Divorce, Remarriage, & Abuse

Rediscovering God's Heart for the Marriage Relationship

Note from the author: This year, I had the unexpected blessing to spend four months on the following project, surveying the theological divorce literature and developing the following resource. I pray it provides biblical insight and encouragement, especially to those in destructive marriages. I also pray that the wider body of Christ will be better equipped to rightly express the heart of God to victims of domestic abuse.

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to outline the most prevalent biblical positions regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage, along with presenting the author’s views on the most biblically faithful position.  

Table of Contents

• Introduction

• Interpretive Factors

• The Sources

• The Scriptures

• The Nature of Marriage & Divorce

• The Nature of Remarriage

• Conclusion

• Appendix: The Nature of Abuse

Introduction

Divorce Today

Marriage, divorce, and remarriage are perennially hot topics, and rightly so. Few issues touch as many people at the very core of their lives. While nearly all who get married seek their own happily ever after, many marriages sadly fall short of wedded bliss. But the vast majority of divorces are often stereotyped as lazy, selfish, and ultimately sinful, due to a “falling out of love”, since the gritty realities of everyday marriage fall short of Hollywood glamour. 

However, the data tells a different story. The tragic reality is that a large percentage of marriages not only lack marital satisfaction, but actively harbor the worst kinds of evil. In Gretchen Baskerville’s book The Life-Saving Divorce, she presents several studies that indicate that a huge percentage of divorces are due to destructive and even life-threatening causes: “About half of divorces in the U.S. are life-saving divorces. Those are the divorces that happen for very serious reasons, such as infidelity, physical abuse, chronic emotional abuse, abandonment, drug or alcohol abuse, and sexual immorality.”¹ In a 2004 survey of 1,147 people divorced after the age of 40, “half of the participants reported that their reason [for divorce] was an extreme one.”² When asked the question, “What was the most significant reason for your last divorce?”, responses included: 

16% - Adultery, cheating, infidelity

16% - Emotional, physical, verbal abuse

12% - Alcohol or drug addiction

3% - Not carrying weight in marriage (neglect of duty / refusal to provide) 

3% - Abandonment

—

50% of divorces³

Similar numbers are reported across various studies, including the following: “In a large, 2,323-person study in Oklahoma, respondents were given a list of reasons and asked to indicate which reasons were major contributors to their last divorce. 58% indicated infidelity, and 30% indicated domestic violence (there was no option for substance abuse).”⁴ 

Numbers like these should give us pause. Contrary to the stereotype that divorce is primarily a problem of marriage failing to meet Disnified expectations, a huge percentage of divorces are due to immense cruelty, destructive behavior, and injustice. And these numbers are not merely abstract. In the last two years, I myself have met about a dozen people in my immediate circle (both women and men) with harrowing stories of surviving destructive marriages. The percentage of women I meet who have survived horrific marital circumstances lines up with national statistics: “Over 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.”⁵

Some were shamed into marrying their rapists, subsequently surviving decades of physical, emotional, and sexual violence against themselves or their children. Others were systematically dehumanized and degraded under the tyranny of narcissistic control. Some lost custody of their children when they sought to escape. Others barely escaped with their and their children’s lives, and yet were publicly excommunicated from their churches. Some experienced years or decades of emotional cruelty, with the stress ultimately inducing permanent, debilitating chronic illness and disability. Others experienced the violence of rape and sexual coercion in every intimate encounter with their spouse. Some were impoverished by their spouse’s chronic drug and alcohol abuse. Others were impoverished by their spouse’s chronic adultery. 

Nearly all of these people were (and still are) faithful church members, with both spouses professing believers. And in a majority of these cases, the victims’ respective churches supported the perpetrator and condemned the victim. 

Method

In situations like these, sincere believers seeking to please God with their lives can find themselves deeply confused by Scripture. In some places, divorce seems to be roundly forbidden. In other places, it is allowed for only one explicitly-mentioned reason, such as adultery; in yet other places, for other explicitly-mentioned reasons, such as abandonment. So it makes sense that believers and churches alike struggle with how to navigate such a convoluted issue. How shall we proceed?

A robust study of this topic forces us to confront not only issues of divorce per se, but also our assumptions about methods of Scriptural interpretation, hermeneutics, and exegesis. On topics such as divorce, many default to the “plain reading of Scripture”, as if the teaching of Scripture on this topic is necessarily simple and obvious. But careful biblical exegesis is not simply grabbing what seems to be the most obvious reading of one or two proof texts ‘divorced’ from the rest of Scripture (pun unintended), and then forcing the rest of Scripture to conform. Rather, sound biblical interpretation requires holistically harmonizing the whole testimony of Scripture, cover to cover. 

In this study, I read half a dozen books that presented at least five different views on the “biblical” view of divorce and remarriage. Ordered from most restrictive to least restrictive, these views include:

1. Marriage is inherently indissoluble (that is, permanent); no divorce or remarriage is permitted for any reason. (J. Carl Laney)

2. Marriage is both dissoluble and indissoluble; that is, divorce is permitted only for adultery and abandonment, but remarriage is never permitted. (William A. Heth, Gordon J. Wenham, John Piper, John MacArthur)

3. Marriage is inherently dissoluble; and divorce and remarriage are permitted only for adultery and abandonment. (Thomas R. Edgar, William A. Heth [see above - yes, he eventually changed his view from #2 to #3.])

4. Marriage is inherently dissoluble; and divorce and remarriage are permitted for adultery, abandonment, and various types of destructive behavior, such as various kinds of abuse, deceit, or treachery. (Craig S. Keener, David Instone-Brewer, Wayne Grudem [notably, Grudem recently changed his view from #3 to #4.]) 

5. Marriage is inherently indissoluble; nevertheless, divorce and remarriage are permitted for any reason, due to human frailty and God’s mercy, as long as the individuals involved are sorry. (Larry Richards)

All of these theologians hold to a high view of Scripture.⁶ Each seeks to rightly interpret the Word of God. So how can so many different views come from one Bible? We have just one Bible, that is, one set of biblical data. So different viewpoints come from handling the biblical data differently. Some interpreters prioritize some verses; other interpreters prioritize other verses. So there is no one single view that can be categorized as “biblical”, with the rest dismissed as “unbiblical”. Rather, good arguments can be made for interpreting the Scriptural data in several different ways.

This is not to say that every view is equally valid. Some views enjoy robust Scriptural evidence and strong supporting arguments, while some views have slim evidence and weak supporting arguments. Our goal is to do our best to understand the whole testimony of Scripture and then to identify the view that best harmonizes the biblical evidence.

So my method in this paper is as follows: Firstly, I will identify common interpretive factors and fallacies that, left unidentified, would bias and skew our analysis. Secondly, I will present the relevant scriptural data. Thirdly, I will present several views on how to harmonize the biblical data. Finally, I will conclude by presenting my own view, which I personally believe best harmonizes the whole testimony of Scripture. 

Interpretive Factors

When interpreting Scripture, we ought to always consider the assumptions and biases that may subconsciously shape our reasoning processes. A few of note: 

Culture War Mentality

This mindset is an adversarial posture that subconsciously interprets Scripture in ways that are as oppositional as possible to a perceived cultural enemy. It may be motivated primarily by, for example, refuting liberals or winning culture wars. It views the other side as incapable of perceiving truth, so if ‘the culture’ believes divorce is permitted for every reason, Christians must take the opposing view that NO divorce is permitted for any reason. But this mindset conforms Scripture to the shape of our politics and cultural divides, rather than conforming politics and culture to the shape of Scripture. It is eisegesis rather than exegesis.

Plus, one’s position on hot-button subjects, like marriage, can be an in-group/out-group marker, signifying belonging or lack thereof with a particular group or tribe. In various Christian circles, various positions on divorce and remarriage can get us branded as a ‘backslider’ or, conversely, a ‘legalist’. But we ought to interpret Scripture as faithfully to God’s intent as possible, regardless of where that lands us within either today’s culture wars or within our Christian communities. We must avoid the fear of man, whether we are tempted to fear our foes or fear our friends.

Fear of Compromise

Many of us fear compromising our convictions. But in so doing, we sometimes subconsciously assume that whatever beliefs we already have are absolutely true and correct. We may buy into the assumption that whatever beliefs we inherited are the ones that are absolutely true, and that any change to those beliefs is compromise. This can lead to a stubborn refusal to reexamine our assumed convictions, since we believe that such a reexamination reflects poor character. In other words, we are better at dying on hills than we are testing which hills we ought to die on. 

Changing one’s views could, indeed, constitute sinful compromise; but it could also reflect godly humility, recognizing that our current beliefs were never biblically justified to begin with. We have no reason to be afraid of testing our beliefs. If we discover that our starting assumptions are incorrect or misguided, we gain greater insight into the truth and unlearn an error, which is always a good thing. There need be no shame in the process of growth. In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:2-3), so we should expect to grow in our understanding of these treasures as we grow in our knowledge of Christ.  

Solo Scriptura / Biblicism

Solo Scriptura is a perversion of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. While Sola Scriptura refers to how Scripture is our highest authority, with other lesser sources of information as valid and helpful tools, someone who believes solo Scriptura holds that Scripture is our only valid source of information on most or all topics. The latter has been alternatively called bibliolatry, or biblicism. 

So we must consider the intended scope and purpose of Scripture. Does God intend for Scripture to teach us everything we need to know about science, history, government, psychology, or relationships? Does the “sufficiency of Scripture” require that we throw away all other books? Many biblicists approach the Bible as a handbook or encyclopedia for all of these topics. This leads to the subconscious assumption that God intended for the Bible to give us exhaustive information about topics like divorce and remarriage.

But it may also be that the scope and intent of Scripture is to reveal the nature and character of God, the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, and the general, timeless principles we need to live godly lives. If this is the case, then the point of the Bible is Jesus, not divorce. Hence, it may be that specific divorce law is non-exhaustive and that we have some amount of freedom in the Holy Spirit to apply timeless biblical truths to specific situations. 

It would seem that if God intended the Bible to be an exhaustive encyclopedia for every possible topic, it would be organized a bit more like an encyclopedia. The teachings on divorce would be laid out neatly, with each possible scenario addressed, with specific and detailed teaching on situations of, say, abuse or remarriage. But this is not the Bible we have. Instead, most of Scripture is narrative, centered on the person and work of Christ. Teachings on divorce are scattered piecemeal through the Scriptures, each relevant passage contextualized to address the concerns and needs of the specific audiences to which they are written. 

Per sola Scripture, Scripture is our highest authority, not cultural context; yet cultural context is a crucial component of interpreting Scripture rightly. So we ought not to interpret the words of Scripture in a vacuum; rather, we must seek to understand how Scripture is enculturated to a specific group of people, taking cultural context into account, as we seek to identify the timeless principles behind the words on the page, rooted in the heart of God. Then we can apply those principles to various scenarios that may not be specifically addressed in the pages of Scripture. 

Suffering

If suffering can be redemptive, does that mean we must sanction suffering in our communities? Is someone suffering abuse obligated to stay in that situation for the sake of ‘growing our character’ or ‘allowing God’s plan’? Some Christian communities elevate suffering to the point of willfully enabling injustice; these communities refuse to rescue those suffering abuse, seeing it as interfering with God’s sovereignly ordained plan. 

But such is fatalistic and deterministic, pitting God’s sovereignty against His love and His justice. It also violates the many Scriptures commanding us to rescue those suffering oppression. God rescues Israel from the heavy hand of Pharoah, rather than leaving them to suffer for the sake of growing their character. If we refuse to alleviate injustice in God’s name, we will find ourselves in opposition to vast portions of Scripture and in violation of God’s direct commands to seek justice.

Sin Leveling

This is the common fallacy that since all sin is equally vile in God’s sight, the two parties in a marital conflict are always equally guilty. This is incorrect. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue write on this in their Crossway article “Are Some Sins Worse Than Others?”: “All sins are the same in the sense that each renders a person guilty and worthy of God’s wrath. . . At the same time, Scripture does speak of the reality that some sins are considered greater than others.”⁷ They list several examples: 

When being shown abominations in the temple, Ezekiel was told, “You will see still greater abominations that they commit” (Ezek. 8:13). Here some abominations were “greater” than others. Jesus explained that those who delivered him to Pilate committed “the greater sin” (John 19:11). In Matthew 11:20–24, Jesus said that the Jewish cities that heard the kingdom message would fare worse on judgment day than the Gentile cities that did not. Greater knowledge brings greater responsibility. In Luke 12:47–48, Jesus taught that a servant who knew the Master’s will but did not do it would be treated more harshly than one who did not know the Master’s will. Also, James said that a stricter judgment awaits teachers: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).

Ultimately,

These two biblical realities are harmonized by considering that there is both a quantitative and a qualitative aspect to sin and punishment. All mankind is guilty of sinning against an infinitely holy God. Therefore, all who die without repenting and trusting in Christ face the same quantitatively eternal punishment for their sins. And yet, because God is strictly just, he will punish those who have committed qualitatively greater offenses with a qualitatively greater punishment. The character of their suffering will be exactly proportional to the crimes they’ve committed (e.g., 2 Pet. 2:17; Jude 13).

When we commit the error of sin-leveling, we tell a wounded spouse that calling out their spouse’s sin is arrogant, for have they not themselves sinned? We tell the victim to work on themselves while failing to call out the excessive sin of the perpetrator. But failing to wash the dishes is not an equal sin to beating one’s wife. Occasionally losing one’s patience is not equivalent to molesting one’s children. While both parties may indeed have ways they need to grow, this does not nullify excessive cruelty or malice on the part of one spouse only. We must be careful to evaluate the level of harm being done and the amount of culpability each partner has in each situation, and not jump to blaming the wounded spouse for the harm caused by the perpetrating spouse.

The Forest & the Trees

In this study, I have discovered what appears to be a flaw in methodology. Most studies of the topics of divorce and remarriage tend to focus very tightly on this small set of biblical passages that explicitly and didactically address these topics, with little to no reference to the rest of the story of Scripture.

However, I believe this methodology misses the mark. The study of divorce and remarriage quickly devolves into a dizzying debate between various scholars debating a jungle of semantics, each proclaiming competing claims of supremacy based on their superior knowledge of the minutia of ancient Greek and Hebrew language and culture. Hence, it can be difficult to adjudicate between competing interpretative options.

We cannot study grammar without God. In the study of any work of literature, we consider the author themselves - their personal history, their character, and their actions - when posed with difficult questions about how to interpret their work. Since God is the author of Scripture, we must likewise consider His character and heart, presented throughout the whole of Scripture, as the deciding factor between competing interpretations. We ought not to study any issue in Scripture without reference to the person and character of Jesus Christ Himself, the incarnated Yahweh. Without Yahweh’s character to guide us towards better interpretations and away from worse ones, we will miss the forest for the trees. Hence, we must be anchored in the character of God when weighing competing options.

The Sources

Here are the books and texts I studied for this paper. 

• What the Bible Says about Divorce and Remarriage, Wayne Grudem. 

• Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series), by H. Wayne House. 

• Remarriage after Divorce in Today's Church: 3 Views (Counterpoints: Church Life), by Zondervan. 

• Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities, by David Instone-Brewer.

• All That Jesus Commanded, by John Piper, Chapters 40-42. (https://document.desiringgod.org/all-that-jesus-commanded-en.pdf?ts=1685126334)

• The Life-Saving Divorce: Hope for People Leaving Destructive Relationships, by Gretchen Baskerville. 

• The Emotionally Destructive Marriage: How to Find Your Voice and Reclaim Your Hope, Leslie Vernick. 

The Scriptures

The Traditional Texts

The passages traditionally studied on the topics of marriage, divorce, and remarriage include:

• Genesis 2:24 ESV “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

• Exodus 21:10-11 NET [In regards to a man and a slave wife:] “If he takes another wife, he must not diminish the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money.” 

• Deuteronomy 21:11-14 NET “When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the Lord your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners, if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife, you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, and stay in your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may sleep with her and become her husband and she your wife. If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.” 

• Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ESV “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.” 

• Malachi 2:13-16 The Hebrew in this passage is convoluted and difficult. There are two main options for how to translate the subject/verb of verse 16a (bolded below): 

  • NET: “You also do this: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears as you weep and groan, because he no longer pays any attention to the offering nor accepts it favorably from you. Yet you ask, “Why?” The Lord is testifying against you on behalf of the wife you married when you were young, to whom you have become unfaithful even though she is your companion and wife by law. No one who has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does this. What did our ancestor do when seeking a child from God? Be attentive, then, to your own spirit, for one should not be disloyal to the wife he took in his youth. ‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel, ‘and the one who is guilty of violence,’ says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. ‘Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful.’”

  • ESV: “And this second thing you do. You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 ‘For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘covers his garment with violence,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.’”

• Matthew 5:31-32 ESV “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

• Matthew 19:3-9 ESV “And Pharisees came up to him [Jesus] and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality [Greek porneia], and marries another, commits adultery.’”

• Mark 10:2-12 ESV “And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

• Luke 16:18 ESV “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

• 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 ESV “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”

In this study, nearly all the theologians I read addressed the above passages, with different methods of slicing and dicing the Greek & Hebrew grammar to support their conclusions. However, only a few of them address any of the below passages; in fact, many of these passages were not included in their discussion at all. Yet all of the above passages are contextualized in the broader story of Scripture presented below. As such, the below passages ought to be considered in our discussion.

God’s Own Divorce

Exodus 19:2b-8 ESV

God’s covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai: 

“Israel encamped before the mountain, while Moses went up to God. The Lord called to him out of the mountain, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.’ So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the Lord had commanded him. All the people answered together and said, ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do.’ And Moses reported the words of the people to the Lord.”

Exodus 32

While God is giving Moses the 10 Commandments on Mount Sinai, the Israelites betray God’s covenant by building the golden calf. God vows to annihilate Israel and start over with Moses. “‘I have seen these people,’ the Lord said to Moses, ‘and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.’” Given God’s marriage covenant of Israel, one way of reading this passage is that His people broke their marriage vows, so God decides to divorce & destroy them and functionally remarry a new people through Moses. 

But Moses prevails on God to give Israel one more opportunity to repent. Once Moses returns to the camp, he calls for the people’s repentance.  When the Levites repent, they follow the Lord’s instruction to enact judgment in slaying three thousand of the unrepentant Israelites. Only those who repent of the breaking of their marriage vows to God and return to Him continue to enjoy marriage with Him; the rest are functionally divorced from God’s covenant of love and protection and no longer enjoy the benefits of marriage with God. 

Jeremiah 3, especially v. 8: “I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.” 

This passage presents God Himself as a divorcee. He divorces his spouse, Israel, because of how she continually and unrepentantly breaks her vows. But the initiator of the divorce (God) is not the one who ended the marriage, but rather, the marriage was ended by those who persistently broke their vows (Israel.) Only those Israelites who turn away from their hard-hearted rebellion reconcile their marriage with God. The rest remain divorced from Him and experience judgment.

Hosea (Book)

This book presents a picture of marriage as a covenant that can be broken by sin and leads to judgment on the covenant breaker. Their only hope is that they soften their hard hearts and respond to calls for repentance. This motif is repeated continuously throughout the other Old Testament prophets: Israel’s adultery and general wickedness, and their impending destruction (that is, divorce from God’s covenant), unless they repent. 

Hosea points to a picture of marriage that is indeed meant to be permanent, but is not, in fact, permanent, if one party to the marriage insists on hard-hearted unfaithfulness. Only if the adulterous partner is repentant does the marriage continue. 

Furthermore, God does not provide unlimited chances to repent. At some point, the unfaithful Israelites face judgment and perish. This fact has implications for how long a wounded spouse ought to wait for a sinning spouse’s repentance before divorce is permitted. God does not model infinite waiting in his own marriage to the rebellious people of Israel. While he does indeed patiently offer many opportunities for repentance, there does come a point where the relationship is cut off from those who are unrepentant.

Psalm 95:6-11

Oh come, let us worship and bow down;

    let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker!

For he is our God,

    and we are the people of his pasture,

    and the sheep of his hand.

Today, if you hear his voice,

      do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,

    as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,

when your fathers put me to the test

    and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work.

For forty years I loathed that generation

    and said, “They are a people who go astray in their heart,

    and they have not known my ways.”

Therefore I swore in my wrath,

    “They shall not enter my rest.”

Hard-heartedness here is referenced by Jesus in Matthew 19 on divorce. It is also a reason for God to end the covenant with covenant-breakers.

Biblical Anthropology

Genesis 1:26-27 ESV “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” 

Both men and women bear the image of God. Both men and women possess inherent worth and dignity as God’s sacred creation. We are commanded to treat both men and women with the dignity and respect due to His image bearers. 

Matthew 22:37-40 ESV “And [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.’”

Here, Jesus explicitly gives us our hermeneutical key: every single law and precept in Scripture must be interpreted in light of the two greatest commandments. So if a particular interpretation of divorce law violates the second greatest commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, we stand in opposition to the hermeneutic Jesus gave us. 

Defining One Flesh

Ephesians 5:21-33: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church (he himself being the savior of the body). But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.  Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. . . husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body, but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is great—but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

Here God presents marriage as mutual submission and devotion. It gives us a positive picture of God’s intention for marriage: mutually life-giving, one-flesh unity. The passage is book-ended with a call to mutual, self-sacrificial love and submission.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?...” 

This passage was never addressed in the scholarly discussion of divorce and remarriage. I have personally always read this passage as a warning towards singles seeking a mate, but in returning to the text, the Scripture itself provides no such parameter restricting the passage’s audience to singles. Rather, the principle of separation from partnership with unbelievers seems to be stated in absolute terms for the whole church. More study ought to be done on the applicability of this verse towards the discussion of divorce.

1 Corinthians 6:12-20: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him…” 

Several principles are evident here: first, one-flesh unity is not inherently, ontologically, and irreversibly permanent, since it can be experienced with a prostitute. 

Second, we are meant to have one-flesh unity with the Lord; therefore, we ought to avoid one-flesh unity with those who would pull our hearts away from the Lord. While this passage clearly mentions prostitutes, it would seem that this passage could also apply to unbelieving spouses.

Spiritual Health of Believers 

Ezra 9-10, especially 9:1-3, 10:2-3 ESV:

“After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, ‘The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.’ As soon as I heard this, I tore my garment and my cloak and pulled hair from my head and beard and sat appalled.” 

“And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law.”

In this passage, God Himself commands the “putting away” (or divorce) of non-Jewish wives. This passage seems to indicate that there are things that God values more highly than marital fidelity - in this case, the spiritual wellbeing of his people. 

1 Timothy 5:8 “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” 

This passage indicates that an abusive or neglectful spouse may be considered an unbeliever. This ties into Paul’s words about not being unequally yoked and makes us question whether such a union can indeed be one flesh. This also has implications for situations of persistent drug and alcohol addiction, financial abuse, etc.

There are also many other passages throughout the New Testament on avoiding fellowship with people who commit serious sins, including all types of abuse and sexual immorality: 

• 1 Cor. 5:11-12 ESV: But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’”

• Ephesians 5:3-7 ESV: “But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.” 

• 2 Timothy 3:1-5: ‘But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”

The Nature of Biblical Justice

God is a God of justice, with immense concern for those victimized by wicked people. Old Testament “justice” referred not only to retributive justice (punishing criminal acts), but also restorative justice (proactively seeking others’ wellbeing, safety, and flourishing). See The Bible Project’s video on justice for more details.⁸ 

There are many dozens of verses throughout the Old Testament where God commands us to care for the powerless, the oppressed, the voiceless, and those victimized by corrupt power in society, or where he declares judgment on Israel for failing to do so. God declares that he will rescue the oppressed and that his people are to enact justice for the oppressed. He condemns oppressors, and he condemns those who apathetically stand by in the face of oppression. The seeds of human rights are found even in Scripture. When Christ says that he has come to “set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18), we must keep in mind that Christ acts through the Church, His body. So we are commanded to seek justice, safety, and well-being for the vulnerable around us. I will list just a handful of passages below. See the footnotes for a much larger list⁹ 

• Luke 4:18-19 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.” (The Words of Jesus, quoting from Isaiah 61:1-2a.)

• Psalm 82:3 “Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.” 

• Proverbs 31:8-9 ESV “Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” 

• Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.” 

• Jeremiah 22:3 ESV “Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.” 

• Deuteronomy 27:19 “‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”

• Psalm 72:4 “May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the children of the needy, and crush the oppressor!”

• Zechariah 7:10 “Do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.”

• Zechariah 7:9-10 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.”

• Isaiah 10:1-3 “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey!”

• Job 29:12-17 Job speaking: “I delivered the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to help him. The blessing of him who was about to perish came upon me, and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy. I put on righteousness, and it clothed me; my justice was like a robe and a turban. I was eyes to the blind and feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know. I broke the fangs of the unrighteous and made him drop his prey from his teeth.” 

When Authority is Abusive

What is the nature of authority? Is authority absolute or conditional? Does God require us to submit to abusive authority, whether that abusive authority be found in government, church, or marriage? 

1 Peter 2:13 - 3:2, 3:5-6 ESV: “Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. . . For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.”

This passage tells women who are suffering under oppressive husbands to submit quietly. However, in the same passage, it also tells citizens to submit to the unjust authority of the Roman government, and slaves to submit to harsh and cruel masters. The same argument for submission to oppressive authority is carried throughout. 

If submitting quietly to unjust tyranny is an absolute, inviolable Scriptural principle, that principle applies not only to women but also to men and enslaved people as well. If we are to demand a wife’s submission to a tyrant husband, we must also be prepared to demand submission to tyrant dictators and tyrant slave owners. Such a principle renders vile and sinful the American Revolution, a rebellion against British governmental authority. It invalidates the Civil War and the eventual Civil Rights movement, the fight for enslaved Blacks’ freedom, equal rights, and dignity. It renders the Protestant Reformation itself a sinful rebellion against God-given church authority, rather than a needed reform. Does God command a German Christian in the 1940s to aid the Nazis in hunting Jewish people, just because their government, their “God-given authority”, told them to? Such a conclusion is biblically untenable. 

But if we affirm the development of historical Christian ethics, in which citizens have the right to seek freedom and justice by resisting unjust governmental authority, laypeople have the right to reform corrupt church leadership, and enslaved people have the right to seek freedom and justice by resisting unjust masters, we must also apply the same logic towards women suffering under unjust husbands - they too have the right to seek freedom and justice by resisting unjust authority.

Furthermore, unconditional submission to any authority, no matter how tyrannical, leads us to disobey Scripture by aiding and abetting injustice. It leads a vulnerable woman to stay with a man who is destroying her and molesting her children, and it leads her pastoral leadership to counsel her to stay in such a situation, even unto death. Enforcing unconditional submission to injustice leads us to deep violation of the biblical principles of seeking justice, loving mercy, and defending the vulnerable and oppressed. This is not merely a theoretical; for a live example, see John MacArthur’s excommunication of Eileen Gray, a woman who refused to return to her husband who is now in prison for aggravated child molestation, corporal injury to a child, and child abuse.¹⁰ Notably, MacArthur also sued the state of California for oppressive COVID restrictions - and won.¹¹ MacArthur embodies the contradictory hermeneutic that allegedly oppressive, tyrannical governments must be resisted, while oppressive, tyrannical husbands must be submitted to, at threat of excommunication. (Not to mention that the potentially oppressive nature of public health measures experienced during the 2020-2021 pandemic is mild compared to the oppression of being forced to live under a cruel or violent spouse.) 

We must also keep in mind that 1 Peter is written to people under the Roman Empire, where women, children, and slaves functionally had no rights and no recourse. Freedom and justice were not possible, and legal and social equality did not exist. Hence, it seems more in line with God’s heart and the overall message of Scripture to interpret 1 Peter as instructions for how to bear up under oppressive authority when freedom and justice are not possible, rather than a prescriptive ethos for all time. 

The Nature of Marriage & Divorce

Framing the Discussion

At the very heart of our discussion is marriage’s ontology (substance or essence). What, exactly, is a marriage? We have to understand what something is before we can determine whether that thing exists, or whether it ceases to exist. Different ontological definitions of marriage are the driving reason for the widely varying views of divorce and remarriage we see today.

1. If a marriage is defined as, say, the presence of romance between a man and a woman, the marriage would end by definition as soon as romance is lacking. Under this definition, there would be many unromantic unions that could no longer be defined as marriage. 

2. If marriage is instead defined as the historical presence of marriage vows at any point in the past between a man and woman, it would be impossible for any marriage to truly end, because we cannot change the past. Such a definition of marriage renders divorce impossible by definition, even in the cases of explicit exceptions for divorce given us by Jesus and by Paul: sexual immorality and abandonment. Such vow-permanence would, logically, apply even to a marriage to an unbeliever, to an illegal drug dealer, to a sibling, to someone who becomes transgender, to a serial adulterer, or to a child molester. This view also renders all remarriages as acts of inherent, ongoing adultery, with the logical implication that all remarriages should be broken up. 

3. If marriage is instead defined as the ongoing presence of mutually-kept vows in one-flesh unity between a man and a woman, then a marriage can indeed end when at least one partner persistently fails to keep their vows. This view of the ontology of marriage allows us to affirm the value of one-flesh unity and encourages us to fight to keep our vows, while also allowing us to recognize when a marriage (mutually-kept vows in one-flesh unity) no longer exists. The explicit exceptions given by Jesus and Paul, sexual immorality and abandonment, are clear examples of breaking one’s vows and the destruction of one-flesh unity; but there are also other clear examples of the destruction of one-flesh unity, such as abuse of various types and sexual deviance of various types, along with deceitful treachery, fraud, and betrayal of various types. 

In summary, the Indissoluble View holds that marriage is the making of vows rather than the ongoing keeping of vows. Therefore, it is impossible to dissolve any marriage. The Dissoluble View, on the other hand, holds that marriage is defined as the ongoing keeping of vows rather than merely the making of vows. So when vows are persistently broken, the marriage itself ends. In the former view, no divorce is permitted; in the latter view, different adherents believe different types of divorces of permitted. 

Type A: The Indissoluble View

General argument: 

Marriage is based on the making of vows rather than the ongoing keeping of vows. The marriage is permanent, unbreakable, and indissoluble, regardless of the subsequent behavior of the respective spouses. 

Consequently, under this view, God permits no divorce under any circumstance. Those who hold this viewpoint attempt to explain away even the explicit exceptions given by Jesus and Paul in Matthew 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 - namely, sexual immorality and abandonment, along with God’s explicit command to divorce in Ezra. 

Scriptures: 

Genesis 2:24 

Malachi 2:13-16 

Mark 10:2-12 

Luke 16:18 

Commentary:

Adherents to this view see Genesis 2:24, reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-5, as a declaration of inherent indissolubility in the nature of marriage. Hence, no marriage can ever be dissolved. 

In the synoptic Gospels, Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 16 all refer to the same incident in the life of Jesus. In Matthew 19, Jesus gives the exception for adultery; in Mark and Luke, he does not. In traditional biblical interpretation, the more detailed passage is seen as the conclusive one, with the other passages seen as less detailed summaries. But adherents to the Indissoluble View say that the lack of an exception in Mark and Luke overrides the presence of the exception in Matthew. Additionally, they argue that the Greek word ‘porneia’, translated as “adultery” in Matthew 19, ought instead to be interpreted as “incest” or “betrothal”, hence nullifying the adultery exception. The arguments for this translation choice seem to be a stretch, however. 

They disregard Old Testament law (Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:11-14, and Deuteronomy 24:1-4) as being part of the old covenant that no longer applies to us today. They see these passages as cultural accommodations by God which he has since removed, pointing to Jesus’ words in Matthew as an erasure of those passages. They also think that these passages only apply to the explicit cultural situations of slavery or war-wives outlined in the OT. They do not pull any overarching principles from these passages that would apply today, unlike advocates of the Dissoluble View. 

They also interpret what happens in Ezra 9-10 as something other than divorce. Since the term “put away” is used in this passage, they argue that the Israelites were not in fact married to the pagan women but were rather living together with them; hence they were not guilty of unequally yoked marriages, but rather promiscuity. However, this interpretation seems to be a stretch, since the term “put away” can also be used as a term for divorce and is the clearest reading of the meaning of Ezra, and the text clearly states that the Israelites were “married” to these foreign “wives”. 

They also interpret Malachi 2:16a as “God hates divorce”, and that if God hates something, it cannot be permitted, as the final word on the matter. 

Type B: The Dissoluble View

General argument

Marriage is based on the ongoing keeping of vows rather than merely the making of vows. It is ideally permanent; nevertheless, it is also functionally a dissoluble covenant, that is, a contract that can be destroyed by the behavior of one or both of the spouses.

Under this view, God permits divorce under certain circumstances. Which circumstances are permitted is a matter of extensive debate. Some believe God limits those circumstances to adultery and abandonment only, which are explicitly stated in the New Testament (Matthew 7 and 1 Corinthians 7). Others believe that God allows divorce for other types of circumstances, such as abuse of various types and other types of destructive behavior.

Scriptures

Genesis 2:24  

Exodus 21:10-11  

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 

Ezra 9-10 

Malachi 2:13-16 

Matthew 5:31-32 

Matthew 19:3-9 

Mark 10:2-12 

Luke 16:18 

1 Corinthians 7:10-15 

Interpretation of Scriptures

What is marriage? Throughout this study, I was surprised at how little attention was paid to the meaning of “one flesh”. Per Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6, and Ephesians 5, marriage is a one-flesh union of mutual, Christ-like, sacrificial love. Given the expanded commentary of the Old Testament, when vows are made, they must be fulfilled, even if imperfectly, for the marriage (one-flesh unity) to continue. The chronic, hard-hearted refusal to keep one’s vows seems to result in the ending of the marriage relationship between God and those Israelites who remain unrepentant.

Thus, ‘marriages’ in which one partner domineers over the other, where the power differential is large (through, for example, chronic violence, deception, manipulation, isolation, verbal and psychological abuse, etc.) are not pictures of the one-flesh Gospel unity which God defines as marriage. The relationship between, for example, a torturer and a captive, an enslaver and a slave, or a rapist and a victim, is not one-flesh unity, nor is it a picture of Christ and his church. If marriage is meant to be a picture of Jesus’ love for us and our devotion to Christ, let us beware of making a mockery of God’s intent for marriage by forbidding people to leave marriages that grotesquely blaspheme this sacred picture. 

Adherents to the Dissoluble view see Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5-6 as God’s declaration of his ideal for marriage. Jesus tells us, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” This is God’s original intent for marriage. Here, when Jesus says that “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate”, advocates of the Dissoluble View point out that “let not man separate” is not, in fact, a command, but rather a declaration of what ought to be. In technical terms, my understanding is that the verb is not in the imperative tense (a command), but rather in a subjunctive tense (a wish, desire, hope, or preference). For example, I could say, “Do not burn my dinner” (a command), or I could say, “May my dinner be delicious” (a wish, desire, hope, or preference). Adherents of the Dissoluble View point out that God does not declare it impossible to destroy one-flesh unity; rather, God expresses the deep desire that humans not destroy the one-flesh unity of marriage. This implies that it is, in fact, possible to destroy one-flesh unity. God desires for us to avoid this outcome, but because of sin, this outcome is nevertheless possible. 

Adherents to this view argue that Matthew’s adultery exception is the plainest reading of the Greek, since ‘sexual immorality’ is by far the most likely translation of the Greek word porneia. Additionally, the exception for adultery in Matthew is a greater level of detail that overrides the lack of detail presented in Mark and Luke. Hence, Mark & Luke (which lack the porneia exception) must be interpreted in light of Matthew 19 (which includes the porneia exception). Some also argue that questioning the veracity of Jesus’ adultery exception based on Mark and Luke amounts to questioning the inerrancy of Matthew. We must take Matthew just as seriously as Mark and Luke. 

Adherents to the Dissoluble View argue that Malachi 2:16a is about injustice, not divorce per se. We must remember that the interpretation of this verse is uncertain and unclear. As a reminder, one likely interpretation is as follows: “‘For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘covers his garment with violence,’ says the Lord of hosts.” But for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the correct interpretation is that “God hates divorce”. Even if this is the case, the reason God hates divorce in this passage is because of how the husband is harming his wife and treating her unjustly. In Old Testament Jewish society, divorce was a way to ruin and impoverish a woman, as there were very few social structures to help her rebuild after a divorce. In this passage, it is not divorce itself, but the unjust mistreatment of a faithful spouse, that God hates. 

Furthermore, God can hate something without it being a sin; after all, God hates death, and he hates when people choose to perish rather than repent (God “is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9b ESV) Yet he allows things that he hates because they are necessary. Death is necessary until the new heaven and new earth are ushered in, and divorce may also be necessary to protect innocent spouses from wicked spouses.

1 Corinthians 7 illuminates an important principle: Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19 is most likely proverbial. Proverbs were a common teaching tool for rabbis of the time. A proverb, as a literary genre, states a general principle, which may often have exceptions yet nevertheless illustrate important general truths. An excellent example of this is Proverbs 26:4-5:
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,

    or you yourself will be just like him.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly,

    or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Does this passage contradict itself? If each verse is an absolute law without exception, then this is indeed a contradiction in Scripture. But if each verse offers a general principle, then we can carefully apply each principle depending on the situation. This is how proverbs work. 

So in 1 Corinthians 7, why did Paul feel free to add abandonment as a valid divorce exception? Jesus, rather than stating an absolute law without exception, offers a general proverbial principle, that divorce should be avoided. Paul reiterates that general principle in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.” But this statement is not absolute, because Paul immediately qualifies the general principle with an exception in verse 11: “But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” Then in verse 15, Paul supplements with an additional exception based on other biblical principles: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” God is not required to list every possible exception in every single statement of a general principle. Preserving the marriage is a general principle that ought to be followed when possible; but when extenuating circumstances are present, we must consider how to apply other biblical principles, such as seeking justice, defending the vulnerable, protecting the spiritual health of believers, etc. Biblical scholar Craig Keener writes, 

“If Paul had to reapply Jesus’ teaching in a new way for a situation Jesus did not directly address, we may be called on to do the same. This is, in fact, an essential factor in how we approach the Bible: we must hear and obey its point, not just quote its words. Otherwise we can address only a limited range of issues the Bible specifically addresses, and not countless others that we must argue from biblical principles. The Bible says little or nothing specifically about abortion, the abolition of slavery, drug abuse, pornography, domestic abuse, and many other pressing issues, yet most of us believe that it holds serious implications for these issues.”¹²

Wooden literalism would prevent us from reasoning about many ethical matters; furthermore, such a hermeneutic demands that we take literally Jesus’ words that we amputate body parts when we sin (Matthew 18:9). So we must draw from general principles in Scripture rather than adhere to wooden literalism. 

Here is where Dissolubility advocates diverge. Some believe God only permits divorce for adultery and abandonment, since these are the only two exceptions explicitly spelled out in the New Testament. But others pull from 1 Corinthians 7, the Old Testament law, and/or cultural and contextual data to argue for a wider scope of permittable divorces.  

Wayne Grudem

After decades of teaching that divorce is only permitted for adultery and abandonment, Grudem changed his view on what is biblically permitted through new research on 1 Cor 7:15.¹³ The verse states in ESV, “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” Grudem realized that no research had ever been done on the clause “in such cases.” Upon digging into the wider ancient Greek literature, Grudem discovered that in the vast majority of cases, this phrase was meant to indicate similar cases, not other cases that are exactly the same. Grudem asks, “What reasoning leads Paul, with his apostolic authority, to add desertion (which was not specified by Jesus) as another legitimate ground for divorce? In order to do this, he must have been persuaded that desertion by an unbeliever destroys a marriage as much as adultery does.” So the phrase ‘in such cases’, according to Grudem, essentially means cases that are as destructive to the marriage as abandonment. Grudem then discusses the unusual phrase “not enslaved”: 

“The Bible never uses the verb douloō anywhere else to refer to marriage, and by using it here Paul implies that forbidding a deserted spouse to be divorced would be akin to trapping that spouse in slavery. But God does not require his children to live for their entire lives in a slavelike situation, Paul assures his readers, because instead of slavery, ‘God has called you to peace’ (Greek eirēnē, ‘peace, harmony, well-being,’ with echoes of the Old Testament concept of shālôm, ‘peace, wellbeing’).”¹⁴

Grudem then examines which situations are as destructive to a marriage as abandonment and adultery, “trapping a spouse in a slavelike condition that can only be remedied by divorce.”¹⁵ The first type of situation he discusses is abuse that forces an abused spouse “to flee from the home for self-protection.”¹⁶ He explains that “In some ways such abuse is worse than desertion because it involves repeated demonstrations of actual malice, not simply indifference. Abuse is actively malevolent. . . The abusing spouse has not technically ‘deserted,’ but he or she bears the moral guilt of causing the separation.” Grudem then nuances his view by remarking that “I am not saying that divorce is legitimate in every case in which a spouse claims to be abused (whether physically, or verbally/emotionally, or both). But I am saying that there are some cases in which the abuse (whether physical or verbal/emotional) has damaged the marriage as much as adultery or desertion would damage it, and ‘in such cases’ 1 Corinthians 7:15 would apply and divorce would be legitimate.” 

Along with spousal abuse, Grudem outlines a variety of other situations he believes would fall into the category of “in such cases”: abuse of children; extreme, prolonged verbal and relational cruelty; credible threats of serious physical harm or murder; incorrigible drug or alcohol addiction, accompanied by regular lies, deceptions, thefts, and/or violence; incorrigible gambling addiction; and incorrigible addiction to pornography. He then warns against situations that would not be legitimate grounds for divorce: “just because a marriage is difficult, because a husband and wife are not getting along, or because one spouse wants to marry another person.”¹⁷ The boredom and monotony of the daily grind or the annoyances of living with another imperfect person are not sufficient biblical reasons to divorce. But actively destructive and unrepentent evil within the marriage may very well warrant a divorce, in order to protect the innocent party.

David Instone-Brewer 

Instone-Brewer is another biblical scholar who is extremely well-versed in the intricacies of ancient Jewish culture in both the Old and New Testaments. His book Divorce and Remarriage in the Church offers a wealth of insight into the interpretation of Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and Matthew 19:3-9. 

Quickly explained, Exodus 21:10-11 provides the foundation for Jewish marriage and divorce laws. The passage is in regard to a man who has a slave wife and then marries another woman: “If he takes another wife, he must not diminish the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money.” Historically, this passage ultimately formed the basis for today’s marriage vows, ‘to love, to honor, and to cherish.’ Instone-Brewer explains, “The Old Testament recognizes four grounds for divorce. The first three are neglecting to provide food, clothing and conjugal love (by either husband or wife), and the fourth is committing adultery.”¹⁸ In this passage, the husband is obligated to provide food, clothing, and marital rights (alternatively translated as ‘sexual relations’ or ‘love’) to his wife. He could not find another, more attractive wife and then discard the first wife, starving her, taking away all her clothing, mistreating her, or intentionally rendering her childless. He was required to treat her well. 

In fact, Jewish culture dictated that a woman marry with what we would today call a prenuptial agreement, and what was then known as a ketubah, often something valuable like a vineyard, a flock, a portion of land, etc. If the husband mistreated her, broke faith with her, died in a battle, etc., the Jewish courts would award her a divorce along with the ketubah, which would remain in her name. So there were real financial consequences for the abuser: not only would he lose his wife, but he would also lose the financial benefit of her property. Jewish faith and practice took seriously the principle in this passage that if a spouse breaks their marriage vows, they do not get to continue to enjoy the benefits of marriage, and the wounded party must be protected.

Grudem argues in Divorce and Remarriage that Instone-Brewer’s analysis here is irrelevant for two reasons: First, Exodus 21:10-11 discusses the rights of a slave wife, rather than discussing marriage in general. Second, the passage is part of “the Mosaic covenant, which is no longer in force for the new covenant age.”¹⁹ I would disagree with Grudem on both points. On the first point, if these are the rights of a slave woman, how much more are they the rights of a free woman? Paul is clear in Galatians 4 how much better it is to be a child of the free woman rather than the slave woman. While this passage is in reference to Sarah and Hagar as an analogy for salvation, we can still deduce from this passage that it was culturally understood that free women possessed greater rights and better advantages than enslaved women. Surely if God wanted these provisions to apply to slave women, he wanted them to apply to free women too, which is exactly how Jewish faith and practice applied these verses. On Grudem’s second point, we know that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV) And Jesus comes not to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17) But Grudem fails to draw any timeless, overarching principles from these verses, but rather simply dismisses the verses wholesale. While the Mosaic covenant is now behind us, the timeless principles that animated it are with us still. The same God who commanded the Israelites to protect powerless slave wives through these laws has not lost his concern for powerless wives enslaved by wicked husbands (and for powerless husbands enslaved by wicked wives.) 

Instone-Brewer’s analysis of Matthew 19, outlined in Chapter 5 of Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, is incredibly powerful. I want to quote the whole chapter here, but instead, I will give the heartiest recommendation that you read it in full. Summed up quickly, Instone-Brewer helps us to understand what Matthew 19 is. It is not, as is commonly misunderstood, Jesus’ exhaustive views on marriage and divorce. Rather, this passage is Jesus’ answer to a specific rabbinical debate of that time, with two competing schools of thought: the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. These two competing views amongst the religious establishment were split on how to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1, in which a husband may divorce his wife if “he has found a cause of sexual immorality in her”. The stricter school of Shammai interpreted this phrase as referring to one thing only: sexual immorality. But the more lenient school of Hillel broke the phrase into two, reading it as providing permission to divorce for “sexual immorality” OR simply “a cause”. This was called an “any cause” divorce. At the time, this was interpreted to mean that a man could divorce his wife for any cause, even if she burned a meal! This was their equivalent of no-fault divorce. So when the Pharisees ask Jesus, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” they are asking which side Jesus takes on the rabbinic debates on how to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1. They are not asking Jesus to reinterpret Exodus 21:10-11 allowing for divorce for abuse; this was well-established and not in question. So Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 are in regard to a passage about divorce in cases of adultery, not his exhaustive views on divorce in general. 

Instone-Brewer also points out that Jesus explains here not only what marriage is, but what breaks a marriage: hard-heartedness, or stubbornness. This was not a common word in Greek, so the Pharisees knew Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament. The primary place where “hard-heartedness” occurs in the context of divorce is “where Jeremiah warns Judah that God might divorce them as he divorced Israel: ‘Circumcise yourselves to your Lord, and circumcise your hardheartedness” (Jer 4:4 LXX).”²⁰ We see other examples of the principle of hard-heartedness throughout God’s relationship with Israel outlined in the the section above on God’s own right to divorce and remarry. “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness. . . Therefore I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest.’” (Psalm 95:7b, 8, 11)²¹

Instone-Brewer summarizes his position on Matthew 19 here: 

“A summary, for a modern generation, of Jesus’ teaching during this debate would be something like this: All divorces based on ‘Any Cause’ (i.e., groundless divorces) are invalid, because the phrase ‘a cause of sexual immorality’ (Deut 24:1) means nothing more than ‘sexual immorality.’ Moses never commanded divorce but allowed us to divorce a partner who is hardhearted (who unrepentantly breaks marriage vows, as in Jer 3-4).” 

Craig Keener

Keener is another biblical scholar who argues for a more holistic view that takes into account the timeless principles that underlie the whole of Scripture, concluding ultimately that divorce and remarriage are permitted for a variety of reasons. 

Recommended writing by Craig Keener: And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament

Comparison

Now that we have explored the sprawling biblical evidence on the question of divorce, we must return to our original question in the introduction to this section: what is marriage, exactly? Let’s look at our three proposed definitions again: 

1. The presence of romance between a man and a woman

2. The historical presence of marriage vows at any point in the past between a man and woman

3. The ongoing presence of mutually-kept vows in one-flesh unity between a man and a woman

The first definition is popular in modern culture but has little to no biblical support. The second definition might appear to be supported by a superficial read of the biblical evidence, but on closer examination, it fails to account for both the explicit and the implicit divorce exceptions present throughout Scripture, along with the testimony of God’s relationship with Israel. Thus, the third definition seems to be the best. 

Given our definition of marriage, is such a marriage indissoluble (permanent), or is it dissoluble (able to end)? Given our Scriptures above, the whole testimony of Scripture seems to indicate that marriage is ideally permanent, but not ontologically permanent. That is, permanence is the goal and the aspiration of marriage, but permanence is not an inherent property of marriage. What do I mean by an inherent property? Roundness is an inherent property of a circle, so it is impossible for a circle to not be round. So if permanence is an inherent property of marriage, it is impossible for any marriage to end. There are no exceptions, not even the explicit exceptions offered by Christ (sexual immorality) and by Paul (abandonment). If permanence is one of the inherent properties of marriage, then it is impossible for a marriage to end. But if there is any single example where we can definitively say a marriage does end, then that example proves that marriage is not inherently permanent; in other words, permanence is not an inherent property of marriage. And if marriages have the capacity to end, we must determine what characteristics can cause a marriage to end. 

It seems clear from our survey of the Biblical literature that it is possible for a marriage to end. In fact, it is possible even for the marriage between God and portions of Israel to end when the hard-hearted, sinning party does not embrace repentance. And we also know from Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 that some marriages do end because of adultery and abandonment. Therefore, marriage is not inherently permanent / indissoluble, even though permanence is the goal and the aspiration. While the goal for marriage is permanence, and we always should strive to save marriages as the first line of defense, permanence is not always the reality. So God graciously provides divorce as a just protection when the one-flesh unity of marriage has been destroyed, and there is no reasonable hope of restoring that one-flesh unity.

And if marriage is, in fact, dissoluble, we must ask what dissolves a marriage. If marriage is defined as a one-flesh unity of faithful, mutual submission, in which both parties continually seek to fulfill their vows to love, honor, and cherish one another, what circumstances dissolve such a one-flesh union? Hard-hearted and chronic destructive behavior, whether that be sexual immorality, adulterous betrayal, abandonment, malicious deception, or active destruction of the other person (whether physically, emotionally, psychologically, or financially), indicates a loss of that one-flesh unity. The first line of defense should be seeking genuine repentance from the perpetrator. But if such destructive behavior cannot be corrected through counseling, therapy, calls to repentance, and supportive accountability, and the perpetrator continues in hard-hearted unrepentance, the marriage has been destroyed. And if the marriage has ended through the destruction of one-flesh unity, divorce is simply the formal recognition of that destruction. In this way, hard-hearted destructive behavior, rather than divorce, is what ends what God considers “marriage.” When God tells us “What God joined together, let man not separate”, he is telling us not to engage in hard-hearted and destructive behavior that destroys a marriage, not telling victims of such destruction that they are imprisoned for life.

The Nature of Remarriage

Type A - The Indissoluble View

Marriage is indissoluble. Since God permits no divorce, God likewise permits no remarriage. 

Type A:B - The Indissoluble/Dissoluble Hybrid

This viewpoint offers the freedom to divorce but not to remarry. It is in some ways a hybrid between Types A & B, because it views marriage as a dissoluble, breakable contract, allowing divorce; yet it also sees divorcees as permanently entangled by their former marriages or bound in some way to their ex-spouse, such that remarriage is considered adulterous. In this way, divorce is not truly divorce, an ending of the relationship, but is rather a permanent separation, with the wounded partner holding out hope, possibly for the rest of their lives, that the sinning partner changes their ways. 

The A:B view is guilty of incoherence. God is not a God of contradiction or nonsense. For God to say that marriage is both permanent and not permanent, both indissoluble and dissoluble, is nonsensical and irrational. Those who allow for divorce but not remarriage are guilty of an incoherent view: either the divorced person is still bound by their vows, and is therefore not truly divorced, meaning that anyone who has already remarried is living in adulterous sin and must end their second marriage; or they are not bound by their vows, and therefore are free to remarry, and second marriages are valid in God’s sight and need not be broken up. The A:B view also fails to account for God’s own right to divorce and remarriage in Exodus 32. There is nothing irrational about God or his decrees, so we should not embrace an incoherent view. 

Type B - The Dissoluble View

This viewpoint holds that any biblically valid divorce, that is, any divorce that God permits, also provides the God-given freedom to remarry. It sees remarriage as inherent in the concept of divorce. If marriage is a breakable contract, and the contract is broken, partners are no longer bound by the attachment, and are therefore, by definition, free to go and form a new union. This view understands Matthew 19:9 ESV as follows: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Jesus here is saying that marrying another is not adultery in the case of sexual immorality. Therefore, any biblically permitted divorce carries with it the permission to remarry. This view also aligns with Jewish faith and practice.

Remember that remarriage is defined by how we define marriage. If marriage is a historical vow at any point in the past, then that marriage can never end, and any subsequent marriage commits ongoing adultery by definition. But this seems to be at odds with Jesus’ teaching here, which says that remarriage is not adultery in the case of sexual immorality. If, instead, marriage is a dissoluble contract, then once the contract is dissolved, the respective parties are no longer bound by that contract, and they are free to remarry. 

Along with the exegetical reasons above, Grudem also emphasizes a big-picture view of remarriage when he remarks, 

“There is another reason why I am not persuaded by the ‘no remarriage’ view, and that is the argument that this position is so unlike the emphasis of the entire New Testament on the healing and restoration of those who have been hurt by the effects of sin and evil in the world. . . Also, the Bible views marriage as a blessing from God, something good and wonderful for us to enjoy during this lifetime (see Gen. 1:31; Prov. 18:22). And marriage presents to the world a beautiful picture of the relationship between Christ and the church (see Eph. 5:31-32). 

Therefore, it just does not seem to me to be consistent with the way God acts with his children in the new covenant age to say, for those who have already suffered greatly because a spouse has abandoned them or has committed adultery with someone else, and have suffered even more when that spouse married another person, and who still long to be married, that God would require these suffering victims, who are no longer married to anyone, to avoid marrying again for their entire lifetimes. For those who long to marry again, such a prohibition would prolong their hardship and suffering, and it would do so unnecessarily. I simply do not believe that God acts this way with his children in this age.”²² 

Comparison 

Where we land on remarriage depends in large part on where we land on marriage and divorce in general. The ontological status of marriage (what is it?) and divorce (what is it?) essentially answers the question for us. If marriage is an indissoluble union, and divorce is not really divorce but rather a permanent separation, then of course no remarriage can be permitted, for remarriage would be inherently adulterous. But if marriage is a breakable contract, then a contract can end if one or both parties break the terms of the agreement, freeing both partners from being bound by that contract. 

Some may object to calling marriage a “contract”, drawing a distinction between a ‘contract’ and a ‘covenant’. In the minds of many, contracts are breakable, but biblical covenants are unbreakable. The problem here is that this idea is in fact unbiblical. Instone-Brewer explains that when a contract was made in Old Testament times, “They called this a ‘contract,’ which is often translated ‘covenant’; the two words have the same meaning, and there is only one Hebrew word (berith) behind them both.” He continues, 

“Some people think that a marriage should not be called a contract because it is a covenant. The difference is, they say, that a contract can be broken but a covenant can never end even if the stipulations are constantly being violated. They say that national treaties and trade agreements are ‘contracts,’ but when God makes an agreement with his people it should be called a ‘covenant.’ . . . There are very big problems with this idea, the biggest of which is that ‘covenant’ and ‘contract’ are both translations of the same Hebrew word, so the idea of a distinction does not exist in the Bible. . . Marriage is. . . regarded by Malachi as a contract that can be broken, and the prophets regarded God’s marriage contract with Israel as breakable.”²³

So, if marriage is a dissoluble contract, a one-flesh unity that requires the mutual keeping of vows, and divorce is the formal recognition that at least one party has persistently destroyed that one-flesh union, then the one-flesh union (the marriage) no longer exists. In this case, each marriage partner is no longer bound to each other, and they are functionally unmarried and free to marry. Hence, remarriage is permitted.

Further Reading on Remarriage:

Remarriage After Divorce in Today’s Church: 3 Views, by Gordon Wenham, William Heth, and Craig Keener

And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament, by Craig Keener

Chapter 9 of Divorce & Remarriage in the Church, by David Instone-Brewer

Pages 77-85 of What the Bible Says About Divorce & Remarriage, by Wayne Grudem

Conclusion

Based on four months of study, my personal conclusions can be summarized in what I call the Mutuality View:

Marriage is defined as faithfully and mutually keeping vows in one-flesh unity; therefore, the sin of continually and unrepentantly breaking one’s vows destroys a marriage. Breaking one’s vows, not divorce, ends the marriage (the mutual one-flesh unity). While measures should first be taken to restore the marriage (the mutual one-flesh unity) if possible, divorce is permitted when there is no reasonable hope of restoring the marriage. Divorce is the formal recognition of that broken marriage, meaning that the marriage no longer exists. If the marriage no longer exists, the respective parties are no longer bound by that marriage and are free to remarry. 

1. Marriage: Marriage is intended to be a faithful covenant between two people who mutually cherish one another in one-flesh unity. The permanence of their relationship depends on continually keeping their vows to faithfully and mutually love, honor, and cherish one another. 

2. Sin: Humans are imperfect, and will therefore not keep their vows perfectly. One mistake is not, necessarily, grounds for divorce (though an egregious crime may be). Both partners ought to extend forgiveness and grace to one another for each other’s shortcomings. Each spouse must continually be repenting and believing. In the case of sin, even serious sin such as adultery, the first line of defense ought to be seeking genuine repentance and reconciliation. However, the hard-hearted, persistent, unrepentant breaking of vows necessarily breaks the marriage covenant (that is, the one-flesh unity and mutual keeping of vows that constitutes marriage), destroying the marriage to the point of no repair. While grace and time ought to be extended to give the sinning partner(s) the opportunity to repent and repair, God’s example in his own marriage with Israel shows us that there comes a time for judgment, cutting off the relationship permanently. 

3. Divorce: Divorce, like marriage, is a God-given gift. It offers justice, freedom, and safety to the wounded party in situations of broken vows, deepest betrayal, unrepentant sin, and persistent harm. There are many ways to break those vows. The Old Testament specifically outlines neglect, abuse, and adultery as grounds for divorce, and the New Testament reiterates the Old Testament’s parameters while also specifically mentioning abandonment. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:15 that “In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” There is also precedent in both the Old and New Testament for not being unequally yoked (Ezra 9-10, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18), since God seems to value the spiritual well-being of his children over the continuance of spiritually harmful marriages. 

4. Remarriage: A divorced person is an unmarried person: that is, their marriage no longer exists. Their prior marriage covenant has been destroyed, and therefore the vows that bound them to that person have been rightly and justly dissolved. They are no longer bound by those marriage vows. If a contract ends, the respective parties are no longer bound by that contract. Thus, an unmarried person is free to marry. The marriage covenant was already broken and formally dissolved. God Himself models his own right to divorce and remarry in Exodus 32. To remarry after a biblically valid divorce is not adulterous, sinful, or a breaking of their marriage covenant. On a practical level, however, remarriage ought not to be entered into prior to an intensive and extended season of personal healing, counseling, repentance as needed, and growth. The victimized partner needs healing from betrayal, along with growth and guidance in learning how to avoid being drawn towards another harmful partner; the victimizer ought to repent and heal their own wounds that contributed to them persistently harming another. 

5. How far is too far? This paper is not an affirmation of divorce for any reason. If 50% of divorces are due to destructive reasons, there remains another 50% that may be due to unbiblical reasons. Boredom, weariness, lack of communication, illness, disability, poverty, etc. are all deep stressors that can harm marriages, but these situations, while difficult, do not harbor active and unrepentant malice. Even in the various difficulties of life, we ought to disciple people to work through the difficulties of life and mutually keep their vows in one-flesh unity. Again, we should seek to save marriages when we can; but not at the expense of perpetuating injustice. 

A more lenient view of permitting divorce for any reason, no matter how frivolous, fails to place a high value on marriage, and it fails to encourage people to fight for their marriages. Meanwhile, a more strict view forces us to violate Scriptural mandates to seek justice and defend the vulnerable; it violates the second greatest commandment and devalues the Imago Dei; it does violence to the biblical concept of “one flesh”; and it prioritizes human tradition (forbidding divorce and remarriage) over God’s own example of the freedom of divorce and remarriage in his relationship with Israel. 

The Mutuality View, in my opinion, seems to be the most coherent, compassionate, and careful view that best harmonizes the whole testimony of Scripture in the light of God’s heart, character, and actions. This view allows us to follow God’s own example in his marriage to Israel. It affirms a robust Christian anthropology, in which our views on divorce and remarriage do not violate the second greatest commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. This view allows us to defend the God-given worth and dignity of every human being. It affirms the sacredness of the one-flesh union, while also giving due weight to the seriousness of destroying that one-flesh union through hard-hearted and destructive sin. This view values the spiritual health and well-being of people within the marriage, along with that of their children. It allows us to obey the plethora of commands within God’s Word to correct injustice and defend vulnerable people who are being harmed by corrupt and wicked people. 

While this is my own conclusion, we can also find Scriptural support for other views of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Each of us is responsible for evaluating the biblical evidence for ourselves. As we seek to determine which view best reflects the whole testimony of Scripture and the heart of God, may we do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. May the Lord lead you in your own evaluation.

Appendix: The Nature of Abuse

Given the prevalence of domestic violence in today’s society, churches need to develop the ability to identify situations of domestic violence hiding in plain sight in our churches and to communicate to congregants and friends that we are safe people for them to confide in, even before we know which of them are in need of such help. 

While physical violence in a marriage can be relatively straightforward to identify, emotional abuse is more difficult to discern. Emotional abuse is not simply the presence of hurt feelings or poor communication. In Leslie Vernick’s book The Emotionally Destructive Marriage, she defines emotional abuse as follows:

“Emotional abuse systematically degrades, diminishes, and can eventually destroy the personhood of the abused. Most people describe emotional abuse as being far more painful and traumatic than physical abuse. One only has to read reports of prisoners of war to begin to understand the traumatic effects of psychological warfare using emotionally abusive tactics - and this is when the behavior is perpetrated by one’s enemy. When the abusive behavior is perpetrated by someone who promises to love and cherish you, it is even more devastating and destructive. 

Destructive behaviors and attitudes can sometimes be difficult to describe succinctly. That’s why an emotionally destructive marriage is not usually diagnosed by looking at a single episode of sinful behavior (which we’re all capable of), but rather repetitive attitudes and behaviors that result in tearing someone down or inhibiting her growth. This behavior is usually accompanied by a lack of awareness, a lack of responsibility, and a lack of change.” 

To make identifying abuse more concrete, here are common abuse tactics on the following Wheel of Power & Control, a reliable resource from the National Domestic Violence Hotline (https://www.thehotline.org/identify-abuse/power-and-control/): 

Finally, for an excellent list of recommended resources covering various types of abuse, narcissism, boundaries, co-parenting, relationships, building better marriages, church curriculum, etc., see here: https://lifesavingdivorce.com/links/

 

1. Gretchen Baskerville, The Life-Saving Divorce, 11.

2. Ibid., 12. Emphasis in original.

3. Ibid., 26.

4. C. Johnson, S. Stanley, and N. Glenn, et al., “Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 Oklahoma Baseline Statewide Survey,” (2002): 15. Cited in Baskerville, The Life-Saving Divorce, 28.

5. Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

6. I believe Laney, Heth, Wenham, Piper, MacArthur, Edgar, Keener, Instone-Brewer, and Grudem affirm biblical inerrancy. Larry Richards’ theological commitments are unknown; however, he affirms the importance of a high view of Scripture in his section of Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, in which he warns us that we must “guard against. . . ignor[ing] or reject[ing] Scripture.” (p. 216)

7. https://www.crossway.org/articles/are-some-sins-worse-than-others/

8. https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/justice/

9. https://www.openbible.info/topics/oppression

10. Kate Shellnut, “Grace Community Church Rejected Elder’s Calls to ‘Do Justice’ in Abuse Case”, Christianity Today, accessed 7/6/24 at  https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/february/grace-community-church-elder-biblical-counseling-abuse.html.

11. Alejandra Molina, “John MacArthur’s Church to Receive $800K COVID-19 Settlement”, Christianity Today, accessed 7/6/24 at https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/september/john-macarthur-covid-settlement-california-church-grace-com.html.

12. Paul Engle, Remarriage After Divorce In Today’s Church: 3 Views, 111.

13. https://cbmw.org/2020/06/10/grounds-for-divorce-why-i-now-believe-there-are-more-than-two/

14. Grudem, Divorce & Remarriage, 45.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid., 48.

18. Instone-Brewer, Divorce & Remarriage in the Church, 36.

19. Grudem, What the Bible Says About Divorce & Remarriage, 59.

20. Instone-Brewer, Divorce & Remarriage in the Church, 63.

21. Here is a list of other passages on hard-heartedness: https://www.openbible.info/topics/hardened_hearts

22. Grudem, What the Bible Says About Divorce & Remarriage, 82-83.

23. Ibid., 38-39.