Can a Wife Divorce a Husband if He "Transitions"?

It seems like the act that he performed itself of mutilating himself to try and pretend to be a woman, if we're thinking about what category of sin is that, I don't know what category to put it in other than sexual immorality.

People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio. The message of Christianity is that salvation is found in Christ alone, and any who reject Christ therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of heaven.

The issue is that humanity is in sin and the wrath of Almighty God is hanging over our head.

They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed and they will perish.

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the right hand of the Father where he sits now to make intercession for us.

Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

Marriage as a One-Flesh Covenant

Welcome to Bible Bash, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask. We're your hosts, Harrison Kerrigan, Pastor Tim Mullett, and today we'll answer the age-old question, can a wife divorce her husband if he quote-unquote, transitions?

This one strikes me, Tim, as one of those questions that while we call it age-old, it's a relatively new question. I don't think many people were necessarily talking about this in the same way that we're having to right now, but with all, putting that aside, putting that issue aside, what Bible verse do you have for us that's relevant to a wife divorcing her husband who is now trying to pretend to be a woman himself?

Jared Yeah, Genesis 2 .24 says,.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, hold fast to his wife, and the two will become.

One flesh. Tim. Okay, so that's a verse describing the extreme basics of what a marriage is. So, how does that apply specifically to our scenario and the hypothetical marriage that we're talking about here where the wife is contemplating do I stay or do I leave with my husband who is cosplaying as a woman who has gone so far as to mutilate his body to try and perpetuate this lie?

Jared. Yeah, so this is basically the foundational verse for what marriage is in the Bible, meaning like this is the, you know, found from which all the teaching in the Bible about marriage actually comes.

So, this is the main verse. So, most of what you're going to find in the New Testament when they're addressing the topic of marriage is going to be referencing this basic definition of what marriage is in the Bible.

So, this is basically the main thing. So, you have this and then you have marriage being a picture of Christ's relationship with the church which is a mystery that's been kept hidden from all ages. So, you have those two things being basically the primary pillars on which all the biblical doctrine of what marriage is.

But then when you think about what's actually happening there, you have something fairly significant here. So, therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother, hold fast to his wife, two will become one.

So, you have all the basics of what marriage is. So, marriage is like a man and a woman, right? So, it's not like a boy and a girl or something like that. It's a man and a woman who are leaving father and mother.

So, there's a change of familial status there. So, man and woman, man leaving father and mother, right? Holding fast to his wife in that way. So, you have two, right? They will become one flesh. When Jesus comments on it, Jesus will often say, yeah, so thus the two will become one.

So, you have this basic formula for marriage like one plus one equals one, right? So, two equals one. So, you have that formula, you have it's a man and a woman part of the formula too, right? So, you have a man and a woman are designed to be joined in covenant of marriage.

And then you have the nature of what marriage is, meaning it's a one flesh relationship, which is essentially anatomical picture there, right? So, you have a man who is designed by God, intentionally designed by God to be joined together with woman in that way.

So, then when you think about the nature of the two exceptions that are given, so there's two exceptions that are given, like reasons for divorce given Bible. So, there's two, like Jesus will say basically, except for like adultery.

Like if basically like there's the permission Jesus gives for divorce is on account of sexual immorality, because this is fundamentally a sexual relationship is to become one, right? And then when Paul gives like an exception, like a reason to no longer be in the bondage of marriage, meaning like if a believer is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever is not pleased to dwell with them, but wants to depart, then let them depart.

The believer is no longer under bondage in that case. Well, so both of these exceptions that you're going to find, like the adultery exception or the quote-unquote, you know, abandonment exception, they're both appealing to the nature of what marriage is in Genesis 2 .24, meaning like the sexual immorality component is pointing to the nature of the one flesh relationship, which is where like why you get the Ten Commandments adultery as part of that, right?

So, that's all related to the one flesh element of that. And then the desertion part is related to the hold fast component of marriage, right? So, man will leave father and mother hold fast to his wife.

So, if you're in a situation where one doesn't want to be held onto anymore, then you let them go. Does that make sense?

Pete Yeah.

Jared. So, both of those are, like the two exceptions that are given are given based on this definition of what marriage is. So, then now, with that in mind, then you're asking the question, well, what do you do in the case of a man who cuts off, like castrates himself and pretends to be a woman who is married to a woman at that point?

Is she permitted to divorce him at that point? Well, then basically, what you have is you have an individual who has permanently altered his body in such a way to basically deny the nature of what marriage actually is at that point.

Does that make sense?

Pete Yeah.

Jared. So, you no longer have two becoming one in that scenario. What you have is you have a scenario where an individual has taken an action to prevent the basic definition of what marriage is from ever happening.

And so, then you're opening yourself up to, well, is this like a desertion issue? Like, is it deserted her by like permanently preventing him from ever becoming one flesh with her again? Is this like a conjugal rights, sexual immorality discussion?

But all of this is just basically the nature of, well, what is marriage? Like, well, this act is obviously denied the nature of what marriage is, and then does it fall within either one of those exceptions or possibly both?

So, that's kind of nature, but then it all goes back to what is marriage in the first instance. Does that make.

Sense? Pete I guess in my mind, it seems like there should be some element of, if there's someone who, if there's a guy who is convinced that he can become a woman, he's not a believer, and he follows through with it, he's not.

He's not a believer. No Christian, that's not righteous fruit from the Holy Spirit. That's sin. So, anyone who is willing to go that far, like there's no way they're a Christian in that moment. Can they become a Christian later?

Sure, maybe, but in the moment, there's no way. Absolutely no way. So, then it seems like you're also having the discussion about like, and then you're probably going to have to talk to about like, well, how much longer are they really going to want to stay in this marriage that they previously entered into if they're already thinking this way?

So, aren't you also having a discussion about, hey, isn't this like a, sure, they might even say they're a Christian, but they're not. If this is what they, if this is the fruit that their actions produce, that their desires produce, then it seems like we've got to be having a discussion too about, you know, let the unbelieving husband leave if he wants to leave, right?

Well, sure, yeah. So, yeah, part of that's related to the exception you're going to find in 1 Corinthians, meaning like if you're married, basically the idea, if you're married to an unbeliever, you're not categorically instructed just to divorce them because who knows whether or not you may, quote unquote, save them, right?

So, you know, 1 Peter 3 basically says like, you know, wives, be subject to your own husbands, even if some are disobedient to the word that you might win them over without a word when they observe your chase and respectful conduct.

Now, that doesn't necessarily say unbelievers, it just says if they're not obedient, which, you know, the natural correlation to that would be that they're probably not Christians at that point. But then the issue is whether or not they're Christian or not, there's not like a, hey, I'm married to an unbeliever, therefore I need to leave, right?

So, but then part of what, so part of, you know, what I'm, I don't want to have a response to this that's basically emotional and just says, well, don't nobody want to be married to that, therefore let's add a new exception, right?

Like, I don't want to do that, but then, and so even if they're unbeliever, that doesn't mean like, well, divorce them, but as you're saying, there may be any number of scenarios you can imagine happening where now that they've done, they've taken on this act, like they're going to ask you to participate with them in all sorts of like depraved things that you should not consent to whatsoever.

Does that make sense? Jared. And so, it may be that you just saying no is going to be enough to drive them away, you know, quote unquote, drive them away at that point where they're no longer going to be even wanting to be married to you.

But then, I mean, it's certainly, yeah, you shouldn't consent to the perversions that they're going to ask of you at.

That point to be engaged in, so. Pete. Right. So, I guess, I get, go ahead, go ahead. Jared.

But yeah, I mean, so you're firmly like, so what you're asking is, I mean, what you're trying to think about when you're thinking about this question is which of the exceptions or possibly both does this fall under?

Or does it fall under any of them, you know? So, is it just something you suffer through as a Christian and basically just, you know, this is the, for better or for worse, this is the worst part, you know?

Pete.

Probably one of the worst things that could have happened.

Jared Yeah.

Sexual Immorality and Conjugal Rights

Pete. So, I guess, why don't we start with like the conjugal rights aspect of it? Because essentially, it seems like if you have a husband who goes and mutilates his body to try and, you know, try and attempt to become a woman, he's obviously not a woman.

He's still a man. He's just, he's just mutilated himself now. So, in thinking about that, we're not talking about a situation where someone involuntarily lost the ability to fulfill their promises made to their spouse, right?

So, we're not talking about the person who got in some kind of car accident and, you know, like they had like physical brain damage done to them or, you know, something like that. They're not paralyzed, nothing like that.

We're talking about the person who purposely and willingly mutilated their body for an extremely evil purpose, an extremely wicked purpose, and now they can no longer fulfill their promises, their obligations to their wife.

So, is that in and of itself merit for a divorce, biblically?

Jared. Yeah. So, Matthew 5, 32 says, I say to you, everyone that divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So, in that way, except for on the ground of sexual immorality, I mean, essentially, at that point, you have the word pornea, essentially. So, yeah. So, a lot of this discussion is just about the nature of what does that mean even.

So, what all is included in that? And, you know, this word is just the broadest word that you're going to have for sexual sin in the Bible. So, that's the reason why they're sexual immorality is because there's any number of ways you can be sexually immoral.

And, yeah, I think the idea of conjugal rights falls within that category of sexual immorality in general, for sure. So, 1 Corinthians 7, 3, the husband should give his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.

For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over her own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time that you made about yourself to the purpose of prayer, and then come together again so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

So, what you have in, like, this kind of example is you have an individual who has made a decision to never again give to his wife her conjugal rights, which, I mean, like, if you think about the way that sexual immorality works, I mean, there's different ways you can be sexually immoral.

So, a lot of people don't realize this about the commands in the Bible. Like, there are sins of omission and there are sins of commission, right? So, you think about, like, I mean, you think about a command, like, rejoicing the Lord always, again, I say rejoice.

Well, if a person never rejoices, that would be a sin of omission. Like, he's failing to do what's required of him to do. But then the opposite of that would be complaining. Do you see what I mean? Like, do not grumble.

Like, when you grumble, that would be a sin of commission, meaning, like, you're actively violating the Bible at that point. But then those are two sides of the same coin, if you see what I mean. So, like, meaning, like, in the same act, by complaining, you're also, like, that would be the sin of commission, but then it would also be a sin of omission in the sense that you're failing to rejoice in that moment.

So, like, in the same way, like, the idea of marriage, marriage is a one-flesh relationship and they're obligated, like, so it's not simply just, the idea is, like, there's a command, you shall not commit adultery, but then that, like, so, like, if you commit adultery, that would be a sin of commission, right?

But then if you don't give your spouse or conjugal rights, that'd be a sin of omission. Like, you're failing to do what you're required to do in that way. But then both of those are sexual sins, do you understand?

Like, both of those are sexual immorality, meaning, like, on the one, you're failing to do what you covenanted to do. So, like, in many, I mean, still, like, in many states within the United States, like, if you have, like, a celibate marriage or something, that's tax fraud, right?

Because it's denying the nature of what marriage is. Marriage is a one-flesh union, that's what it actually is. So, I think there's a good discussion to be had, like, in this kind of situation, whether or not that would be fundamentally just a grounds for divorce, like, falling within the broader category of sexual immorality as a sin of omission at that point.

Does that make sense?

Pete. Yeah. Failing to fulfill the conjugal rights would be the sin of omission in this case. Yeah.

Jared. Right, right. So, I mean, like, that would be, I mean, you think about it, that would be, like, the worst, like, at that point, you're no longer even, like, what makes marriage. Marriage is a sexual union in that way, and you're taking this fundamental, like, when I say that, I mean, people often, like, misunderstand what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that marriage is only that. I'm saying that that's essential to the nature of what marriage is over, I guess, other kinds of relations. Pete.

It's in the foundational definition given in the first few chapters of Genesis.

Jared. So, I mean, like, the idea is that God didn't create marriage in order that, like, a man and a woman come together and just be besties, you know? So, I mean, like, marriage should be a bestie relationship.

Yeah, right? But it's fundamentally more than that. It's a procreative relationship. It's a sexual relationship designed for procreation. So, like, God didn't just, like, create marriage in order that people, like, come together and just have, like, deep, intimate friendships with people of the opposite sex.

I mean, like, you exist because God designed marriage to be geared towards procreation. So, he's filled your body with hormones and he's, you know, filled your wife's body with hormones that make her desire everything as a baby, right?

Like, desire babies. So, he's done that in order to, like, bring about new people and then he's made it a pleasurable thing, but he's confined that to the nature of what marriage is. So, you think about things along those lines.

Do you have an individual who basically just, like, castrates himself at that point? Well, he's basically just taken this, he's done, he's taken this marital relationship and he's just turned it into something else.

Does that make sense? Yeah. So, and then now he's, like, now he's, like, pretending, like, whatever way he's going to relate to you, he's relating to, he's now relating to, trying to relate to you like a woman will relate to another woman.

So, this is, like, a parody of what marriage is at that point. Like, now, I mean, he's obviously still kind of a.

Man, you know? Petey. Well, yeah, he's still, he's still, he's a man with, you know, without his manhood. Jared. He's an emasculated man. He's an emasculated man. Petey. Yeah, he's an emasculated man.

He's still a man, though. I think the other question I have relating to this portion of the discussion is just, well, it seems like, it seems like the act that he performed itself of mutilating himself to try and pretend to be a woman, that, if we're thinking about, like, what category of sin is that, I don't know what category to put it in other than sexual immorality.

Is there another category that it could possibly.

Fit into? Jared. Other than sexual immorality.

Petey. Other than, yeah, other than sexual immorality, because that, in my mind, that's where it goes, and in my mind, that, you know, if that, if that's, if the grounds for divorce, if one of the two is sexual immorality, then it seems like that's been met in a significant way.

Jared. Yeah, so, think about it this way, so, all right, I'm going to read a little bit in Matthew 19, right? So, and a lot of these ideas show up in Matthew 19 related to this topic. A lot of people aren't thinking about them quite like this because they don't really know what marriage is.

But look, all right, so, Matthew 19 3, the Pharisees came up and tested him saying, is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause? And he answered, have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?

So, where's that going? Genesis, right? Petey. Genesis, yeah. Jared. And he said, therefore, our definition of marriage, right? He said, therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother, hold fast to his wife, the two will become one flesh.

So, Genesis 2, 24. So, he says, so, they are no longer two, but one flesh. So, then that gives you, like, Jesus is understanding what marriage is, it's two becoming one, right? So, they are no longer two, but one flesh, what God joined together, let no one separate.

Then they said to him, why then did Moses command one give a certificate of divorce and to send her away? And he said to them, because of your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wife, but not from the beginning, it was not so.

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery. So, the disciples said to them, if such is the case of a man with his wife, is it better not to marry, right?

But he said to them, not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. So, who has it been given to receive the saying that it's better not to marry? Well, he says, for there are eunuchs who have been so from birth.

Like, eunuch is someone who has been castrated, right? So, there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men who have been castrated, right? And then there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, let the one who's able to receive it, receive it.

Like, in other words, like, the idea is there to say that a castrated man is fundamentally unsuitable to be married, right? Jared. Because, like, because what? The definition of marriage is to become one.

So, now if you have a man who is married, who then castrates himself at that point, then what you're dealing with is you're dealing with an individual who's no longer really even able to perform the basic qualifications for what makes marriage marriage at that point.

Does that make sense? So, he's put himself in this category of individuals, Jesus says, better than not be married because marriage is a two-to-become-one-flesh relationship. So, yeah, I mean, I think in that way, whatever you're talking about, you're talking about, like, this is a form of sexual immorality, right?

In that way.

Pete. Right. And so, thus, it would fit into the, you know, reasonable or, you know, biblical reason or biblical grounds for divorce, right?

Jared. Yeah, no, I mean, other people want to put it in the category of abandonment, and I would just make a, I'm suspicious about the word abandonment because it's not really in the Bible. So, like, if a woman is married to a, you know, unbeliever and he consents to dwell with her, then, you know, she should be married to him, but then if he departs, then let him depart for she is no longer under bondage.

Like, that word there is a word that means physically distance himself. So, I'm a little bit suspicious of attempts to turn, like, a word that means physically distance himself from someone, like, leave, into a word that means basically something to the effect of fail to fulfill all of his marital obligations to a satisfactory degree or something along those lines.

But then I do think there is something to be said about, like, if he consents to dwell with her, if he's pleased to dwell with her, meaning, like, if he's pleased to be a husband to her, then, like, she should remain with him.

But then, like, in this kind of case, is he really pleased to be a husband to her if he's trying to be a wife to her? Does that make sense?

Pete. Right. Yeah.

Jared Yeah. So, I mean, I

Pete. It seems like we're not really talking about the same thing.

Jared. Yeah. So, I mean, I'm sympathetic to attempts. I would say, I mean, I'm sympathetic to an attempt to say, hey, yeah, this falls under that category. And then, you know, like, if he castrates himself at that point, then are you talking about a situation where he's functionally departed from his ability to be one flesh with her?

So, he's put, like, he's not holding fast to her at that point, right? He can't at that point. So, and he can't become one flesh with him. So, is that does that fall under that kind of category too?

I don't know. I mean, maybe it falls under both, you know? I would say that it definitely falls under one or the other, both of them at the same time. But I mean, yeah, I think the idea of a man pretending to be a woman, like, is so fundamentally contrary to the nature of what marriage actually is at that point.

And then him taking away an ability to be, like, a husband to her in the primary fundamental sense of the word, I say, yes, definitely sexual immorality. And I definitely think it's abandoning his commitment, sure, to be, like, it's departing from his commitment to be a husband to her.

I would say that that's probably true too in a certain sense, but I think it's clear on the sexual immorality end of things.

Petey Yeah, I guess we probably have to be careful with the abandonment thing because obviously we're all sinful and none of us perfectly fulfill, you know, all of the commitments that we made when we got married, right?

And so, I guess I could see it. I guess you're just trying to, you know, leave some sort of room to defend against the person who might say, hey, I want a divorce because my, you know…. Jared Huskyns Husband is not emotionally.

Meeting all my needs, you know, or something. Petey.

Right, right. Something like that that's very clearly not the same as what we're talking about right now. Jared Yeah, I mean, I can imagine.

Certain scenarios, like, let's say that, like, a husband, he's pleased to have a wife who he can have sex with whenever he wants to, but then he refuses to, like, he wants to be married to her, meaning use her for that, but then he refuses to actually go to work and provide for her, right?

So, I mean, in, like, a situation like that, it's like, and then if she were just to say, hey, like, I'm not going to go to work either. So, you can't just stay home all day long and play video games and then use me for sex and expect me to be the provider.

I'm not going to do that, you know? So, and then he's like, well, I'm not going to work, you know, you go do it, you know? Huge all the short straw on this one, but I don't want you to leave, right? I want you to just go out there and make money for me.

I think at a certain point, I think in a situation like that where he's demanding, like, surrendering his responsibilities to her and looking to her to, like, engage in some kind of role reversal or something like that, I think she would be well within her rights just to go find someone who is going to feed her.

You know what I mean? At that point, like, there's, like, you're abandoning, like, you may be physically there, but you've, like, you have departed your commitment. So, I mean, I think there are probably situations like that where you may physically be there, but you are fundamentally unwilling to actually be a husband.

And I think pastors are there to help you to sort out whether or not you're in that situation so that you're not just coming up, like, you know, you're not just have watched too many Hallmark movies and decided that your husband isn't, you know, emotionally fulfilling anymore or something along those lines.

But yeah, I mean, so I think you have to be really careful with that one, that you don't just turn that into an open-ended, like, divorce-for-any-reason kind of thing. But yeah, sure. I think in a scenario like this, I mean, you do have a situation where you have a person who is denying the fundamental nature of what marriage is.

And what these exception clauses are meant to do is talk about that, you know, like the definition of marriage as grounded in the Bible, Genesis 2 .24, right? For this reason, man shall leave father and mother, hold fast to wife, unless he's not pleased to dwell and depart, right?

He's not holding fast anymore until you become one, like, you know, or sexual.

Immorality, I think. So, yeah. Pete I think even, I guess I have a question about, even in your example you gave where you were essentially saying, hey, if the man, you know, he refuses to work, he refuses to provide, which is part of his role in the marriage, you know, the role to provide is solely put on him, and he's refusing to do that.

Well, obviously, he's forsaking a large part of what it means to be a husband, and the Bible addresses that, you know, the Bible tells us that the man who refuses to provide for his family is worse than an unbeliever, right?

He's an infidel. Which, you know, just as a side note, it's so funny because we did an episode on that, and it's just a straight-up Bible verse, and people who are claiming to be Christian disagreed with the Bible verse.

They treated it as if it's wrong to say that someone who refuses to provide for his family, who refuses to be the sole provider, he is worse than a non-believer. They didn't agree with that for some reason.

I don't understand. It's just straight-up a Bible verse. Like, we could've just read that Bible verse and be done with it, and that would've been sufficient, but putting that aside, I guess my question is if you've got that kind of scenario, the guy refuses to provide for his family.

He's still there physically. He's not wanting to leave or anything. He just doesn't want to provide for the family. Is there a biblical grounds for divorce there given the fact that, like, obviously we're in, like, he's an unbeliever territory.

That's where we're at, but he's not trying to depart. He's staying there, and yes, he's forsaking one of the commitments that he made, you know, when he got married, but then is that the same? I guess in my mind, I'm having a hard time getting that to fit squarely in the category of divorce the same way the sexual immorality thing seems to obviously falls in there and the abandonment thing.

I mean, he's just not physically, he's abandoned them in, like, he's abandoned his role, but he hasn't physically abandoned them. So, help me understand, I guess, uh, how that, how the, like, abandoning the role is still grounds for divorce.

Jared. Yes, sir. So, 1 Corinthians 7 .13, if any woman has a husband who is unbeliever and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because the wife and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of the husband.

Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are unholy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases, the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

So, basically, I think, I mean, what you have is you have a scenario right here where you have a husband who wants all the benefits of, you know, being, of having a wife, but then he also wants the wife to be a husband to him.

If that makes sense. So, basically, he's taken on no role for himself at that point. Okay. So, like the issue is though, but like a husband should, I mean, a wife should submit to her husband unless he's asking her to send, I would say that it would be like, if he's asking her to be the husband, the provider, he'd be asking her to send.

So, at that point, I would say she should say no, like, no, I'm not going to work provide for us right here at the end. But then the issue is this situation is naturally going to work itself out in one way or another,.

If you understand what I mean. Yeah, you have to have money. Someone's going to make money.

Someone, if no one's going to make money, you're going to starve to death, right? So, I mean, at that point, I think if I were the wife in that scenario, I would be, you know, talking to my elders and like trying to find someone who would take her in, you know?

So, I mean, I wouldn't say the initial move should be, she should just divorce him. I would say that she needs to separate him and find someone who will help provide for her in that way. Does that make sense?

Yeah, yeah.

So, like, and that's a lot of what the church family is meant to do, is to help with situational along those lines. And then, you know, at some point, he's going to be there by himself with no one to pay the bills for.

So, I wouldn't say that she should casually just lay aside her commitment at that point. But I mean, like, at that point, he's going to have to find someone to mooch off of, or he's going to have to go figure out how to, like, make something of his life at that point, right?

So, I think in that kind of situation, he's not pleased to live with her, okay? He's not pleased to be a husband to her. He's not pleased to be a provider for her. He's just, I mean, he likes her, wants to use her for sex, right?

And, you know, make her be the provider at that point. But I mean, I think that kind of situation will naturally work itself out. So, you know, if after, like, all right, so, step one, she should say no, and I'm not just going to stay here and starve to death, right?

So, God hasn't commanded me just to callously throw away my own life in obedience to you or something like that. You're asking me to sin. I'm not going to follow you in that. So, she's going to find some source of provision.

Now, if he just goes and, like, hangs out with her husband, like, hangs out with his, you know, buddies and everything else, and this goes on for, like, two years, and they just let him mooch off of them and, you know, let him play video games.

So, I mean, at some point, it's, like, you're looking at that, at that point, you're saying, he's not providing a place for you to live. He's not providing you an ability to live underneath him. He's showing no evidence of repentance.

Like, how long does this go on before you realize that he's not pleased? Like, if he were pleased to dwell with you, he would provide you a roof. Does that make sense?