Essay: Divorce and Remarriage

There are as many scenarios as there are couples in the world. How do we know what’s right in each situation, especially when so many of the scenarios have no parallel in Scripture? The simple thing is to turn ignore these issues in the church or to hand out black and white rules to fit every situation.

The hard thing is to take a few biblical principles about marriage, divorce, and remarriage and then try to apply them prayerfully and wisely to a thousand different situations.

These principles serve as our bedrock and guide in determining how to counsel people affected by the sad reality of divorce.  

Overview of Principles:

1. Marriage is the sacred union between one man and one woman and God’s intention is for marriage to last a lifetime. (Eph 5:21-22)

2. Divorce is not required, even if its permitted.

3. Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of sexual immorality. (Matt 19)

4. Divorce is permitted, but not required, on the ground of desertion. (1 Cor 7)

5. Remarriage is permissible in the event of a spouse’s death or for divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. Divorced Christians for any reason other than sexual immorality should remain unmarried or reconcile with their spouse.

6. Improperly divorced/remarried Christians should stay as they are, but repent and be forgiven of their past sins and make whatever amends are necessary.

Explanations:

1. Marriage is the sacred union between one man and one woman and God’s intention is for marriage to last a lifetime.

a. Sacred union

Eph 5:22-33 says:

 “22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

It’s clear that marriage is designed for showing off the glory of Christ and His relationship with the church. In that sense, marriage is like no other institution in the world. It should be held in honor as a sacred union (Hebrew 13:4).

b. Between one man and one woman

The words in Ephesians are clearly gender specific. Wives are women, Husbands are men. Any other relationship, legally sanctioned or not, is not marriage according to the Bible.

c. God’s intention is for marriage to last a lifetime.

 Mark 10:1-12:

And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them. And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

The Pharisees were not genuinely inquiring of Jesus’ position.  They wanted to test him and make him look bad. Everyone in Judaism agreed that divorce was permissible. People on all sides of the divorce issue agree first century Judaism allowed for divorce, even required it in some situations. The Pharisees certainly allowed for divorce, probably for a lot of reasons.

But they have a suspicion that Jesus will be stricter. Maybe they heard his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe they just assume he will be strict. Maybe they want to get him in trouble with Herod who already killed John the Baptist for objecting to his divorce. Whatever the reason, they are setting a trap.

Like a good teacher, Jesus answers their question with a question. “What did Moses say?” “Well,” they answer, “Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife.” They’re thinking of Deuteronomy 24. Jesus doesn’t reject Moses’ teaching, but he recasts it. “Yes, Moses allowed for divorce. But this was a concession to human sin. Certainly not a requirement. The law was making the best of a bad situation.”

Then Jesus takes them back to the very beginning. “Deuteronomy gives Moses a concession, but Genesis gives God’s intention. Marriage is one man and one woman. The two become one flesh. They leave their family behind and this new family takes priority over all other allegiances except to God. Marriage is a sacred union. God himself joins the couple together. And what God puts together, no one should separate.”

The main thing Jesus wants to say about divorce is this: It’s not God’s ideal. His intention for marriage is that it would be more than a temporary living arrangement.  

Before we see anything else about divorce and remarriage we have to feel the weight of what Jesus is saying. The Pharisees want to talk about acceptable reasons for a divorce. Jesus wants to talk about the sanctity of marriage. They want to talk about when a marriage can be broken. He wants to talk about why marriages shouldn’t be broken. Whatever exceptions there might be, the main thing is that marriage is supposed to a permanent expression of Christ-like love and mutual service to the glory of God.

2. Divorce is not required, even if it’s permitted.

We will see that there are grounds for divorce in the New Testament. Yet nowhere in the NT do we see divorce as a requirement, even for the deeply hurtful sin of adultery. And given Jesus’ approach to divorce, and given the devastation that occurs in families as a result of a divorced marriage, it should not be viewed as the first solution to dealing with sin in marriage. With true repentance comes the possibility of forgiveness, and with forgiveness comes the possibility of healing and reconciliation. And so we want to emphasize the glory of life-long marriage as God’s intent and impress the glory of reconciliation even where divorce is permitted.

This means we want to stress that forgiveness and reconciliation between sinning spouses is the preferable starting point even where adultery has occurred. This is implied in Matthew 18:21-22, "Then Peter came and said to Jesus, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?" Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.'" (See Luke 17:3-4).

3. Divorce (and remarriage) is permitted (but not required) on the ground of sexual immorality.

Against the backdrop of God’s design and intent, we can consider the biblical parameters surrounding divorce and remarriage. While divorce is always the byproduct of sin, it is sometimes permissible as in the case of sexual immorality. Think of the Christmas story.  When Joseph, who was engaged to Mary, found that she was with child, the text says that “Because Joseph was a righteous man he had in mind to divorce her quietly.”  

The first thing to notice is that Joseph had to divorce Mary even though they were only engaged.  Jewish betrothals were legally binding in the first century.  Leaving that aside, it can be seen that Joseph was considered righteous for divorcing her quietly.  He is commended for the quietness mostly, but the divorce didn’t seem to reflect badly on Joseph.  Mary, it was thought, had committed sexual immorality, and so Joseph was considered righteous for divorcing her quietly.

We also see in some Old Testament texts that the Lord divorced his people. For example, Jeremiah 3:8 says “I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries.” God’s people were spiritual adulterers and so the Lord after putting up with them for generations, finally said, “Enough, you’ve broken the covenant for the last time.  Here’s your certificate of divorce.  Be gone.”  Now, the love story is that God still woos his wayward bride back to himself, and welcomes her home when she turns and repents.  But if the Lord can divorce his adulterous spouse, then divorce must not always be wrong.

This means that marriage is not indissoluble. Marriage really can end. Usually it shouldn’t, but it can. The covenant can be severed. When Jesus says “What God has joined together, let no man separate” he implies that the couple can be separated. Again, in context, God’s overarching desire is for this not to happen, but it is possible.

Let’s consider other biblical texts. First we look at Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, 2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

The key phrase is in verse 1: “something indecent” (erwath dabar).  It’s a very ambiguous phrase, and the Jews argued about it constantly. The phrase is actually used a chapter earlier in Deuteronomy 23:12-14.

You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

You can see that erwath dabar means in general something repulsive, something indecent.  It’s not a precise phrase. Because of this ambiguity, two different rabbinical schools emerged. On one side was the more conservative Shammai school, and on the other, the more liberal Hillel school, both well known around the time of Jesus.  The Mishna records:

The School of Shammai says: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.  And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.

They referred to the same verse, but Shammai emphasized “indecency” and Hillel emphasized “anything.”  Jesus is going to side squarely with the more conservative school.  

We see this also in Matthew 19. This is the same incident we read about earlier in Mark 10. The Pharisees have come to test Jesus. They specifically ask him about the grounds for divorce and what Moses commanded in Deuteronomy 24. But notice Jesus’ words here are a bit different. They include an exception in verse 9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness [porneia], and marries another woman commits adultery [moichaomai].”

A remarriage-permitting divorce is not allowed for any reason whatsoever (like Hillel said), only for martial unfaithfulness (like Shammai said). Sexual sin threatens the marriage covenant because sex is the oath signing of the covenant.  Having sexual experiences with someone other than your spouse is like trying to sign on someone else’s dotted line.  It is grounds for a remarriage-permitting divorce. Divorce is still not required, but it is allowed.

Of course, all this raises the question: why does Matthew include the exception clause when Mark doesn’t? Some people have argued that Matthew’s gospel isn’t talking about sex during marriage, but sex before marriage. In first century Judaism a betrothal was legally binding. That’s why Joseph was going to divorce Mary after he found out she was with child. They were only engaged at the time, but even breaking off an engagement required a divorce. So the theory is Matthew records these words so his readers will be clear that Joseph wasn’t doing anything wrong when he planned to divorce Mary for what seemed to be fornication.

Some respected Christians hold to this view, but we don’t think it is the most persuasive position. For starters, the question from the Pharisees revolves around Deuteronomy 24 which was not about betrothal. Second, the word porneia is a broad word that includes all kinds of sexual sin, not just sex before marriage while engaged. And besides, Matthew 1 never uses the word porneia to describe Mary’s supposed sin and nothing in Matthew 19 explicitly ties the situation back to Mary and Joseph.

So how do we understand this? Matthew includes the exception, while Mark and Luke don’t? Remember these are parallel accounts. They are describing the same event. You could say the Matthew added something to Jesus’ words, but isn’t it easier to assume Mark and Luke left something out? And why would they leave the exception out? Because they wanted the saying more memorable? Perhaps.

But we think the basic reason they left out the exception is because it was already a given. No one in Judaism disagreed that divorce was acceptable on grounds of sexual immorality. Mark and Luke didn’t have to include Jesus’ exception because they figured it was a given. It’s like when Jesus said “If your brother has something against you, leave your gift at the altar and go be reconciled first” (Matt. 5:23-24).

We naturally assume Jesus means “If your brother has something legitimate against you,” because Jesus didn’t go tracking down everyone who was upset with him. In the same way, when Mark records “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” the implied assumption is “Whoever divorces his wife without cause…”  We believe Jesus spoke the exception clause.  Matthew included it to be clear, while Mark and Luke left it out because they thought it was already a given.

4. Divorce is permitted (but not required) on the ground of desertion.

Paul writes in verse 12:

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):

that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 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. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife.

Here’s the second stated ground for a divorce: desertion. The context of this passage involves people coming to faith in Christ and lacking clarity about whether or not they should stay in their marriage to an unbeliever. Does fidelity to Christ mean they should divorce their unbelieving spouse? Paul’s answer: NO. He exhorts them to stay married.

Now, we should try to live at peace with an unbelieving spouse.  After all, God may save the unbeliever through his spouse! But if the unbeliever refuses to live with the Christian and leaves, let him do so.  Paul sees this desertion as a breaking of the covenant promise. You are not bound to be married when your unbelieving spouse deserts you.

Why not? How does this square with what Jesus said? Jesus never gave an exception like this. Paul sees desertion as a forsaking of the covenant marriage vows. The principle that is at work here is one of neglect. You can’t neglect your marital vows and responsibilities without the consequences of breaking the marriage covenant.

If a spouse deserts, it puts the forsaken spouse in a difficult position. They might lack provision, money, food, the ability to work, etc. Paul sees this situation and concedes that it is grounds for divorce, so that the spouse can move forward with life without the legal connection to the deserting spouse.

What about dangerous abuse?

Dangerous abuse or neglect to either the spouse or children is another potential ground for divorce under the principle of neglect. We say potential because we are arriving there by principle and so we want to be careful not to overstate what is less explicit in the text.

If desertion is passive neglect, then abuse is active neglect. It perverts the power that was vested by the marriage and uses it for ungodly ends.

Here, we would argue from the lesser to the greater. If desertion is grounds for divorce, where there is no active harm to the spouse or family, how much more grounds are there when the spouse won’t walk away, but continues to use their power for the harm of their spouse and/or children?

The traditional Protestant position–the position written down in the Westminster Confession and held by many evangelicals–is that divorce and remarriage are permissible on two grounds only: sexual immorality and desertion.

However the textual evidence is not as clear about the permissible range of divorce as it is the necessary grounds for remarriage (see #5). When Jesus corrects the Pharisees in Matthew 5, 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16, his warnings are against the person who remarries incorrectly. They are committing adultery.

Jesus is not as tightly defining the scope of permissible divorces as much as he is qualifying the basis for remarriage, which would have likely been a driving factor in many divorces. They are not free to remarry because marriage was intended to be for a lifetime.

On the one hand, we recognize that there is a danger to use abuse as a catch-all for what the Bible calls sin and exhorts us to forgive. There is a danger giving too much ground in this direction. On the other hand, we also acknowledge that it is much easier to treat the Scriptures as binding law for us without discerning the biblical principles and contexts that undergird the NT commands.

As pastors, we must understand the biblical text in its context and seek to bring application to bear. This is true even with the categories explicitly mentioned in the Scripture. Does pornography count as sexual immorality? Going to strip clubs? How much repeated exposure would count? Over what period of time?

How long must the spouse be gone before the desertion clause takes effect? 2 months? 6 months? What if the person is in jail for crimes they’ve committed? Does that count as desertion? There are no clear cut answers because the Bible is not written as a case law manual.

This is why each situation needs to be dealt with individually. It’s also why we need biblical principles, so we have something to apply in these gut-wrenching, difficult sinful scenarios, where Scripture doesn’t speak directly to the specifics. Each situation requires careful examination and understanding in order to apply wisdom.

Paul seems to give this space in 1 Corinthians 7:10:

10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband.

This verse seems to speak in such absolutes that, if taken literally in every case, would contradict what Jesus said in Matthew 19. It would be better to understand this verse as another expression of the ideal. Ideally, a wife should not separate from her husband. But if separation is never permitted, then why does Paul write the next verse?

(but if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and the husband should not divorce his wife.

If verse 10 is an absolute command in every situation, then if someone does get divorced, it is wrong and they should exhorted to be reconciled with their spouse. Of course, Paul does exhort toward reconciliation, but he also permits the wife to stay single! That’s ungodly counsel if divorce is always wrong.

Also, if verse 10 is speaking only about divorce arising from sexual immorality, then limiting the spouse to only reconciliation or staying unmarried would contradict what Jesus said in Matt 19. Remarriage is permissible in this case.

I believe Paul is restating the ideal from Jesus (no separation) and then speaking to the reality of where people find themselves.  Separation or divorce may be the undesired result of sin and the person who is divorced (apart from sexual immorality as established in principle 2) is not permitted to remarry, but is permitted to stay single.

So while it may seem safer biblically to maintain that there are two acceptable grounds for divorce, we hold that by an extending principle it’s possible for dangerous abuse or extreme neglect to also be potential grounds. This is not however grounds for remarriage.

5. Remarriage is permissible in the event of a spouse’s death or for divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. Divorced Christians for any reason other than sexual immorality should remain unmarried or reconcile with their spouse.

Now what about remarriage?  Since death breaks the marriage bond (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39), remarriage is permissible without sin for a believing widow or widower, if the marriage is to another believer.

But what about after a divorce? Let me give you a few reasons why we think remarriage is permissible in the case of adultery, but not in other cases.

First, why do we think it’s permissible in the case of adultery? It is grammatically more likely that the exception clause in Matthew 19 modified both verbs. In other words, when Jesus says “except for marital unfaithfulness” that covers “whoever divorces” and “marries another.”

Second, all scholars on every side of this divorce and remarriage debate agree that it was a given for first century Jews that remarriage was a valid option after a valid divorce. To be granted a legal separation meant de facto that you were no longer bound to anyone and thus free to remarry. No one in Jesus audience was thinking that remarriage wouldn’t be an option.  If Jesus wanted to teach that remarriage after every divorce was unacceptable, he would have made that new teaching much clearer.

Of course, just because a divorced person may be free to remarry does not mean it is necessarily a good or wise idea. A lot of other considerations come into play. But the general principles is, after a legitimate divorce in the case of adultery, there is freedom to remarry.

Having said that, we don’t believe that a person who permissibly divorces for desertion – due to either active or passive neglect/abuse – is allowed to remarry.

The phrase “is not enslaved” in 1 Corinthians 7:15 might be taken to imply that the spouse who has been deserted is also free to marry.  However, the clearer statement in verse 11 makes it seem that 7:15 is speaking more to divorce than remarriage. The deserted spouse is not bound to stay married, but (v11) should stay unmarried or reconciled to their spouse.

In our view, this position seems to most clearly conform to Jesus’ perspective on remarriage in Matt 5, 19, Mark, Luke 16.

So what should improperly remarried Christians do?

6. Improperly remarried Christians should stay as they are, but repent and be forgiven of their past sins and make whatever amends are necessary.

This is where things get really messy. What if you are in a second or third marriage that you now realize was not permissible? Should you get a divorce? No, we don’t believe so. The principle in 1 Corinthians 7, repeated in verse 17, 20, and 24, is “remain as you are.” God does not want you to add to the sin of a remarriage the sin of another divorce.

Does this mean those Christians have gotten away with sin? Not at all. We are never better off for having sinned. There are consequences in our relationships. There may be consequences in your spiritual life. And if you look back at your sinful divorce and remarriage and think “Wow, I’m glad I didn’t know all this ten years ago” that is a dreadful sign that something is very wrong in your heart. If the Spirit is at work you will not think “Phew, I really got away with one here.”

Instead you will think, “O Lord, I am so sorry. I was ignorant of the Scriptures. I was blind to my own sin. I have broken your law and sullied the name of Christ. Please forgive me. Have mercy on us Lord.” And you’ll not only ask for the Lord’s forgiveness, you’ll make things right with your ex-spouse, with your kids, your parents, your in-laws– you’ll make amends and ask for forgiveness with anyone else you hurt by breaking your marriage vows.

To the divorced and now single: If you had grounds for a divorce, the leaders at Grace Church want to do everything we can to make sure no one looks down on you. If you have been sinned against, we do not want to treat you as the sinner. We do not want you to run from the church, but find grace and fellowship here.

If you have sinfully divorced, then you should pray about how to reconcile with your spouse. Is it possible to pursue repentance with your former spouse? In what ways should you seek forgiveness? God can restore by grace what has been lost through sin.

If you have since remarried when you shouldn’t have: run to the cross. It is not light thing to tear asunder what God joined together. It is no small mistake to pursue an adulterous second marriage. But God’s grace is not light and it is not small. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin. There is mercy yet for you.

But the contrition must be real, the admission of guilt must be honest, the repentance must be earnest. A broken heart and a contrite spirit the Lord will never deny. Run to God. Plead with God. Know his adopting love. Experience again his justifying free grace.

How will Grace Church administer discipline?

Parameters for discipline:

1. A believer and unbeliever should not marry (1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14-15). If a believing member of the church persists in marrying an unbeliever, that would be case for church discipline.

2. Members who divorce for reasons outside of adultery, abandonment, or abuse will be brought to the church for discipline.

3. Divorce occurring for the grounds of adultery, abandonment, or dangerous abusive (1 Cor. 7:15; Matthew 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:11) will not be disciplined.  We are not here dealing with remarriage (see #4 and #5). We simply acknowledge that there are legitimate times when the Bible permits separation.

We want to stress that "divorce" in this statement should not imply a decisive and permanent end to the relationship while the spouses are alive and not remarried, except in the case of adultery. Even then, after long periods of separation and alienation reconciliation can happen, as when the people of God return to the Lord after periods of waywardness (Hosea 2:14-23).

4. The aggrieving partners referred to in #3 (who were guilty of abandonment, adultery or abuse) should repent and be reconciled to God and to their spouses (1 Corinthians 7:11; 1 John 1:9). If it is too late because their spouses have remarried, then they should remain single because they left their first marriage without Biblical warrant (Matthew 19:9; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:11).