Emotional Abuse and Separation/Divorce

[SonofThunder]

I am going to swing back around to Matthew 19, when Jesus was questioned about divorce (imo in order to find fault in him, not that the Pharisees respected Jesus as a legit teacher).  But Jesus did two things in his reply:  he shut down their attempt at tripping him, and also taught on divorce. 

Jesus references two things; Mosaic Law on divorce (Deuteronomy) and His original intent of the male/female union (pre-fall of man into sin).  With regard to Mosaic law, God charged Moses with delivering the law to God's chosen people, therefore Mosaic law is God's law.  I also understand that OT law's purpose is to provide structure for God's people in that time in history, to stay on course among the lands and peoples that do not recognize God, but mainly to pave the way for the people to realize the need of a Savior, the coming Christ.  Where Christ clarified, justified or amplified the Old Testament teaching, I go with Jesus' teaching, since Jesus (very God) has now walked among us humans and taught by both word and living example and now, with the Holy Spirit provided to followers of Christ, the trifecta-of-truth in the three, for my better understanding of Gods teaching. 

So, Jesus referencing Mosaic law is recognizing God's appointed law and divorce was allowed by Mosaic law to provide an escape path for those afflicted by the damaging affects of sin on mankind, with relation to the marriage union. Therefore, my opinion is that by the referencing of Mosaic law, Jesus recognizes that because of sin, divorce is an option for those of us tormented by the manipulative sins of a marriage partner. 

But also, Jesus references creation, and that His original sinless creation did not need the law, because of the sinless nature.  Therefore, as he created the male/female union, it originally worked in harmony as was His original design, therefore if sin was removed, we would not need this forum 😂.  Jesus both answered the Pharisees and their manipulative use of Mosaic law to create a life of potential promiscuity for themselves and flippant attitude toward marriage, and then he one-upped them by going back before Mosaic law to put them in their place, which was squarely in the context of sin: the covert sin of them trying to eliminate him and also the the sinful desire of promiscuity and therefore adultery. 

Here is the verses Jesus is referencing from pre-Mosaic law.

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

God's original male/female union. Jesus references in Matthew 19 with the words that translate to "but from the beginning it was not so". (Pre-fall of mankind into sin). 

Genesis 1:26-28
New American Standard Bible

26 Then God said, "Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Genesis 1:26-28
King James Version

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

———-

Therefore also, imo for those who have stated/quoted that God hates divorce, I agree, because it was not His pre-fall of man original design and God hates sin.  But, because of sin, and the terrible effects it can have in a legal marriage union, he graciously allowed it in the Mosaic law, and imo allows it today as well (because sin is still plaguing us humans) as an escape from the emotional and physical abuse that people like us deal with.  *Notice that Jesus doesn't rebuke the Mosaic law in Matthew 19, but merely references it in relation to sin and stated his original design didn't need the law, as he shuts down the covert, manipulative Pharisees who are trying to trap him, as they frequently do, in order to justify their desire to remove Him from their presence, so they can retain their powerful position and freedom of manipulation in that position.  Therefore my statement that escape hatch from marital abuse (emotional and physical) , is still allowed because of sin's affects and Jesus love of His creation. 

SoT

[SonofThunder]

Moderation note -
Even though this discussion is primarily biblically based, we need to remember where we are, our guidelined and our audience herein. 


Quoting chapter and verse, citing references are to be expected and encouraged for further reading and study. However blanket generalizations, posts advocating/supporting violence or retaliation are still subject to moderator review and possible removal.

Thank you moglow!

[square]

5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

1) People are going to (selfishly) divorce anyway, so at least this way the law can lessen some of the damage. (The divorcer's heart is hard).

2) People will need to divorce sometimes, so this concession is made for their safety. (The divorcee's heart is hard).

3) Moses, not God, wrote this law. (Moses' heart is hard).

[SonofThunder]

5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

1) People are going to (selfishly) divorce anyway, so at least this way the law can lessen some of the damage. (The divorcer's heart is hard).

2) People will need to divorce sometimes, so this concession is made for their safety. (The divorcee's heart is hard).

3) Moses, not God, wrote this law. (Moses' heart is hard).

Square, thanks for your input to the thread and opinions to counter mine in good conversation.  I would like to ask for some detailed clarity of your 3 points made.

#1. What law are you referencing?  and what does "lessen some of the damage" mean in your opinion. 

#2. Definition of 'concession':  a thing that is granted, in response to demands. 'Granted' implies there was a prior restriction.  Are you saying the 'divorcer' is granted flexibility in some restriction (of the law you may clarify in #1) in order to provide the divorcee safety?  For one, it's typically the 'divorcer' in abuse situations who desire safety.  Secondly, how is a hard-heart tied to the desire/need for safety?

3. Are you referencing the same law you may clarify in #1? 

Thanks for any detailed clarification of your comments.

SoT

[square]

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

Those are a brainstormed list of three ways one could interpret exactly whose hearts are hard. Well, all of us, clearly.

But one way is to say the one initiating the divorce - say, a man who wanted to try out another wife. In this point of view, divorce is selfish, but if it will be done anyway, there could be limitations to lessen the problem.

A second way is to say that the one who has been divorced - say, an emotionally abusive woman whose husband can take no more. In this view, divorce is a mercy granted to those married to the hard hearted.

A third way os to say Moses himself, who is explicitly cited as the writer of the law (it is not actually attributed to God). In this view, the author himself, or perhaps the Jews as a people, or the people in general, has written the law out of hard heartedness. It seems to me that God has always had one law but has allowed for our (post-fall) moral evolution over time. He does not strike down the Mosaic law, but works with its imperfections.

[SonofThunder]

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

Those are a brainstormed list of three ways one could interpret exactly whose hearts are hard. Well, all of us, clearly.

But one way is to say the one initiating the divorce - say, a man who wanted to try out another wife. In this point of view, divorce is selfish, but if it will be done anyway, there could be limitations to lessen the problem.

A second way is to say that the one who has been divorced - say, an emotionally abusive woman whose husband can take no more. In this view, divorce is a mercy granted to those married to the hard hearted.

A third way os to say Moses himself, who is explicitly cited as the writer of the law (it is not actually attributed to God). In this view, the author himself, or perhaps the Jews as a people, or the people in general, has written the law out of hard heartedness. It seems to me that God has always had one law but has allowed for our (post-fall) moral evolution over time. He does not strike down the Mosaic law, but works with its imperfections.

Square, thank you for providing clarity toward the opinions you previously wrote. With regard to your last paragraph: 

Leviticus 26:46  These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.

Leviticus 27: 34 These are the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

I personally read from those that Moses was simply the human vessel which God used to deliver His laws to the people, therefore not the author,  but the pen-holder for God. 

In Matthew 4, Jesus is tempted by Satan and three times, Jesus uses the power of Gods word over Satan.  Each time, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy, in which is attributed to Moses as the writer.

Deuteronomy 8:3
Deuteronomy 6:13
Deuteronomy 6:16

In that same testing Satan twists Psalm 91:12 in temptation and Psalm 91 is also attributed to Moses as the writer so even Satan understands these words are inspired.  My personal opinion is that Moses is just the pen holder who is tasked with writing the very words of God; the very words that Jesus uses again in the testing. 

Also, in previous posts on this thread, there has been supplied verses that teach that God 'divorces' his people, for covenant breaking, yet in his all-knowing power, invites the covenant breakers back into the marriage, should they truly repent. God does not have a hard heart, yet even He divorces.  I believe God's divorcing is an act of love as He allows his people to face the purifying heat-repercussions of their own sin, which not only is a teacher, but can also bring about true repentance.  Such is the Biblical story of the prodigal son. 

So if Jesus is referencing (in Matthew 19) His own given Deuteronomy law (penned by Moses), then I believe Jesus is saying that He provided a safety way out (Divorce through the pen of Moses) for the victims of infidelity and emotional and physical abuse in a marriage where the covenant has been abandoned or was manipulated (not true) from the onset of the marriage. 

Beyond the Pharisees trying to trip Jesus up, I believe Jesus, in his accurate supernatural heart-reading (right on the heels of his Genesis and Deuteronomy replies), gets down to the real covert reason they asked what they did,  and Jesus pulls the sex-minded, flippant marriage attitude rug, right out from under their feet.

Matthew 19:9 (New American Standard Bible)

9: And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The Pharisees  questioning of Jesus seems to end at that statement, although the disciples had a following one and Jesus answers. 

SoT

[square]

Just in regard to the prodigal son, did the father divorce the son? It seems to me the son divorced the father, and of coirse the father took him back in love.

[Mary]

I see people here twisting themselves into knots...

To lighten the mood a little-- When it hit me, I giggled a little over the pun in the statement above.
A number of us on this thread have tightly tied the knot, have we not?

A threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiates 4:12), thus our long deliberations here I think.

[SonofThunder]

Just in regard to the prodigal son, did the father divorce the son? It seems to me the son divorced the father, and of coirse the father took him back in love.

Square, thank you for adding that thought. I do need to clarify my point regarding.  I used the prodigal son, not as an example of divorce, but as an example of God, in love, allowing the purifying heat of the repercussions of sin, to do its job but yet welcoming back the sinner who truly repents.  It's was an example of Gods love, not divorce. 

When God divorces, as another contributor pointed out, He leaves the door open for a truly repentant people/nation, to return to the covenant.  But all of it imo is an act of love; even the divorce.  I stated this opinion earlier, but I never see God walking away from love, but walking away from a people who abandon a covenant, yes.

I believe God not only loves the people but loves truth, purity, justness and integrity, partnership intention, as well as relationship in His covenants.  Therefore when the people abandon those principles of the covenant, God divorces the people to protect the integrity of himself, covenants and the principles behind both, versus allowing all three to be muddied by half-heartedness.  I see Heaven as a covenant as well.  The only way for God's creation to reside there is by the covenant acceptance of Christ's free gift of his work on the cross. I can't envision God getting weak and just start letting 'Good People' into Heaven who are unwilling to trust Christ as their Savior, just so God doesn't have to continue allowing those who walk away from the covenant offer, to experience the anguish of separation from him in Hell.  If God does that, it will muddy the whole place with sin. 

God divorcing the people in the covenant, yet allowing them back into a covenant if truly repentant, is a good model-example imo, of potential human divorce, as the divorce has the protective properties for the abused in the covenant, yet allows the door to remain open, if the abuser truly (crucial) repents. In my reading on PD's, I know that potential is very slim and the true repentance would have to be first tested (like Joseph did with his brothers).  But to Jesus' truth point in Matthew 19:9, as long as sexual infidelity or adultery is not in play, that sexual purity is upheld over a long period of time, leaving the door open for repentance/return, even after the divorce.  As soon as one or the other commits sexual infidelity or adultery that sexual purity is retained no longer and the remarriage in the covenant is not an option. 

For me personally, if I was to divorce, I would remain single, because my introversion is an asset for me in that situation, and I believe I am damaged goods with respect to marital love, by my having been raised in a PD home and married 30 years to a PD. I believe I would have a hard time believing and accepting another person in the way marital love was designed.  But, if my PDwife had sexual relations with another person during marriage or after a divorce from me, I believe both Jesus truth in 19:9 and other Bible verses, support my option of marriage to another person. 

Thanks again for bringing up that prodigal son story need for clarification of my opinions presented.

SoT

[SonofThunder]

I see people here twisting themselves into knots...

To lighten the mood a little-- When it hit me, I giggled a little over the pun in the statement above.
A number of us on this thread have tightly tied the knot, have we not?

A threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiates 4:12), thus our long deliberations here I think.

Mary, a good pun indeed.  I'm really enjoying the long deliberations as we bounce ideas off each other. Thanks for everyone's contributions thus far! 

SoT

[1footouttadefog]

To clarify I am talking about longterm, years of sexlass marriage.

This is very common in PD relationships.  Often one partner is trapped into a relationship with no moral sexual outlet, then is held there by the idea that getting divorse is a sin.

I find it especially revoldint when the pd partner engages in the use of porn or online sexting.

I fully believe that pornography can be co nsidered infidelity.

Ad to not bei g available to sex for a time, or often due to trauma, or due to marital issues, no I dont advocate marital rape.

I do think however that the partner might be in some cases justified in leaving the marriage of the partner is not able to deal with these issues enough to become an available sex partner.

Not to be mean but if someone is not available for sex most of the time, they are possibly not available for marriage.  They might need to get a guy friend or so girl friends I stead. 

Not to blame anyone for anything, it is what it is.  If a partner expects sex in marriage, they are not wrong for thst.  If they decide to do without because the other person cannot then it's a choice.

Sex is a big deal.  A real big deal. Being denied sex long term is an denial of one's humanity.  In the same way some e should not be forced to be in a sexual relationship they do not choose, they should not be forced into celibacy.

We would not support someone being forced to be a vegan or to be a carnivore, or a pescaterian or vegetarian or keto.

I am not trying to trivialize sexual or other abuse trama. Just being honest to say that having that does not entitle a person to force another into celibacy.

I suppose of a couple dated along time and the traumatized partner explained that there would be quite long spells that would be sex less and or devoid of other aspects if intimacy and the other agreed then they might have greater obligation to endire a sex less marriage. 

I know for a great many sexless marriages things are quite the opposite in the beginning and the issues show up later.  Often they are not even acknowledged or admitted to by the sex denier.  Instead avoidance and coldness set in. 

I am sure it's better if the denier is able to discuss it, owns it instead of playing mind games, and is not always denying.

[SonofThunder]

1Foot,

Thank you for your clarification.  I agree that prolonged or a repeated pattern of sexual withholding of a marriage partner for reasons of manipulation, control and/or punishment of the spouse, is emotional abuse and an abandonment of the marriage covenant. 

SoT

[SonofThunder]

We have already discussed the abandonment of covenants here on this thread, in past posts regarding the Old Testament.  I ran across these verses in the New Testament, and we read another abandonment from God, this time from the mouth of Jesus toward the Jews, at the time just ahead of the Olivet Discourse.

I do not read of Jesus abandoning love, as Jesus clearly displays his deep grief over his necessary and justified actions/reactions of Israel's rejection of the covenant.   God supernaturally knows the future and he leaves the future-door open once more for true repentance and a return, but fully understands the turmoil that 100% lays ahead for Israel in the abandonment caused by their rejection of Jesus.  We mere humans do not have those supernatural powers, but we surely can leave a future marital covenant door open for true repentance (like Joseph did with his family) of a prior spouse if we choose for ourselves to go the separation or divorce route.  From my experience with a PD, true repentance would a very rare occurrence, but nothing is impossible with God. 

Again, I'm not attempting to find scripture to support decisions to separate or divorce a spouse that repetitively emotionally abuses a spouse (rejecting the marriage covenant), but rather possibly allow us to consider God's actions and reactions to those that disregard/reject  his covenant, and decide for ourselves, what is best as we love ourselves, our spouses and the children who are raised in these high conflict, unbalanced environments. 

Below are portions from two articles written about these verses.  There are plenty of writings to choose from, but these two were, imo, written well for my understanding and application.  I welcome comments regarding and their possible application to marriage covenants in regard to emotional abuse (physical abuse and infidelity are clearly an easy decision on divorce, both Biblically and legally).

SoT

————

Dr. J. Vernon McGee (thruthebible.org)

In Matthew 23 and 24 Jesus denounced the religious rulers, then He went out and wept over the city of Jerusalem. He had denounced them in scathing terms. He had censured them in a fashion that absolutely blanches your soul when you read the account. But this One who had spoken like that is the King, and He had exposed them with a broken heart. Now He says:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23:37-39)

You and I have no notion how literally that was fulfilled in A.D. 70. Clouds were hanging over the city of Jerusalem, and the Roman army made its attack on the city and destroyed it. The prophecy was literally fulfilled, fulfilled in such a way that the words of our Lord were carried out to the very letter.

Then our Lord turned His back on Jerusalem, and we pick up our study at this point.

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple. (Matthew 24:1)

The Lord Jesus has just told His disciples that His Kingdom would be postponed and that the temple would be left desolate. The temple was made up of many buildings. This was the temple that Herod was having built, and the construction was still in progress. It was made of white marble, and at this time it was very large and very beautiful. The disciples are disturbed at the statement of Jesus that it is to be left desolate. So the disciples come to Him, wanting to show Him around the buildings.

And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verify I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Matthew 24:2)

————

From israelmyglory.org
Trouble In The Temple: Matthew 23:37–24:2

As with so many important chapters in God's Word, Matthew 24 actually begins at the end of the previous chapter. The 23rd chapter records what was undoubtedly the hardest-hitting message Jesus delivered during His earthly ministry. Eight times He pronounced judgment on some of the religious leaders of His day by declaring, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" (Mt. 23:13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29). He condemned their selfishness, rapaciousness, misguided zeal, legalism, lack of inner spirituality, and persecution of God's prophets. The Jewish leadership, however, was simply following in the footsteps of their Old Testament forebears, who had treated God's earlier messengers just as they were now treating Jesus (see 23:3–36).

Although no stronger words ever came from the Savior, He concluded this diatribe with one of the most tender, heartrending pleas recorded in all of Scripture: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them who are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Mt. 23:37). Scripture offers no greater example of the uniting of divine holiness and divine love than this statement. After delivering a severe denunciation of sin, Jesus revealed a heart bursting with compassion for sinners. Israel's "chickens" had simply refused to come under the protective wings of the mother hen! The truth is profoundly clear: If Israel had responded to Jesus' many invitations to come to salvation, He would have restored them to the land from which they had been dispersed for hundreds of years.

We are reminded that this was not the only time that Israel's Messiah wept over Jerusalem's unbelief (see Lk. 19:41). On the western descent of the Mount of Olives sits a lovely chapel called Dominus Flevit (Lat., the Lord wept). Commanding a magnificent view of the Temple Mount and the old city of Jerusalem, this chapel, built in the shape of a teardrop, recalls the broken heart of Jesus, who deeply loved this city and its people in spite of their unbelief.

This plaintive statement revealing the heart of the Savior points out a valuable lesson about salvation. However people view the vexing problem of God's sovereignty in salvation as it relates to election and predestination, one fact is clear from Scripture: "Let us understand that the ruin of those who are lost, is not because Christ was not willing to save them—nor yet because they wanted to be saved, but could not—but because they would not come to Christ. Let it be a settled principle that man's salvation is wholly of God and that man's ruin is wholly of himself" (J.C. Ryle).

Jesus concluded His dramatic message to Jerusalem's religious leaders with two pronouncements. The first concerned the Temple, and the second concerned their attitude toward Him. "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt. 23:38–39). Both of these pronouncements are rooted in Old Testament verses.

In the first, Jesus pronounced judgment on the magnificent Temple where He had just given this message (see Mt. 21:23; 24:1). It would be left "desolate," devoid not only of people but of the divine presence. In an earlier age, the Prophet Jeremiah issued a similar statement about the first Jerusalem Temple: "But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation" (Jer. 22:5; see also Jer. 12:7). Like Jeremiah of old, Jesus condemned the second Jerusalem Temple in similar language. The fulfillment of this dreadful statement took place in AD 70, when the Temple Mount became a desolation as a result of its destruction by the Romans.

The second pronouncement (Mt. 23:39) is the last public word Jesus gave to Israel. Jesus cited the famous messianic text of Psalm 118:26: "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the LORD; we have blessed you out of the house of the Lᴏʀᴅ."

In simple terms, Jesus said to Israel's religious leaders, "You have always rejected the messengers that God has sent to you. Now you have rejected Me. I will no longer preach publicly to you. The next time you see Me publicly will be when you have reversed your attitude about Me. When you no longer say that I am the cursed one but that I am the blessed one, then I will reveal Myself publicly to you again."

This statement anticipates the future national conversion of Israel spoken about so often in both the Old and New Testaments (see Hos. 5:14–15; Rom. 11:26–27). In modern Hebrew, the terminology Jesus used, "Blessed is he who comes," is the everyday phrase for welcoming people to a home. In other words, Israel's leadership had posted a "Not Welcome" sign for their Messiah. When they change that sign to "Welcome," Jesus will return to them in power and glory.

[SonofThunder]

I am currently audio studying through the book of Mark with Dr J. Vernon McGee on my 5yr study with McGee and TTB (Thru The Bible).  Dr McGee recorded these studies many decades ago, and has a deep south-Texas drawl that some find difficult; but his accent and age is a part of his grandfatherly charm imo. 

He was a long time pastor of non-denominational 'Church of the Open Door' in southern California, and i believe recorded the 5yr Bible study journey recordings during his tenure.  Dr.McGee is a Bible and Biblical Greek language scholar from Dallas Theological Seminary. 

In this short excerpt YouTube listen (i chose YouTube for trusted ease on this forum), Dr McGee goes through Mark 10 when Jesus is asked a trick question by the Pharisees (Lol McGee calls them the 'hounds of hate' ) about divorce, to try and trap Jesus in either going against Moses or going against Herod.  Jesus, in his expert ways, turns around the discussion to marriage.  Some of this, will also mirror what i have already written in on this thread, as i voiced my opinion on divorce and separation related to emotional abuse. 

I well align with McGees opinions on the text and also McGees comments that the problem with divorce and the scrutiny/judgement of divorce is really that the scrutiny/judgement should be focused on whether a marriage should occur, as so many marriages are not "...what God put together". 

I put my marriage together, as I was hooked on the lovebombing (super kind, gentle, thoughtful, sugar sweet bombshell of a gal, and plenty of premarital sex) and yet, when she stated she was interested in having a life with me, i moved forward with a ring and moved into her apartment.  I was not in a relationship with Christ at that time and therefore any Biblical teaching, wisdom and insight was not being heeded. 

SoT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieAQvjqT0s0

[tragedy or hope]

I too married without Christ, which by the way was the biggest reason I came to Him. My suffering in my marriage.

When I began to attend a distortedly Bible honoring church, everything was taught literally, hence; most of the time the wife was the problem. And 40 years later the same preacher has somewhat "changed his tune" regarding the status of the wife. His rigidity became irrelevant.
I have NEVER heard a preacher address abuse in the home or confront men/women who are not qualified to even fellowship if mistreating a spouse. (It is not gender specific.)

This IS and was the problem. I used to think I needed to hide my suffering because it did not feel right but who was I to judge, not forgive or be unwilling to "change MY ways."

I see IMO, Narcissism (N) partly stems from unrepentant families who continue to destroy the lives of children by their sinful ways, until their offspring cannot identify reality from truth.

N's then can become unwilling to change, get help, admit something is wrong. The bible calls it  haughtiness and pride. We are not taught to spot it in in reality only in theory.

How does anyone get help from the very people who should most assuredly be concerned for one's soul (the church).  Many of them are abusive in the name of God. I think it is more common than not, especially in churches, where there are so many ways to cover it up.

My unpdh learned the language of a church goer, made theft of my spiritual insights, put airs on of spiritual maturity, memorized other people's insights and shared them as if he were a student who wanted to learn, all the while emotionally torturing me and otherwise if I confronted any of his untrue behaviors.

It is tough if you are a person of faith to find someone in the church who will believe you and share in your burden either to get out or get the spouse out of the church. Habitual sin is not a life of faith. It is a fist in the face of God and should be addressed like any other behavior needing church discipline.

PD's are aware of our need to keep balance, which is why we are constantly kept off balance, which in turn takes away confidence to do anything but survive.

SoT, thanks for the reminder that  J. Vernon is still a relevant and accessible teacher. This is a vvery interesting topic.

[JustKeepTrying]

I fail to see any difference between emotional abuse and physical abuse.  Abuse is abuse.

The only difference is from the outside - you could possibly see physical abuse - or financial - but emotional is more intangible.  So because it is more intangible or subjective it isn't abuse?  That doesn't hold with me.

I respect the use of the bible to discern the topic but in the end, isn't it subjective reasoning to interpret those passages?  They can be used to twist man's intentions and justify those intentions.   I have been the recipient of years/decades of the church using religion to keep in a marriage that was not from three cords.  A marriage not made in good faith but the church said the man was the head of the family and divorce was immoral. 

I'm sorry but if a person hurts another person - repeatedly with intent and malice - physically, emotionally, or financially - you do not have to stay.  Period.  You owe to the life given to you by God to leave and live a life honoring God without that person. 

[Mary]

T/H said, "My unpdh learned the language of a church goer, made theft of my spiritual insights, put airs on of spiritual maturity, memorized other people's insights and shared them as if he were a student who wanted to learn, all the while emotionally torturing me and otherwise if I confronted any of his untrue behaviors."

I identify with this. It is so very difficult to discern. It's hard to pray along when they are leading. The words are so flowery and right, yet???

[SonofThunder]

Tragedy or Hope,

You wrote:

"N's then can become unwilling to change, get help, admit something is wrong. The bible calls it  haughtiness and pride. We are not taught to spot it in in reality only in theory.

How does anyone get help from the very people who should most assuredly be concerned for one's soul (the church).  Many of them are abusive in the name of God. I think it is more common than not, especially in churches, where there are so many ways to cover it up.

My unpdh learned the language of a church goer, made theft of my spiritual insights, put airs on of spiritual maturity, memorized other people's insights and shared them as if he were a student who wanted to learn, all the while emotionally torturing me and otherwise if I confronted any of his untrue behaviors.

It is tough if you are a person of faith to find someone in the church who will believe you and share in your burden either to get out or get the spouse out of the church. Habitual sin is not a life of faith. It is a fist in the face of God and should be addressed like any other behavior needing church discipline."

Imo, your paragraphs could have been written at the time of Jesus ministry on this Earth.  Your description fits well with the treatment that the abusive Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes dished out on the rest of humanity. 

Imo, that is why Christ teaches to focus on Him alone, not organized religion.  He fully recognized abuse veiled in religious showboating. 

SoT

[tragedy or hope]

Haven't been here for awhile. I am enjoying peace in my life. Quickly.. a friend recently gave me an acronym I want to share. What is your gut telling you? What did she mean by gut? " God's Undeniable Truth."

You will know when the truth is clear to you and you need no other justification because you have done your due diligence to find your answer with God.

I never had that peace about leaving, even separation. I spent years in prayer, study of the word, counseling, groups, self help books... the clarity never came. For some it does. Simply removing oneself from the destruction is not unbiblical. However, it is for a season, not a lifetime. Marriage is a shared life. Unfortunately, N's don't know how to share.

My life is not my own, I. belong to God, as Paul and others describe themselves as bond-servants to His will. I do not know all things. If it is a right decision, we need no justification, even to God; He knows... our El Roi, the God who sees.

Be careful to find your answer in One, not the community. One day we will meet Him face to face alone, we will not have a committee with us. I want to look in His face and hear "well done good and faithful servant." No one else and nothing else matters. Let Him speak to your conscience, Maybe stop looking for a way out for awhile.

IMO We cannot ask for what we want until we learn to be thankful for what we have. There are things to be grateful for even in a painful marriage.

Scripture says to give thanks in all things, .Speak to each other in songs and hymns and spiritual songs making melody in our hearts to

God. We get the focus off of ourselves and where it belongs, in worship to a Holy God who sees it all and will give us what we need when we ask, if we are faithful obedient children to Him.

[SonofThunder]

Tragedy or Hope,

Thanks for your continued input on this subject and thread, now especially with the extra experiences you have endured, and new information you have gleaned from those experiences and others, regarding your husband and new peace.  Im so glad you are finally experiencing the peace!  I believe this thread topic is a great and ongoing subject to discuss. 

Your last reply rings true to what input you have shared since the thread began...focus on God.  Now adding the friend's acronym G.U.T. to go along with your continued suggestions to focus on God for answers vs only ourselves or others/professionals. 

On your last reply you wrote:

1. "You will know when the truth is clear to you and you need no other justification because you have done your due diligence to find your answer with God."

Have your recent experiences provided you an answer to truth you were seeking on the thread subject?

You also wrote:

2. "I never had that peace about leaving, even separation. I spent years in prayer, study of the word, counseling, groups, self help books... the clarity never came. For some it does. Simply removing oneself from the destruction is not unbiblical. However, it is for a season, not a lifetime. Marriage is a shared life. Unfortunately, N's don't know how to share."

For my own gleaning, will you please consider elaborating on your thoughts regarding the underlined portion (above), now having your new experiences? 

Lastly, From page 1 of this thread you wrote:

"I want to hear, "Well done, T/H, my good and faithful servant." When I get there, no matter what the cost to self while I am here."

Do you still feel the same way, given your new experiences and gleaning, in the underlined portion "no matter what the cost to self while I am here."    Im intrigued in this past reply, because of your new experiences with peace in your life on Earth. 😊

Thanks for your consideration in possibly answering. 

SoT