Christian Family Law Association

It is quite common for divorce clients to seek spiritual guidance from a family law attorney on the subjects of divorce and remarriage. Many clients feel more comfortable discussing divorce and remarriage with their attorneys than with their pastors. Some pastors leave clients feeling guilty or unsure of their spiritual predicament. Others simply lack the knowledge of the secular laws related to divorce to provide accurate guidance in a spiritual context. For instance, some pastors tell persons considering divorce that the only permissible biblical ground for divorce is marital unfaithfulness. However, few pastors know that marital unfaithfulness is no longer a legal ground for divorce. The purpose of this section is to provide a framework for accurate client counseling on these legal/spiritual issues.

Clients usually bring to the discussion a cultural context that divorce and remarriage are part of the accepted fabric of society and the church. Almost everyone knows someone who has divorced and remarried without any particular social stigma having attached. A study released in 2004 by The Barna Group shows that the number of married adults who obtain a divorce, about 35%, is identical among Christians and those who are not Christian. Multiple divorces are also unexpectedly common among Christians, with 23% having been divorced two or more times. Although Bible scholars and teachers are almost universal in their view that divorce is a sin, about 66% of Americans reject the notion that divorce is a sin.[FN1] Despite the social acceptability of divorce, both in and outside the church, many clients want to know if obtaining a divorce has spiritual consequences based on Scripture. Typical questions include:

(1) How can I obtain a biblical divorce?

(2) What are the biblical grounds for divorce?

(3) Is it spiritually okay for me to divorce my spouse for adultery or abandonment?

(4) If I remarry after my divorce, am I committing adultery?

To address these concerns, it is necessary to have an understanding of both the biblical and legal teachings on the law of divorce and remarriage. We are fortunate to have in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) the teachings of Jesus related to divorce and remarriage.[FN2] These teachings are set forth in Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; and Luke 16:18. Paul also writes about separation and divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. We will consider these texts in three parts, and then synthesize them in part four.

Mark 10:2-12 and Matthew 19:3-12

If you have a Bible handy, take a look at these two passages. They are similar in many ways. They both begin with an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees as they seek to test Jesus publicly. In both, there is concern by the Pharisees about the lawfulness of divorce practices under Jewish law. In both, Jesus refuses to answer the question as posed by the Pharisees. Instead Jesus addresses the heart of the Jewish law, particularly, Gods original intention for marriage in creation. In both passages, Jesus makes strong statements imploring his listeners to obey Gods ultimate will for marriage. In both, Jesus juxtaposes mans will in causing divorce in relation to Gods ultimate will. In both, he proscribes the sinful consequences of divorce and remarriage. At the end of each passage he responds to questions from his disciples.

However, there are also material differences in these two passages. The Pharisees in Matthew were asking not merely whether divorce was lawful, but whether it was lawful "for any and every reason." (Matt 19:3). These Pharisees in Matthew were not simply asking whether divorce was lawful. They knew that Moses clearly permitted divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In that Old Testament (OT) passage, divorce was clearly lawful and was accomplished simply by the husband giving a certificate of divorce to his wife and sending her away. What the Pharisees in Matthew and Mark were really trying to do was to lure Jesus into the rabbinic debate between the Shammai and Hillel, two different groups of Pharisees, who differed in their views of the legitimate grounds for divorce. They felt that by luring Jesus into this debate, he would be ridiculed by one side or the other and lose some of his followers. This was the same issue that had cost John the Baptist his life. After refusing to be drawn into the debate, Jesus in Matthew (but not in Mark) includes an exception clause permitting divorce for marital unfaithfulness. (Matt 19:9). We will revisit this exception clause later.

Let us consider Mark 10:2-12 in more detail. The passage can be divided into five parts: (1) the Pharisees question to Jesus about divorce (v 2); Jesus question in response (v 3); (3) the Pharisees response (v 4); (4) Jesus rebuttal (vv 5-9); and, (5) Jesus explanation of his teaching to his disciples (vv 10-12).[FN2] We can logically deduct from this passage that: (1) marriage is grounded in creation by God, and it cannot and should not be dissolved by man; (2) if a man divorces his wife and marries another woman, he is guilty of adultery against the wife he divorces; and, (3) if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she is guilty of adultery against the husband she divorces. Jesus makes no exceptions in Mark to his prohibition against divorce and remarriage.[FN3]

To gain a better understanding of the context of Jesus teaching we need to address the prevailing views of first century Jews (particularly the Pharisees addressing Him) on the laws related to divorce and remarriage. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was considered central to understanding the Mosaic Law, although there were other texts that addressed the issue of divorce in legal terms.[FN4] The Jewish teaching has been succinctly summarized as follows:

The School of Shammai say: 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, as it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything. R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes. (Italicized words are from Deuteronomy 24).

The school of Shammai was more predominant among early first century Jews, but the school of Hillel became more prominent by the end of the first century.[FN5] There is nothing in Deuteronomy 24, or any other OT text for that matter, which authorizes or endorses the practice of a certificate of divorce that had become the Jewish cultural practice.[FN6] Under the law, a Jewish woman had no legal right to divorce her husband, nor could she defend herself against a divorce by her husband. The certificate of divorce was more in the form of a declaration of divorce which the husband himself issued. It gave some protection to the divorced wife who remarries and is then divorced by her second husband. The first husband could not legally force cohabitation with her or he would be in violation of the law. The certificate of divorce also allowed her to remarry someone other than her former husband because marriage was a means of protection and survival for the woman.[FN7] The teaching of Shammai provided a more conservative approach that protected the wife from divorce unless she had engaged in some immoral sexual behavior (probably not adultery as that would have been punishable by death). The teaching of Hillel provided a more liberal approach that allowed the husband to issue a certificate of divorce for almost anything, including failures in the kitchen or the bedroom. It is not surprising that Jewish males preferred the Hillel view as they lived in a male dominated Jewish culture.

The Jewish laws on divorce had not developed outside of Gods purview. Jesus obviously recognized how the certificate of divorce had been abused, and how it had become a means of disobedience to Gods will for marriage as established in creation. Jesus response in Mark probably shocked his listeners. As he had done in the Sermon on the Mount with a number of Jewish laws, Jesus goes behind the Jewish law and tradition and redefines it. He responds to the Pharisees by having them consider Gods intentions for marriage in creation. Jesus had come to inaugurate the Kingdom of God. This meant a return to the original intention of God for marriage as it existed for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. Although the Pharisees make reference to the Mosaic Law (Deut 24:1-4), Jesus did not want to go there. Jesus inaugurated Kingdom would be a new Kingdom with a new creation, and this encompassed a return to the original intention for marriage in the first creation. Jesus explained that the Mosaic Law had been a concession by God because of mans hard heart. The new Kingdom of God would be a new covenant. (Jer 31:31, et seq.). The law of God would now be put in the minds of believers, and it will be written on their hearts. Through the Holy Spirit they will be enabled to obey. Their hearts will no longer be hard, and they will no longer need a law of divorce. Jesus wanted His followers to envision the new Kingdom of God without divorce as it was originally intended by God in creation. The Kingdom of God would come into being through the redemptive work of Jesus through His life, death on the cross, and resurrection. So the law of Jesus on divorce was no different in context and meaning from the other laws and teachings of Jesus as he had explained them in the Sermon on the Mount.

So what was marriage before the Fall? What should marriage look like in the new inaugurated Kingdom of God? Jesus provides an explanation in both Matthew and Mark. His explanation can be summarized in three basic parts. First, marriage is a partnership between a male and a female that is established by God for his purposes. Referring to Genesis 1:27, Jesus says, "God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6; Matt 19:4). If we look at all of Genesis 1:27, we discover that it refers to God creating man in his own image. Both males and females would bear Gods divine image. When we look at Genesis 1:26-31 in context, we see that the image of God refers to particular purposes or tasks that have been given by God to humans in connection with having dominion over creation. Man and women would represent God by accomplishing his purposes in the new creation. These purposes include: (1) engaging in procreation, "Be fruitful and increase in number (v 28);" (2) having dominion and stewardship over the birds and plants (v 28-30); and, (3) joining in the relational union of husband and wife as one flesh (Gen 2:24).[FN8] The union between man and woman is most intimately realized in marriage. In these ways marriage reflects the very image of God.[FN9] Jesus teaching in the New Testament (NT) gives a more complete picture of Gods purposes for husband and wife. Jesus teaches, "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." (Matt 6:33). So husbands and wives are to place God first, not themselves. (Luke 9:23-27). As we often see, if a married couple place their marriage in a higher priority than God as a means of self-fulfillment, they will be disappointed, and divorce is often the result. But regardless of their concern for God, God is involved in this covenantal relationship. Marriage, being ordained by God in creation, is for the purpose of forming a partnership for serving God in his Kingdom.

Second, Jesus explained that marriage is the joining (or rejoining) of husband and wife in a one-flesh union. Referring to Genesis 2:24, Jesus says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." (Mark 10:7-8; Matt 19:5). The creation account depicts God creating woman as a helper for man, and she was formed from a rib taken from mans body while he was asleep. Mans response was one of joy as reflected in Genesis 2:23. So one became two, and in marriage the two become one again. Genesis 2:25 states, "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."[FN10] So in the inaugurated Kingdom of God there is to be a union of man and woman in marriage as one flesh, and this union is one of unashamed personal, relational, and sexual intimacy as it existed before the Fall.

Third, Jesus taught that marriage is a covenant relationship that is intended to be faithful and permanent in this age. Jesus adds to the Genesis account by stating, "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Mark 10:9; Matt 19:6). Jesus could not make the teaching any clearer. God has the authority and he has created this covenantal union between husband and wife. It is intended to be a permanent lifetime commitment. When we consider Gods purposes for man, as discussed above, it becomes obvious that marriage must be a lifetime commitment. Otherwise there is a lack of stability for children, the home, and Gods purposes for inaugurating the Kingdom. Marriage is therefore grounded in creation by the Creator, and like other biblical covenants there is the intention that it be permanent. It is the way that God chose to relate to man, to Israel, and to the church.[FN11] Interestingly, Jesus teaching concerning the covenant of marriage may be the only law teaching that Jesus gives that will not be part of the Kingdom of God in the Age to Come (Heaven). In Matthew 22:30, Jesus says, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." This however should not be looked upon as a reason for presupposing that learning to live in the covenantal relationship of marriage is not good preparation for the consummated Kingdom. The church will be the bride of Christ in the new creation. (Rev 21:9; Eph 5:29-30). This implies a covenantal relationship between Christians and Christ in the new creation for all eternity. This relationship is not unlike Gods intention for marriage without divorce before the Fall.

Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark applies his teaching about divorce equally to men and women. Jesus teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, and in relation to divorce and remarriage, was a fundamental reshaping of Jewish law and tradition concerning adultery. Jewish law had viewed adultery as a property offense in that the adulterer has stolen a mans property by taking his wife. Adultery could therefore only be committed by a man. A man was not considered the property of his wife. Jesus teaching therefore was a radical departure from the Jewish law on adultery.[FN12] Why did Jesus make such fundamental changes? The answer lies most probably in the historical context. In Mark 6:17 et seq., we see John the Baptist chastising Herod for having divorced his wife, the daughter of Aretas, the king of the Nabateans, and having married Herodias, who was the wife of his living brother, Philip. Johns chastisement ultimately cost him his life. Jesus teaching on divorce, remarriage, and adultery may be taking aim at Herod and Herodias for their divorces and adulterous remarriages. Jesus may also have been taking aim at the fact that both men and women were allowed to divorce their spouses and remarry another under Roman law.[FN13] There is some support for the position that Jesus himself had been critical of Herod. Craig A. Evans suggests that Jesus refers to Herod Antipas as "that fox!" who we are told in Luke 13:31-32 wants to kill Jesus. In Mark 6:16 Herod feared that Jesus might be John the Baptist raised from the dead. Evans suggests that Jesus reference to a "reed shaken by the wind" and "a man clothed in soft raiment" may be in reference to Herod Antipas instead of John the Baptist. The "certain nobleman" who is the thieving and murderous figure in the parable of the Pounds (Luke 19:11-27) was originally alluding to Herod Antipas or to his brother Herod Archelaus.[FN14] So the historical friction that had existed between John the Baptist, Herod, and Herodias was carried forward by Jesus through his teaching that the very conduct they had engaged in divorce and remarriage, are in fact adultery. Regardless of the historical friction or motivation for Jesus, it is clear that he is teaching a fundamentally new principle of law that applies to everyone who will be a part of the inaugurated Kingdom of God.

As noted earlier, Matthew 19:3-12 is a parallel passage to Mark 10:1-12. The passage was probably borrowed by Matthew as Mark was written earlier. The passage can be divided into seven parts: (1) the test question; (2) the answer of Jesus, subdivided into (a) the teaching of Moses in Genesis (vv 4-6a), and (b) the application (v 6b); (3) the Pharisees objection, based on Moses teaching (v 7); (4) Jesus explanation (v 8); (5) conclusion (v 9); (6) the disciples comment (v 10); and (7) Jesus response, further divided into (a) the hardness of the saying (v 11), (b) the saying concerning eunuchs for the Kingdom of God (v 12a-c), and (c) the exhortation to hear (v 12d). Matthew is clearly dependent on Mark with verbatim agreement at many points.[FN15]

The discussion above applies equally well to Matthew; however, there is one very material difference that will be discussed at this point, i.e., the exception clause. Many pastors use this clause as a basis for a "biblical divorce." The exception clause is found only in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.[FN16] Remember that Jesus makes no exception for his prohibition against divorce in Mark or Luke. Most texts translate Matthews exception clause as "marital unfaithfulness." This is a broad term for sexual sin of all kinds. Many scholars have tried to distinguish between "marital unfaithfulness" and "adultery," on the grounds that Jesus would have been taking sides with the school of Shammai, and because Matthew had used the same Greek word for adultery in Matthew 5:27-28. Others have suggested that Jesus was referring to premarital unfaithfulness or incestuous marriages. Still others argue that "except" means "except for a consideration of," so that Jesus is not taking one side or the other on divorce for adultery. Blomberg notes that D. A. Carson provides a good brief survey of the various exegetical options, and he provides an excellent defense for the New International Version (NIV) Bibles translation of marital unfaithfulness. Many of these scholars overlook the fact that Jewish law required divorce in the case of adultery, whereas Christianity did not require divorce. Jesus is not siding with the school of Shammai because, even with the exception clause, Jesus teaching is still more conservative. One might argue that Jesus exception for adultery is warranted because adultery undermines a fundamental element of the marriage covenant, namely, sexual exclusivity. Matthew probably uses "marital unfaithfulness" because it was the term more commonly associated with female rather than male infidelity. Matthew 19:9 is unique from all the other passages in that it links the exception clause with permission for the innocent spouse to remarry. Some scholars deny that the exception clause modifies both verbs (divorces and marries another), and they contend that even when divorce is permitted, remarriage is always wrong. Craig Blomberg notes that careful grammatical analysis "renders this interpretation unlikely."[FN17] Much like the issue of whether the chicken or egg came first, we are left to ponder why Matthew includes the exception clause, yet the same is totally absent from the parallel passage in Mark? Some commentators have tried to use word studies that exclude or minimize the exception. Matthews use of the Greek mh; ejpi;, translated "except for," has been translated by some translators as "even for" or "not considering the case of." These are highly unlikely translations from the Greek text. The best Greek translations leave us with the exception clause translated as "marital unfaithfulness." Some scholars contend that Mark assumes the exception in his text since divorce and remarriage after an act of adultery were universally permitted, and divorce was often mandatory in the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures.[FN18]

Many scholars, including this author, attribute Matthews exception clause as an addition to Jesus teaching by Matthew. There are at least five logical reasons why Matthew most probably added the marital unfaithfulness exception to the text he borrowed from Mark: (1) the exception clause stands in tension with the absoluteness of verse 6, weakens the argument of verses 7-8, and makes the disciples comment in verse 10 and Jesus statement in verses 11-12 seem less appropriate than they would be without the exception;[FN19] (2) it is not likely Jesus would have used "marital unfaithfulness," a different word for all kinds of sexual sins including adultery, so soon after referring to adultery in Matthew 5:27-28; (3) the exception is absent from the parallel text of Mark which is an earlier text than Matthew, and the same exception is absent from Luke 16:18; (4) Jesus, when laying down the law of the Kingdom, makes no exceptions for unrighteous conduct, and such an exception here weakens Kingdom ethics; and, (5) probably most importantly and as a motive, Matthew probably added the exception because his writing is directed toward a Jewish/Christian audience, and by including the unfaithfulness exception, he makes Jesus teachings on divorce and remarriage, and the gospel as a whole, more appealing to his readers.

Matthew 5:31-32 and Luke 16:18

The first passage to address the issue of divorce in the NT is Matthew 5:31-32. In this passage, Jesus uses the same formula to make his points as he did with murder (v 21) and lust (v 27). Jesus says, "It has been said ..." (v 31), "But I tell you ..." (v 32). Jesus is not doing away with the law or adding his own beliefs. He is giving a fuller understanding of why God made the law in the first place. To fully understand this passage, it is necessary to read Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:3-12 in pari materia. Only by adding the basis for the teaching from Matthew 19:4-6 to Matthew 5:31-32 do we find an understanding of the passage. We can logically deduct from this passage that: (1) anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness,[FN20] causes her to become an adulteress; and, (2) anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.[FN21] In the first statement, Jesus places the sin blame for the wifes sin on the husband who divorces his wife. This statement is unique to Matthew. However, this seems quite consistent with Jewish culture at the time. As discussed above, only the husband could grant a certificate of divorce. If the husband has become a follower of Jesus, his love for others (Matt 7:12), in this case the wife (even if she is his enemy, Matt 5:44), must trump his lustful self interest that may prompt him to grant himself a divorce.[FN22] The second part of Matthew 5:32 is one of warning to the community of eligible bachelors: You are guilty of adultery if you marry this woman after her husband divorces her. This is exactly parallel and almost verbatim with the second half of Luke 16:18. The statement also sends a message to the husband that he is prompting a vicious cycle of sin by causing others to sin as well. These verses fit very well in the context. Matthew has placed Jesus teaching uniquely after his teachings on murder and lust, and just before his teachings on vows, retaliation, loving enemies, and loving others more than self. There is no doubt that Jesus is making his teachings on divorce and remarriage part of Kingdom ethics.

The fact that Matthew 5:31-32 is positioned in the Sermon on the Mount raises additional concerns. Recent surveys have found more than thirty-six different interpretations for the Sermon on the Mount. This author agrees with Craig L. Blomberg that inaugurated eschatology seems most in keeping with Jesus teaching on the Kingdom of God in that it recognizes an "already/not yet" dichotomy where the sermons ethic remains the goal for all Christians in every age, but with the understanding that the goal will only be realized in all of its fullness at the consummation of the Kingdom when Christ returns.[FN23] Although the Holy Spirit empowers us to make significant headway in obedience to the law of God, our sinfulness inhibits us from attaining Gods standard for righteousness in this age. The law of the sermon therefore drives us to the Gospel for our salvation which is promised to us by grace through faith, and not by works. Despite this fact, the law continues to apply in our lives in its fulfilled state through the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Kingdom people, those who follow Christ, are expected to obey the law. That is why they are Kingdom people. Matthew 5:17 et seq. establishes that Christ is the fulfillment of the law. This passage provides the thesis statement for the greater righteousness required of followers of Jesus, namely, that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees for us to enter the Kingdom of God (v. 20). Matthew 5:21-48 contrasts Jesus teaching with the OT law by means of six teachings. Matthew 5:31-32 is the third of these teachings, so it is right in the middle of the sermon. Jesus, as he did with murder and adultery in the first two teachings, is requiring a higher standard from his followers when it comes to marriage than was expected by those hearing his words in the local first century Jewish community.

Luke 16:18 is the last verse in the Synoptic Gospels to address divorce. The logic that can be deduced from this verse is: (1) a husband who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and, (2) a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. The first half of the verse is parallel and consistent with Mark 10:11 and Matthew 19:9, except for the exception clause in the latter verse which is absent from Luke. The second half of the verse is parallel and consistent with Matthew 5:32b. Luke has uniquely placed this verse between the Parable of the Shrewd Manager, where he stresses the importance of trustworthiness (v 10) and following the law which is still in effect (v 16-17), and the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the beggar, which emphasizes the consequences of failing to live obediently (v 26-29). By placing the verse here, Luke emphasizes the importance of living the obedient life, even in marriage, the sin that results from divorce, and the consequences of that sin. Because of the extent to which these verses have already been discussed in connection with their parallel counterparts above, they will not be discussed further here.

1 Corinthians 7:10-16

If we can assume for a moment, without concluding, that Jesus did permit divorce and remarriage in the case of marital unfaithfulness, the question arises whether there are any other situations where divorce and remarriage may be permitted by Scripture? If the law, and Jesus as the fulfillment of the law, had already comprehensively established the law on divorce and remarriage, can it be supplemented or modified by another human being? With this caveat in mind, let us consider the writings of Paul.

Paul had been a Pharisee, and he had been trained in the laws of Judaism. For him, divorce was perceived as contrary to Gods original intent for the welfare of the covenant community. Divorce was an action hated by God. (Mal 2:16). However, the OT Mosaic Law did permit divorce and remarriage. (Deut 24:1-4). In fact, by the time of Jesus, divorce and remarriage was permitted in Israel for unspecified reasons and with relative ease. Divorce was initiated by the husband by giving the wife a certificate of divorce and sending her from his house. Adultery in the OT was not considered grounds for divorce. Since death by stoning or burning was the punishment for the adulterous spouse and the paramour caught in adultery, the innocent spouse would simply rely on death of his or her adulterous spouse to end the marriage. (Gen 38:24; Lev 20:10). The evil must be purged from Israel. (Deut. 22:22-24). By the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians, Paul would have been familiar with Jesus views on divorce and remarriage. Jesus views would have provided some background for the answers Paul gave to his churches on these issues. Jesus had made it clear that he did not come to abolish the law, even the law on adultery (the Seventh Commandment). However, Jesus had raised the adultery standard higher by saying that a man who even looks at a woman for the purpose of lusting for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:27-28). Jesus had said that anyone (husband or wife) who divorces and marries another commits adultery. (Mark 10:11).[FN24] Despite the clear-cut nature of these prohibitions, Paul had to also consider the other teachings of Jesus that would influence his views and writings on these issues. Jesus had taught his disciples to be reconciled to your brother (Matt 5:24); not to retaliate (Matt 5:38); to love their enemies (Matt 5:43); not to criticize or judge others (Matt 7:1); and, to do to others what you would have them do to you (Matt 7:12). When it came time to apply these rules publicly, Paul would have heard of how the teachers of the law and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery. Jesus rebuked them by saying, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7). Everyone left without throwing a stone, leaving only Jesus who told her that he also did not condemn her. Jesus said to her, "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:11). If Jesus had been a strict enforcer of the OT law, the woman would have had to be stoned. But Jesus showed compassion, and forgave her sin. In this background, Paul had to have thought carefully about how he was to understand and apply Kingdom standards on divorce and remarriage laid down by Jesus in Mark and Luke. Were Jesus teachings to be applied as legal mandates that were unyielding with no exceptions? Paul may have been aware that in the Gospel of Matthew, there existed an exception allowing divorce for marital unfaithfulness. In this context, Paul addressed the problems in his churches with his views on marriage and divorce.[FN25]

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 Paul is addressing a particular situation in the church at Corinth. When Jesus gave his teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, He was addressing Jewish men married to Jewish wives who shared common religious beliefs. In this passage Paul is addressing a very different situation. Many of the Corinth Christians had converted from idol worship. In some cases the whole household had converted, but in other cases only one spouse had converted so that he or she was now still bound in a marriage to one who continued to worship idols. This was quite unlike the situation with Jesus where a spouse who decided to follow Jesus was still married to a spouse who continued to be Jewish. They both continued to worship the same God. The Corinth Christians were doubting whether they should stay in their marriages after their conversion. They needed to know whether being bound in marriage to an unbeliever defiled them in some way. Based on OT teaching, some may have decided that divorcing their unconverted spouse was the Christian thing to do. (Ezra 10:3, 10-11).[FN26]

As we read 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, for verses 10-11, Paul prefaces his argument by saying the words come from the Lord, not Paul. Pauls argument is being prefaced by Jesus commands about divorce and remarriage. He is making it clear that he is applying Jesus teachings to this new situation with spiritual discernment and flexibility. He appears to be assuming the Corinth Christians know the teachings of Jesus on the subject. Paul is not creating new law here based upon some inspiration from God. Some scholars have argued that the wives at Corinth were the problem, so that is why Paul is addressing them first. Since the teaching should apply equally to both, we will apply the teaching without referring to gender. Paul believed the whole issue of divorce among Christians is settled by the words of Jesus forbidding it. Pauls problem is different in that Christians are married to unbelievers. How should the new Christians conduct themselves? Should they take the initiative to divorce their unbelieving spouses? What should they do if the unbelieving spouse takes the initiative in the divorce? It can be inferred from the text that some of these Corinth Christians may have already separated from their unbelieving spouses. In verses 10 and 11, Paul appears to be speaking to two different groups: the married who continue to live together, and the married but separated. To the first group, the Lord says they must not separate. To the second group, the Lord says they must remain separated or else "be reconciled" and not divorce.[FN27] This is critical because the Lord has said something that Paul is connecting with Jesus teaching on marriage and divorce. The words "be reconciled" come directly from Jesus Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:24), where Jesus makes clear we must be reconciled to our brother before our gift is acceptable to God at the altar. Paul is applying that teaching to estranged husbands and wives with a command directly from Jesus. This is crucial to understanding this passage.

Beginning in verse 12, Paul addresses "the rest,"[FN28] and he prefaces his argument by inserting that these are his words, not the Lords words. He is making it clear that he is not speaking as one with inspired authority and therefore making some new law from God. Paul provides his readers with additional justifications for not separating or divorcing, namely: (1) You should not divorce an unbelieving spouse if he/she is willing to live with you;[FN29] (2) Because the unbelieving spouse is being sanctified through the Christian spouse;[FN30] and (3) Because otherwise your children would be unclean, but even in this circumstances (where parties are unequally yoked), the children are holy. We cannot draw the conclusion here that Paul is encouraging or endorsing marriage to an unbeliever. He is addressing a very particular problem. He does not want these Corinth Christians to continue to be afraid they are being defiled or made unholy by remaining in marriages to unbelievers. He is directing the Christian spouses not to divorce unbelieving spouses who are willing to stay in the marriage. Their conversion to Christianity does not require them to disrupt their marriages. Christians have the spiritual power to influence their unbelieving spouses toward conversion. Paul uses the perfect tense, "has been made holy," which implies a present condition established by some past event. The preposition "by" can imply that the Christian is the agent, and that the unbelieving spouse has been made holy "by" the Christian. The better view is that the preposition has a locative sense in that the unbelieving spouse has his or her holiness "in" the Christian. The best interpretation is that this is not conversion (justification or sanctification) by proxy. The Christian spouse becomes a facilitator for the unbelieving spouse to find salvation in Christ. An unbelieving spouse is not saved by his or her marriage to a Christian.[FN31]

Let us now address what some have come to call the Pauline privilege.[FN32] In verse 15, Paul addresses a third situation that has arisen in Corinth. What if the unbelieving spouse leaves (abandons) the Christian spouse? Pauls rule is let him/her go. Such a circumstance is out of the Christians control. In such a circumstance the believing spouse is not bound.[FN33] Paul asserts the statement: "God has called us to live in peace." Paul recognizes the very practical problem that continuation of any marriage depends upon the consent of both parties to continue the relationship. Paul is telling the Christian spouse that he/she cannot withdraw his/her consent to continuing the relationship, but if the unbelieving spouse withdraws his/her consent the Christian can let him/her go and not be bound. Pauls use of the imperative, "let him separate," does not imply that the Christian resists this action by the spouse and must be commanded to let the spouse go. Instead, it is an imperative of toleration that views the act as a fait accompli.[FN34] Paul says the Christian is not to be "enslaved" or "under bondage." Had he used "bound," we could conclude that Paul is saying that the believer is not bound by the marriage bond or the prohibition of divorce. Paul is saying that the believer should not remain enslaved to a marriage relationship that the unbeliever desires to dissolve. This does not however imply divorce or remarriage are permissible.[FN35] Some scholars argue Paul may be inserting "peace" to emphasize that the Christian spouse should not cause conflict by disputing the unbelieving spouses decision to end the marriage. Some say he may also have had a peaceful attitude in view. Garland takes the view that Paul is not trying to comfort those who may be divorced by their unbelieving spouses. It is Pauls second justification for remaining in the marriage to an unbeliever. The Christian has a calling from God for peace in the marriage. Anything else may mean the loss of the opportunity to convert the unbelieving spouse.[FN36]

Paul ends the passage with two rhetorical questions. In summary, how do you know whether staying in the marriage will save your spouse? These questions are designed to optimistically persuade the Christian spouse to stay in the marriage with the unbelieving spouse with the hope of bringing that unbelieving spouse to salvation in Christ.

Synthesis of Biblical Theology on Divorce and Remarriage

Instead of answering the question posed by the Pharisees about when divorce is permissible, Jesus, in response, is saying you have asked the wrong question. The Pharisees have failed to see that the Kingdom of God had already arrived. They must have missed the Sermon on the Mount, the healings, the exorcizing of demons, the gatherings, and Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath. Moses was right in Deuteronomy 24, but that was before Jesus arrived. The hardness of your hearts has been changed because Jesus has ushered in the Kingdom. You have been reconciled, and will be reconciled with God and each other, because the Messiah has already come. The law of God has been and will be written on your hearts, and through Gods Holy Spirit you will live in obedience to it in faith, hope and love. So for Kingdom people, divorce is not an option. Kingdom people do not need an exception such as marital unfaithfulness. This may indeed sound like a hard teaching in the midst of this age, and it is. We can all agree with Donald A. Hagner when he says:

But if provision was made through Moses for the "hard-heartedness" of Israel by the allowing and regulating of divorce, it may well be asked, ought not some similar provision be made for those who still exist "between the times," i.e., who participate in the kingdom of God but also remain at the same time fallen creatures in a fallen world that remains short of the eschaton?[FN37]

Hagner answers his own question, "Although realistically a positive answer must be given to this question, it is not possible for the ethics of the Kingdom to be articulated in anything less than ideal terms."[FN38] Regrettably, the church has articulated positions that are less than ideal in connection with the ethics of the Kingdom on divorce and remarriage. Divorce and remarriage are complex when applied to Christians on a case-by-case basis. Individual cases are so diverse that application of the biblical texts from a wholly different context may be quite harsh, inflexible, and in many cases misguided. If some scholars are correct that Jesus did allow for an exception for marital unfaithfulness, and Paul did allow for an exception for abandonment by the pagan spouse, how do we deal with the array of factual patterns that may justifiably warrant divorce and remarriage, yet they do not fall within one of the exceptions? What about a spouse who excessively uses alcohol or illegal drugs, a spouse who sells crack cocaine out of the marital home and thereby endangers his family, a spouse who enjoys torturing children for fun, or a spouse who is just a complete jerk? Neither the OT law, Jesus, nor Paul directly address whether divorce and remarriage should be allowed to the innocent spouse in such circumstances. However, many pastors would say the innocent spouse in the above mentioned circumstances would be justified in seeking a divorce from the offending spouse. Even though a pastor believes a divorce is spiritually justified, he cannot advise the innocent spouse that he/she is in the same safe harbor, theologically speaking, that an innocent spouse would be if he/she had divorced an offending spouse for one act of marital unfaithfulness! Because of these complexities in application, the biblical texts discussed herein have generated numerous scholarly works with varying interpretations. Most of these views employ a rule, exception, and/or a moral reasoning approach to interpretation. Here is a brief summary of some of these views:

1. Roman Catholic tradition: permits separation on grounds of adultery, but never permits divorce and remarriage;

2. Martin Luther: permits separation on legitimate grounds, divorce where biblically allowed, and remarriage following divorce;

3. Conservative Protestants: separation where biblically allowed, and no divorce or remarriage under any circumstances;

4. Repentant Protestant: divorce is never morally justifiable, but divorce is sin, and with proper repentance remarriage is permissible;

5. No Remarriage Protestants: separation and divorce are permissible where biblically allowed, but remarriage is morally impermissible;

6. Victim of Unfaithfulness Protestant: separation and divorce permissible based upon unfaithfulness biblical exception, and remarriage is morally permissible for the innocent spouse;

7. Victim of Unfaithfulness and/or Deserted Protestant: separation and divorce permissible based upon unfaithfulness and desertion biblical exceptions, and remarriage is morally permissible for the innocent spouse;

8. Moderate Protestant: separation and divorce morally permissible based on numerous offenses against the marriage such as physical abuse, gross immorality, etc., and remarriage allowed; and,

9. Liberal Protestant: separation and divorce morally permissible whenever a marriage dies and cannot be revived, and remarriage is permissible in any and every case.[FN39]

A contemporary Christian can go shopping for a church that adopts a theology of marriage, divorce, and remarriage that fits his or her particular moral need or condition. In many cases that need is imposed upon the person as an innocent spouse. Some of these views have had harsh consequences. One might wonder where the Lutheran and Episcopal churches might be today, in terms of numbers of members, had it not been for divorced and excommunicated Roman Catholics who were accepted into their congregations.

In the final analysis, this author believes the rule, exception, and moral reasoning style approaches employed by the scholars who have developed the above views create more problems for Christians than they solve. It is much like the methods used by the Pharisees when they approached Jesus and asked him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason. Maybe we too are asking the wrong question. Why not approach these texts and contemporary marriage, divorce, and remarriage issues in a manner similar to that of Jesus when he responded to the Pharisees? Rather than think of difficult factual patterns and demonstrate to ourselves how unjust the rules and exceptions are, as lawyers tend to do, why not consider the ethics of the Kingdom as taught by Jesus and preach the Good News of salvation for those who sin? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave us a lesson in Kingdom ethics. Jesus gave people of the Kingdom a very high standard to live-up to. In fact, he gave us a standard that some say is impossible for us to live-up to in the midst of this age. For example, we are to be reconciled to our brother (Matt 5: 24). We are guilty of adultery if we look at another lustfully (Matt 5:28). We are not to swear at all (Matt 5:34). We are not to resist an evil person (Matt 5:39). We are to love our enemies (Matt 5:44). We are to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matt 5:48). We are to do unto others what we would have them do unto us (Matt 7:12). These are indeed very tough standards for people of the Kingdom of God. This author agrees with Donald A. Hagner that Kingdom ethics is ideal. Why should Kingdom standards for marriage be any less difficult? Why would Jesus make an exception for Kingdom people that allows them to divorce? Jesus made Kingdom ethics on divorce and remarriage as absolute and tough as those just mentioned. The biblical texts share the common conviction that marriage is grounded by God in creation. Marriage is a permanent lifetime covenant commitment. Keeping the marriage covenant is necessary for husbands and wives to reflect the image of God, and to fulfill Gods purposes for creation. If there is marital discord with or without separation, we are to be reconciled to one another. Man cannot separate through divorce what God has joined together. So divorce is a serious breach of the marriage covenant. And sexual relations with someone other than your spouse, even in the event of remarriage, is adultery, a violation of the Seventh Commandment which is still Gods law (Matt 5:17-20). Wow! This authors reaction, having been divorced and remarried, is probably much like that of the disciples in Matthew 19:10, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." This may be hard to accept, but Jesus gave us many tough lessons. Jesus said, "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matt 20:24). Wow again! Our reaction is like that of the disciples in Matthew 20:25, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus response in Matthew 20:26 gives us some assurance, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

The spiritual advice for husbands and wives who are separated or are in marriages that are in trouble, "be reconciled." (1 Cor 7:11) There are truly no biblical exceptions permitting divorce and remarriage for Kingdom people. So how are we to be reconciled? Spouses who are estranged need to engage in prayer and fellowship. Hostility and rebellion can be converted to faith and obedience. "For he himself is our peace, who had made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility." (Eph 2:14). We must not regard our spouse from a worldly point of view. We must turn to Christ. In Christ there is reconciliation. In 2 Corinthians 5:17 Paul says:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting mens sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christs ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christs behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

For some clients, and with good reason, divorce is the only legitimate option. Remarriage is likely because most people elect not to live alone. From a biblical perspective, to believe that somehow a divorce and remarriage falls within some biblical exception or safe harbor with God, and is somehow not sinful conduct, is indeed dangerous spiritual territory. The secular divorce laws of North Carolina do not fit snugly into the biblical framework for divorce. For example, adultery (marital unfaithfulness) by a spouse only entitles the innocent spouse to a legal separation (divorce from bed and board), not an absolute divorce with rights of remarriage. The only grounds for absolute divorce are separation for more than one year and incurable insanity. Neither of these grounds are even arguably biblical exceptions for divorce.

We can conclude that for husbands and wives who divorce and remarry, sin is the result.[FN40] The answer for the sin of divorce and adultery resulting from remarriage is to seek Gods forgiveness in humble repentance. "[E]veryone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (Acts 10:43). Jesus gave us a standard that he knew we could not attain to help us understand that we need him. If the discussion in this section is true, and it is exegetically sound, clients who believe they have a "Christian divorce" are living in denial of their sin. Clients sometimes feel that their sin is too big or too great for God to save them. However, there is more grace in Gods heart than there is sin in our past. Remember that God raised Jesus, and he took on the sins of the whole world for us. So it is not more difficult for God to save "big sinners" than to save "lesser sinners." Gods grace is offered to us as sinners and is sufficient for our salvation. Our response should be to turn from sin and trust in Jesus in faith, hope and love. By doing so, even the divorced and remarried share in the hope of salvation.

Footnotes:

[FN1] "Born again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians," September 8, 2004, The Barna Group, retrieved 2007 from www.barna.org.

[FN2] Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.34B, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 79.

[FN3] Note that Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 contain an exception that allows divorce for marital unfaithfulness.

[FN4] See, Deut 22:13-21, 28-29; Lev 21:7, 14; and Is 50:1.

[FN5] Craig S. Keener, ... And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament, 39, (footnotes omitted).

[FN6] See, Charles C. Ryrie, "Biblical Teachings on Divorce and Remarriage," in Readings in Christian Ethics, Vol. 2, Edited by David Clark and Robert Rakestraw, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1994), 233.

[FN7] Matthew E. Carlton, The Translators Reference Translation of The Gospel of Matthew (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 53, 205. Carlton points out that the purpose of the law of Moses was not to encourage divorce, but to protect women from being abused by their husbands.

[FN8] Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2003), 275.

[FN9] L. I. Granberg and J. R. Root, "Marriage, Theology of," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2d ed., Walter A. Elwell, editor, 743.

[FN10] Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee, 275-76.

[FN11] Id., 276.

[FN12] Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation (New York: Harper Collins, 1996), 352.

[FN13] D. J. Atkinson, "Divorce," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2d ed., Walter A. Elwell, editor, 346.

[FN14] Craig A. Evans, 82.

[FN15] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 546-47. Hagner does an excellent job of distinguishing every literal difference between Matthew and Mark.

[FN16] Matthew 5:32 will be discussed in Part II, however this discussion of the exception clause will not be repeated.

[FN17] Craig H. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary, Vol. 34 (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 292.

[FN18] Id., 291-92.

[FN19] Donald A. Hagner, 549.

[FN20] The exception is discussed above.

[FN21] Note the difference between this passage and the logic of Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11-12 as discussed above.

[FN22] John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics, 2d ed., (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1993), 86-87, takes the view that the husbands divorcing the wife stigmatizes her as an adulteress. This author disagrees with the way Davis has exegeted moiceuqh:nai. It is more likely the passive verb in Matthew 5:32 relates to the womans inability to control her husbands decision to divorce her, or her inability to support herself except through involvement in another marriage.

[FN23] Craig L. Blomberg, 95.

[FN24] Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, editors, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1993), 595-96.

[FN25] Id., 596.

[FN26] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003), 278-79.

[FN27] Id., 283, notes that maintaining the separate status is necessary because marrying another would be forbidden under Jewish law (Deut 24:4). Garland believes Pauls statement in verse 11, "And a husband must not divorce his wife." is inserted to emphasize Jesus teaching that the Lord forbids Christians to divorce. This verse lays the foundation for what follows.

[FN28] It is not entirely clear from the context whether the first two groups are Christians married to unbelievers, but it can be inferred from the issues and context. It really does not matter because verses 10 and 11 are a restatement of Gods law, and these teachings serve as a foundation for what follows. Pauls use of "the rest" is obviously by context a reference to Christians married to unbelievers.

[FN29] David E. Garland, 284, indicates the implication of Pauls teaching is that the Christian is to stay in the marriage to the unbeliever as long as staying married depends upon the Christian. He points out that whether the Christian is the husband or wife of an unbeliever, the stress in these marriages would have been enormous in the culture of Corinth. The temptation would have been to divorce the unbelieving spouse and send them away with their children (Ezra 10:3).

[FN30] The Corinth Christians believed such a marriage defiled the Christian spouse, but what Paul is asserting is that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse. This probably came as quite a shock. Paul had previously instructed them not to associate with immoral people (even immoral brothers), and to expel the wicked. (1 Cor 5:9-13).

[FN31] David E. Garland, 286-293.

[FN32] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 302.

[FN33] Id., 302, says that "not bound" indicates not bound to the ruling given above about maintaining the marriage. Fee argues that despite a long tradition that has interpreted this statement as permitting divorce and remarriage, "several converging data indicate that Paul is essentially repeating his first sentence: that the believer is not bound to maintain the marriage if the pagan partner opts out." He concludes that Paul does not address remarriage at all in the text. This text offers little help for the contemporary concern for a Christian spouse who has been divorced by an abandoning spouse and now the Christian spouse is seeking permission to remarry.

[FN34] David E. Garland, 290.

[FN35] Id., 290-91. The slavery image is best understood in light of Jewish, not Greco-Roman, culture. Paul is drawing a parallel between a Christian released from a marriage and a slave released from slavery.

[FN36] Id., 292-93.

[FN37] Donald A. Hagner, 550-51.

[FN38] Id., 551.

[FN39] See Andrew Cornes, Divorce & Remarriage: Biblical Principles & Pastoral Practice (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1993), 296-309; David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), chapters 9 and 10; and Stassen and Gushee, 282.

[FN40] The church should not exclude or attach some stigma to those who sin by divorce and remarriage. What is important is that the sinner repent, turn to Christ, and become a new creation. "[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom 3:23).