A Biblical Response to the Abused Wife - Mending the Soul (2023)

Por: Renée M. Malina

Publicado: Phoenix Seminary, T 506, Contemporary Moral Issues, primavera de 2010

Resume

Intimate partner violence is common throughout the world. When wives are abused, they are faced with the decision to stay in their marriages, possibly risking their lives or harming their children.This decision is particularly difficult when they believe they may be disobeying God by ending their marriage.God's covenant design for marriage is broken by abuse, and Scripture does not mandate that an abused wife should remain married to an abuser; therefore, the body of Christ is called to model God's compassion for abused women through effective strategies designed to meet the needs of women trying to escape abusive relationships.God designed marriage to be a covenant relationship through which spouses can experience companionship, physical relationship, respect, love, and care. Conversely, abuse and neglect are condemned by Scripture and can break the marriage covenant. When this happens, divorce is permissible due to the hardness of heart of the abuser and as legal protection for the abused. However, in the face of abuse, divorce is a complex decision that requires physical, spiritual, and emotional support. This provides an opportunity for the body of Christ to exercise effective church discipline, educate clergy and congregations about abuse, accept reconciliation and advocacy ministries, provide safety for abused women and their children, and offer Christian counseling that reflect a biblical view of abuse within marriage.

Keywords:abuse, covenant, divorce, intimate partner violence, marriage, neglect, violence

A Biblical Response to the Abused Wife

Sarah's heartbeat echoed the drunken footsteps of her husband down the stairs of their small apartment. With nowhere to hide, nowhere to run, it would only be a matter of moments before her battered body was once again the victim of her abuse. Across town, in a wealthier neighborhood, Mary seemed immune to the harsh realities of Sarah's world. However, surrounded by all the luxuries her wealthy husband could buy, Mary's heart pounded as her enraged husband nearly beat her to death. This fictional account of two abused wives highlights the real epidemic of abuse. The US Department of Justice (2000) reported that “intimate partner violence is widespread in American society” (p. 5). Approximately 25% of the women surveyed had been physically assaulted and/or raped by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. In a 10-country study on domestic violence against women, the World Health Organization (2009) found that between 15% and 71% of women reported sexual or physical violence by their partner or husband. These statistics underscore the prevalence of intimate partner abuse that counselors are likely to encounter in their practices. It is imperative that Christian counselors have a biblical answer for abused wives who feel trapped in the dilemma of how to obey God and still preserve their own lives. God's covenant design for marriage is broken by abuse, and Scripture does not mandate that an abused wife should remain married to an abuser; therefore, the body of Christ is called to model God's compassion for abused women through effective strategies designed to meet the needs of women trying to escape abusive relationships.

God established the permanence of the marriage relationship when He declared: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife; and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, New American Standard Bible). the hebrew wordgirl, translated asgo outis often translated asLeave(Fruchtenbaum, 2009, p. 88). apesargirloften characterized Israel's rejection of the covenant relationship with God, it was used positively in Genesis 2:24, with the man rejecting the emotional ties of the parents in order to seek emotional satisfaction with his wife. the hebrew wordpiso, translated asdefending, literally means “stick like glue” (Fruchtenbaum, 2009, p. 88). In Deuteronomy, this word often meant to keep a covenant. the hebrew phrasebasar echad, translated asone meat, connotes a composite unity, with the man and the woman becoming one. Genesis 2:24 is the foundation of the New Testament teaching in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, upon which Jesus elaborated: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh." Similar to the Hebrew phrase forone meat,the greek phrasedon't become mineit connotes the new relationship that is created through the marriage union, which means a unitary existence (Brown, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 678).

God's intentions for marriage are embodied in the context of a covenant relationship. Hugenberger (1994) has argued that four essential components comprise an Old Testament covenant understanding: "1) a relationship 2) with a non-relative 3) involving obligations and 4) established through an oath" (p. 215 ) . . In Genesis 2:24, man and woman became one flesh through sexual union. Sexual union is an oath sign, similar to shaking hands or eating together, that portrays the covenant commitment ofone meat.

God used the metaphor of marriage when modeling His covenant commitment to humanity. When God makes a covenant, he offers promises, assumes responsibilities, and identifies obligations to be fulfilled by his covenant partners (Eilts, 1995, pp. 444-445). This ensures that the covenant is good for God and his covenant partners. In fact, “a common thread in all of God's covenants is a promise of deliverance and well-being, deliverance from suffering, persecution, or oppression” (Eilts, 1995, p. 445). In God's covenant relationship with Israel, He promised to be her God (Alexander & Baker, 2003, p. 154). In return, Israel promised to keep Yahweh's commandments (Deuteronomy 5-26). These obligations expressed love and loyalty to God (Alexander, 1997; cited in Alexander & Baker, 2003). Love is more than mere sentiments or feelings, but is expressed in actions that reflect that love. Likewise, God's intentions for the marriage relationship are companionship and mutual aid (Genesis 2:18), a permanent physical relationship that includesone meatrelationship (Genesis 2:24) and mutual respect, love and affection (Ephesians 5:21-33) (Brown, 1979, Vol. 3, p. 539).

Jesus admonished his listeners not to deviate from God's design for marriage: “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). In the context of marriage, the Greek wordChorizo, translated asseparate,it has the connotation of dividing the indissoluble because man and woman become a single living being (Brown, 1979, Vol. 2, p.349). This company cannot be dissolved without harming its partners. However, Jesus recognized the possibility of breaking the marriage covenant and challenged his listeners to assess their own lives to consider any action that might separate what God has joined together (Brown, 1979, Vol. 3, pp. 539-540 ).

Abuse and neglect break the marriage covenant. The Lord described the man's companion as hiscovenant wifeand warned him not to treat her treacherously (Malachi 2:14-15). the hebrew wordBagdad, translated astreacherously, denotes infidelity to the pact (Harris, Archer, & Waltke, 1980, p. 90). On the other hand, when a man is faithful to the covenant, he fulfills his obligation to his wife. According to Luck (1987, pp. 31-37), a man's obligations include providing for his wife's physical needs, protecting her reputation, and protecting against abuse. The provision for physical needs includes food, clothing, and marital rights (Exodus 21:10). Exodus 21 is traditionally not quoted in connection with marriage because it refers to a female slave or concubine with whom the master is in a loving relationship.one meatrelationship. Luck (1987) arguedof a strongerthat although the Scriptures do not outline similar rights for a well-rounded wife, it is reasonable to assume that God's care for an inferior conditionone meatpartner would apply, at a minimum, to a full wife (ie, a free woman would have no fewer rights than a slave). In Deuteronomy 22:10, the husband was fined for publicly defaming his wife. This verse establishes the obligation of the husband not to ruin the reputation of his wife. Exodus 21 established penalties for personal injuries. For example, a master must not hurt a slave's eye or knock out a tooth (Exodus 21:26). using the sameof a strongerEarlier argument, Luck (1987) argued that a man should never hit his wife. Also, it doesn't make sense that God cares about a wife's reputation and then doesn't care about her body. It is also persuasive to consider that if the punishment for parental beating was death (Exodus 21:15), it seems incongruous to consider that there would be absolutely no consequences for wife beating.

The Scriptures condemn abuse and neglect in all its forms. The Bible strongly condemns violence (Kroeger & Nason-Clark, 2001, p. 77). God hates and denounces violent behavior, which is evidence of sin that brings God's judgment. Because of violence, God destroyed the earth (Genesis 6:11-13). The soul of the Lord hates "the one who loves violence" (Psalm 11:5). Wickedness aroused the wrath of God (Ezekiel 7:3); in His pronouncement of the punishment for iniquity, he declared that "violence has become a rod of iniquity" (Ezekiel 7:11). Proverbs characterized the violent as wicked (Proverbs 4:14-17) and treacherous (the Hebrew wordBagdad, meaning unfaithful, as noted above) (Proverbs 13:2).

Abuse perverts the image of God (Tracy, 2005, pp. 27-35). Instead of nurturing, sustaining, and increasing a wife's desire for God-given love and affection, physical abuse distorts God's image of responsible dominion in the most destructive way. Neglecting the wife's physical needs distorts God's functional image of caring for his creation. Therefore, a man who refuses to provide for his family's needs is described as one who "has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:8). Furthermore, verbal abuse distorts the image of God by not being able to create life through words. "Death and life are in the power of the tongue" (Proverbs 18:21). “A comforting [healing] tongue is a tree of life, but perversion in it breaks the spirit” (Proverbs 15:14). “The Pentateuch regards the lives of men and women, slave and free, Israelite and foreigner, born and unborn, as of the highest value. Each one is an image of God, to be actively respected, protected and loved” (Alexander & Baker, 2003, p. 94).

God's response to abuse is reflected in His strong statement in Malachi 2:16 that He hates "the one who covers his clothes with iniquity." the hebrew wordchamac, translated aswrongin the NASB, it is most often translated asviolence(KJV; NIV; RSV) (Harris et al., 1980, p. 297). However, the Old Testament generally connectedchamacwith sinful violence. Hugenberger (1994, p. 75) presented the first vision ofclothesas a biblical image of clothing to suggest an outward expression of the inner state of man. For example, “Pride is his collar; a mantle of violence covers them” (Psalm 73:6); “He clothed himself with cursing like his garments” (Psalms 109:18); and "on his lap is the blood of the poor innocent" (Jeremiah 2:34). Therefore, for a man to cover his clothes with bad things includes both the act of violence and an abusive inner state, which violates the marriage covenant.

When the marriage covenant is broken by abuse and neglect, the abused wife may be faced with the dilemma of whether the Scriptures support her decision to leave the marriage. Returning to the opening vignette, both Sarah and Maria were married with the expectation of a lifelong commitment and with the understanding that the Biblical grounds for ending a marriage include only adultery, abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. or death. Is her only recourse for this abuse to pray that God would look down from heaven, see his affliction, and make their husbands leave or die? Some New Testament texts seem to support the understanding of the marriage of Sarah and Mary: Anyone who divorces his wife, except for unchastity or immorality, commits adultery (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19: 9). However, if an unbelieving spouse leaves, let him leave (1 Corinthians 7:15). A married woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives (Romans 7:2), and she "must not leave her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:10).

For women of strong faith, "the promise before God to stay together untiluntil death do us part(Nason-Clark, 2004, p. 304) creates a greater vulnerability when they are abused. These nuns sometimes feel that they cannot leave because they believe that marriage is forever, regardless of how cruelly their husbands treat them, even if their lives are in danger (Kroeger & Nason-Clark, 2001, p. 36). In fact, religious victims have a higher level of commitment to staying in their marriages than non-religious victims:

One study found that the average length of marriage for religious victims was 11.4 years, compared to 8.6 years for non-religious victims. For religious victims, the abuse lasted an average of 9.4 years, while for non-religious victims the number was 7.4 years. The religiousness of the victims was not related to the severity of the abuse (Horton, Wilkins and Wright; cited in Roberts, 2008, p. 42).

In contrast to this religious commitment to an abusive marriage, Instone-Brewer (2003, p. 83) has argued that not all marriages are redeemable, and Scripture does not provide a lifetime guarantee for all marriages. This is evidenced by the words in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9, “let no one separate,” which contrasts with the common understanding of these verses, “no one can separate” (Instone-Brewer, 2003, p. 84). Although the dissolution of a marriage is highly undesirable, these texts imply that it can end.

However, some have argued that if Jesus considered neglect and abuse valid grounds for ending a marriage, he would have said something about it (Instone-Brewer, 2003, pp. 95-96). What can be concluded about Jesus' silence on this issue?:

There were no debates about the validity of neglect and abuse as grounds for divorce innoneJewish literature, for the same reason there is none on the oneness of God: these principles were unanimously accepted. Instead of indicating that Jesus did not accept the validity of divorce due to neglect and abuse, his silence on this highlights the fact that he accepted it, as did all other Jews at the time (Instone-Brewer, 2003, p 96).

In addition, "the mission of the Incarnate included the liberation of the oppressed" (Sider, 2005, p. 47). In Luke 4:17-21, Jesus informed his listeners that Isaiah's prophetic words about "preaching the gospel to the poor... proclaiming liberty to the captives... restoring sight to the blind... putting liberty to the oppressed" were fulfilled. in itself. Sider (2005) has argued that Isaiah's words about setting captives free and oppressed unquestioningly refer to physical slavery and oppression. Jesus' ministry corresponded to Isaiah's prophecy, and he spent much time ministering to despised women, lepers, and other marginalized people.

What Jesus condemned in discussing Matthew 19 with the Pharisees wasany causedivorce (divorce on trivial grounds) as an invalid and unbiblical way to end a marriage (Roberts, 2008, p. 86). Roberts (2008, pp. 39-41) distinguished between treasonous divorce and disciplinary divorce, arguing that only treasonous divorce is what God hates. A treacherous divorce occurs when a spouse divorces without Biblical grounds (ie, leaving a spouse for little or no reason). Disciplinary divorce is a disciplinary tool that deprives a spouse of marital privileges who breaks the marriage covenant through adultery, abuse, abandonment, or harmful neglect. Another name for a disciplinary divorce is justified divorce. However, many Christians may fear that by accepting the notion of a justified divorce, the floodgates of excuses for divorce will open. Roberts (2008, p. 41) clarified that he does not mean that Christians can separate as a result of minor offenses or transient incidents.

Even with repeated abuse and serious offenses, the believer must do everything possible to call the abuser to repentance (Roberts, 2008, p. 41). “Often, the best hope for bullies to repent and change their ways is to experience painful consequences from which they cannot escape, no matter how much they cajole, threaten, or manipulate” (Tracy, 2011, p. 6) ( (eg, imprisonment, abandonment by wife, ostracism, or separation from church) Without painful consequences, there is little motivation for the abuser to change On the other hand, painful consequences may lead the abuser to repent.

God did not quickly divorce his covenant partners. In fact, it was only after God's repeated and faithful attempts to call unfaithful Israel to repentance that he gave them a "bill of divorce" (Jeremiah 3:8). God modeled a compassionate invitation to repentance: “Turn back, faithless Israel… I will not look at you with anger. Because I am merciful... I will not be angry forever. only acknowledge your iniquity, that you have transgressed against the Lord your God” (Jeremiah 3:12-13). God responded to his invitation with the blessings he was willing to provide: “Shepherds after [His] heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding” (Jeremiah 3:15) and “a desirable land, a most beautiful inheritance of the nations.” ”. !” (Jeremiah 3:19).

Roberts (2008, p. 41) has argued that it is important to understand that most abuse victims make many attempts to reconcile their relationships before seeking help from a pastor or professional. Often the victim has put up with too much for too long and the pattern of abuse is deeply entrenched. Unrepentant abusers have darkened understanding and hardened hearts, unfeeling. When this is the case, the believer is forced to accept that an unrepentant couple has irreparably broken the marriage covenant (Wenham, Heth, & Keener, 2006, p. 112).

Jesus responded to the Pharisees' question as to why Moses ordered a divorce certificate (Matthew 19:7) by correctly distinguishing that divorce was not ordered but was allowed due to hardness of heart, although it was not so from the beginning. (Keener, 1991, p. 42). In essence, Jesus communicated that allowing divorce is a concession to human weakness. This principle interprets the law compassionately: Jesus claims that Moses granted the divorce because legal protection for someone divorced against his will is the best that can come from hard-hearted people. Had they been open to God's ways and compassionate, He might have asked them to uphold their original ideal standard of not initiating a divorce. It is consistent to assume that God would provide the same compassionate legal protection for an abused wife.

The Scriptures confirm that God responds compassionately to the oppressed. God is rock, refuge, shield, horn of salvation and savior who saved David from violence (2 Samuel 22:3). God delivered David from the strong enemy of his and from those who hated him and were too powerful for him and rescued him from the violent man (Psalm 18:17, 48). Solomon declared that God crushes the oppressor, delivers the needy when he cries for help, and rescues their lives from oppression and violence (Psalm 72:4, 12-14). God delivers those who are condemned to death (Psalm 102:20). God does justice to the oppressed and sets the captives free (Psalm 146:7). God loosens the bonds of wickedness, undoes and breaks every yoke, and sets the oppressed free (Isaiah 58:6).

If God is so compassionate to the oppressed, why does he hate divorce (Malachi 2:16)? In other words, why would He hate the same thing that would free an abused woman from his oppressor? “He knows from experience how much pain results from this” (Instone-Brewer, 2003, p. 42). God's criticism is not against the legal process or against a person getting divorced; otherwise, he would have to criticize himself for divorcing Israel. God hates betrayal or infidelity to break the marriage covenant. However, it is important to distinguish that the person who breaks the marriage covenant is the aggressor, not the aggrieved person who decrees the divorce. Continued abuse or neglect can result in physical and emotional harm, and continued infidelity destroys the credibility of the institution of marriage. While divorce has dire consequences for both spouses, staying married is often worse.

In their study of 15 previously battered divorced women, Haj-Yahia and Eldar-Avidan (2001) examined the factors that contributed to an abusive husband's decision to divorce. Intrapersonal factors included personal strength and empowerment gained from dealing with violence, efforts to preserve self-confidence despite abuse, escalation of violence, and fighting harm to children. Interpersonal factors focused mainly on concern for children. Structural-organizational factors emphasized rights such as those of women and divorcees, access to money, employment, and support from government agencies. Factors that made the decision difficult were previous separation attempts, fear of spousal backlash, lack of support from family of origin, and cultural stigma. Behind the many factors that helped them implement their divorce decision was the physical and emotional support they received from various sources. This study underscores the complexity of the divorce decision and the need for the body of Christ to support abused women.

In the event that both spouses claim to be Christians, church discipline (Matthew 18) is an important part of the divorce decision in the face of spousal abuse (Roberts, 2008, pp. 48-49). This gives both parties a chance to present their side of the story. If the alleged abuser is unwilling to present his point of view, a decision is made based on the available evidence. Unfortunately, church discipline is not always used in a biblical way. “Churches sometimes abuse the principle of discipline: they violate confidentiality, demonstrate carnal prejudice, or view the restoration of marriage as more important than the restoration of individuals” (Roberts, 2008, p. 48). Sometimes they accuse the wrong person or turn them away because they haven't investigated the matter sufficiently. When Christian leaders have an underdeveloped theology of sin and its ravages, they cannot offer the necessary help. On the other hand, when victims receive a fair hearing, with a fair determination, it can give them peace of mind to move on and rebuild their lives. Unfortunately, church discipline rarely happens. Also, the church is often unaware of the abuse.

According to Tracy (2007), due to clergy mismanagement and misunderstanding of domestic violence, only a small percentage of women find clergy helpful to victims of abuse. Clergy often tell abused women to submit to abusive husbands, even when submission fails to prevent the abuse. Rather than condemn abuse as sinful and unacceptable, clergy are often silent in the pulpit on this issue. Worse yet, clergy consistently underestimate the prevalence of domestic violence, especially in their congregations (for example, according to Wirthlin Worldwide (1999), cited by Tracy (2007), in Maricopa County, Arizona, 42% of 600 women abused women surveyed attend weekly services). Because clergy naively believe that an abusive man will change in response to a wife's submission, they are generally more concerned with preserving the marriage. Unfortunately, some clergy go as far as partially blaming women for the abuse. To counter these problems, clergy must educate themselves and their congregations on all aspects of abuse, especially the qualities of male abusers. Clergy must recognize the importance of networking with other professional and community resources to address the needs of victims of abuse. Clergy must also work with other leaders to hold abusers accountable for their abuse. Victims of abuse and their children must be protected and made a priority. By making these important changes, clergy have the opportunity to bring healing and help to victims of domestic violence.

Alsdurf and Alsdurf (1989, pp. 127-128) challenged the church to accept their radical ministry of reconciliation in response to abused women. This challenges the church to wake up from its passivity by not acknowledging the abuse and to intervene on behalf of the victims. It calls the body of Christ to nurture and fight alongside the victims. This strikes a balance of justice and love that is lacking in our world. This radical ministry of reconciliation is neither clean nor safe, but it risks mediating.

Alsdurf and Alsdurf (1989, pp. 128-129) also challenged the church to fulfill its prophetic role by defending the oppressed. This is not a feminist ministry, but one that aggressively responds to the existence of evil. "If the church is to be trulyprofessional lifeHow can you help but champion the cause of battered women?" (Alsdurf and Alsdurf, 1989, p. 128). Being pro-life goes beyond opposing abortion to taking a stand against everything that opposes life. Similar to the outrage expressed by the Old Testament prophets, the church should be outraged by abuse within Christian marriages. The church must act to "deliver those who are being led to death, and those who are staggering to the slaughter" (Proverbs 24:11).

As the church moves to model God's compassion for abused women, a pressing issue is the need for safety (Nason-Clark, 1997, pp. 119-121). Safety includes caring for the physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being of victims of abuse and their children. Safety also includes a responsive environment that will not only meet the needs of the woman, but also provide peace of mind to anyone offering assistance. Emotional security is created when a woman can speak without being judged or condemned. One dilemma is that male clergy may find it difficult to provide a safe haven for a woman who has been abused by a man. This creates the need for women to be available for this ministry. Specifically, clergy must provide hands-on assistance that includes a safety plan, safe housing, and assistance with financial needs (Tracy, 2011, p. 5).

The prevalence of abuse suggests that counselors can often have the privilege and challenge of working with abused clients to develop strategies to rebuild their lives. The first priority in counseling victims of abuse is to develop a safety plan. By providing therapy to victims of abuse, counselors address the toxic shame, powerlessness, death, isolation, brokenness, lack of intimacy, and unforgiveness that are among the devastating consequences of abuse (Tracy, 2005 ). “Nothing can generate clouds of toxic shame like abuse” (Tracy, 2005, p. 76). Since shame is a major component of abuse, it is imperative that Christian counselors have a biblical perspective on abuse within marriage. Given the difference in power in the counseling relationship, the counselor's suggestion that an abused wife is disobeying God by leaving her husband will only add to the enormous shame she already wrestles with. On the other hand, allowing the abused client to experience God's compassion in the therapeutic relationship promotes healing from the abuse.

In conclusion, domestic violence is a prevalent and devastating reality that the body of Christ in general and Christian counselors in particular must address. The Scriptures make it clear that God's original design for marriage was a permanent union between husband and wife. Within the context of this covenant relationship, the husband has the opportunity to lovingly provide for his wife's physical needs, protect her reputation, and protect her from her abuse. When he fails to do this and instead neglects her and abuses her, he breaks the marriage covenant. Although God hates divorce because of the pain it causes, He is compassionate to victims of abuse and allows a divorce certificate. God's compassion compels the body of Christ to also respond compassionately to the needs created as a result of abuse. By doing so, victims of abuse are given the opportunity to heal and rebuild their lives.

References

Alexander, TD y Baker, DW (Editor). (2003).Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Alsdurf, J. y Alsdurf, P. (1989).Beaten into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Brown, C. (ed.). (1979).The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology(Vol. 1-3).Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Eilts, M.N. (nineteen ninety five). Saving the family: when does the alliance break? In C. J. Adams and M. M. Fortune (Eds.),Violence Against Women and Children: A Christian Theological Guide(pp. 444-450). New York, NY: Continuous.

Fruchtenbaum, AG (2009).Ariel's Bible Commentary: The Book of Genesis.San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries.

Haj-Yahia, MM & Eldar-Avidan, D. (2001). Formerly battered women: a qualitative study of their experiences in making and executing the divorce decision.Diary of divorce and second marriage, 36(1/2), 37-65. Recovered fromhttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=119&sid=7c0ccef0-be9c-4e1c-ab4c-cd7f328dbc83%40sessionmgr112&vid=7

Harris, RL, Archer, GL y Waltke, BK. (Editor). (1980).Old Testament Theological Book(Vol. 1-2).Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Hugenberger, G. P. (1994).Marriage as Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics Developed from Malachi.Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Instone-Brewer, D. (2003).Divorce and remarriage in the church: Biblical solutions to pastoral realities.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Keener, CS (1991).…And marries another: Divorce and remarriage in New Testament teaching.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Kroeger, CC y Nason-Clark, N. (2001).No Place for Abuse: Biblical and practical resources for combating domestic violence.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Lockman Foundation. (1977).New American Standard Bible.Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman.

Luck, W.F. (1987).Divorce and second marriage: recovering the biblical vision.San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Nason-Clark, N. (1997).The battered wife: how Christians deal with family violence.Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Nason-Clark, N. (2004). When terror strikes at home: the interface between religion and domestic violence.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43(3), 303-310. Recovered fromhttp://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=25&sid=1dcaeccc-bd14-4020-bbc6-076b7012998e%40sessionmgr14

Roberts, B. (2008).Not in Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery, and Abandonment.Ballarat, Victoria, Australia: Maschil Press.

Pages, R. J. (2005).Rich Christians in an Age of Famine: Moving From Wealth to Generosity.Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.

Tracy, SR (2005).Mending the Soul: Understanding and Healing Abuse.Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Tracy, S.R. (2007). Clergy responses to domestic violence.Priscilla Papers, 21(2). Recovered fromhttp://mendingthesoul.org/2007/04/clergy-responses-to-domestic-violence/

Tracy, SR (2011).Domestic Violence: How Should the Church Respond?Recovered fromhttp://courses.ps.edu/file.php/206/DVConf3ChurchRespHO.pdf

United States Department of Justice. (2000).Scope, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: results from the national survey on violence against women.Recovered fromhttp://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf

Wenham, GJ, Heth, WA y Keener, CS (2006).Remarrying after divorce in today's Church: 3 points of view.Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

World Health Organization. (2009).Violence against women.Recovered fromhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/

This article is provided for your information and personal use. It is not to be reproduced, distributed, printed or published without the written permission of the author and Mending the Soul Ministries.