Divorce
What is the Biblical teaching on divorce? Is divorce always a sin? If divorced people get remarried, do they commit adultery? Is this adultery a perpetual sin (i.e., is it continual, for as long as they remain married to their new spouse)? Are divorced people restricted from leadership in the church?

This is a highly debated and important topic. Divorce is rampant in our culture, and the church has adopted a prophetic stance to challenge those who are unhappily married to salvage their marriages and not seek the way of greatest convenience. I consider this to be a critical ministry in light of consumer values which denigrate the marriage commitment. By "consumer values," I refer to a broad cultural ideal; namely, that we are entitled to maximize our personal happiness and decide whatever is best for us, as individuals. This works well for an afternoon's shopping spree, but doesn't promote lifelong commitments. The pursuit of individual satisfaction will ultimately cause us to reject all binding commitments (since such commitments are inherently rooted in another person's best interests, and not just our own). By taking a strong stand against divorce, we are validating God's intention of putting the best interests of others before our own. God wants us to care for and commit to our spouses, even when they don't meet all our needs.

Having said this, I want to argue that the Bible does allow grounds for divorce, and does offer hope and forgiveness to people who have been divorced for any reason. This seems to negate my earlier point, since it could be argued that by telling divorced people that they can be forgiven I am "lowering the standard," and perhaps encouraging some people to seek divorce. I want to stress that I share the biblical ethic on divorce; it invalidates God's original intent (Gen 2:24), and is therefore an institution that God despises (Malachi 2:16). But I think that the Bible does allow for divorce (in certain specific cases). This cannot be lowering the standard, since God is the one that sets the standard, and He indicates (through the inspiration of scripture) that divorce can sometimes occur without sin, and even when it is a sin, it can be forgiven. I will work through the relevant passages to prove my point. What the church should be attempting to do, in my opinion, is not to argue that divorce is utterly forbidden, or that remarriage places one in a state of perpetual adultery, but rather (1) help equip and counsel people to succeed in their marriages, (2) model healthy, Christ-centered marriages, and (3) expose the corrupt, selfish values behind convenience-motivated divorce. Now, on to the passages.

DEUTERONOMY 24:1-4

Deut 24:1-4 is a critical passage, because it lies behind all of Jesus' teaching on divorce in the New Testament. The standard Jewish supposition in Jesus' time was that divorce was permitted on the grounds of "indecency." Notice that adultery is NOT a ground for divorce in Deut 24:1. This is because adultery was punishable by death in ancient Israel (Lev 20:10), and death ended a marriage even more effectively than divorce! Notice also in Deut 24:1 that divorce is not commanded; it is merely discussed as an option:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that 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 from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against 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 husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance. (Deut 24:1-4; NASB)

The real point of this passage is not to validate divorce, but rather to instruct a woman who is divorced and remarried that she cannot return to her first husband. This prevented a certain abuse of the divorce law, though the reasons for the command are not relevant to the present discussion. The term translated "indecency" was interpreted variously by the rabbis in Jesus' time. Some thought it could include any shameful behavior, while others argued that it referred exclusively to immorality. This is the debate that Jesus is confronted with. It is important to realize that Jesus is not just speaking generally on divorce; He is interested in showing that neither position is really centered on God's desire for the integrity and sanctity of marriage. Both of the existing Jewish views in Jesus' time were more concerned with "loopholes" to a marriage covenant than God's intent. I will examine this incident in both Mark and Matthew.

MARK 10:2-12

And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" And they said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." But 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. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." And in the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." (Mark 10:2-12; NASB)

This is often the passage that is used to argue that divorce is never permissible, because Mark does not include the "exception clause" that Matthew does. I might add that this is typical of Mark, who consistently abbreviates Jesus' dialogues. (Matthew and Luke supply much more detail.) But I would argue that Mark does not add to "whoever divorces his wife" the clause "except for immorality" because his readers would already know and assume this. Matthew adds the phrase because he sees the possibility that Jesus' statement in Mark 10 could be misinterpreted by a Gentile audience. (I am assuming that Matthew used Mark as a source for writing his gospel, a point I cannot defend here for lack of space, but it is generally accepted by scholars and does not diminish the inspiration of scripture in any way.)

Jesus' statement about Deut 24:1-4, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment," expresses the idea that Deut 24:1-4 is not God's ideal; it is a contingency allowed for sinful people, with the understanding that marriage is a covenant that can be invalidated by the sin of either party, leaving the other with the possibility of a guiltless remarriage. As Cranfield states in his commentary on Mark, "The provisions which God's mercy has designed for the limitation of the consequences of man's sin must not be interpreted as divine approval for sinning" (C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark [Cambridge University Press, 1959], p. 320). Again, Jesus adopts a position here which respects the divine ideal for marriage; namely, that it remain unbroken, and in so doing He indicts the Pharisees for their eagerness to approve of divorce. But this does NOT mean that Jesus does not recognize that sexual immorality (especially adultery) invalidates a marriage bond. Note that Jesus does not brush Deut 24:1 aside. But He does argue that divorce for the sake of convenience (which was the typical case then, as it is now) would lead to adultery when either party sought remarriage.

I want to suggest that adultery is, essentially, the sin of entering into a "one-flesh" relationship with someone other than the person to whom you were previously married. (For "one flesh," see also Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 6:16.) It breaks the original one-flesh covenant. If a married person has sexual relations with someone other than his/her spouse, that is adultery. If a married person becomes legally divorced and then remarries, when they have intercourse with the new spouse, this is adultery against the first spouse (i.e., it breaks the original one-flesh covenant). Adultery is, in simple terms, a breaking of the one-flesh covenant. What I will argue, in a moment, is that a broken covenant is no longer in effect. Once adultery is committed, the marriage agreement is broken. This is why the adulterer is killed in the Old Testament; they are no longer bound to their spouse. I will come back to this momentarily. Let's look at the parallel account in Matthew.

MATTHEW 19:3-9

And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matt 19:3-9; NASB)

In this passage, Matthew includes Jesus' exception clause, "except for immorality." The word "immorality" is the Greek word porneia, and it signifies sexual immorality generally, and would include adultery (e.g., in 1 Thess 4:3-4 it seems to refer to a married person). People were rarely stoned for adultery in Jesus' day (by A.D. 30 the practice disappeared from Israel), so it was included in the common understanding of Deut 24:1 as grounds for a divorce. Let me stress this: Jesus allows that sexual immorality, especially adultery, breaks the marriage covenant. This means that the other party in the marriage could seek a legal dissolution of the marriage without committing a sin; adultery had already broken the bond. If they remarry, they do not commit adultery, because adultery was already committed. And once committed, the marriage covenant was broken (i.e., it could not be broken again). Adultery is therefore a one-time sin. One might persist in sexual immorality, after cheating on a spouse, but this would not technically be adultery. (I would add as a side note that, if adultery is committed and the other party does not seek divorce, then the two should undertake new vows as part of their reconciliation before having sexual intercourse again.) Similarly, people that become divorced (without immorality as grounds) and get remarried are committing adultery with their new spouse—but only once. After that, they are one-flesh with the new spouse, and are not in a state of perpetual adultery with the old spouse. This is clear based on the sense of adultery as covenant-breaking (covenants no longer being in effect once broken), not to mention that there is no indication of "perpetual adultery" anywhere in scripture. See also below, in my discussion of 1 Timothy 3:2, where I argue that divorced and remarried people do not "add up" spouses.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:10-15

Jesus allows that sexual immorality provides grounds for divorce without the innocent party being guilty of sin. The apostle Paul seems to contradict this in 1 Cor 7:10 when he states, "The wife should not leave her husband, but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried." Paul is not offering a universal principle here, though; he is dealing with a specific problem in the Corinthian church. Obviously, some women were coming to Christ and were having problems with their pagan husbands, who may have been suspicious of Christianity, or even strongly opposed to it. Evidently, some of these women were seeking divorce, and perhaps remarriage to Christian men. Since the Corinthian church was in a pagan culture, it was inevitable that most new converts would be married to people that would be hostile to Christianity. Paul did not want them, as a general principle, leaving their unsaved spouses (or else it might incite ALL the new Christians to follow suit, which could reflect negatively on the perception of Christianity in Corinth), so Paul urges them, as a general principle, to stay married to their spouses (which is certainly God's ideal), and even to non-Christian spouses, in the hope that the unsaved spouse might later come to Christ:

But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases , but God has called us to peace. (1 Cor 7:10-15; NASB)

Paul is not saying that there are no valid grounds for divorce. He is not giving a comprehensive theology of marriage here. He is addressing a specific problem in the Corinthian church. Note that he does say that "if the unbelieving [spouse] leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister [in Christ] is not under bondage in such cases," which strongly suggests that Paul is alright with remarriage (it is not a sin) if a non-Christian files divorce against a Christian spouse. So Paul does allow for divorce and remarriage which is not a sin, under some conditions.

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11

What about those who get divorced for the wrong reasons? What if they get remarried? This is the sin of adultery, and it is a terrible one. But it is forgiveable. Note what Paul says in 1 Cor 6:9-11:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:9-11; NASB)

The critical part is the last verse: "such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." In other words, even adulterers can be washed clean by Christ. Forgiven of their sin, they can move on with their lives. As Jesus says to the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way, from now on sin no more" (John 8:11).

DIVORCED PEOPLE IN MINISTRY? 1 TIMOTHY 3:2

An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach... (1 Tim 3:2)

I have encountered the view that 1 Tim 3:2 excludes divorced and remarried people from leadership in the church. The verse stipulates that the overseer (or "elder") is to be "the husband of one wife," and it is assumed that a divorced and remarried person is more than the husband of one wife (i.e., he's the husband of two wives). This view should be rejected for several reasons. First, Paul cannot mean that only men who are married to one woman are qualified for leadership, since that would exclude Paul himself (who was not the husband of ANY wives). If it is taken to mean "married to only one woman ever," then it excludes all single people from leadership roles in ministry. This cannot be right. Second, the expression translated "husband of one wife" is, literally in the Greek, "one woman man." There are no words in the Greek for "husband" and "wife." The terms "man" and "woman" double for these, and must be understood from the context. I would argue that "husband" and "wife" do not belong here. If we read this as "one woman man" (which is literal), then we end up with the idea that the overseer must not be promiscious; he's a "one-woman-kind-of-guy." This stipulation makes much better sense here, and would apply just as pointedly to single people. I'll come back to this in a moment.

The third thing I want to note is that there is no biblical teaching anywhere that people who are divorced and remarried add up spouses. Notice in Deut 24:2 that the woman who is divorced is not the wife of two men; her first husband is designated her FORMER husband, which means that he is no longer her husband. Another passage which bears strongly on this is the woman at the well, in John 4:

He said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have well said, I have no husband; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." (John 4:16-18)

Notice that Jesus does not say that she is the wife of five husbands. When she says, "I have no husband," Jesus responds, "You have well said, I have no husband." She answered correctly. Her past marriages do not add up. She currently has no husband, in Jesus' view. Jesus affirms that her divorces (which almost certainly did not rest on good grounds) have left her without a husband. Consequently, a divorced man is NOT the husband of more than one wife, no matter what grounds caused the divorce.

Notice that the entire context of Paul's qualifications for leadership rest on the character of the person, not their past. For instance, in the 1 Tim 3:3, Paul says that the elder is not to be addicted to wine. Paul does not say that the elder should not have ever gotten drunk in his entire life. It is possible that the elder once was addicted to wine, but if he no longer is, it would pass Paul's qualification. All of the qualifications validate the first principle in the list—that the elder is to be above reproach. This has nothing to do with the elder's past, unless the action were recent enough that it reflected on the person's present character. If we read this as "one woman man," then we want to exclude promiscuous, playboy types from ministry, not divorced people (who might have very well been abandoned by their spouse, or divorced in a much earlier phase of their life).

[On this issue, refer to Robert Saucy, "The Husband of One Wife," Biblioteca Sacra (July 1974), pp. 229-240. Dr. Saucy is the head of systematic theology at the university where I teach. The view I have given on 1 Tim 3:2 is, essentially, a summary of Saucy's excellent article.]