What I Believe About Divorce

Well, here it comes- the divorce issue. It is something that pastors can’t avoid, because it is something that is so prevalent in our world today-and not just our secular culture, but our church culture, as well. In fact, the statistics for Christian break-ups for the first time in modern history are very close to the ones for unbelievers. We could discuss all day about different strategies for reclaiming marriages, and certainly well-thought-out plans of action are needed to abate this epidemic. We could also talk about how it got this bad in the first place, and go into an in depth probe of how our culture has infected our church, but my goal here is different. My desire in this blog is to set forth as cogently as possible what I believe about the propriety of getting a divorce or not. In other words, for those who find themselves in marriages that are seemingly irreparable, does God permit a way out of the situation, or what?

Let me, first of all, say that this is a very difficult answer to what has become a very common question. I would add, however, that for many (sadly, a lot of Christians these days) this question is seldom even asked. The consequence is that lives are unnecessarily torn apart in the event that the marriage quite possibly may have been rescued. The most basic question to deal with in this and any situation is to ask, what does the Bible teach concerning this issue, assuming for believers that this is their basic rule of faith and practice? Let me also state that this is by no means an exhaustive defense of what I believe, but something that I have tried to abbreviate for the sake of someone reading it. I am in the process of working on a more comprehensive paper with respect to this, but here have sought to summarize what I believe and on what basis. In doing a piece of this brief nature, I understand I am opening myself up to opposing arguments and objections that may not be dealt with here, or in an exhaustive way. For the sake of my purpose here, I am willing to endure that, and actually welcome any comments for the sake of plural benefit.

Let me begin with what I believe is the foundation of our understanding about marriage: Genesis 2:24 à “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” This verse is foundational to our understanding about marriage, because it relates the original design God has for the home. It is not merely a descriptive verse of the relationship between the first husband Adam and his wife Eve, but rather a prescriptive verse that is applicable to all future husbands and wives. This is hardly contestable, since Adam did not even have a father and mother to leave. It is important, however, to outline several truths that are present here that may serve as an important point of reference in our future discussion about marriage and divorce. (1) This is clearly the design of God. Furthermore, it must be remembered that this foundational ideal does not deal with any sinful situations or exceptions, because of the clear and simple fact that sin has not even entered the world at this point in Genesis. (2) This truth sets forth the primacy of marriage as superior over every other human relationship, even that of parenthood. (3) The unity that is described by the word “cleave” (or “united”) and the term “one flesh” describe a covenant act between the man, the woman, and God (Mal. 2:14-16a). (4) The oneness that the two share involves sexual intimacy, as well as a spiritual intimacy. Although these thoughts are rather sketchy and only entail a cursory explanation, they are indicative of the divine design behind marriage, and what the marriage arrangement should look like.

The second passage I want to deal with is one of the three most disputed in the divorce debate, Matthew 5:31, 32 à “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I (Jesus) 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.” I want to briefly address this text, and save some of my more substantial arguments for when I deal with Matthew 19 (I know you can hardly wait!): (1) Taking this passage at face value, it at least appears to give an exception to staying married forever. (2) Although the Greek word “porneia” (translated here in the NIV “marital unfaithfulness” and in other translations as adultery or fornication), has been a hot bed of contention, the context (since it is marriage, after all) seems to support the idea of adultery. (3) Throughout this entire passage, Jesus has been contrasting commonly held beliefs with a new higher standard of life in the kingdom. Since that is the case, this saying of Jesus about divorce is consistent in that it raises the standard from divorce for practically any reason (including burning the toast) to divorcing only for marital unfaithfulness. (4) The reason it is so critical to remain married, except for adultery, is that by severing a marriage a person is actually guilty of causing their previous spouse to commit adultery, as well as themselves (Mt. 19:9). Although remarriage is also hotly contested, remarriage in the event of a divorce (right or wrong) is assumed to be the natural reaction.

Now, let us try to deal with Matthew 19 in as concise a form as possible, and then we will try to tack on a couple of odds and ends, as well as summarize our findings. First of all, this is a loaded passage and time does not permit us to deal with every jot and tittle of it, so I again (in typical Jason fashion) am going to summarize this for you. I encourage you to go through and study this intuitively and diligently and come to your own conclusions, and then perhaps we can share notes, or even blogs. For now, though, let me try to post a few thoughts about this passage (whose entire context consists of vs. 1-12). (1) Although some incredulously assert that this is (as well as Mt. 5) only in reference to the Jewish engagement (or betrothal) period, the context is clearly divorce. In fact, the Jewish leaders asked the question, “Is it lawful for a man to DIVORCE his wife for any and every reason?” Moreover, they refer to the most famous Old Testament passage on divorce (from consummated marriage)- Deuteronomy 24. It is true that the Jewish betrothal was more binding than our own culture’s engagements, but it is not true to say that there was no difference between the two. While being engaged, the two lived separately; were forbidden to have sex; and the woman was still under the authority of her parents, all until the marriage was consummated. Even the example of Mary and Joseph being “espoused” to one another in Matthew 1 is very clear in its description of what type of relationship was being discussed. If this was, in fact, a discussion about Jewish betrothal, then it would have to mean that anyone (or any Jew, at bare minimum) could not ever be married again. This puts us in the absurd position of prohibiting someone from ever marrying who has never actually been married on the grounds of pre-marital sex. (2) The exception clause in v. 9 renders the most natural reading as that of adultery, in the same way as Mt. 5. (3) The disciples’ reaction is indicative that they held to the majority view of the people of their day. Jesus had in fact raised the standard of marriage from what they had believed and abolished the view of divorcing one’s spouse over any and every reason. Furthermore, he elevated the view of women in treating the husband as equally palpable in an immoral divorce (v. 9). There is a lot more to be said about this passage, but I am going to give it a rest for now, because my blog is turning into a bog.

So, is this the only exception to the permanence of marriage in Scripture? There is actually one more, and it is found in 1 Corinthians 7, from the pen of the Apostle Paul. Paul reiterates a lot of what Jesus taught in regards to the general design of God with respect to marriage (by the way, an exception does not negate or contradict a general rule). After having given the general principles and ideals for marriage, however, he deals with specific situations that have arisen. Most specifically, he addresses the very common Greek issue of a newly converted Christian being already married to a pagan, or unbelieving, spouse. Paul gives instructions for seeking to win the spouse to Christ, and commands against divorce. Nevertheless, he does bring up the possibility of the unbelieving spouse deserting or divorcing the believer. In that event, Paul says, the believing spouse should not fight the divorce proceedings (“let him do so”), but should allow it to take place. In this non-instigated circumstance, the believer is free to divorce, and I would also add is free to remarry (as is assumed in the exception clause of Matthew). The last part of v. 15 says, “A believing man or woman is not BOUND in such circumstances.” This word, although not the same word, is very similar in meaning to the word that is used down in v. 39 à “A woman is BOUND to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.” It would be difficult to believe that if Paul had meant for the deserted believer not to remarry, then he would not have used a term which clearly indicates the same freedom to remarry as the one in v. 39.

Therefore, I would like to summarize my thoughts here, and make a few closing comments: (1) One man for one woman for one lifetime is God’s clear design in Scripture. (2) Divorce is the result of man’s hardness of heart and proclivity to sin; Moses’ permission to do so was merely a regulation of what was already being done. (3) Jesus reiterated the permanence of marriage with one clear exception, which is the most fundamental breach of the covenant of marriage- sexual sin. (4) In the event of the exception, it is permission to divorce, not a requirement to divorce. All efforts should be made according to Matthew 18 to reclaim the wayward spouse and salvage the marriage covenant. (5) Paul dealt, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with a very culturally relevant issue that had come up with mixed marriages (not to be confused, please, with interracial), and he allows for divorce in the event of desertion. (6) Remarriage is assumed to take place both in the Matthean account, as well as the Pauline writing.

Well, I know that this is not exhaustive, even though I am sure you are exhausted, but it does deal with the basic interpretive issues at hand in divorce and remarriage. While I did leave out quite a few passages for the sake of brevity and clarity, and I did omit some practical issues that might arise as a result of this, I hope to do that in a follow up segment during the course of the next few days. Feel free to e-mail me your comments or thoughts or objections to this, though, so we can engage in some healthy dialogue. Thanks for indulging me, again. Later.