A thorough and balanced understanding of the Bible's teaching on divorce and remarriage is essential to confident and compassionate pastoral practice. The Reformed position, as found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, provides one of the most concise frameworks from which to apply the Bible's teaching to specific cases. Only this perspective can be consistently applied to a variety of cases without compromising its essential convictions.

In dealing with specific cases of marital problems, a number of questions naturally arise: Does a marriage need to be saved at all costs? Is divorce from an adulterous spouse a sin on the same level as the sexual promiscuity of the adulterer? Is a marital covenant an agreement between two parties? If so, does the abandonment of the covenant by one party break the covenant, or is the covenant left intact regardless of the actions of either party? Is a second marriage always sinful and adulterous? Are all second marriages built on a foundation of sin and immorality? Does divorce always take two, or can there be an innocent victim? Only the Reformed view of divorce and remarriage gives a proper platform to fully treat all of these questions and more.

Exalts and Honors the Marriage Covenant

"Fallen human beings will usually think they've reached their last resort long before they actually have."[47] Many marriages can be saved if given the proper amount of care and attention. It is far too easy to throw in the towel before all options have been exhausted. "Many people, perhaps the majority of people in our society, hold a view of marriage that can best be described as utilitarian or pragmatic. Something has value for a utilitarian if it produces desirable consequences. Something is good for a pragmatist if it works. For people who view marriage in this way, the question of when a marriage should be ended is simple -- when it no longer gives the husband or wife what he or she wants from the marriage. When the marriage no longer produces the desired consequences or when one partner believes his or her needs can be better met under different circumstances, thoughts turn toward the most convenient ways of breaking the union."[48]

If believers wish to honor God in their marriages, they will seek to remain faithful to their covenant commitments. Maintaining this commitment will be difficult at numerous junctures in the life of the marriage. At times, one or both of the partners will feel like giving up. However, if both partners hold to the Reformed position on divorce and remarriage, they will be aware that only two things justify a divorce -- adultery and desertion. All other difficulties are not proper grounds for marital breakup and must be worked through. If each partner desires to be faithful to God's commands, they will have no choice but to work through their problems.

The two exceptions are broad enough to protect righteousness and promote justice, and yet narrow enough to keep true believers from abandoning their marriages for simply any reason. These two exceptions force partners to endeavor to salvage their marriage as long as both are committed to sexual purity (the opposite of adultery) and covenant fidelity (the opposite of desertion). Though both partners may fall short in many different ways in various other aspects of marriage, their common commitment to these two crucial elements of the marital bond will provide the needed basis for their relationship to grow and develop.

The two exceptions limit the God-given reasons allowing divorce. God's will is clearly revealed. Some reasons that people use to justify marital separation may seem spiritual on the surface, but in reality, they actually go against God's clear boundaries. For example, some well-meaning Christians may advocate divorcing an unbelieving spouse for “the children's sake.” They may argue that it would be better for the children to be raised in a Christian household where the parents are in complete agreement concerning religious beliefs, rather than in a household divided in beliefs. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 does not give this as an option for divorce, but rather as a reason for keeping the marriage together! Though this argument may appear pious and God-honoring, it transgresses God’s clear commands, and does not qualify as an exception allowing for divorce. Children may not be used as an excuse to divorce an unbelieving spouse.

Maintains the Wickedness of Adultery and Desertion

Adultery is a serious sin (Heb. 13:4; Prov. 6:33; 1 Cor. 6:9-20; Eph. 5:3-6; 1 Thess. 4:3-8). In the Reformed position, divorce is permissible on the grounds of adultery. "The view which allows for no divorce, even because of adultery, may seem to be more ethical. However, it could also be considered quite the opposite -- as a more tolerant view of adultery -- in that it treats adultery no differently than numerous other marriage problems."[49]

In the no divorce position, divorce from an unfaithful partner is seen as a greater sin than the unfaithfulness of the partner. The Reformed view treats adultery with the seriousness that it deserves. It does not treat it as just another "normal" sin that takes place within the marital covenant. Rather, it views it as a direct blow to covenant faithfulness and charges the guilty party of committing a crime so great that it gives the victim the right to release themselves from such a grievous transgressor.

In the same way, covenant infidelity is a serious sin. A covenant is a legal agreement between two parties in which each vows to be faithful to uphold their commitment for the good of the other. A covenant is a two-way transaction. Both parties must be faithful to remain true to their commitment. If one party fails to uphold their agreement, the covenant is broken. It is impossible to have a covenant of one! It is a great sin to be unfaithful to uphold the covenant which one had legally bound themselves to. The covenant of marriage is no small thing. When one partner refuses to uphold their end of the agreement, they are considered a covenant-breaker. They do not exercise faithful covenant loyalty, but rather, are selfish, deceptive oath-breakers. Those who advocate a no divorce position teach that divorce from a covenant breaker is a greater sin than covenant-breaking itself! In contrast, the Reformed views treats covenant-breaking with the seriousness that it deserves. It is not just another “normal” sin that takes place within the marital covenant. It is a direct blow to the integrity of the covenant. The guilty party has committed a crime so great that it gives the victim the right to release themselves from such a wicked transgressor.

In the Reformed view, the victim of adultery or desertion has the right to divorce and remarry. They do not have to take advantage of this right as long as restoration remains a possibility. However, they are not required to seek restoration. In cases involving adulery and desertion, the marital covenant has been dealt a devastating blow. Only the Reformed view seriously treats adultery and desertion with the kind of strict consequences these sins deserve.

The insensitivity of the no divorce position is revealed in that it views divorce as a greater sin than adultery or covenant faithlessness displayed in desertion. Thus, the victim of adultery or desertion is forced to accept these injustices without redress. To allow the permissibility of divorce in light of the two biblical exceptions is to give victims of injustice and infidelity hope and support in their trying circumstances—to stand for righteousness in the midst of sin.

Remains Consistent in Treatment of Sin

If divorce and remarriage are always adulterous and sinful, as the no divorce advocates maintain, then it is only consistent that those who have participated in either a divorce or a remarriage must repent of their sinful actions and pursue a path of righteousness. In particular, if divorced, they should seek reconciliation at all costs, and if that is not possible, remain single the rest of their life. If remarried, they should remove themselves from their present partner because the marriage in which they are participating is adulterous and defiling.

This might seem extreme, but it is merely the logical application of the no divorce position. Keener draws out the implications of this with ruthless consistency:

If the first marriage was never dissolved in God's sight, and if adultery cannot dissolve the marriage bonds, then any subsequent sexual activity is by definition adulterous. The only solution to such an adulterous union is to dissolve it, which would mean that all second marriages can be dealt with only by repentance and separation.

Most opponents of remarriage are content to regard remarriage as a past sin and to keep the new marriage intact, but this demonstrates that in practice they are not willing to follow their own strict, culturally uninformed reading of Jesus' words.

If Jesus is not speaking hyperbolically, if any marriage after an invalid divorce is therefore adulterous, it is only because the divorce was invalid and the original partners are still actually married in God's sight. This means that those who intend to hold this strict rendering of the text must be consistent: they must initiate church discipline against all remarried persons as adulterers until they break up the new "marriages." Does this position seem extreme? It is the only consistent conclusion to the no-remarriage interpretation of these texts.[50]

Repeatedly, Laney has to compromise his convictions when applying his no divorce position to real-life situations. According to Laney’s position, every case of divorce and remarriage is sinful and adulterous. In the book, Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, Laney attempts to apply his position to a “case study.” In the process, he is repeatedly forced to compromise his convictions.

In the case study, an Elder named John neglects to tell his wife, Susan, of a one-night stand he participated in before their marriage. He eventually tells her and she grows to resent him. She eventually has an affair with a man in another church and files for divorce. What should John’s response be?

Laney concludes that if John is faced with legal exploitation by Susan, that he should file for divorce: "I do not believe counterfiling for divorce would constitute a sin."[51] At the conclusion of his avid defense of the no divorce position, Laney is force to change his tune when it comes to the real-life application of his teaching. Even though he believes Scripture never allows for any exception permitting divorce, he feels free to grant an exception in the case of legal exploitation. Surprisingly, Laney finds it easy to believe that divorce is always sinful and adulterous and yet counsel someone to sin in certain situations. "While I firmly believe that divorce is always wrong, it seems that John is forced into these circumstances by the actions of his wife and the peculiarities of the legal system."[52]

The practical inadequacies of Laney’s view are even more apparent in the application of his position to real-life remarriages. If Christian's remarry, Laney argues that they should remain in the state that they are in. He does, however, also allow them the option of ending their second marriage: "Those who choose to end their marriage because it was consummated wrongfully must be respected."[53] Amazingly, Laney allows them to confess their sin and then continue as if nothing is wrong or he allows them to divorce again in order to right a wrong. In the first case, he does not seriously deal with the sinfulness of their union. In the second, he allows two wrongs to make a right! Does this position in any way seem humane or loving? I submit this is the inconsistent and impractical application of a faulty position. Laney's theology has developed a system that makes for hurtful applications in the name of Christian integrity!

Some ivory-tower theologians who spend their time picking apart the grammar of New Testament texts without regard to the situations it addressed or the situations with which pastors must grapple today would do well to give attention to texts like these:

If you had understood what Scripture says, 'I want mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent (Matt. 12:7).

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would have been better for him to have had a millstone suspended from his neck, and to have been cast into the open sea (Matt. 18:6).

They (the scribes and Pharisees) bind together heavy loads and lay them on other people's shoulders, but they themselves won't even push the loads with a finger (Matt. 23:4).[54]

If divorce in every circumstance is sin, then it must never be promoted or even considered. Believers should prefer to suffer rather than to sin! Likewise, the sinful actions of others do not justify a sinful response. Only the Reformed position maintains a high view of marriage and simultaneously a biblical view of sin. It is possible to counsel divorce and remarriage without counseling someone to sin. This is not possible in the no divorce and divorce but no remarriage positions.

The Reformed view leaves open the possibility of divorce, but only as a last resort. Thus, it upholds the goodness of marriage while allowing that good things can be perverted beyond redemption through the sinfulness of human beings. Not every reason for divorce is valid, but not every marriage must be saved either.

Increases Confidence in Second Marriages

The no divorce and divorce but no remarriage positions give the remarried Christian little hope. If advocates were consistent with their positions, they would demand that all remarried couples separate. However, many merely ask that a remarried couple recognize their marriage as sinful and adulterous. Once they recognize this, they should confess their sin and go on with their marriage.

This a shaky and faulty foundation for all second marriages. The foundation of a marriage is crucial to the health of a marriage. This is why ministers counsel engaged couples to abstain from sex until marriage. Ministers realize that a couples’ actions prior to marriage will have a positive or detrimental effect on the marriage. To pronounce the very foundation of a marriage to be faulty is to strike a deadly blow on all second marriages.

Rather than entering marriage with fears, doubts, and suspicions compounded by uncertainties, the Reformed view gives legitimate second marriages a righteous and blameless foundation to begin anew.

With so many marriages ending in divorce, ministry to divorced people should be an important part of a well-rounded church ministry. Church programs ought to unashamedly give help and guidance both to divorcées and to those entering into a second marriage. Those seeking remarriage should be encouraged to learn as much as possible from the first failed marriage.

Helps in Maintaining a Just Standard

The Reformed view gives one a working reference to discern what is righteous and wicked in any circumstance. If the exceptions are obvious, then the believer has the right to divorce and remarry. If they are not, then the believer must fight for a marriage that is still redeemable.

In light of these clear boundaries, churches can exercise discipline effectively and without injustice. Those who have sinned against their spouses by divorcing them without scriptural grounds need to be called to repentance. "Scripture warns against the unjust judge who pardons the guilty as much as it warns against the judge who condemns the innocent; either sin is wrong, and neither should be tolerated as the attitude of our churches. Unscriptural divorces are grounds for church discipline, but the innocent parties in divorces need to be compassionately encouraged, not penalized for a sin that was not theirs to commit."[55]

The church must be concerned for both justice and mercy. To break a covenant is an offensive and unjust act. It is a forfeiting of one's obligations to another. It is to place one's own selfish interests above another. The church must stand up for righteousness when a believer is being unjustly treated by another. "[B]y judging all divorced people as if they had chosen their situation, we do not reflect the justice of the God who defends the oppressed."[56]

Preserves the Reputation of the Innocent Victim and Retains the Reality of Apostasy

Sometimes one spouse will turn their back on Christianity, despite the other party's faithfulness to God and the marriage. No marriage is guaranteed. The simple inclusion of fallible human beings allows for the possibility of the faithlessness of one or both of the partners.

Apostasy is a reality that is often overlooked in Christian communities. Not all that begin well, end well. Even in the best churches, some will fall away from the faith. A faithful spouse should not be held responsible for an unfaithful spouse's apostasy.

In light of the two clear exceptions in Scripture, the church needs to recognize that it doesn't always take two to break up a marriage. In some cases, it only takes one. This is not to say that any partner in a marriage is ever perfect or without fault. The best of marriages still involves the union of two frail, miserable sinners. However, this never gives either partner the right to break their marriage covenant. In other words, the poorest partner does not give the other a right to commit adultery or abandon his or her obligations to the marriage covenant. One of the tragic aspects of divorce is that the victim is often left in a state of agonizing introspection over all their weaknesses and sins (and we can all find many). "In some cases, they were not the best mates they could have been; but this was something to be worked out between them and their spouses, not something for which Scripture allows their spouses to divorce them."[57]

In all situations involving sinful human beings, there will be questions of innocence and guilt. "The church, which cannot see human hearts or private situations the way God does, will not always know if one party was actually innocent in the matter of the divorce… I know of people who purposely acted in such a way as to drive their spouses to divorce them, and then blamed the divorce on the spouse… But I also know of innocent people who were slandered by their spouses when the spouses left them, who were deeply hurt when the body of Christ believed the slander."[58] Only the observable facts must be considered in each case. The church must be careful that she doesn't abandon discernment and caution when it comes to determining who is to blame in the break-up of any marriage.

Conclusion

All divorced Christians should not be lumped into a single category. Some are divorced because of sinful choices made in the past. Others are divorced because of the sinful actions of their partner. Not all who are divorced have chosen this condition. The two exception clauses in Scripture reveal that, at times, there are innocent victims of divorce. The spouse of an adulterer is never condemned for the sin of the adulterer. The spouse of a covenant breaker is never condemned for the infidelity of the deserting partner. In certain situations, there clearly is an innocent party. The church must not condemn the innocent with the righteous. "The radical demands of the Kingdom prohibit sin; they do not condemn the innocent."[59]

Innocent victims of divorce deserve the church’s support as much as victims of any other crime or injustice. It is wrong for the church to refuse to embrace those who have been sinned against. Too many times, victims of divorce have not known the acceptance, support, love, and mercy due to one suffering directly because of the sin of another. The words of Stephen represent many who have not found acceptance in the church during their greatest moment of need:

My wife acted selfishly but not out of malice. You, however, kicked me when I was down and broke fellowship with me when I needed you most. Perhaps, like Job’s friends, you had to assign guilt to me to assure yourself that such tragedy could never overtake you. But you have acted unjustly.[60]

Quite simply, if a person's divorce was not based on one of the two biblical exceptions, they should be counseled to seek reconciliation if possible, or at least repentance. If their divorce was based on one or both of the allowable exceptions, then they should be considered as fit for remarriage, if the situation arises.

If they are not fit for remarriage, they should be told of the great advantages and benefits of the single life. The Apostle Paul clearly valued the single life over the married life. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was single during His earthly ministry. In light of the contemporary situation, churches need to regularly teach the value and beauty of the single life, lest our people come to believe that the only good life is a married life. Those who have erred in the past need to be taught that a fulfilling future is possible as a single Christian.

God always honors obedience. He will honor churches which carefully, consistently, and compassionately teach and apply His commands concerning divorce and remarraige. This includes the faithful communication of God’s high demands for marriage as well as His two exceptions allowing for divorce and remarriage.

Bibliography

Braun, M. A., Second-Class Christians? A New Approach to the Dilemma of Divorced People in the Church. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Bromiley, G. W., God & Marriage. Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.

Elliot, E., The Path of Loneliness. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988.

House, H. W., Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Keener, C. S., … And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Murray, J., Divorce. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1961.

Nash, R. H., Great Divides: Understanding the Controversies That Come Between Christians. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1993.

Footnotes

© Richard J. Vincent, September 20, 1999