Introduction
While our Seminary staff were working through 1 Corinthians 7, one pastor shared a story that has stayed with me. A woman came to him in desperation—bruised, terrified, begging for help. Her husband was beating her. Wanting to be faithful to Scripture, he encouraged her to stay, pray for strength, and trust God to change her husband’s heart. Within a year, he buried her. She had been beaten to death. He was devastated. After all, he had simply followed the Lord’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 (and its parallels in Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12).
Many Christians still assume that passages like these demand the same response—that abuse is not a biblical reason for divorce. But when we read the Bible carefully, in context, a very different picture emerges. The Scriptures—rightly interpreted—show that abuse is a covenant-breaking sin that frees the victim to divorce and remarry. The church should not send women back into danger. We should be the first to protect the vulnerable and confront the violent.
In what follows, I will explain why. Three major biblical considerations point us in this direction: the context of Jesus’ teaching, the testimony of the Old Testament, and the breach of a marriage covenant.
The context of Jesus’s teaching
The biblical prohibitions against divorce and remarriage are not absolute but contextual. They can sound absolute—until we place them back into the world in which he spoke. In their first-century context, his words are better understood as a strong stand against invalid divorce, not a blanket ban on all divorce.
Two realities shaped that context.
First, the Old Testament had already established legitimate grounds for divorce, and everyone knew it. Sexual unfaithfulness (Deut. 24:1–4) and neglect of essential marital obligations (Exod. 21:10–11) were both recognised as covenant-breaking sins. In those situations, divorce was not sinful; it was permitted because the covenant had already been fatally violated.
Second, Jesus stepped into an ongoing dispute between two rabbinic schools. The school of Shammai held to the biblical grounds for divorce. The school of Hillel, however, had taken Deuteronomy 24 in an entirely different direction. They were promoting “any-cause” divorce—essentially the ancient equivalent of today’s “no-fault divorce.” A man could dismiss his wife for almost any trivial reason. The result, unsurprisingly, was gross injustice toward women, the very thing Malachi 2:10–16 condemns.
When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce (Mark 10:2), they were not asking a neutral theological question. They were asking whether Jesus sided with the strict approach of Shammai or the permissive, widely abused approach of Hillel. Matthew spells this out clearly by adding “for any reason at all” (Matt. 19:3).
Jesus’s strong words should be read as entering this debate. The were not absolute bans but contextual corrections. He told God’s people that they should never break their marriage covenant. But He did not overturn the Old Testament teaching; he assumed it. He affirmed the sanctity of marriage and opposed frivolous divorce, but He never removed the protections that the Old Testament gave to spouses who had suffered genuine covenant breach.
The teaching of the Old Testament
Two Old Testament passages formed the backbone of Jewish teaching on divorce—and they matter enormously for how Jesus’s words should be heard.
Exodus 21:10–11 established that a husband’s failure to provide food, clothing, and marital love released the wife from her obligations. She was free to leave the marriage without penalty. These were considered essential marital duties; neglecting them was a breach of covenant.
Deuteronomy 24:1–4 required a husband who found “a matter of indecency” in his wife to give her a certificate of divorce. This enabled her to remarry and protected her from being reclaimed later. Whatever the exact meaning of “indecency,” the principle is clear: divorce was permitted on covenantal grounds, and remarriage was legitimate.
These texts were taken seriously by all Jewish groups—including the Pharisees, Jesus, and Paul. The New Testament prohibitions address those trying to break their marriage vows, not those whose spouses have already broken them.
The breach of a marriage covenant
This brings us to the heart of the matter: abuse is a covenant-breaking sin.
As David Field wisely observed, our view of divorce follows naturally from our view of marriage. Some Christians (particularly in sacramental traditions) view marriage as an indissoluble, mystical union. If the bond cannot be broken, then divorce cannot truly end it, and remarriage is always adulterous.
Most Protestants, however, view marriage as a covenant. A covenant is permanent in the sense that it should not be broken, but not in the sense that it cannot be broken. Throughout the ancient world, covenants had defined obligations—and when those obligations were violated, the covenant could be dissolved.
The Bible consistently treats marriage as a covenant. It is a sacred contract that can indeed be broken by serious sin. When that happens, the innocent spouse is released from their obligations. The Old Testament grounds for this (Exod. 21:10–11 and Deut. 24:1–4) show that both unfaithfulness and neglect are covenant violations.
Significantly, the Exodus text allows divorce for neglect—something far less severe than physical abuse. How much more, then, does ongoing abuse violate the covenant and permit the victim to leave?
This covenantal framework shaped first-century Judaism. Jesus and Paul assumed it. Jesus did not abolish these biblical protections; he targeted the abuse of those protections. Marriage is meant to be lifelong—but not when one partner destroys it through violence, betrayal, or gross neglect.
Conclusion
So, should an abused wife stay because Jesus “commands” it? Should a pastor urge her to remain and pray for strength?
Absolutely not!
Abuse is every bit as much a covenant-breaking sin as the offences listed in Deuteronomy and Exodus. If Scripture allows divorce in cases of sexual betrayal or failure to meet basic marital obligations, how much more when a person’s life and safety are at risk?
No woman should be told that God expects her to endure violence. Pastors must counsel victims to get to safety immediately, and the church must stand with them—providing protection, support, and clarity about their biblical freedom.
The God who defends the oppressed does not ask his daughters to remain in mortal danger.
Works Consulted
Field, David. 1983. “Talking Points: The Divorce Debate—Where Are We Now?27-l.” Themelios 8 (3): 26–31.
Heath, Elaine A. 1999. Heath, Elaine A. “The Levite’s Concubine: Domestic Violence and the People of God.” Priscilla Papers Volume 13, 1999. 13 (1): 10–20.
Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. 1973. Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Vol. 9. NTC. Baker.
Instone-Brewer, David. 2002. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Eerdmans.
Laney, J. Carl. 1982. “Paul and the Permanence of Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7.” JETS 25 (3): 283–94.
Spieth, Susan I. 1992. “Divorce: Under No Circumstances?” Ashland Theological Journal 24: 73–78.
AI Declaration
This was originally written in a more formal and scholarly article. The research was AI-assisted but not AI-generated. The author used AI to repurpose it from a formal article to a more conversational and readable blog. AI created a simplified and more readable version, which was edited but retained about 70 per cent of the AI-generated wording. The author declares that the research was conducted with integrity and the ideas expressed are his own.
Disclaimer: The views presented in this blog are those of the speaker and do not necessarily represent the views of SATS.