Natalie Hoffman of Flying Free has an exceptional ministry and offers a wealth of resources designed to help women in abusive relationships.  She recently invited me to do a podcast with her to discuss my new book[i] and the issue of Christian marriage counseling in general.

In the course of our conversation, we were tossing out some of the Scriptures that often tend to keep us bound to our abusers.  Among them was “Love… keeps no record of wrongs’…”  from I Corinthians 13:5 (NIV)

Natalie shared that, in her previous marriage, she would write down accounts of her husband’s abuses, but a day or two later, she would tear them up and throw them away as an exercise of faith by not “keeping a record of wrongs.”  I had the opportunity to briefly explain that our English translations of this verse are painfully inaccurate, and there are times when a literal translation must take precedence to see a more accurate meaning – and the heart of God.

Looking at several different English translations of this passage, it’s easy to see why we have accepted the traditionally accepted interpretation.

The New International Version:  “ Love… keeps no record of wrongs.“

The Amplified Version: “Love… takes no account of the evil done to it (it pays no attention to a suffered wrong).

The American Standard Version: “Love… taketh not account of evil.”

The Message: “Love…doesn’t keep score of the sins of others.”

The New American Standard: “Love… does not take into account a wrong suffered.”

They seem fairly consistent, don’t they?  And what we see is an inference that a believer exhibiting a God-honoring love will never keep a record of any offenses committed, no matter how atrocious.  Period.

So we have been led to believe we are obligated to overlook the countless offenses committed against us by our abusers and essentially respond as though they never took place – to forgive and forget.

But Young’s Literal Translation says something quite different.  It says, “Love…doth not impute evil.”  In this, the language implies that we should not presume that an act is born of evil intent without sufficient evidence.  Conversely, the Apostle Paul’s admonition does not discourage us from acknowledging evil where it does, in fact, exist.

Barnes’ Notes Commentary asserts: “We desire to think well of the man whom we love; nor will we think ill of his motives, opinions, or conduct, until we are compelled to do so by the most irrefragable evidence.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary is similar, saying, “one doth not rashly suspect his neighbour for doing evil…”

Matthew Clarke’s commentary renders it, “Believes no evil where no evil seems. [Love] never supposes that a good action may have a bad motive…”

Finally, the Revised Matthew Henry Commentary presents it this way: “[Love] …does not reason out evil, charge guilt upon them by inference and innuendo, when nothing of this sort appears open.  True love is not apt to be jealous and suspicious; it will hide faults that appear, and draw a veil over them, instead of hunting and raking out those that lie covered and concealed: it will never indulge suspicion without proofs, but will rather incline to darken and disbelieve evidence against the person it affects.  It will hardly give into an ill opinion of another, and it will do it with regret and reluctance when the evidence cannot be resisted; hence it will never be forward to suspect ill, and reason itself into a bad opinion upon mere appearances, nor give way to suspicion without any.”

The intent of Paul’s words is clearly seen.

Then we must look at Jesus.  Our Lord extended rich grace to those with sincerely searching hearts, but He also had no difficulty citing a list of legitimate offenses in His encounters with the disingenuous scribes and Pharisees. These were the legalists who presented themselves as God’s elect and servants of the people, but Jesus saw their darkened hearts and self-serving motives as reflected in their actions and the negative effects on the lives of those the religious leaders had been called to love and serve. In seeing Jesus’ example, there is a time to expose those who hide their selfish motives behind a veil of false spirituality or entitlement. (See Matthew 23.)

Early in my marriage, my then-husband told me that he could treat me any way he wished, and as long as I didn’t catch him in the act of adultery, there was nothing I could do about it.  He had written himself a blank check based on the twisted notion that I had no right to keep a record of any wrongs he committed against me.  While my heart consistently bled, his offhanded apologies seemingly obligated me to let him off the hook for everything he did.   Any protest of his disingenuous remarks were countered with, “I said I’m sorry.  What more do you want from me?”

Similarly, in my work with victims, they sincerely desire to honor God by reflecting the kind of love Paul describes.  It is not always easy, but they virtually always strive to love well, hoping to earn the love of their abusers while experiencing a half-hearted, conditional kind of love from their spouses.  And once the abuser apologizes – for even the most horrendous offenses – the victim is expected to forgive on demand and act as though the offense never happened.  Her wounds are deemed inconsequential while her abuser grins and continues on his[ii] way.

That’s not love.

If we look at the attributes of a First Corinthians 13 kind of love in a negative context, we can see the abuser for who he really is:

Those who fail to love are impatient and unkind.  They are arrogant, jealous, conceited braggarts.  They put their own interests first, are easily provoked to anger, and are quick to make unfounded accusations.  Abusers twist the truth to suit their purposes.  They are content to churn up chaos, and they will readily abandon anyone or anything that no longer serves a useful purpose in their lives.

Surely, we desire to give people the benefit of the doubt.  But there are times when selfish intent or an evil agenda becomes tragically evident through a consistent record of offenses: an abject failure to love.  The responsibility for such offenses should fall squarely on the shoulders of the offender, not his victim.

He is free to be selfish, and she is free to go.

###

Copyright 2021, All Rights Reserved

[i] “Reformulating the Christian Marriage Counseling Model Where Abuse Is Involved”

[ii] Although abusers may be of either gender, the overwhelming majority of abusers are male; therefore, the abuser is referenced in the masculine.