmed that he did and didn’t care. He meant it. And he did. He stayed away.

Throughout the next couple years I regularly let him know he was welcome back when he changed his mind. He didn’t change his mind. Then I was diagnosed with cancer. Once we had the details of the type of cancer I had and knew the cancer was highly hormone receptor positive, and I opted for a reconstructive surgery that permanently re-routed my Rectus abdominis muscles (those “6-pack” ab muscles) which support the uterus during pregnancy, we knew getting pregnant could kill me and would be at best, extremely difficult. We discussed this many times, and I told him repeatedly after that, he was welcome back when he changed his mind AND bought condoms. When he didn’t buy them, I finally did because the risk was just too great for a spur of the moment decision to cost me my life.

Digressing slightly, one of the many side-effects of chemo and the steroids that go with it, is insomnia. Like everyone else who takes chemo, I was prescribed a sleep aid. I attempted to go off it a few months after completing chemo, but my body wasn’t ready yet and I had to go back on the medication. It was a very big deal that everyone in the family was aware of because of the dramatic effects of the attempt. (There’s a reason for that little digression. 😉 ) I was finally able to go off the sleep aid about a year after completing chemo.

Meanwhile, however, the last summer we were together, about one year after starting chemo, there were three times when I woke in the night to find Gary having his way with me. Due to the medication I was unable to remain awake (I was in and out of wakefulness throughout), participate deliberately, tell him to stop, or refuse to do anything he told me to do as long as it didn’t require any coordinated action on my part. One time he did something I had repeatedly asked him not to do throughout our marriage, but he had done a few times anyway. One time he “forgot” to use a condom. And once he did something I had always refused to let him do because I felt it was derogatory within the nature of our relationship. He crowed about it for days afterwards and I felt completely ashamed.

And I could say nothing. I was very confused. On one hand, I had told him he was welcome back anytime he changed his mind. But I didn’t mean in the middle of the night when I didn’t know about it. Did he somehow think that was OK? Or did he think because I was in and out and didn’t stop him, I was agreeing to it?

But I knew if I said anything about any of these events three things would happen. One, he would fly into a rage. He was already doing that on an almost daily basis. Two, he would immediately call his parents (he tattled to his parents about everything constantly) and tell them I was “again” denying him sex, which was one of his favorite (unfounded) complaints. Three, he would use this as another mark against me with all his friends and our pastors – another favorite thing to do.

For the next 8 months I had terroristic nightmares every single night, even after I left him, which was 2 months after the last time it happened. I was afraid to go to sleep at night because I didn’t know what would happen. Every night I dreamed he was either trying to rape me, kill me, or had lost our daughter and blamed me (because that sort of thing actually happened). Frequently I woke up sobbing out loud or shaking so hard the whole bed rattled. Three or four days a week I woke up with a screaming migraine.

I will always believe that at least subconsciously he wanted to kill me when he “forgot” to use a condom. How do you “forget” to use a condom when it’s been two and a half years and you know it can kill your wife if she gets pregnant? And you’re sneaking it in when she’s asleep? I also know that when I first told him the doctor told me the biopsy was positive for cancer his response was, “Now I’ll have to find a new wife.” He wanted out of our marriage but his code of ethics wouldn’t let him admit it to himself much less be the one to actually pull the plug.

The only way I eventually got relief was with the help of a psychologist. And I don’t know why it helped. But it did. [NOTE: After I originally wrote this I remembered why this helped; but it’s not relevant; and much too detailed for this venue, so we will draw a curtain here. If anyone really needs to know, e-mail me.]

There were a whole pile of last straws in our relationship. The escalating aggression. Realizing that the verbal and emotional abuse were just as deadly as the physical violence. Realizing that I was just as worth saving as my children were. Getting cancer – I believe from the stress of living in the abuse. Realizing I was setting an example for my daughter to marry an abuser. Seeing him start to treat our daughter the way he had started with the boys when they were her age.

But this was definitely another of the “last straws.” And it was one of the hardest ones. It was one of the ones I “felt” the strongest about, but could least express. I told my attorney about it and I told my pastors. But it was certainly not something I could bring up in court. They would have made mincemeat out of me, and at that point I was definitely not strong enough emotionally to bear it. Gary could completely deny any evil intention. And he would have been absolutely believable. I would have looked like a raving lunatic out to destroy an innocent man.

But inside I was destroyed. At the time, I was sure I could never marry again. I was convinced there was no way a man was ever getting anywhere close to me in this lifetime. Three years later, I think I’ve gained enough distance that it won’t be an impossible hurdle.

At the same time, with the way the church deals with abuse, I am quite sure in the normal way of things, if a wife were to take a situation like this to her pastors she would get no consideration at all. And that would be profoundly wrong, because what happened to me was a gross violation. I don’t really know what to call it. Do you call it rape? I don’t know. It was certainly sexual assault. I wasn’t a willing participant. It was “taken” without my consent, and cruelly at that – without leaving a mark on me. Just because he was my husband did not give him that right.