Does 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 mean a victim of abuse can't remarry?

In a nutshell, this is what I teach about victims of domestic abuse being allowed to remarry. 

1. In chapter seven of the First Letter to the Corinthians, verses 10-11 are clearly speaking about two believers who have been married to each other.

2. In contrast, verses 12-15 (and 16) are speaking about a believer married to someone who at this point in time is an unbeliever. 

3. It's a well worn assumption that verses 12-15 talk about a couple who married when they were both unbelievers, but then one spouse (typically the wife) got converted. However, there's nothing in the text to indicate its being limited to that specific scenario. The well-worn assumption has been passed down for centuries, unthinkingly. 

4. Verses 10-11 discuss a believing wife who "separates" from her husband. In that culture and in the original Greek language, separation with intent to end the marriage was identical with divorce. Divorce usually took place simply by one partner separating with intent to end the marriage. 

5. Verses 10-11 say that a Christian wife who divorces her Christian husband has two options: 

a) remain unmarried (notice she is unmarried, so she must have gotten divorced!) or 

b) be reconciled with her former husband.

The only prohibition is she must not marry a new, different husband. If she is to marry again, she can only take the husband she had before. 

6. Verses 12-15 deal with believer married to unbeliever.

7. If an unbelieving spouse leaves, separates, or behaves so badly that it pushes the believer away (this is called constructive desertion because the separation is construed as having been caused by the wicked spouse) then the believer is NOT UNDER BONDAGE IN SUCH CASES.

8. Not being under bondage must mean that this kind of believer (one who'd been married to an unbeliever) is not under the prohibition that the other believer was under in verse 11.  That is, the believer in verse 15 is not prohibited from marrying a new, different spouse.

9. In summary, Paul contrasts the two cases.  In the first case, the believer is under a prohibition not to marry a new spouse, in the second case, the believer is not under that same prohibition, so is free to marry someone new. (Provided they marry 'in the Lord' ... verse 39.)

10. Paul makes perfectly clear that he is contrasting these two cases (vv. 10-11, & vv. 12-15) by using the words "for the rest" at the beginning of verse 12. This is a flag phrase  which signals that he is giving a new rule. Obiously he is contrasting this rule with the one he gave in verse 11.

11. For many victims of abuse, the key question is: "Is my abusive spouse a believer, or an unbeliever?" The Bible tells us how to answer that exact question -– in Matthew 18:15-17 (a much under-recognised text). 

12. Implementing Matthew 18 is where many churches currently fail, because they get manipulated by the abuser, fail to identify that abuse is happening, or lack understanding or backbone to firmly discipline the abuser.

13. But if the Matthew 18 process is followed correctly to its conclusion and the abuser fails to truly repent, then the abuser should be treated as an unbeliever (regardless of what he might profess to the contrary to his allies). Then you are in a situation where verse 12-15 of 1 Corinthians 7 applies, rather than verses 10-11.

14. I know my argument is not as simple as A+B+C, but I'm convinced this is what Paul means. The reason my argument needs such complex explanation is because Christians have deeply misunderstood and misconstrued these passages for centuries. There's a lot of dead wood to clear away.

15. My conclusions about 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 were argued by some eminent  Puritan theologians, so I'm not on new ground. I believe their interpretation got lost in the church and state conflicts of later centuries, and of course, it was easy to ignore the pro-victim interpretation because, after all, the only people who benefited much from it were victims of spouse abuse, and that means they were mostly women.  (It's no exaggeration to say that domestic abuse is the Cinderella of all causes in the Church.)

16. If you find it hard to get your church to implement Matthew 18, then I suggest you email me.

17. If you (the victim-survivor) are trying to defend your actions to members of your congregation, you could tell them a) "Please read Not Under Bondage before you start to argue with me," and b) "My spouse's conduct eventually pushed me away, and that is the same as if he deserted me, so verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 7 applies in my case."

18. Even in the case of the woman in verses 10-11, in the passage let the wife not separate from her husband, but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled with her husband, the word 'separate' in both cases is a word that meant divorce just as much as it could mean separation, in 1st century Greek usage. In fact, it was often used in legal documents to mean 'divorce'. This is not brought out in our English translations, but it's true. So the argument "You may separate, but you can't divorce" is a load of hogwash, arising from ignorant translation (and a bias against women on the part of the translators?). 

What I've outlined here is fully explained in my book Not Under Bondage.

It's a good idea to brace yourself for the reaction from your church.

Sometimes, you only get a chance to say a few words to fellow Christians who judge or raise their eyebrows at you. "My husband had been abusing me for the last 8 years. I hadn't told you before because I was afraid and ashamed."