There are four major views on divorce and remarriage. Before each one is presented, it must be pointed out that all four views agree that marriage is good, that the ideal is lifelong marriage, and that divorce is always less-than-ideal. It is important to highlight this at the beginning in order that no view is immediately rejected as having a low view of marriage or a soft view on sin.

Following are the four major views on divorce and remarriage:

No Divorce Under Any Circumstances.

Divorce and remarriage are never permissible. To participate in either one is to commit the sin of adultery. In short, divorce and remarriage are never righteous options, but always sinful, adulterous actions. Death is the only thing which genuinely severs the marital bond. Carl Laney, who advocates this view, describes his position: "I believe Scripture teaches that marriage was designed by God to be permanent unto death, and that divorce and remarriage constitute the sin of adultery."[10]

Divorce, But No Remarriage.

Divorce is permissible in a limited number of extreme cases. Remarriage is never permissible. Although divorce may occasionally be a genuine option, remarriage never is. Like the previous view, remarriage is always considered a sinful, adulterous action. William Heth, a proponent of this position, writes, "To allow divorce in certain situations is one thing; but to permit remarriage is to sanction an attempt to break the union completely, to reverse what God has done, to put asunder the union that God himself established."[11]

Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery and/or Desertion.

Divorce and remarriage are permissible for two specific reasons -- adultery and desertion. An advocate of this position, Craig Keener, succinctly summarizes the essence of this position, "Divorce is to be avoided, but there are certain circumstances under which divorce and remarriage are acceptable."[12] This is the position which the Westminster Confession of Faith maintains.

Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead. (Chapter 24, Section V)

Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful 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. (Chapter 24, Section VI)

In this paper, I will briefly defend and present this position as the one that best harmonizes all the relevant texts.

Divorce for a Variety of Reasons.

Divorce and remarriage are permissible in any of a number of cases. Exceptions that allow for divorce are expanded beyond the two that the previous position allows -- adultery and desertion. Advocates of this view would also allow divorce and remarriage in the case of physical abuse, alcoholism, cruelty, and serious neurotic conditions, among other things.

A brief survey of each view immediately evidences that all the positions can not be true. Many elements of each position are mutually exclusive. Either one, or none, of the above positions is the biblical position. Therefore, there is need for great wisdom and cautious exegesis in developing one’s position.

Developing A Position

Two Criteria

Why so many views? As mentioned above, strong feelings and unexamined preconceptions hinder objectivity. The biggest reason, however, has to do with one's respective treatment of the relevant biblical texts. Proponents of all four views use the same biblical texts to argue their case.[13] Their differing conclusions arise from the dissimilar weight they allow specific texts.

Another important factor leading to diverse conclusions stems from the respective starting points of an interpretator's argument. Some enter the debate assuming that Genesis 2:24 clearly teaches the indissoluble nature of marriage. Others enter in light of God's forgiveness and mercy shown to those in a less-than-ideal world. Some give more weight to passages that make no mention of exceptions. Others view the exception passages as vitally important in understanding the extent of the general principles involved.

Since advocates of each position use the same texts to argue their case, it is necessary to define criteria that will aid in determining which position is faithful to biblical revelation. I offer the following two items (presented as questions) as proper benchmarks in analyzing the competing views:

1. Which position best treats all the relevant texts with exegetical integrity, taking into account the grammar, syntax, context, historical/cultural background, and literary genre? Each text should be allowed to fully speak to the topic of divorce and remarriage.

2. Which position best harmonizes all the relevant texts? The full meaning of each text should not be inconsistent with any other text. If apparent inconsistencies arise, preference should be given to the view which best harmonizes all texts without losing the essential meaning of any text.

It is all too easy, in developing one's position, to give one text more weight over another. The best way to treat all the texts involved is to give each text its proper place and full weight, and then seek to harmonize all the relevant biblical texts into one unified whole. In other words, rather than allowing one text to overshadow and negate the full force of another, it is best to allow each text to fully speak, and then to harmonize the meaning of each text, in full realization that if each text is properly interpreted, it will not contradict other passages.

The Imbalanced Exegesis of the No Divorce Position

Advocates of the no divorce and divorce but no remarriage positions commit the error of giving a few texts greater weight and significance over other respective texts. In other words, they are guilty of giving so much weight to a few texts that they negate the full weight of all the texts. They assume that marriage is indissoluble and then proceed to explain away the exceptions in light of this assumption. J. Carl Laney’s method of defending the no divorce position is an example of this error. In making his case, Laney argues that Genesis 2:24 is God's intention for marriage, allowing for no divorce. As a result of this, Laney already assumes what he sets out to prove -- that any exception allowing for divorce would contradict Jesus' teaching. Thomas Edgar's comments concerning the error in Laney's argument are worth quoting at length:

[T]he various differing views claim to be based on Scripture. There must be in some of these views either wrong interpretation or misplaced emphasis, or both. Any adequate analysis of Scripture on this subject must be based on all the passages. All the passages must be allowed to speak and must speak in harmony with all the others. To interpret some as if the others did not exist, and to then use the resulting interpretation as the basis to deny the explicit statements (exceptions) of those not originally taken into consideration is not really basing one's view on Scripture. It is instead a selection of passages which, taken by themselves, seem to fit the interpreter's presuppositions and then using these to get rid of those passages containing specific statements contrary to the interpreter's presuppositions.

I am referring to the use of passages such as Genesis 2:24 (which says nothing about divorce, remarriage, permanence of marriage, or for-or-against exceptions), Malachi 2:14; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-6 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, none of which denies the possibility of some exceptions, as a basis to conclude that since they give no exception Scripture allows no exception. This conclusion is used to explain away the clearly stated exceptions in Matthew 5:31-32; 19:9 and to argue against the probably meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.[14]

Interpreters must keep from assuming certain things in order to prove them. Rather, one must approach the relevant passages as objectively as possible. The unspoken assumptions of no divorce advocates directly affect their handling of all the texts in question.

Often assumed at every phase of the discussion by those who deny all divorce and remarriage, is the concept that "the Bible clearly allows no divorce." The passages discussing divorce and remarriage are then approached with the idea that they cannot possibly be allowing any divorce or remarriage.[15]

The better way to discern the mind of God on this topic is to let all the relevant texts speak for themselves, and then harmonize their meanings together in such a way that a coherence is achieved.

In order to truly grapple with the Bible's  teaching on divorce and remarriage, the passages discussing divorce and remarriage must be thoroughly examined and harmonized with passages discussing marriage. Edgar, "The crux of one's position on divorce and remarriage is not on alleged implications from verses not discussing divorce, but from explicit statements from verses specifically dealing with the issue."[16] Every position agrees that marriage is good, that the ideal is lifelong marriage, and that divorce is less-than-ideal. The positions are not in disagreement over these matters. The issue at hand is not marriage, but divorce. Therefore, it is these texts which must mold and shape one's position on divorce and remarriage, and not the texts on marriage alone.

I believe that the divorce and remarriage for adultery and/or desertion position best answers the criteria stated above. It treats all the relevant text with exegetical integrity, allowing them their full weight, all the while harmonizing the meaning of each text into a coherent doctrine on divorce and remarriage.

The Issues In The Debate

Granting that the primary focus in the debate is not over the goodness of marriage, but concerning the legitimacy or illegitimacy of divorce, the debate centers around the answers to the following three questions:

1. Is divorce ever an option for a believer? or, Is death the only means by which the marriage bond may be broken?

2. What are the biblical grounds for divorce? Does the Bible exhaustively state all grounds?

3. Is remarriage after divorce an option for a believer? Are there some cases where it is forbidden?

Footnotes

© Richard J. Vincent, September 20, 1999