1 Cor 7
5But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage
in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Not only would your ex have a right to remarry, but it is possible that
"in such cases" allows for you to have the right to divorce him as well. If the abuse was of the extreme nature that one might say is
"in such cases". not what God would want you in bondage to.
Wayne Grudem discusses the meaning of this phrase in the Greek and where else it is found in literature from the same time period and has concluded that "in such cases" could apply to things like physical abuse (or verbal abuse of the nature that is extreme)
From what I am understanding by his presentation is that the meaning is that there are cases that God does not expect one to stay in bondage to the marriage, such as physical abuse of heroine addiction or even verbal abuse of the nature that is easy to define as such.
I know that it sounds like I might be trying to find excuses for divorce but what he is presenting does not really change what everyone was already believing without a scripture that specifically told them they know that God allows divorce in the case of a spouse who decides to be an contract killer for the mob. In such cases divorce is allowed an they are not in bondage to that marriage in such cases.
He has recently written a book on his findings.
I bought the audible version and have listened to it once and plan to listen a few more time to retain everything.
"What the Bible Says About Divorce and Remarriage" by Wayne Grudem
https://smile.amazon.com/dp/1433568...e-us000-pcomp-feature-scomp-wm-5&ref=aa_scomp
I have not read Grudem's verse.
On the surface, this all seems like trying to come up with an argument to justify divorce in certain cases where it is just so incompatible with our culture to think otherwise.
There are a lot of 'tough passages' like this. For example, God having Israel wipe out all the men, women, and children in certain battles, or having a rapist marry his victim if her father would give him in marriage to her. Especially with the latter, there are well-meaning Christians looking for alternate interpretations. For example, in the latter case, some say this applies to fornication, not rape. (But the man 'seizes' or 'lays hold on' her first.) Rape is very stigmatized, and the idea of a woman marrying her rapist does not sit well with westerners. If you think of it from the perspective that the father wants what is best for his daughter and would not let her marry a monster, hopefully, it may make more sense. He might let her marry if they two liked each other, got overheated, and the boy took it too far. That idea may have made sense to westerners a couple of generations ago, but that line of reasoning does not fit well with the thinking of the current generation on the issue.
Here with the issue of divorce, in our culture, men hitting women is heavily stigmatized. That's a good thing in a lot of ways. But we should also consider that the first century might have had different standards. The head of household in the Roman world could execute people in his household if he deemed it necessary to do so. Slaves were probably beaten if they did not obey. The idea of a head of household (not necessarily her husband) beating a wife or female relative in the home who disobeyed him might not have been considered so shocking back then. I am thinking of Roman pagan culture. I have not found any references that allowed for a man to hit his wife in Jewish (falsely so called rabbinical) literature until the Islamic period where one of their scholars, who lived in an Islamic environment (falsely called 'rabbis') suggested a man might discipline his wife in this way if she had cursed his parents.
I am not sure if this treatment of wives was common among pagans. Paul did advise the husband or wife married to an unbeliever to stay with him or her if he or she would have him. A few centuries later, I do recall hearing, second hand (in a sermon; I have not read the quotes) that other women were surprised that Augustine's father did not beat his mother because he had a bad temper, but she was so submissive, he did not beat her. That was the story. The idea of a husband physically disciplining his wife, while it may not have been a Jewish or Christian value, could have been a practice among pagans. Paul did not say anything about this in his advice in I Corinthians 7. It may have been a social issue-- but maybe one that society (pagan society at least) did not consider to be evil or stigmatized. Maybe it was. If anyone has information on this, I would be interested in knowing.
There are Christians who spank their children if they misbehave in western culture, and there are more left-leaning people who consider that to be just as evil as spousal abuse, too. Should we assume that early Christians would have shared the same stigmas.
There is also the fact that Peter addressed the issue of slaves being beaten when they had done nothing wrong,
I Peter 2
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
(NKJV)
This was a form of domestic violence back then. Peter did not say to run away, or for Christians to consider the servant to be freed by this.
Something else to consider is that when one spouse behaves badly, there are Christians out there who are quick to label the individual as an unbeliever and apply Paul's opinion which he says are his opinions and not a commandment of the Lord. If a woman flees from an abusive husband, doesn't it make more sense, exegetically to follow, 'Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.'
Another issue here is that the Corinthians may have been concerned about whether marriages to unbelievers were valid in the first place. In Ezra, we read that certain Israelites were required to send away their wives and children by foreign women. This is a difficult passage. It kind of makes sense with the marriages with forbidden people-groups-- people groups that Israelites were not allowed to marry. But Egyptians are mentioned, and it was not forbidden to marry Egyptians. It could be that those who had married Egyptians were priests, who were not allowed to marry foreigners at all.
Be that as it may, it could be that some of the early Christians were wondering if this principle applied to Christians married to pagans, whether their marriages were legitimate. Being married to a pagan or a Jewish unbeliever or Gentile so-called 'God fearer' unbeliever is different from marrying a Christian who errs and sins. So why would Paul's instructions to those married to unbelievers apply?
