Divorce: What the Bible says.

Pastor Rodney A. Gray

On the subject of divorce we must all immediately recognize that we are confronting an
extremely difficult issue. No one is likely to claim that the experience of divorce is in any
sense a pleasant one. Every case of divorce is difficult, complicated, and disheartening. It
is something that very few enjoy talking about. A preacher and teacher of the word of
God, if he cares about his hearers like a shepherd does his sheep, will approach this
matter with fear and trembling. He will approach it like he does other biblical teaching
that he may be tempted to either pass by in silence or treat superficially. He wants with all
his heart to avoid hurting anyone, but he wants with all that same heart to be faithful to
the Lord. Divorce is hard to talk about because we know that there is no hurt or
heartbreak quite like what is possible in a marriage. There is no unfaithfulness like
marital unfaithfulness, no betrayal like marital betrayal, no sadness like marital sadness,
and no failure like marital failure. Tragically, few families are untouched by divorce. No
faithful pastor wants to add to the hurt of those so touched.

But it is a challenge to teach about divorce for another reason. The difficulty is not due to
the fact that the Bible says nothing about it. The problem is that God’s word does have
something to say about divorce. Of course sincere Christians do not agree on what the
Bible teaches. But this disagreement is not always the result of an honest and objective
study of the Bible. One contributing factor could be the tendency to make the Bible
conform to our experience rather than to evaluate our experience in the light of the Bible.
Or, to put it another way, we may be tempted to make the Bible confirm our experience
rather than instruct us about our experience. So we must exercise great care lest we
approach the word of God with the sole purpose of exonerating ourselves or condemning
somebody else rather than of finding out what God has to say.

There is a third factor that adds to the difficulty of discussing the subject of divorce. We
are aware that there is such a thing as divorce because there is such a thing as marriage.
For a divorce to take place there had to first be a marriage. According to the Bible the
marriage of a man and a woman is supposed to represent the inseparable relationship
between Christ and the church. Human marriage is intended to be a model of the greater
spiritual reality. So once again we are reminded of the serious nature of these matters
with which we have to deal. When we deal with divorce we are dealing with a breakdown
of the only human bond that God has ordained should represent the relationship of Christ
to his people.

But there are reasons for us to be reassured, to pluck up our courage, and to forge ahead.
On the positive side it is important to remind ourselves of certain other things we already
know. We should remember, for example, that Jesus talked about divorce. In fact the view
that we take of this difficult subject must be determined by his teaching. In the Gospels
we have his authoritative explanation of how to understand the Old Testament
background, and the additional teaching of the apostle Paul was derived from the same
authority. We should also remember that the Bible is given by inspiration of God and is
therefore both authoritative and sufficient in what it teaches. It is no less trustworthy on
this matter than on anything else of which it speaks. And then we must not forget what
the Bible is chiefly about, namely, God’s purpose to redeem his people from their sins
through faith in the complete atonement accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. In Christ
there is always forgiveness and cleansing for the sinner.

The Old Testament Background

God’s design for marriage in the original creation (Genesis 2:23,24).

We must begin where God began, in the beginning. Jesus has told us as much when he
referred his hearers to “the beginning” as he answered a question about divorce (Matthew
19:4,8). Not only did he mention “the beginning,” but he also spoke of God’s creative
work in the beginning. So we must find out what God’s design for marriage was in the
beginning. The first thing we discover is that marriage originated with God and not with
man. This means that marriage is not a human institution but a divine arrangement in the
sense that God ordained it. Marriage is therefore not merely a social convenience. God
initiated marriage in the original creation and he has never relinquished his sovereign
authority over it. The biblical account cannot be understood in any other way. “So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created them” (Genesis 1:27). God saw that it was “not good for the man to be alone.”
Only the woman could be a “suitable helper for him” (Genesis 2:18). The Bible expressly
says that God brought the woman to the man. Adam immediately recognized that God’s
intention was for them to become one. Nothing can be more important in a marriage than
this foundational principle. It will determine how serious we are about our vows,
commitments, and responsibilities. It will determine how we treat our spouses. If we
begin with the premise that marriage was ordained by God, we will understand better
how to think about divorce.

In the second place it is clear that God intended marriage to be an exclusive relationship.
While the man was created first, the woman was taken from the man. When God put
them together he intended that they should be two parts of one whole. Only one man and
one woman can form this God-ordained partnership. Nothing else that God had created
could qualify as a partner for Adam. His response was spontaneous and instantaneous.
“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for
she was taken out of man.” The word “now” can be understood as meaning “at last.”
Adam saw something in the woman he had not seen in any of the animals. He saw a
compatibility between the two of them that was unmistakable. God’s creative design
made the woman the only suitable partner for the man. Adam also realized that God was
giving him one woman to make him complete. God did not give him two or more
women, but only one. So Moses added his comment that a man must first leave his
parents and then cleave to his wife, and the result would be “one flesh.” “One flesh”
describes a unity, an intimacy, and a completeness that lacks nothing and needs nothing.
And this meant that all others were of necessity excluded. There can never be three or
five or seven halves in a whole. Later, when Lamech married two women, he was
violating God’s standard for marriage (Genesis 4:19). A union formed by one man and
one woman is complete in itself and has no room for anyone else.
We must remember that God never approved the polygamy of men such as Abraham,
who took Hagar as a second wife (Genesis 16:3), although he made Keturah “another
wife” after Sarah had died (Genesis 25:1); Jacob, who bore children by multiple wives
(Genesis 46:8-25); Gideon, who “had many wives” (Judges 8:30); Elkanah, Samuel’s
father, who “had two wives” (I Samuel 1:2); David, who had numerous wives and
concubines (II Samuel 5:13); Solomon, who “had seven hundred wives of royal birth and
three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray” (I Kings 11:3); or any others
who engaged in similar practice. Polygamy was apparently common enough in the days
of Moses that the law included regulations concerning it (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). But
this in no way suggests that God ever retracted his original design for marriage. It has
always been one man and one woman for life. This reminds us that God may allow
something that he does not approve. On the one hand it is nothing short of astonishing
that God would use such men, but use them he did. He used them to advance his purpose
in spite of their sins. But on the other hand it is no less amazing that God would use any
sinner to accomplish his sovereign will. There has never been a servant of the Lord who
was without sin, except the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

In the third place we learn that God intended marriage to be a permanent and indissoluble
bond between a man and a woman. God himself brought the woman to the man and gave
her to him. After recording the words of Adam, Moses added his own comment. “For this
reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will
become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This “leaving and cleaving” means that two
individuals become one. It is like they are riveted or welded together. The number one is
indivisible. The apostle Paul quoted Moses to summarize his argument that marriage
must represent the “profound mystery” of “Christ and the church” and the inseparable
bond that unites them (Ephesians 5:31,32). To this Jesus added, “So they are no longer
two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Mathew
19:6). Marriage creates a union that is foundational to all other human relationships. It
even comes before the relationship of parents to children. This is why married couples
make a serious mistake when they build their lives around their children and make them
the glue that holds their marriage together. Marriage is the most basic and intimate
relationship that any two human beings can share, whether they are blessed with children
or not. All indications are that God designed it for the duration of the lives of the couple.
When God brought the woman to the man it was not on a trial basis. God was not asking
them to perform an experiment to see how it turned out. He was not giving them the
opportunity to form an open-ended relationship. This was not a relationship, but a
commitment for life. This is God’s ideal standard. Divorce violates that standard and
separates what God has joined together. So it follows that we must never trivialize
divorce, because in so doing we trivialize marriage.

The Law of Moses restraining sin (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

This important passage sets forth the basic teaching of Moses on the subject of divorce. It
is also important because it touches on the question of remarriage after a divorce. This is
the passage that the Pharisees used as a pretext to try to entrap Jesus in Matthew 19. We
will consider that account in due course. But first let us look at this text itself. A fair
amount of controversy has swirled around it in part because of the translation of the King
James Version of the Bible. Modern translations place the word “then” at the beginning of
verse 4, whereas the KJV placed it in the middle of verse 1. The proper location of “then”
determines the meaning of the passage. If it is placed in the middle of verse 1, it could be
read as commanding the husband to divorce his wife because he has found something
about her that displeases him. If it is placed at the beginning of verse 4, however, there is
no suggestion of a command to divorce at all. The point would instead be that the
husband who first divorced his wife was not permitted to remarry her if another man
subsequently married and divorced her, or left her a widow. This would amount to a
caution against divorce rather than a command to divorce. The practice of divorce was
widespread in the ancient Middle East, and it is no surprise that it often occurred among
the people of Israel (Leviticus 21:7,14; 22:13; Numbers 30:9; Deuteronomy 22:19,29).
The prophets were not unfamiliar with it (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:1; Ezekiel 44:22). As
we noted with regard to polygamy, the teaching of Moses was designed to place restraints
on a practice that already existed, not to encourage it. A man who understood that under
no circumstances would he be allowed to remarry his divorced wife who married another
man would more likely think about the consequences of his actions. Moses was not in
any way undermining God’s design for marriage but rather reminding people of what it
was.

In the second place we discover that this regulation was concerned with a situation in
which “a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds
something indecent about her. It is not clear what this means, although it is fairly certain
that adultery was not in view. The penalty for adultery was death for the guilty parties
(Deuteronomy 22:22). In fact, in Moses’ discussion of marital unfaithfulness the term
“something indecent” never occurs and the remedy for the problem is never divorce
(Deuteronomy 22:13-30). Therefore, it must have had reference to something shameful or
offensive, short of marital infidelity, that was especially repulsive to the husband. The
KJV called it “some uncleanness.” This could have included immodesty or other behavior
deemed unbecoming to a woman. No one really knows exactly what it was, and a great
deal of speculation was the result. In Jesus’ day the opinions of two schools of rabbis
prevailed. Rabbi Shammai and his followers taught that it had to be some kind of gross
indecency, whereas Rabbi Hillel and his followers said that it could include just about
anything the husband wanted to claim. This could go as far as dislike for the way she
prepared his meals or a preference for a more attractive woman. It was in the context of
this dispute that the Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for
any and every reason?” (Matthew 19:3).

A third consideration is the certificate of divorce itself. It was literally “a book or writing
of cutting off.” The word for “cutting off” was used for “cutting” a covenant (Genesis
15:18), cutting someone off from his people because he broke the covenant (Genesis
17:14), cutting down a tree (Deuteronomy 19:5), or cutting off a head (I Samuel 17:51).
So the certificate of divorce signified a cutting off of the wife from the husband. It meant
that the marriage was dissolved. While the divorce itself was not required, the certificate
of divorce was required. Its purpose was not to speed things up but to slow things down.
Divorce was never required or commanded for any reason. The certificate of divorce was
a document that was designed to slow up a hasty decision on the part of a husband to put
away his wife and to make it more difficult for him to do so. It demanded a legal
procedure that would require a certain amount of time. This prohibited the husband from
acting in haste or in private, because others, presumably at least a judge, would have to
hear his complaint. The man’s family and friends would have the opportunity to advise
him and perhaps encourage him to reconsider his intentions. At the same time the
document also served to protect the reputation of the woman who was divorced, since
some men wanted to divorce their wives for all sorts of frivolous reasons.

We must make note of one final stipulation in this law. Moses gave the reason why the
original couple could not remarry. “That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do
not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.” It is
unclear what this means, but we can advance at least two possibilities. One would be that
the Lord wanted the people of Israel to distance themselves from the practices of the
pagan people around them. He was giving them an inheritance that was the land some of
these people formerly occupied, and God wanted the land itself to be purged from those
pagan practices. The other possibility is that God wanted it understood that the second
marriage was in fact a valid and sacred marriage. Regardless the reason the first husband
divorced his wife, when she entered into a second marriage it was to be recognized as
such. She may have sinned in some way, her first husband may have sinned by divorcing
her, and the second husband may have sinned in some way. But once the marriage was
consummated it was not to be treated as anything other than a true marriage. This passage
makes it clear that under the Law of Moses once a second marriage was consummated,
the woman was not permitted to return to her first husband. Even if the second husband
died, the first husband could not marry her again. She has been “defiled” by the second
marriage, and that required an irreversible separation from her first husband. This all
shows the seriousness of giving a certificate of divorce. If divorce was allowed, it was
never encouraged, much less required.

God’s reminder that marriage is a covenant (Malachi 2:10-16).

This third significant passage of Scripture will conclude our look at the Old Testament
background on the subject of marriage and divorce. In keeping with the prophets in
general the theme of the covenant was prominent in Malachi’s message (Malachi
2:4,5,8,10,14; 3:1). Apart from the covenants in Israel’s history the prophets of the Lord
would have had no purpose. Their mission was to remind God’s people of the promises
made to Abraham and to summon them to be true to their covenant vows made at Mount
Sinai. They were the covenant people of God because of God’s initiatives in entering into
covenant arrangements with them. This should remind us that, as far as the New
Testament is concerned, Christians are now the covenant people of God. No one can be a
Christian unless God brings him into a covenant relationship with himself. And people
who are in a covenant relationship with the Lord are in a covenant relationship with one
another. So a church is a covenant people of God. The members of a church are bound
together in a covenant relationship. The message of Malachi was based on the principle
that a covenant is like a marriage, and marriage is a covenant. Covenant unfaithfulness
and marital infidelity amount to the same thing. God’s people should understand that we
cannot separate our human engagements, promises, and responsibilities from acts of
worship and the practice of religion. The great atrocity to which Malachi called attention
was that they dared to couple religious exercises with blatant sin, thinking that God
would accept the one while ignoring the other.

So we find in the first place that God wants to preserve covenant faithfulness (verse 10).
Malachi’s questions were not designed to gather information, but to sharpen the points he
was making. “Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?” He was not
asking whether anyone knew the answers to these questions. He was forcing them to face
the answers that they knew all too well. This was the method he used throughout the
Book of Malachi (1:2, 6,7; 2:17; 3:7,8). Often he anticipated the challenges that would be
made to his statements. He would raise those challenges and immediately answer them.
Malachi made the indisputable point that the people of Israel had one Father who was
also their Creator. He was not telling them that God is the Father of all people, but that
God is the Father of the covenant people. It was God who gave them their existence and
their identity. It was God who chose them out of the nations to be his “treasured
possession” and “holy nation” (Exodus 19:5,6). Malachi was speaking of God’s purpose
in election, the very emphasis with which the book began (1:2,3). God had become their
Father and created them as his favored nation because it was his purpose to do so
(Deuteronomy 4:37,38). When he brought them to Mount Sinai he made a covenant with
them. This is what Malachi had in mind when he asked, “Why do we profane the
covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?” He understood that being in
covenant with the Lord they were in covenant with one another. So breaking faith with
one another was inseparable from profaning the covenant. This matter of “breaking faith”
brackets this section of Malachi’s teaching (verses 10 and 16) and appears again in verses
11, 14, and 15. The point can hardly be missed. There can be no question that God is
looking for covenant faithfulness. He expects faithfulness to himself and to one another.
If Christians in general and church members in particular would be controlled by this
principle it would profoundly change the churches for the better. But altogether too many
claim to be Christians and presume to be church members who want nothing at all to do
with anything like a church covenant. They want their Christianity without commitments
or obligations. But God sees it differently, because he is interested in covenant
faithfulness.

The next thing we discover in this text is that God wants to preserve a covenant people
(verses 11,12). Here the prophet explained his general accusation and made it specific.
Judah was guilty of “marrying the daughter of a foreign god.” This should have come as a
broadside to the people of Judah, who had just been reminded that the Lord was their
Father and their Creator. Yet they were “marrying the daughter of a foreign god.” They
were daughters who reflected the character of their father. They were devoted to their
idols and not to the Lord God of Israel. This was an outrage, not because they were of a
different race, but because they were devotees of a pagan religion. The men of Judah
married women outside the covenant people who had no intention of becoming part of
the covenant people. They were daughters of foreign gods before they married them, and
they remained daughters of foreign gods after they married them. There were those like
Rahab (Joshua 6:22-25; Hebrews 11:31) and Ruth (Ruth 1:16), who became followers of
the Lord. But the record of no less a figure than Solomon was more often the norm. We
noted above that he “had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred
concubines, and his wives led him astray,” the reason being that he “loved many foreign
women.” “They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, ‘You
must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their
gods.’” And sure enough, “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other
gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God” (I Kings 11:1-13). The
Lord had warned his people about this early on in their history (Exodus 34:15,16;
Deuteronomy 7:3,4; Joshua 23:12,13). And now, at the close of the Old Testament era,
the problem was as rampant as ever. Ezra the scribe and Nehemiah the governor,
contemporaries of Malachi, both bore witness to it (Ezra 9,10; Nehemiah 13:23-27).

Consider how the prophet described the serious nature of this offence. He accused Judah
of having “broken faith” in this way, using the same expression he used in verse 10. The
KJV renders it “dealt treacherously.” Malachi said further, “A detestable thing has been
committed in Israel and in Jerusalem.” This was “an abomination” (KJV), something
totally intolerable and inexcusable in the sight of God. The same term was used in the
Law of Moses to describe a variety of grossly disgusting and shameful forms of behavior
(Leviticus 18; Deuteronomy 18). In fact it was the word used in Deuteronomy 24:4 as
something “detestable in the eyes of the Lord.” Furthermore, the prophet declared that
“Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the Lord loves.” They had polluted or corrupted the
people of God. In a special sense Israel or Judah was that sanctuary the Lord loved,
because he had chosen them to be his people and to dwell among them (Deuteronomy
4:32-38; Psalm 132:13,14).

By contracting foreign marriages they desecrated, defiled, and defamed that which was
supposed to belong to the Lord. Thus we can understand the prophet’s expressed wish or
prayer about a man who would do such a thing. “As for the man who does this, whoever
he may be, may the Lord cut him off from the tents of Jacob” (verse 12). Offerings of
worship could not compensate for such wickedness. Christians must learn to think of the
church as the covenant people of God. Only then will we understand what a serious issue
it is to “break faith” with one another. This is why the apostles freely applied descriptions
of Old Testament Israel to the new covenant people of God (Titus 2:14; I Peter 2:4-10). A
church is a body of people who belong to the Lord and to one another (Romans 12:5). It
is a body of people who have put their trust in the Lord and in one another, and it is no
small thing to violate that trust (I Corinthians 12:14-27). Once we become Christians, we
must immediately begin to think and behave in ways that show that we do not want to
“break faith” with our brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot live in disregard of them
any more than we can live in disregard of the Lord who made us members of his body,
the church.

Finally, God wants to preserve covenant relationships (verses 13-16). We notice that
Malachi introduced this final part of his message with the words, “Another thing you do.”
This other thing was apparently related to the first thing, the sinful practice of marrying
daughters of foreign gods. All of these issues are inseparably related – covenant
faithfulness, covenant people, and covenant relationships. The men of Judah not only
married outside the covenant people, but they divorced their wives who belonged to the
covenant people. But the prophet did not immediately mention this. He first complained
that they were weeping and wailing because the Lord did not seem to be accepting their
acts of worship (verse 13). He then proceeded to tell them the reason why the Lord was
displeased with them, as if they did not already know. But it reminds us that worship and
commitments cannot be separated. It is a perfect illustration of what our Lord taught in
Matthew 5:23,24. God will not accept the worship of those who will not repent of sin and
be reconciled to an offended brother.

There are several details in the prophet’s message that are essential to our understanding
of marriage as a covenant relationship (verse 14). He pointed out to them, for example,
that “the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth.” This tells
us that whatever outward form the marriage proceedings may take, the Lord is witness to
that marriage. Promises and commitments made in youth cannot be dismissed simply
because we grow older. While every human witness may forget or pass away, the Lord
forever remains as the all-knowing witness to what was said and done. Then the prophet
went on to say, “because you have broken faith with her,” using the same expression we
have seen in verses 10 and 11. The marriage relationship is a relationship of trust.
Promises and commitments are given and received. To violate that trust is to break faith,
or to “deal treacherously” (KJV). Successful marriages are those in which over time a
husband and wife regard trust as the foundation of their relationship. They will do
nothing to violate that trust. Malachi added the fact that the wife is the “partner” of the
husband. A partner is a companion or close friend with whom you share everything. This
is what Daniel’s three friends were to him (Daniel 2:17). The word was used to explain
how the curtains in the tabernacle were joined together with loops and clasps “so that the
tabernacle is a unit” (Exodus 26:6). So in marriage a husband and wife form a unit or
partnership. Furthermore, the wife is “the wife of your marriage covenant.” The wise man
said, “[Wisdom] will save you also from the adulteress, from the wayward wife with her
seductive words, who has left the partner of her youth and ignored the covenant she made
before God” (Proverbs 2:16,17). Marriage is a covenant, much like the covenants God
made with his people. A covenant is a solemn agreement to which God is witness. In a
covenant the parties obligate themselves to perform what they promise to each other.

The great transgression of the men of Israel was that they were despising covenant
relationships. Breaking faith with their covenant wives and marrying daughters of foreign
gods stood in direct opposition to the Lord’s purpose to preserve a covenant people (verse
15). Malachi reminded them that God had made the husband and wife “one” in “flesh and
spirit” because “he was seeking godly offspring.” The nursery for raising godly children
is a godly marriage and home. We noted earlier the complaint of Nehemiah who
governed at the time of Malachi. “Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had
married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. Half of their children spoke the
language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to
speak the language of Judah” (Nehemiah 13:23,24). Both men understood the importance
of preserving the covenant of marriage within the covenant people of God. This was the
context in which Malachi spoke the final word of the Lord to the people of his generation
which was, “I hate divorce” (verse 16). The Lord saw this as in some way tantamount to
an act of “violence,” like the violence that filled the earth in the days of Noah (Genesis
6:11). What the prophet had in mind we do not know, but what he said could only have
added to the seriousness of the charge. Thus the concluding warning was all the more
appropriate. “So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.” It is a solemn
reminder that ultimately the problems that may lead to a breakdown in a marriage are
spiritual in nature.

The Teaching of Christ

The basic teaching (Matthew 5:31,32).

Several passages in the Gospels provide elements of the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ
on the subject of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. We must consider each of these in its
own context as well as collectively as they set forth the total teaching of Christ. The first
passage occurs in the Sermon on the Mount. It is of particular importance to remember
that in this Sermon Jesus was establishing his authority as the interpreter of the Law and
the Prophets (Matthew 5:17-20). He defined greatness in the kingdom of heaven as
practicing and teaching the commandments of God in their totality, and Jesus embodied
that greatness. This is the standard of righteousness in the kingdom, a righteousness that
surpasses the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus’ comments about divorce
appear in a series of illustrations of what he meant by the righteousness of the kingdom.
It was not a righteousness that was greater in quantity, but a qualitatively different kind of
righteousness. Such righteousness could only come from God himself. This is not a
righteousness that simply compares itself with other people. It is a righteousness that
always translates into a desire to demonstrate love to God and love to others.

We know from our Lord’s comments recorded in Matthew 19, to which we will come
shortly, that Jesus accepted the creation principles as normative and foundational. God
created marriage as an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman for life.
In the present setting he referred to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in the sense that it was widely
understood and practiced, namely, that a man could divorce his wife for reasons sufficient
to himself. The only requirement was that he had to give her a certificate of divorce. The
teaching of Moses was designed to be restrictive, but it was commonly distorted in order
to remove almost all restrictions. So Jesus’ purpose was to raise the standard. The
righteousness of the Pharisee might ask, How may I justify divorcing my wife? But the
righteousness of the kingdom asks, How may I demonstrate faithfulness to my wife? “But
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her
to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits
adultery.” We should notice that Christ clearly understood Deuteronomy 24:1 as not
endorsing the practice of divorce, but as dealing with a situation as it existed. Divorce
was a widespread practice, and this legislation was brought to bear upon the situation to
provide certain controls or restraints. Thus Jesus was in no way endorsing the practice or
pronouncing his blessing upon it.

At the same time Jesus stated that the only reason a man was permitted to divorce his
wife was sexual infidelity on her part. If he divorced her for any other reason and she
married again, he was guilty of causing her to enter into an adulterous relationship. Not
only would she be committing adultery, but the second man she married would become
an adulterer as well. But the great weight of this passage is upon the fact that the
divorcing husband himself must bear the guilt of causing this situation. If he divorced his
wife for any reason other than sexual impurity on her part, he “causes her to become an
adulteress.” The original marriage was still regarded as binding unless and until there had
been sexual infidelity. Thus it goes without saying that neither party is allowed to marry
again while the first union still exists.

“Marital unfaithfulness” (“fornication,” KJV) is a general term denoting all forms of

sexual impurity. It is sexual immorality and it originates in the heart of sinful man (Mark
7:21). It is part and parcel of human depravity (Romans 1:29). It cannot be tolerated in
the church and it is completely alien to the proper purpose and function of the body (I
Corinthians 5:1,2; 6:13,18). It is something Christians must avoid at all costs (I
Thessalonians 4:3). Fornication violates the sanctity of marriage as the only context in
which sexual activity is permitted. We can see in the words of Jesus that this word is to be
distinguished from “adultery.” In this particular case fornication may lead to divorce, and
divorce may lead to adultery. Adultery properly has to do with one partner in a marriage
becoming improperly involved with someone other than his spouse. In the New
Testament the words for “fornication” and “prostitute” are very similar. Jesus used this
word instead of “adultery” not only to distinguish the two, but also because fornication
was typically associated with the immoral behavior of women. It could also include the
discovery after marriage that the woman had been immoral or promiscuous before she
was married.

The exception clause (Matthew 19:3-9).

This passage sets forth one of the many cases in which the Pharisees confronted Jesus
with a “trick question” regarding the interpretation of the Law of Moses. Their intent was
to trap him and force him to contradict what he claimed to believe and uphold. In this
instance the question was, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every
reason?” (verse 3). They were asking him to declare his interpretation of Deuteronomy
24:1-4, to which they were obviously giving the broadest interpretation. Jesus
immediately appealed to “the beginning” (verse 4), and in particular to God’s original
description of the marriage relationship (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). He asserted that a man and
his wife become one flesh in the marital bond, and that once this bond has been
established it must not be broken. “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not
separate” (verse 6).

Then the Pharisees rejoined with another question. “Why then did Moses command that a
man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (verse 7). We have already
observed the crucial point that the teaching of Moses was in no sense a command for any
man to divorce his wife. On the contrary, its whole purpose was to discourage, restrain,
and regulate an existing practice. This is exactly what Jesus pointed out to the hard
hearted Pharisees. “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were
hard. But it was not this way from the beginning” (verse 8). Once again Jesus referred to
the divinely ordained character of the marriage bond. The teaching of Moses was a
concession to hard hearts, not an endorsement of them. God never encouraged or
commanded any man to divorce his wife for any reason. The certificate of divorce was
required, but never the action of the divorce itself. The writing of the divorce document
was designed to restrain a movement toward divorce, not encourage it.

The verse that concludes this passage, however, gives us the most trouble. On the other
hand, it gives us the most help. It is one of the most crucial statements regarding this
subject in the New Testament because it speaks both to the question of divorce and to the
question of remarriage after divorce. Jesus said, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his
wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery”
(verse 9). The issue raised by this statement is whether the so-called “exception clause”
refers only to divorce, or whether it refers both to divorce and to remarriage. In other
words, is immorality on the part of the wife grounds for divorce only, or does it constitute
grounds for divorce and remarriage on the part of the innocent husband? Among
Christians there is sharp division over this question, but the correct interpretation seems
to be that the “exception clause” extends to both divorce and remarriage. The statement
would make no sense otherwise. Jesus would then have said, “I tell you that anyone who
divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness commits adultery.” The thought is not
complete without “and marries another woman.” Grammatically and logically the
exception must apply to both divorce and remarriage. If sexual deviation is grounds for a
dissolution of the marriage bond, then that union is to be regarded as if it never existed,
and therefore remarriage for the innocent partner is in order. Divorce and remarriage are
regarded in this passage as two closely coordinated actions, and must be treated as such
in relation to the exception that Jesus named. The man who divorces his wife for a
legitimate cause and then marries another woman has not committed adultery, because
the former marital union has been dissolved by the actions of the unfaithful partner.

The rights of the woman (Mark 10:2-12).

This passage is substantially the same in content as the Matthew 19 text just considered.
The sequence of thought is essentially the same, the Pharisees confronting Jesus with a
question and Jesus appealing to the Scriptures for the authoritative answer. However, a
significant addition appears here, in that Jesus included a remark with reference to the
prerogatives of the wife in a divorce situation. His comments in private to the disciples
are of particular interest. “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman
commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man,
she commits adultery” (verses 11,12). It is important to notice that the so-called
“exception clause” does not appear in this discourse as it does in Matthew. But this is no
reason to suggest that Jesus contradicted himself or that the gospel writers contradicted
each other in what they recorded of Jesus’ teaching. This is a case where the writers
included different points from the same discourse. This is common in the gospels and
accounts for the fact that we have four of them and not just one. Matthew, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, included the “exception clause” while Mark, guided by the
same Holy Spirit, omitted it. Mark, on the other hand, included the part about the right of
the woman to initiate divorce action while Matthew did not.
So in Mark’s account the statement is simply to the effect that if anyone divorces his
spouse and then marries someone else, he is guilty of committing adultery. But divorce
because of adultery is not in view there. Jesus did speak to that issue in the Matthew
account. His teaching there is clear in both instances, namely, that sexual impurity on the
part of one partner nullifies the marriage bond, and thus the innocent partner is free to
divorce and to remarry. In Mark’s account, divorce on illegitimate grounds is in view, that
is, divorce with no reason specified. This would be divorce “for any and every reason”
(Matthew 19:3). Jesus declared this to be wrong. Therefore we must conclude that both
divorce and remarriage are wrong in certain situations, and that both are permitted in
other situations. The text in Mark 10 indicates that the same regulations that apply to the
man apply equally to the woman. Jesus, who did not come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets “but to fulfill them,” provided a certain right for the woman in the event of
marital unfaithfulness on the part of her husband.

A final warning (Luke 16:18).

This passage is essentially the same as Mark 10:11,12. The difference is that it issues a
warning to the man who would marry an illegally divorced woman. “Anyone who
divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries
a divorced woman commits adultery.” Here again the “exception clause” is omitted, and
therefore the contingency of adultery causing the dissolution of the first marriage is not in
view. But the principle is set forth in Matthew and must be considered in connection with
this passage. Here Jesus stated that, in a divorce situation that has no legal ground, the
third party who marries a divorced woman is just as much of an adulterer as she.

The Lord Jesus declared himself to be categorically in favor of the preservation of

marriage. He anchored his teaching in the principles established by God in the original
creation. He reiterated those principles by his own authority. In so doing he taught that
God ordained that marriage was between one man and one woman for life. At the same
time he fully recognized the nature and consequences of sin. He understood the hardness
of human hearts that does damage to God’s original design and purpose for marriage. But
he rejected all frivolous reasons for divorce and allowed only one reason, namely,
fornication.

The teaching of Paul

In considering what the apostle Paul taught concerning divorce and remarriage, we must
take great care to remember that what Paul said in Scripture is of no less authority than
the teaching of Christ. The Bible is the only, absolute, authoritative source of truth
whether we are reading the words of Paul or Peter, of Moses or Isaiah, or of the Lord
Jesus Christ. When Paul wrote the letters that bear his name, he was writing under the
supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, his writings are “given by inspiration
of God” (II Timothy 3:16, KJV) and are not simply a compilation of his personal
thoughts and reflections. They are part of the revealed truth of God. The apostle provided
teaching on this matter in Romans 7:1-3 and I Corinthians 7:10-16.
Counsel for Christians (I Corinthians 7:10-16).
We have established that the Lord Jesus Christ allowed that a man may divorce his wife
and remarry if, and only if, his wife has been found guilty of sexual infidelity. The
provision also holds for the woman whose husband has been found guilty of the same. In
this passage Paul was dealing with matters that were outside the context of Jesus’ specific
teaching during his earthly ministry. Paul was not concerned in this case with the matter
of adultery dissolving the marriage bond. Earlier he had discussed the culture of rampant
sexual immorality in which the Corinthian Christians lived (I Corinthians 6:12-20). He
was explaining that the holiness and sanctity of the marriage relationship was the means
of avoiding sexual impurity. In verse 2 of the chapter he wrote, “But since there is so
much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own
husband.” It would not have made good sense to introduce adultery as something that
would destroy the very relationship that is designed to remove the temptation for immoral
actions. Therefore Paul did not have the case of adultery in view here, but that does not at
all negate the teaching of Christ on the subject.

The first observation we may make is that Paul’s teaching was counsel for married
Christians (verses 10, 11). The apostle Paul understood that even Christians may sin with
respect to marriage. There was the possibility that a wife might “separate from her
husband” and a husband might “divorce his wife.” The New Testament epistles are filled
with corrective instruction to help Christians put off the patterns of behavior they had
learned in the world and to put on new patterns they must learn from Christ. So in this
case he wrote, “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord).” In other words,
he interpreted what he knew Jesus had said as applying to the situation he was addressing
in the Corinthian church. He believed that the Lord had already laid down the basic
principle governing the marriages of Christian believers. This must mean that Paul was
referring to the way Jesus anchored his teaching about the permanence of marriage in the
creation account, as we have already seen. Jesus quoted the words of Moses and then
added his own authoritative final words. “Therefore what God has joined together, let
man not separate” (Mathew 19:6). On that basis the apostle said, “A wife must not
separate from her husband” and “A husband must not divorce his wife.” We notice that he
used two different words, but the idea is essentially the same because the words are used
in reverse order in verses 13 and 15. The word “separate” is the same word Jesus used in
Matthew 19:6. It was used by the apostle when he asked, “Who shall separate us from
the love of Christ,” and when he declared that nothing “will be able to separate us from
the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:35,39). The word “divorce”
is the same as “forgive” in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:12,14,15) and many other
places. Sins that are forgiven are sins that are sent away. When the sinner is “divorced”
from his sins he is discharged from their guilt and God remembers them against him no
more. The atoning blood of Christ dissolves the relationship between the sinner and his
sins. So the action implied by both words renders the same result. There is a disruption in
the relationship of two people who were formerly together.

In this context the apostle Paul made no exceptions that would allow a separation or
divorce to take place. The reason was that adultery or marital unfaithfulness was not the
issue. He reinforced this principle later in the chapter. “Are you married? Do not seek a
divorce” (I Corinthians 7:27). But he recognized that Christians might take such action
whether it was allowed or not. So he required that if the wife should depart, even though
she was forbidden to do so, she must remain unmarried (that is, she may not marry
another man), or else be reconciled to her husband. In other words, in the event that a
separation does take place, certain provisions must be observed. The breach must be
repaired and the couple must be reunited. If that cannot be accomplished, under no
circumstances may another marriage be contemplated. It is important to remember that
when Paul addressed “the married” (verse 10) he was addressing married couples who
claimed to be Christians. This is why he insisted that the goal must always be
reconciliation. When he gave the directive, “be reconciled” (verse 11), he used the word
that describes how God reconciles offending sinners to himself (Romans 5:10,11; II
Corinthians 5:18-20). It is the offending party who must be reconciled.

In the second place we find that Paul’s teaching was counsel for the Christian who is
married to an unbeliever (verses 12-14). Here Paul turned his attention to a different
situation. It was a situation involving what he called “the rest” (verse 12). It was the
problem of a mixed marriage in which one person was a Christian and the other was not.
The situation Paul had in mind was not that a Christian married an unbeliever. The
apostle gave clear and decisive instruction about that elsewhere (II Corinthians 6:14-16).
The problem in view here arose because one or the other became a Christian after they
were married. When one partner of an unsaved married couple becomes a Christian, and
the other partner remains unsaved, what should be done? Paul acknowledged that the
Lord Jesus Christ did not specifically speak to this issue. “To the rest I say this (I, not the
Lord)” (verse 12). But what Paul asserted was not simply his personal opinion, but the
instruction of an apostle of Jesus Christ. In that capacity he said that the husband or wife
who is a Christian must not seek to depart from the unbelieving spouse so long as that
unbelieving spouse is content to remain with him or her (verses 12,13). The husband or
wife who becomes a Christian must be faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ. At the same time
he or she must not do anything to disrupt the marriage or make it unnecessarily difficult
for the unsaved spouse. There mist be no desire to send the unbeliever away.

The reason for this is not a negative threat but a positive incentive. The unbeliever from
now on will be exposed to gospel blessings and opportunities. The presence and power of
the kingdom of God have entered the marriage. The transforming influence of God’s
grace will be evident in the believer’s life. The Bible will be read and prayer will be made
in that home. Someone who has been born from above by the power of the Holy Spirit
has now replaced one who was dead in trespasses and sins. A child of Adam has become
a child of God. A lost sheep has been brought into the fold. Someone who was previously
under the wrath of God has been justified, redeemed, forgiven, and reconciled to God. In
a word, the believer has been set apart or sanctified to the Lord. The Lord Jesus Christ
now has a vested interest in that marriage because the Christian belongs to him. None of
these realities can be undone or rendered null and void by the fact that one partner in the
marriage remains in unbelief. “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through
his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband”
(verse 14). When God saves a sinner it always goes this way and never the reverse. The
apostle could not and would not say that the believer is somehow “unsanctified” by the
unbeliever. It is not that the Christian contracts defilement from the non-Christian, but
that the non-Christian contracts the effects of sanctification from the Christian.

The point is essentially the same with respect to the children. “Otherwise your children
would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (verse 14). Many sincere Christians imagine
that they find the practice of infant baptism here. But does anyone need to have it pointed
out that no baptism of any kind has been mentioned in this text? The teaching is not about
baptism, and it is not even primarily about children. It is about the integrity and the
preservation of marriage. To argue that when Paul said that the children are “holy” he
meant that they should be baptized would make as much sense as maintaining that when
he said the unsaved spouse is “sanctified” he meant that the unsaved spouse should be
baptized! This is not about baptism. It is about the sanctifying influence of a born-again
husband or wife in the family. Jesus said that the temple sanctified the gold in the temple
and the altar sanctified the gift on the altar (Matthew 23:16-22). Paul said that
“everything God created” is sanctified by the word of God and prayer (I Timothy 4:5).
Something sanctified is set apart for God. It means that he claims a special interest in it.

In the third place Paul’s teaching was counsel for the Christian whose unbelieving spouse
leaves (verses 15,16). Once again we should point out that this was not about a situation
that arises because a Christian married a non-Christian. This was about an unsaved
married couple, one of whom subsequently became a Christian and the other had not
(yet) become a Christian. We have seen that Paul very strongly enjoined the Christian not
to take any action to separate from the unbeliever. But what if the unbeliever refuses to
remain with the Christian spouse and decides to leave? Where does the Christian stand in
such a circumstance? These verses give us the apostle’s answer to that dilemma. “But if
the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such
circumstances; God has called us to live in peace” (verse 15). In other words, if the
unbeliever willfully and deliberately deserts the believing spouse, and this situation
cannot in any legitimate way be corrected, Paul’s counsel was, “Let him be gone!” This
was such an expression of finality that he added that the believing partner is no longer
obligated to the marriage vow. The action of the unbeliever has dissolved the union.

We must also consider the question Paul posed in verse 16. “How do you know, wife,
whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will
save your wife?” Christians differ over whether the apostle’s tone was optimistic or
pessimistic. Was he holding out hope that the unsaved spouse might be saved, or was he
implying that there was little likelihood that this would come to pass? It is impossible to
decide with any certainty. Peter’s comment in I Peter 3:1 could be taken to support the
optimistic view. “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any
of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of
their wives.” On the other hand, if Paul had intended this meaning, he would have asked,
“How do you know if you will not save him/her?” This would have been an
encouragement to keep trying and not give up. But the question is, “How do you know if
you will?” Clearly the apostle was making a distinction between the “sanctifying” of
verse 14 and the “saving” of verse 16. And clearly he did not intend to suggest that the
one was either identical with the other or that the one would necessarily lead to the other.
At the very least we can conclude that the evangelistic incentive for winning the unsaved
spouse to Christ should not be the sole consideration for the believer in such
circumstances. Not a few Christians have knowingly married unbelievers and justified
their disobedience by turning marriage into an evangelistic ministry. In a situation in
which one partner in an existing marriage becomes a Christian, evangelism becomes an
important goal for the believer. But it should not necessarily override every other
consideration and require the believer to remain in the marriage when the unbeliever
refuses to do so.

It is important to review the guidelines in this text and keep them in perspective. We
must not try to make the passage say more than it is saying. Nor do we want to make it
more restrictive than it was intended to be. First, the apostle spoke of marriage between
two Christians in verse 10,11. Second, he spoke of a mixed marriage that resulted from
the conversion of one partner in an existing marriage in verses 12-16. Third, he spoke of
the case of willful separation on the part of the unbeliever. He specifically did not allow
any initiation of such action on the part of the believer. Fourth, the separation in view was
because the partner became a Christian. The unbeliever became so openly and intolerably
hostile to the Christian faith that he or she refused to stay in the marriage. Paul was
dealing with the specific situation in which an unbelieving spouse deserted and
abandoned the husband or wife who became a Christian because he or she became a
Christian. These being the circumstances in question, the believer is no longer obligated
to maintain the marriage. The believer is free to marry again, but only in the Lord (I
Corinthians 7:39).

An illustration (Romans 7:1-6).

This text is not primarily about marriage or divorce. What the apostle said on the subject
here, while true and authoritative, was only incidental or secondary to his main argument.
His purpose was to illustrate the effect of the death and resurrection of Christ upon the
relationship of the Christian to the law and to Christ himself. He based his illustration on
the fundamental proposition that marriage is for the duration of the lives of the married
couple, consistent with what Moses said in Genesis 2:24 and what Jesus said in Matthew
19:6. The general principle is that the wife is bound by the law to her husband as long as
he is living. Paul had in view here no other circumstances such as were involved in those
passages of Scripture that we have already considered. His purpose was simply to state
the principle that only death can dissolve a marriage and introduce the possibility of
another marriage. In so doing he established the believer’s relationship to the law. If
death dissolves the marriage bond and makes it possible to contract a new marriage, then
the death of Christ has freed us from bondage to the law and established us in a new
marriage to himself. The illustration of the law of marriage served his purpose well. It
emphasized the nature of the relationship between the sinner and the law and the
redeemed sinner and Christ. Marriage points to the binding nature of the relationship. It
illustrates an exclusive relationship, meaning that as long as a person is married to the
law he cannot be married to Christ. But when death terminates one marriage, it opens up
the possibility of another. That new marriage then has the potential of producing
legitimate offspring in its own right. And the apostle’s point was that the law could only
make us bear fruit for death (verse 5). But union with Christ enables us to bear fruit for
God (verse 4). “So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that
you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might
bear fruit to God.”

We have seen that God may allow what he does not approve. While divorce falls short of
God’s design for marriage, he allows it because of the hardness of man’s heart. Sin has
changed the heart of man, but it does not alter the fact that God created marriage as the
lifelong union of one man and one woman. The Bible recognizes three legitimate grounds
for divorce and remarriage. One is the death of the husband or the wife. The second is
adultery on the part of the husband or the wife. The third is the desertion of a believer by
an unbelieving husband or wife because the latter refuses to remain in a marriage with a
Christian believer. In no case does the Bible command or encourage a divorce. Divorce is
only permitted for the reasons we have identified. Married couples should in every
instance make concerted efforts to resolve their differences and preserve their marriages
to the glory of God. Many people who have experienced divorce and remarriage may find
that their circumstances do not conform to the principles of the word of God. They may
have divorced for unbiblical reasons, perhaps for the most superficial of reasons. They
may have made no attempt to resolve their difficulties according to the teaching and
counsel of the word of God. They may have been guilty of an adulterous relationship.

We must remember that there is no sin that finally condemns anyone except the sin of
refusing to submit to Christ as a Savior. God in his mercy and grace delights in forgiving
all the sins of those who trust in Christ as their sin bearer. When a sinner comes to Christ,
he comes as a sinner in need of a Savior. He comes with a willingness to acknowledge his
sin, confess it, and repent of it. When he does that he can be assured of complete and
unqualified forgiveness. God is willing to charge his sins, all of them, to Jesus, and to
credit the sinner with the perfect righteousness of Jesus. Many who have come through a
divorce may have never confessed their sins. Not surprisingly, they seldom, if ever,
confessed any sins in their marriage. They may admit that they “weren’t perfect” or that
they “made mistakes.” But few are willing to acknowledge that they have actually sinned
in specific ways. This can result in repeating the same patterns of behavior in a
subsequent marriage that caused problems in the previous one. Divorce should never be
regarded as a marriage that “just didn’t work out.” Marriage does not exist as an entity
separate from the husband and wife who are married. Marriages fail because people fail.
The persons in those marriages sin against God and against each other. There is only one
remedy for sin, and it is God’s remedy. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and
will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9).

November, 1972

Revised October, 2007