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

Both the no divorce and divorce but no remarriage positions argue that "marriage can never be genuinely severed apart from the death of the spouse"[17] But is death the only means by which the marriage bond may be broken?

Genesis 2:24

Advocates of the no divorce position begin their argument at Genesis 2:24. On the basis of this text, they contend that God's original intent for marriage allows for no divorce under any circumstance. Placing great emphasis on the word "cleave" and the phrase "one flesh," they teach that a permanent bond is established in marriage that cannot be severed apart from death. Thus, they conclude that it is impossible that God would allow for any exceptions that would break the marriage bond.

Laney teaches that the term, "cleave," speaks of the indissoluble nature of the marital bond. In doing so, he gives the term more significance than it can bear. The term is also used to refer to a military alliance (Joshua 23:12), which no one would regard as indissoluble. Among other things, it is also used of clods of dirt cleaving together (Job 38:38), a girdle cleaving to one's loins (Jer. 13:11), pestilence cleaving to recipients of God's judgment (Deut. 28:21), and a tongue cleaving to the roof of a mouth (Job 29:10). None of these conditions are permanent or indissoluble. In short, the word, "cleave," cannot be used to establish the indissolubility of marriage.

Advocates of the no divorce position also attach great weight to the phrase "one flesh." Yet it can be shown that this term doesn't imply indissolubility. In 1 Corinthians 6:16, it is used to refer to sexual relations with a prostitute. No one would argue that this establishes an indissoluble union that is permanent or unbreakable. Furthermore, Jesus refers to Genesis 2:24 in his discussion with the Pharisees in Matthew 19:4-5. He uses it as the basis for His teaching without ruling out all divorce (Matt. 19:9). If Laney is correct in teaching that Genesis 2:24 is God's intention for marriage, allowing for no divorce, then it is curious that Jesus refers to the same passage without ruling out all divorce.

Laney and others treat Genesis 2:24 as if it is an exhaustive treatment on the topic of marriage, forever settling every argument, and disallowing any exceptions. However, this text makes no claim to be exhaustive in its treatment of marriage. As in all areas of theology, the topic of marriage is further developed and refined as biblical revelation progresses.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

In the Mosaic law, there were specific situations where divorce was not allowed (Deut. 22:28-29; 22:13-19). The fact that this is highlighted emphasizes that there were specific situations in which divorce was allowed.

In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, divorce was permitted if a husband found "some indecency" (lit. "nakedness of a thing" or "a naked matter") in his wife. The precise meaning of the phrase ("erwat dabar") is uncertain and was the subject of heated rabbinic debate. Some advocated that it referred to a physical deficiency, perhaps including an inability to bear children. Others taught that it had to do with any shameful or repulsive act (cf. Deut. 23:13). It is unlikely that it refers to adultery since the righteous response to adultery was death, not divorce (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24).

Upon finding the indecency, the husband was to hand his wife a "certificate of divorce." According to the Mishnah, the essential words of this document were "Behold, you are free to marry any man" (Gittin 9.3). The text then assumes that the divorced wife will become the wife of another man (Deut. 24:2). No adultery is charged to her account in light of the divorce. Furthermore, her relationship with her new husband is not considered adulterous. The only action that would be considered a transgression of God's law would be for her to return to her original husband. In other words, she was forbidden to remarry in only one situation. Otherwise, her right to remarry was inherent in her divorce. The divorce clearly dissolved the marital bond and left her free to remarry again.

If the woman remarried her former husband, she would be considered "defiled," since that was not an allowable option. This defilement was only in relation to her original husband. In contrast to the clear teaching of the text, Laney argues that the woman was "defiled" because divorce is always sinful.[18] However, there is no hint of this in the text. The right to divorce and remarry are both presented as righteous options without any social stigma. Laney goes on to argue that divorce is always defiling. He teaches that a social stigma was always attached to it, and that this was demonstrated in that an Old Testament priest was prohibited from marrying a divorced woman.[19] Edgar comments, "This produces another awkward deduction since the priest was also prohibited from marriage to a widow"[20] (Lev. 21:8-14).

Contrary to those who advocate no divorce and no remarriage, it must be kept in mind that God's law permitted the option to both divorce and remarry in certain situations. The standards of God's law oppose sin. Since God's law allows for divorce and remarriage, it cannot be argued that divorce and remarriage are always intrinsically sinful. Indeed, there are cases in which it is the righteous option, in accordance with God's law. "In a code of laws, describing what is sin and what is not sin, to permit something without any negative comment is to condone it. It implies that it is not wrong."[21]

Malachi 2:14-16

Advocates of no divorce often appeal to God's statement in Malachi, "I hate divorce," as undeniable truth that divorce is never a proper option, but always sinful. However a quick look at the context of the statement reveals what kind of divorce God hates.

Two times we read that the men of Israel were leaving "the wife of their youth" (vss. 14, 15). In doing so they were "dealing treacherously" (vss. 14, 15, 16) with their former spouse. They were divorcing their older, faithful wives in order to marry younger, more sexually attractive women.

It is clear from the context of Malachi that when God said "I hate divorce," he was speaking of divorces motivated by lust, divorces that involved abandonment of women who had been faithful, loving partners through years of married life. You and I also hate this kind of divorce. We recognize its source in selfishness and sin… No godly person treats another in this way. And nothing can justify such a divorce.[22]

In light of the context of Malachi, this text can not automatically apply to all cases of divorce, neither can it overrule God-granted exceptions. "God hates every divorce that involves the selfish rejection of a faithful partner. Yet this same God, through Moses, made divorce an option."[23]

God's Example in the Prophets

If divorce is intrinsically sinful and never appropriate, we run into a difficulty with the prophets of Israel. God uses the divorce law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as the basis for His pronouncement of divorce from Israel in Jeremiah 3:8: "And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithful Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce." In keeping with His law, God writes out His certificate to Israel because of her adulteries and her treacherousness toward Him (3:20). Similarly, in Isaiah 50:1, God "sends away" Israel with a "certificate of divorce."

However, unlike human marriages, God goes beyond His law and offers to take back the defiled lover.

GOD says, “If a husband divorces his wife,
And she goes from him,
And belongs to another man,
Will he still return to her?
Will not that land be completely polluted?
But you are a harlot with many lovers;
Yet you turn to Me,” declares the Lord…
Return, O faithless sons,
I will heal your faithlessness.” (Jer 3:1, 22a)

According to Mosaic law, the one situation in which a wife could not remarry was to her original husband. However, when God invokes His own law to divorce Israel, His grace allows for her to return, even though she is defiled. This does not overrule the law given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as it refers to humans, it merely highlights that God is able to show mercy beyond the letter of the law (much like Jesus in touching the lepers, clearly forbidden in Mosaic law, Lev. 22:4-6, Matt. 8:2-4). For our purposes, however, it must be acknowledged that if divorce is sinful, then God engages in a sinful act when He divorces His people. The fact that He offers them restoration does not take away from the reality of His pronouncement of divorce as His righteous prerogative in relation to an adulterous people.

In short, death is not the only means by which a marriage bond may be broken. The Law of Moses allowed for divorce in certain situations. Furthermore, God used His own divorce law as the basis for His giving Israel a certificate of divorce due to her faithless and treacherous conduct.

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

There are two specific situations in which divorce is permissible.

Matthew 19:1-12

In Matthew 19, the Pharisees attempted to trap Jesus in regard to His teaching concerning marriage. They took a much debated passage, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and asked Jesus, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" Keener perceptively states the root of the issue: "The issue in the text thus becomes, not whether or not divorce is ever permissible, but on what grounds it is permissible."[24]

Jesus referred back to the first mention of marriage in the Scripture (Gen. 2:24) given in a state of sinless perfection, and presented it as a normative standard in which to understand marriage. In contrast to Laney's argument, Jesus had no problem referring to this as the basis for his discussion without ruling out all divorce. Keener comments, "It is noteworthy that Jesus uses this image of spiritual unity to argue that marriage should not be dissolved by people, not to argue that it can not be."[25]

God's law concerning divorce exists because of human frailty and wickedness: "Because of the hardness of your heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives" (Matt. 19:8). Obviously, there would be no need to address the breakup of marital relationships in a world without sin. This command has relevance only in a fallen world. This is not unique to the divorce law. Most of God's commands would be unnecessary in a sinless world. In other words, many of God's commands were given because of mankind's "hardness of heart." This does not negate the goodness, righteousness, or holiness of God's commands, rather, it speaks of the context in which the commands are given. And like many commands that have to do with restraining sin, God does not command divorce, but in His grace permits it. It is not always necessary, but sometimes it is God's gracious way out of an already sinful situation.

Because of God's original intention for marriage, Jesus forbids divorce in most circumstances. He does allow for one exception, porneia. "The term itself is straightforward enough and refers to any kind of sexual immorality, from intercourse between two unmarried people to adultery and homosexual activity."[26] Since the context refers to marriage, it is reasonable to translate the word adultery. Some argue that the usual word for adultery is moicheia, and that if Jesus wanted to specifically refer to adultery, He would have used this word. However, porneia is the broader term, referring to all manner of sexual immorality. It is interesting that those who don't wish to interpret porneia as adultery usually seek to limit the term even more narrowly to incest.

Those who advocate no divorce perform unlikely and strained exegetical gymnastics that go against the plain sense of the grammar in order to define porneia in a way that suits their position. Some teach that porneia refers to unfaithfulness during a betrothal or engagement period. Yet, the issue under discussion is not betrothal, but marriage (Gen. 2:24; Deut. 24:1-4). Furthermore, if this is the case, Edgar points out the logical weakness of this argument: "[T]hose holding this view would be in the illogical position of allowing severance of a consummated marriage for either premarital or betrothal unfaithfulness, while refusing it for unfaithfulness after marriage. This would place a higher value on faithfulness prior to marriage than on faithfulness once married."[27] The disciple's response was not, "It is better not to be engaged!"

Another popular interpretation of porneia is that it is referring to incestual marriage as described in Lev. 18:6-18. Preferring this interpretation, Laney, whose position will not allow for any exceptions, writes, "If porneia refers to the prohibited relationships of Leviticus 18:16-18, then Jesus' teaching is consistent with God's ideal for marriage as set forth in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8."[28] Keener comments, "there is nothing in the semantic range of 'immorality' to limit the term particularly to incestuous unions, and there is nothing whatsoever in the context to suggest that Matthew implied such a limitation."[29] Apart from the tortured exegesis that this position requires, it is clear that Leviticus 18 does not refer to "incestuous marriage" but to incest.

"The problem with all these interpretations is that they impose too specific an interpretation on the world 'immorality.' This term implies any sort of sexual sin, except when the context designates a particular kind."[30]

The weakest argument presented by those who reject the plain sense of the exception clause stems from their attempt to place greater weight on the parallel accounts that do not mention the exception found in Matthew. They reason that since Mark or Luke do not make mention of the exception clause, then perhaps Jesus did not really mean to include it as a vital element of His teaching on divorce and remarriage.

To treat parallel texts in this way goes against the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. This kind of strained exegesis is done in no other situation. Usually the more detailed account is considered the clearest and fullest account, but in this situation, advocates of the no divorce position always give the greater weight to the parallel texts that don't mention the exception. Yet, if Jesus truly taught the exception, the parallel texts must be understood in light of it, rather than in spite of it. This is just another example of how those who don't want to accept legitimate exceptions allowing divorce will twist texts to their own advantage, rejecting sound rules of hermeneutics that they would normally apply in every other situation.

If the no divorce advocates were right in rejecting the exception because of its absence in parallel texts, this "would require that every time someone states a rule he must state all the possible exceptions."[31] Edgar is right to reject such a biased manner of interpreting Scripture.

I disagree with the concept that a passage which does not give an exception may be considered as denying an exception clearly stated in another passage. This is contrary to any normal approach to Scripture on other subjects. It is also contrary to normal usage to conclude that every time a subject is mentioned a complete list of exceptions must always be stated or none exists.[32]

Furthermore, if the exception clause does not in some significant sense modify what Jesus is saying, why is it included in the first place? It would seem that if those who hold the no divorce position are right, then there would be little reason to include the exception clause since it does not add anything significant to Jesus' statement.

Some place great weight on the comment of the disciples in 19:10. Laney assumes that "[t]his comment reflects the fact that Jesus took a more narrow viewpoint than his disciples had expected."[33] But we only assume a strong reaction. Nothing in the text demands that we read it as involving great surprise or shock on the part of the disciples. Even if the response does include a great element of shock, Laney attaches too great a significance to the disciple's reactions. A simple reading of the Gospels reveals that the disciples frequently misunderstood Jesus. "Neither the disciples nor the Pharisees grasped the impact of what Christ had said. But this is nothing novel. The Gospels abound with incidents in which Jesus' friends as well as his enemies misinterpreted his teaching (compare Mk 8:14-21). We can hardly validate our interpretation on the basis of what Jesus' listeners (mis)understood!"[34]

If the disciple's reaction actually does involve an element of shock, this still is not unusual. This would be an appropriate response in their culture where the views of two great rabbinical schools were at odds over the grounds for divorce. "To hear their teacher state that the strictest view was to be followed could easily provoke a strong reaction."[35] Their response becomes more understandable if we realize that Jesus' view was even stricter than the most conservative position of his time. "Jesus' language is much stronger than that of the school of Shammai in calling the wrongful divorce so invalid that the consequent union would be adulterous."[36]

Are there biblical grounds for divorce? If the plain sense of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 are retained, Jesus certainly provided at least one exception allowing divorce, namely, adultery. Another exception (desertion), as well as remarriage, will be considered under the next heading.

In summary, "The ‘no divorce’ and ‘no remarriage’ advocates seem to place more emphasis on the formal institution of marriage… than on the sin of adultery. Jesus Christ, however, seems to regard fidelity in the marriage as far more important than the formal institution itself."[37]

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

Matthew 19:1-12 (Continued)

Some argue that Matthew 19:9 does give an exception for divorce, but makes no allowance for remarriage. Wenhan and Heth argue that the placement of "except for porneia" in the Greek text indicates the exception applies to divorce, and not to remarriage.[38] In contrast, Edgar argues that "the exception is in the only place where it clearly is an exception allowing both divorce and remarriage."[39] The grammatical construction of the sentence favors Edgar's argument. Edgar's arguments are worth quoting at length:

Many who allow divorce for the exception in Matthew 19:9 argue, at the same time, that no one is ever allowed to remarry. Even if someone is divorced for the exception, they believe that this verse does not allow for remarriage. In effect, they are claiming that the sentence refers both to some who divorce (all except those for fornication) and all who divorce and then remarry…

The main verb in verse nine is "commit adultery." The subject of this verb, the one who commits adultery, is described by the relative clause "whoever divorces his wife except for fornication and marries another." The person who divorces his wife except for fornication is the same individual who marries another since both verbs are in one relative clause describing the one individual. Thus, the one who divorces his wife except for fornication is the same one who also marries another, and it is this same individual who commits adultery. It is grammatically impossible for this verse to refer to two different subjects.

Sentence Diagram of Matthew 19:9[40]

The sentence in Matthew 19:9 involves a singular subject ("whoever") with a relative clause ("divorces his wife… and marries another woman") and one verb ("commits adultery"). The verse without the exception clause reads as follows:

Whoever divorces his wife… and marries another woman commits adultery.

It is grammatically impossible for the main verb "commits adultery" to refer to two different subjects. The "whoever" commits adultery except in one case ("except for immorality"). In contrast, the exception clause highlights the fact that the one who divorces and remarries in light of a spouse's sexual immorality does not commit adultery. Their new marital bond is approved by God as righteous and good. We could read the verse then in this way:

Whoever divorces his wife… and marries another woman commits adultery. But in the case of sexual immorality, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman does not commit adultery.

The sentence could be constructed no other way. If the exception clause was placed after the verb marries, the exception becomes the reason for the remarriage, rather than the divorce.

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman except for immorality, commits adultery.

"This is absurd. With this view, anyone can divorce for any reason and not commit adultery so long as they marry another for the purpose of fornication."[41]

The clause is in the best place in order to communicate the one exception in light of the high commitment of marriage. Furthermore, the clause is meant to address the nature of the divorce rather than directly addressing remarriage. In short, the clause helps to distinguish between a valid divorce and an invalid divorce (a distinction that no divorce advocates are unwilling to consider). If the divorce is valid, so is the remarriage. Remarriage after divorce is only adulterous if the divorce was invalid, due to insufficient grounds.

The right to remarry was taken for granted in ancient Jewish culture. Craig Keener, an expert on Jewish culture, writes, "a valid divorce by standard ancient definition implied the right to remarry (the phrases used for it relate to 'releasing' someone from an attachment to allow them to engage in another such attachment). No ancient Jewish reader would have read Matthew otherwise. Again, the exception clause would have little practical value if the divorced person could not remarry."[42]

A further argument used by proponents of the divorce but no remarriage position hinges on Jesus’ comments concerning celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12. They argue that Jesus’ comments particularly apply to those who have divorced. However, the comment is directed to "those who are able to accept it," not "those who are divorced." Matthew 19:11-12 concerns first marriages, not remarriages.

1 Corinthians 7:8-16, 27-28

Paul encounters a new situation in the conversion of some among the Gentiles. In light of the expansion of the gospel into all the world, certain households were divided due to belief in Christ Jesus. This division left many households in the uncomfortable situation where only one partner within a marriage had converted to the Christian faith. This new situation forces Paul to give new commands concerning divorce and remarriage; commands that are rooted in the teaching of Christ, but expand and develop His teaching in light of the contemporary circumstances that Christ would not have had to address.

In light of this new situation, Paul gives a second exception that permits divorce. If the unbelieving partner leaves, Paul advises the believer to "let him leave" declaring that "the brother is sister is not under bondage in such cases" (1 Cor. 7:15). The believer is freed from the marital bond due to the desertion of his or her spouse. The fact that divorce is in Paul's mind is evidenced by the word usage and the context. The word translated "leave" or "depart" in verse 15 is the verb commonly used for divorce (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11). In context, the action in 7:15 is clearly in contrast with that in 7:12-13.

The believer is no longer "bound" to the marital covenant. The marital covenant is referred to as a bond (deo, Romans 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:27, 39). The pefect tense of deo, dedetai, is used in 1 Cor. 7:39 as a strong expression for the ties of marriage. Again, apart from a strained exegesis which disallows the use of synonyms and splits hairs between the definitions of commonly used words, it is clear that the believer is freed from the marital covenant and not merely from living with the partner. The statement that "a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases" would have little or no significance in the text if it did not refer to a legitimate breaking of the marriage bond.

It is further questionable that "not bound," in 1 Corinthians 7;15 means only "not bound to stay with," since if the unbeliever leaves, the believer can hardly have any choice in the matter and, therefore, even if bound, could not stay with the departing unbeliever.[43]

In 1 Corinthians 7:27, Paul refers to those who have been "released from a wife." They are told of the superior benefits of singleness, but then given full permission to marry. "[T]he fact that the verb luo is used of release from something (not just free) is of some consequence."[44]

There is only one special case in which a believer is not to remarry after a divorce. In the case of two believers divorcing one another for reasons other than adultery or desertion, they are to remain unmarried, since they have no legitimate reason to divorce (1 Cor. 7:10-11). The fact that they are not allowed to remarry is meant to further provoke them to work out their marital problems. It is primarily a spur to righteousness, leaving only two options in the case of an unbiblical divorce -- reconciliation or celibate singleness.

Conclusion

The Scriptures teach of the high demands of marriage. Divorce and remarriage are allowable in a few cases, sexual immorality and desertion. These two exceptions have much in common. Craig Blomberg, in the Trinity Journal, writes,

Once one recalls that the marriage covenant contained two main components -- personal allegiance or loyalty and interpersonal intimacy culminating in sexual relations -- the answer emerges with surprising ease. Both infidelity and desertion break one half of the marriage covenant. Unfaithfulness destroys sexual exclusivity; desertion reneges on the commitment to "leave and cleave."[45]

Each exception violates an essential part of the marriage covenant and thus is a legitimate and righteous reason to seek divorce. Neither exception demands that one divorce, but it does give the victim the option to do so. If they choose to exercise their right to a divorce, their decision must be honored as righteous and in accordance with God's holy commands. No social stigma should be attached to their decision. The God of marriage has given them His blessing in the case of such exceptions.

In summary, I find myself in agreement with Keener: "[D]ivorce is an evil to be avoided at all costs, and only when the salvation of the marriage is truly impossible is it valid. And the salvation of the marriage is impossible only if one party in the marriage has unilaterally decided to end it by seeking to leave or by acting adulterously. In such a case, divorce is the formal declaration of what is already true in fact: the marriage is broken, and the guilty party is responsible for it."[46]

---

Footnotes

© Richard J. Vincent, September 20, 1999