What About Divorce?
Image
Divorce is a hot button issue among Christians today. It seems to have been a pressing issue in Christ’s day as well. Needless to say, divorce involves a wide range of opinions and engenders serious disagreements. Some state that the Bible teaches no divorce for any reason for any Christian ever. Others consider divorce an unfortunate, but unavoidable fact of life that should cause no undue concern for the people of God.
In truth, the Bible teaches neither of these positions. Let us examine one of the most extensive passages on this difficult subject, namely 1 Corinthians 7:10-16.
Divorce Among Believers
The passage opens with the words, “now to the married.” The Apostle Paul directs his attention to married members of the church in answer to their questions about divorce. This follows instructions already given to singles asking if it is OK to remain single (1 Cor. 7:1), married church members about the propriety of celibacy within marriage (1 Cor. 7:2-7), followed by questions from Widows and Widowers regarding remarriage after the death of a spouse (1 Cor. 7:8,9). Now Paul returns to married believers to field their questions about divorce.
It is important to understand exactly who is giving the first set of instructions that Paul characterizes as from “not I, but the Lord.” This is his way of reiterating the previous teaching of Christ. What did Jesus teach when He was upon the earth? He declared that there should be no divorce among believers unless the marriage bond has been broken by adultery. God established marriage to be permanent, and divorce followed by remarriage is adultery. The only exception is if adultery has already broken the marriage. In that case, the innocent party is permitted to divorce and is free to remarry without sanction. This teaching is clear enough as far as it goes (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9).
Paul agrees with Christ, which is exactly what we would expect. Believers should not divorce. If a separation or divorce occurs, there are only two options. The Christian may either remain unmarried, or else be reconciled within the original marriage. This is the teaching of Jesus and it is also the teaching of Paul, an Apostle of Christ. It is noteworthy that Paul gives the same rights and responsibilities to wives as well as husbands. There is no inequality between the sexes in his teaching.
Divorce Within Mixed Marriages
In verses 12-16, Paul addresses another category with the words, “but to the rest.” He now answers the Corinthians’ questions regarding mixed marriages, where one is a believer and the other is not.
There were probably many such marriages in the church of Corinth—people who were both pagans when they married, but now one has been converted. This is a situation which has not yet been addressed. The words of Jesus applied to two believers, not mixed marriages, as there were very few mixed marriages among the Jews of that day.
But we are also puzzled by Paul’s statement, “I say, not the Lord.” Are these words not inspired? Are they contrary to something taught by Christ? No, Paul is very aware that he is an inspired Apostle, but this phrase alerts us that the following instructions constitute additional revelation not addressed by Christ. Jesus previously gave no command regarding mixed marriages, but now He does through Paul. Both sets of instructions are inspired. The first were spoken by Jesus on Earth, and the second are delivered by Christ from Heaven through the pen of the Apostle Paul.
And what are these instructions? Let’s take the first question. May the believer in a mixed marriage initiate divorce? Answer, No (1 Cor. 7:12, 13). Mixed marriages, though not ideal, are lawful marriages, and Christians have no right to dissolve them. If the unbeliever is willing to remain, the marriage should continue.
Is the believer defiled by the unbeliever? Answer, No (1 Cor. 7:14). A Christian is not rendered unholy by an unbelieving spouse. In fact, the opposite is true. The unbeliever is sanctified by the believer. “Sanctified” in this context means set apart for God’s purposes, not rendered holy in the sense of cleansing from sin. An unbelieving husband in the home provides protection, provision, and stability for the benefit of the believing wife. God blesses the unbeliever to provide benefits for His own dear child. Furthermore, the unbeliever himself receives divine blessings for the sake of the believer, including the possibility of converting grace.
But what if the unbeliever initiates divorce (1 Cor. 7:15)? If the unbeliever is not willing to maintain the marriage, the believer must allow him to depart. Not may, but must. This is a command, and in this situation, the believer is “not under bondage in such cases.” He is free to remarry, a totally different situation than when two believers divorce and are commanded to remain single or be reconciled. No permission to remarry is granted in the case of two believers who divorce for reasons other than adultery, but within mixed marriages, if the unbeliever departs, the believer is free.
This constitutes the second allowable reason for divorce followed by remarriage. The first is adultery, and the second is desertion, but only when a believer is deserted by an unbeliever.
But please note that divorce is permissible, not required. It is always possible that the testimony of the believer may be powerfully used by God to convert the unbeliever. (1 Cor. 7:16). There is always reason for hope, and therefore, the believer is encouraged by stay engaged with the unbeliever as long as possible. But if the unbeliever insists on divorce, let him go for the sake of peace and as a testimony to the world that Christians are not rancorous and unreasonable. After all, when two pagans marry, and one is converted, the unbeliever finds himself in an entirely different situation than the one he joined in marriage. Hopefully, he will be content to remain. If not, recognize how the altered circumstances probably look like injustice to him, and let him depart in peace.
Additional Questions
Are remarried divorcees living in adultery? Answer, No. If the divorce was not sanctioned by Jesus or Paul, the remarriage after divorce constitutes an act of adultery. Jesus said so. But the act of adultery breaks the marriage bond. Once broken, the bond is broken. Such persons are not living in adultery. They committed adultery, but are not living in adultery. Remarriage broke the previous bond and dissolved the former marriage relationship.
What can I do now about a previous unbiblical divorce? It is impossible to unscramble an egg. Acknowledge your divorce and remarriage as sin. Confess your sins and receive Christ’s forgiveness. Make your present marriage a model of Christian love.
Conclusion
Divorce is a serious matter, and it is always grievous. There is no such thing as an inconsequential divorce. Divorce should never be undertaken lightly, which is why the Bible issues strong restraints against it.
However, in recognition of the broken world in which we live, God graciously allows divorce and remarriage in certain situations. What the Bible allows must be acknowledged and received by the people of God. May God’s Spirit do such a mighty work among His people that divorce becomes uncommon. May God’s Spirit also so work among His people that those who have experienced the grief of divorce will always know the love and encouragement of their fellow believers in Christ.
Greg Barkman 2018 Bio
G. N. Barkman received his BA and MA from BJU and later founded Beacon Baptist Church in Burlington, NC where has pastored since 1973. In addition, Pastor Barkman airs the Beacon Broadcast on twenty radio stations. He and his wife, Marti, have been blessed with four daughters and nine grandchildren.
- 8 views
A scholar named David Instone-Brewer has argued (somewhere) that Deuteronomy allows for divorce in abuse situations. It always seemed like a big, big stretch to me (from the text, at least). You can look him up if you want to read something on this. I don’t remember what he wrote about it; I just remember that I thought it was an exegetical stretch. I could be wrong!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]A scholar named David Instone-Brewer has argued (somewhere) that Deuteronomy allows for divorce in abuse situations. It always seemed like a big, big stretch to me (from the text, at least). You can look him up if you want to read something on this. I don’t remember what he wrote about it; I just remember that I thought it was an exegetical stretch. I could be wrong!
And Piper’s response to I-B is excellent.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/tragically-widening-the-grounds-of…
And no, I’m not saying I completely agree with Piper’s position on the Matthew clause, either (again - this is unsettled), but at least Piper’s argument is sound exposition. I-B’s doesn’t even come close.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Jason, my take is that while the Scriptures don’t explicitly condone divorce for physical or other abuse, a use of church discipline to temporarily separate the couple and appeal to the offender for repentance will very often end in the offender moving on relationally—and providing Biblical excuse for divorce, either the offender’s adultery or the offender’s abandonment of the spouse while unrepentant.
Not always, thank God, but in my observation of fighting couples, this is unfortunately the reality.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
There are some who see the possibility of the termination of the legal decree of marriage for a Christian that does not allow for remarriage. There are also some who believe that the spiritual and covenantal bond of marriage can only be terminated because of adultery of abandonment and remarriage allowed.
BTW, I’m one of those who doesn’t see divorce and/or divorce and remarriage as unpardonable sins.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Bert Perry]Jason, my take is that while the Scriptures don’t explicitly condone divorce for physical or other abuse, a use of church discipline to temporarily separate the couple and appeal to the offender for repentance will very often end in the offender moving on relationally—and providing Biblical excuse for divorce, either the offender’s adultery or the offender’s abandonment of the spouse while unrepentant.
Agreed on the former. Many times (most? some say virtually every time) abusers are found to be involved in the Matthew Allowance.
But on the latter - still haven’t heard any scriptural allowance for the one abandoned to seek a divorce.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Jason, I’d argue that 1 Cor. 7:12-15 gives that case. Now we could quibble that technically it is the leaving spouse who initiates divorce, but it turns out that (a) legal documents for divorce in Roman days were probably limited to the middle class and up and (b) the person being abandoned did not need to be served with legal papers even if there were legal papers. So practically speaking, a fair number of divorced people would “infer that from circumstances”.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Jason, I’d argue that 1 Cor. 7:12-15 gives that case. Now we could quibble that technically it is the leaving spouse who initiates divorce, but it turns out that (a) legal documents for divorce in Roman days were probably limited to the middle class and up and (b) the person being abandoned did not need to be served with legal papers even if there were legal papers. So practically speaking, a fair number of divorced people would “infer that from circumstances”.
1 Cor 7:12-15 is specifically speaking to a believer married to an unbeliever, of course.
Does “separate” tell us the unbeliever initiated/committed divorce against the saved? Just an honest question.
I’m perfectly fine with a variety of interpretations on the “is not bound” clause, but only in the context of the unbelieving spouse leaving the believing spouse. The “not bound” clause is a case of scriptural ambiguity, but the conditions are not ambiguous at all.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Jason, my take is that it’s probably not a bad assumption to assume that the person who abandons a believing, non-adulterous spouse probably would get to the Matthew 18:17 stage of things and can be viewed as a nonbeliever. Not a perfect correlation, to be sure, but it’s an awfully good guess. So I would argue that it is virtually implicit in the context.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Jason, my take is that it’s probably not a bad assumption to assume that the person who abandons a believing, non-adulterous spouse probably would get to the Matthew 18:17 stage of things and can be viewed as a nonbeliever. Not a perfect correlation, to be sure, but it’s an awfully good guess. So I would argue that it is virtually implicit in the context.
Fair enough. And that’s where I think the conversation transitions from “what does the Bible say” to “what do we do in such-and-such a situation” - because every situation has unique circumstances, and time is almost always a factor. We are so very impatient; many times, just as you said, we’d likely find that Matthew’s Allowance is indeed available, if the victim so chooses to agree that it is, indeed, an allowance by ignoring the heart-hardness thing. I’m not convinced either way. I think Piper’s position is an acceptable interpretation of Matthew’s Allowance, but I’m not settled on the matter.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Piper follows Heth’s original argument but Heth later changed to the majority position- divorce for adultery and abandonment.
The law recognizes the concept of “constructive desertion,” that is, when one spouse’s behavior is so egregious that the other spouse cannot live with him/her. What kinds of behavior cross the threshold probably have to be decided case by case.
The WCF reads as follows:
Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case (24:6).
If 1 Corinthians 7 allows divorce from a deserting unbeliever, the ordinary church discipline process with an abusive spouse would, if the spouse does not repent, lead to his/her excommunication, i.e., the conclusion that the he/she is not a believer. If such a person makes it impossible to live with him or her (e.g., it’s just not safe), then that’s constructive desertion.
This is not a decision for the abused person to make willy nilly; the church and the civil authorities should be involved. We may expect police reports. We should certainly expect documented counseling / confrontation sessions.
@JNoel: it’s not the explicitly Scriptural case you’re looking for, but I do think it fits logically with what Scripture allows.
Our church’s leadership was dealing with an edge case and for a long time had to counsel a man not to initiate divorce proceedings with his wife, despite some pretty egregious behavior on her part. In my mind that was an effort to hit a “can in no way be remedied” standard where we could conclude that we’d done everything we could to reconcile them. One of the things that held us off, too, was that the “innocent” husband was not completely innocent…long story. During that time, if the wife had initiated the divorce proceedings, we wouldn’t necessarily have disciplined him for not fighting the divorce.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[M. Osborne]@JNoel: it’s not the explicitly Scriptural case you’re looking for, but I do think it fits logically with what Scripture allows.
If I were looking for explicit, I’d need a different Bible. We all know the Bible doesn’t explicitly speak to cases of abuse. My question is regarding the scriptural support used by those who believe the Bible does indeed speak to scriptural allowance for divorce in cases of abuse. We will never find a Henebury C1 or C2, but even the C3s have enough scriptural support upon which one can reasonably base his argument. Quoting the WCF isn’t scriptural grounds of any kind, at least not in the quote you posted; I understand that the WCF likely has scriptural reasons behind the statement and that they are likely better than Instone-Brewer: his argument is not sound exegesis; I’m pretty most of us can agree with that. Piper comes to conclusions at least based on sound scriptural analysis but they are his conclusions, they aren’t explicit statements, and thus are subject to interpretive debate. All this to say I’m not settled on the matter and I’m growing increasingly confident that I never will be, either. And I’m okay with that - and I’m still listening. :)
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Discussion