Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE
A growing concern in Christian society is that of divorce
and remarriage. Certainly, the fundamental instruction concerning the matter is
Holy Scripture. While any orthodox believer would claim the Bible as the
fundamental guide to their individual and collective (in the life of the
church) lives, biblical interpretations concerning divorce and remarriage vary.
Moreover, anecdotally, perspectives often shift throughout the course of one’s
life depending on his or her own individual circumstances, which is indicative
of misinterpretation or, at best, a self-centered hermeneutic. To approach all
areas of life with Scripture as the primary guide is to conform to its
standards no matter the situation or sentiments, which may be derived from it.
In this paper, I will argue for two legitimate reasons for
divorce: 1) adultery and 2) abandonment. Additionally, both cases should not be
considered mandates or excuses to get out of a marriage but should be
approached carefully and through the lens of the gospel. A summary of the five
primary views on divorce and remarriage will be presented, ensuing an analysis
of the Bible’s teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, which stems from
the nature and essence of marriage itself: an earthly display of Christ and his
bride, the church. The conclusion will then be supported that divorce is only
allowed for two reasons and should not be sought with ease. Marriage is a
picture of Christ and the church and should be held with such determination.
Jesus offers his bride great mercy and grace. So also should spouses with each
other.
The
Five Major Views on Divorce and Remarriage
Five primary views on marriage, divorce, and remarriage
exist, some of which have existed since the early church. Scholars have debated
the essence of Scripture’s teachings on divorce. While all five views have
substance to their contentions, they are disparate approaches to Christian
views on the matter.
The Erasmian view is the most common among Christian
evangelicals.[1]
The view is named after sixteenth-century Desiderius Erasmus.[2] Such a view
is held by many believers in modern Christian culture. The Erasmian view
contends that divorce is only permitted in two instances: adultery and
abandonment, a concept that is derived from Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 19.
The Erasmian view has been adopted by Christians for centuries and is even
mirrored in the Westminster Confession of Faith.[3] Scholars
have argued against such a strict view in recent decades. Nonetheless, the
Erasmian view remains the most common view among evangelical Christians today.
A second view on divorce and remarriage is a modified
version of the Erasmian view posited by Wayne Grudem. In addition to adultery
and abandonment, Grudem includes abuse. Grudem suggests that such an allowance
is founded upon the plurality of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:15 when he
writes, “In such cases…”[4] In other
words, adultery and abandonment are not the only necessities for the allowance of
divorce; rather, the scenarios are broad. Moreover, the common Reformed
position, in both Erasmian views, for centuries, has been that remarriage is
allowed for the innocent party.[5] Logically,
Christian perspectives should not seek to punish one who is innocent and did
not contribute to the breakdown of a marriage. Thus, the margin for remarriage
certainly subsists in common Christian views or divorce and remarriage, which
is highlighted in both Erasmian perspectives. John MacArthur is a modern
theologian who supports this notion. He says, “Remarriage is permitted for the faithful partner only when the divorce was
on biblical grounds. In fact, the purpose for a biblical divorce is to make
clear that the faithful partner is free to remarry, but only in the Lord (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39).”[6]
Further, a common view in Christian perspectives on divorce
and remarriage is the patristic view, named after its origin in early church
perspectives.[7] In English translations, the
word employed in Matthew 5:32 and 9:19 is porneia (πορνεία), which
includes various forms of sexual immorality. In the context of Jesus’
instructions here, however, it is most likely to refer to adultery in the form
of intercourse.[8] In the patristic perspective,
divorce is granted on grounds of adultery, but remarriage is not allowed. The
strict nature of the patristic view seems to stem from an overarching respect
for marriage. Because marriage is such a serious relationship, it is difficult
to break, for two people have committed for life and become one flesh (Eph
5:31). Moreover, the patristic view would suggest that marriage, in fact,
cannot be broken except for death (1 Cor 7:10-16). Justin Martyr writes:
And,
whosoever shall marry her that is from another husband, commits adultery. And,
there are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born
eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s
sake; but all cannot receive this saying. So that all who, by human law, are
twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a
woman to lust after her.[9]
Justin
then emphasizes the concept of being twice married. Thus, if one divorces (even
in adequate biblical grounds), he or she must remain unmarried according to the
patristic view. The patristic view, therefore, appears to be stricter than the
Erasmian view.
A
fourth view and likely the strictest view on divorce and remarriage is the
permanence view, which suggests that divorce is only permitted in case of
abandonment but not in adulterous scenarios; additionally, remarriage is not
permitted in any case. The exclusion of adultery is derived from the word Jesus
uses in Matthew 5:32 and 9:19. A permanence argument contends that if Jesus
intended to include sexual adultery, he would have employed the word, moichao
(μοιχάω), which literally means adultery, rather than porneia (πορνεία),
which means sexual immorality.[10] In the permanence view, the
marriage union may not be dissolved. Therefore, two partners in a marriage are
unbreakably linked until death.
The fifth common view on
marriage and divorce is a modified version of the permanence view. In this
view, remarriage is allowed in cases of abandonment, but adultery still does
not equate to grounds for divorce.[11] This view contends that
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:15[12]
permit the innocent spouse to remarry. Both
Shammai and Hillel required divorce for πορνεία, but Jesus only permits it.”[13]
Under the permanence view, the emphasis is not on the circumstances under which
divorce is allowed but rather the permanence of marriage. Thus, even if divorce
is allowed, as a picture of Christ and the church, spouses must do everything
possible to reconcile the divine union to which they have committed.
These
five views are the most common in evangelical Christianity. While all five
views have biblical foundations, interpretations vary creating a mix of strict
and less strict perspectives. With the Erasmian view being the most prominent
in Christian viewpoints, its evidence is seen in discussions of divorce and
remarriage in nearly any church, although a modified Erasmian view anecdotally
seems to have rapidly grown within evangelical Christian contexts. These five
views represent the overarching consensus of Christian perspectives on divorce
and remarriage.
Difficult to Break: A Biblical Argument
Understanding
divorce and remarriage first requires understanding marriage. Scripture
discusses marriage more than divorce and remarriage, for marriage represents
Christ and the church. Representative of Christ and the church, therefore, the
biblical argument is for marriage rather than divorce. Not negating the
sanctity of marriage, nevertheless, certain instances exist in which divorce is
permissible: 1) adultery and 2) abandonment. These are the only two situations
explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Believers, therefore, cannot extend other
situations without a gross misinterpretation. Here I further argue that because
of the essence of marriage (a display of Christ and his bride), even in cases
of adultery or abandonment, divorce is not a mandate and everything possible
should be employed to reconcile the marriage union. I also propose, therefore,
that since marriage is to be a picture of Christ and the church, divorce should
not be sought merely on grounds of adultery or abandonment but on the
unrepentant act of such (i.e. if an adulterous spouse or a spouse who abandons
returns in repentance, divorce should not be sought, for forgiveness is most
representative of Jesus Christ). Nonetheless, divorce is permitted in both
cases, the nuances of which must be a matter of prayer in each individual
situation.
Furthermore,
remarriage should not be considered flippantly, for remarriage implies not only
the destruction of one marriage but the beginning of a new one and perhaps even
the continued unrepentance within the context of the original marriage. In this
paper, I will argue that both divorce and remarriage are possible without guilt
under the proper circumstances. Additionally, I will support the notion that
divorce and remarriage are not easily accomplished in innocence because the
quintessence of marriage is a reflection of Christ and his bride, the church. Although
it is possible, marriage is a difficult union to break.
Marriage Is a Picture of Christ and the Church:
A Symbol of a Greater Reality
Typologies
protrude in manifold ways throughout Scripture. One certain way this happens is
the imagery of Christ and the church through the union of marriage. Paul
testifies to such in saying, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it
refers to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:32).[14]
The union as one flesh (Eph 5:31) in holy matrimony is an institution ordained
and honored by God. The type, however, is but a fraction of the token that
subsists between Christ the groom and his bride the church. When believers
examine biblical truth surrounding marriage, divorce, and remarriage, the
genesis of thought must be that which marriage is to reflect: namely Christ and
the church.
Since
marriage is a symbol of a greater reality, believers should strive to reflect
such in the ways they treat marriage. Paul is clear that husbands should love
their wives as Christ loves the church (Eph 5:25) and wives should submit to
their husbands as to the Lord, for husbands are placed as the head of the
family (Eph 5:22-23). Easily missed, however, is the fact that the Apostle Paul
instructs all believers (including husbands and wives) to submit to one another
“out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). The breakdown of a marriage could be
attributed to disobedience in these areas. God’s design for marriage is
submission where husbands submit to God, wives submit to husbands, and both
parties submit to one another.
Marriage,
as a picture of Christ and the church, should reflect such. Thus, when a spouse
does not conform to the teachings of Scripture, the image of Christ and the
church is not evident as it should be. Marriage is a holy and God-ordained
institution, which must be considered with reverence and respect. Spouses
should view marriage through the lens of holiness and God’s divine plan.
Without such treatment, the union of marriage is diminished. For this reason,
divorce should only be considered in the most extreme circumstances. Certainly,
Jesus permits divorce in cases of adultery. Nevertheless, such cases do not
constitute an absolute necessity for divorce, especially considering what
marriage represents: Christ and the church. To imitate Christ, at the least,
the attempt of reconciliation would be proper, for Christ sought such even
while his chosen people rejected him as his enemies (Rom 5). “In 2009 [John
Piper’s] Bethlehem Baptist Church’s elders articulated this position: ‘Divorce
may be permitted when a spouse decisively and physically deserts the
relationship; commits repeated, unrepentant adultery; or is guilty of
protracted, unrepentant life-endangerment.’”[15]
Such a view might seem to be an exaggeration of the biblical text, but when the
essence of marriage as an image of Christ and church is considered, the
stalwart union of marriage that is difficult to break should be realized.
Paul
makes clear the gravity of marriage in his letter to the Church at Ephesus.
Perhaps, an unrealized viewpoint of biblical marriage contributes significantly
to the ease of which husbands and wives divorce one another, for when one
understands the solemnity of marriage, he or she should strive to reflect
Christ and the church as best as possible no matter the circumstances that
arise. Frances Foulkes writes:
Paul
himself, however, in his work as an apostle, was preoccupied with the thought
of the church prepared as a bride for her marriage, and living as a wife in
love and unity and loyalty with her husband. He saw the beauty of the divine
pattern and ideal for marriage, and he strove and exhorted husbands and wives
to work out that pattern in the stuff of daily living.[16]
Grasping
the nature of marriage is fundamental to reflecting its essence (a picture of
Christ and the church) in daily and practical matters. Therefore, while
permissions are offered in the text of Scripture, an accurate reflection of
Christ and the church would not only display great love but also great mercy
and forgiveness.
A Sinful World Seeks Divorce
Humanity
is fallen and exists in a fallen world. Therefore, a perfect marriage is
nonexistent. Understanding such a reality should aid in representative
expectations regarding marriage. Adam Clarke contends, “A real Christian ought
rather to beg of God the grace to bear patiently and quietly the imperfections
of his wife, than to think of the means of being parted from her.”[17]
Said another way, a proper imitation of Christ’s treatment of marriage demands
mercy rather than an excuse to break the holy bond of marriage, for such an
action is what Jesus has done for his bride, the church. While a sinful world
seeks divorce, the gospel beckons a disparate and contrary action.
Certainly,
human marriage is comprised of two imperfect people so marriages themselves are
imperfect, which is why a sustained marriage is only by God’s grace. An issue I
perceive in the church is the pervasiveness of couples who seek what Scripture
teaches about divorce rather than marriage. While divorce is surely permitted
in two situations (adultery and abandonment), the Bible upholds marriage as
holy and honorable and opposes divorce by any means necessary. The conclusions
of many scholars seem to be forced and are not sensibly placed in a fallen
world.[18]
In fact, even believers often ignore the teachings of Scripture surrounding
divorce, as if they do not apply to their own lives.[19]
Therein lies the problem: a high view of Scripture regarding the teachings of
marriage and divorce is seemingly absent in many ecclesiastical contexts.
Because marriage subsists in a fallen and imperfect world, Christians should
seek not fallen solutions but biblical (i.e. perfect) solutions.
There
surely are situations in which divorce is necessary, but I submit that such a
necessity does not occur as often as it happens (i.e. spouses reach the answer
of divorce prematurely). The two circumstances that allow divorce in Scripture
are adultery (Matt 5:32, 19:9) and abandonment (1 Cor 7:15). This strict
boundary for divorce even excludes abuse.[20]
While many scholars (and those who adhere to a modified Erasmian view) include
abuse as a biblical reason for divorce, other views suggest that because only
adultery and abandonment are explicitly referenced in Scripture, they are the
only permissible motives for divorce mindful of the fact that the sanctity of
marriage governs any permissible substantiation for divorce. A seemingly common
issue among Christians is that believers seek reasons for divorce rather than
solutions to reconcile marriage. Even in cases where abuse is permitted (e.g. a
modified Erasmian view), a difficult situation to navigate is the type of abuse
permitted (e.g. physical only or other forms such as verbal and emotional), for
if forms of abuse other than physical are considered, the situation could seem
subjective.
Furthermore,
because marriage exists in a fallen world, not only should Christians seek the
opposing action (reconciliation), husbands and wives should expect imperfection
from their spouses. Marriage requires grace. For husbands to love their wives
as Christ loves the church, they must forgive where forgiveness is required.
For wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, they must understand that
their submission is primarily to God and then to their husband (i.e. in
submission to the Lord, wives should submit to their husbands irrespective of
his imperfections).
Humanity
is fallen; the world is fallen; and husbands and wives are fallen and
perpetually make mistakes even as they are progressively sanctified. In a world
that naturally seeks divorce as a seemingly legitimate solution, God’s economy
demands a different approach: mercy, grace, and forgiveness, which is radically
unique and distinct from the approach of a fallen world. Believers should
expect imperfection in marriage but should seek the reconciliation of a perfect
God.
Human Marriage, though Holy, Is Not Eternal
Since
marriage is but an image of Christ and the church, human marriage is not
eternal, for only the marriage between Jesus and his bride is designed to be
eternal. Moreover, human marriage, as a picture, may not be an exact
representation since humanity is fallen and lives in a fallen world. Thus,
clearances for divorce certainly exist in Scripture: namely adultery and
abandonment, as afforded by Jesus and Paul. Not to discredit the weight of
marriage, however, human marriage is holy, for it is ordained and honored by
God. Human marriage, however, ends with death (1 Cor 7:39) (i.e. people will no
longer be married in heaven). Marriage then should be viewed as a temporal act
of holiness.
While
temporal, marriage is to be honored and held to a high level of resoluteness.
The allowances for divorce then should be considered but not mandated. Such
seriousness is included in the five major views on divorce and remarriage. Porneia
(πορνεία) includes many variances of sexual immorality in Scripture but,
for centuries, has been understood, in the context of Matthew 5:32 and 9:19 as
limited to adultery.[21] If not understood within the
limitations of adultery, the offended spouse could easily produce a feasible reason to divorce his or her
spouse. For example, if sexual immorality, in its broadest sense, is a biblical
reason for divorce, it might be contended that nearly everyone would have such
grounds. Broad sexual immorality as a reason for divorce, therefore, is
seemingly hyperbolic.
The
topic of pornography often arises in such discussions. In my experience, lust
is often argued as a reason for divorce (anecdotally) from an inclination to
seek a way out of marriage. Mindful of the fact that Scripture has more to say
about the goodness of marriage than the destruction of it due to divorce, lust
should usually not be considered, especially if the one who offends repents of
the sin he or she commits. Jesus compares lust to adultery of the heart (Matt
5:28). A mistake commonly made is to employ Jesus’ words as justification for
divorce. Nevertheless, Jesus also says that hate is equally deserving of
judgment of the same consequence (Matt 5:22). Thus, if lust literally demands
divorce, hate also literally demands the consequences of murder. To carry the
consequences to such lengths would be extreme, illogical, and dishonorable to
the context in which Jesus speaks. Therefore, Jesus’ allowances for divorce
only include adultery. In other cases where a spouse lives in sin, the offended
spouse should strive for reconciliation through prayer, encouragement, and even
discipline.
To
consider marriage as holy and yet temporal is to also consider marriage to be imperfect.
With the expectation of imperfection then, spouses should commit to one another
through the best of times and the worst of times. While maintaining the union
of marriage in a fallen world is difficult and Jesus’ instructions may even
seem impossible, Erasmus understood that these instructions on divorce were
spoken to “truly committed members of the kingdom.”[22]
In other words, the only way marriage works in an imperfect world is by the
grace of a perfect God. Marriage is holy and good; yet, because of human
imperfection and sin, marriage is also difficult. In God’s economy, however,
spouses are designed to reveal a picture of Christ and the church: a picture of
grace, mercy, forgiveness, and intentional love.
For
people to hold a realistic expectation of marriage, imperfection must be
expected. A realistic expectation of human failure and propensity to sin, God’s
love toward his people, and a spouse’s responsibility to exude the love of God
in marriage should significantly ameliorate the marriage union. Such a concept
presupposes that marriage designed and ordained by God, only works if godly and
biblical principles are applied. Without biblical foundations, marriage in a
fallen world is not only difficult but impossible. In a temporal setting,
believers must understand the imperfections of marriage but also the weight of
its purpose and intent. A marriage commitment should not be taken lightly; nor,
should one who is married expect perfection but rather realize his or her
commitment to uphold the marriage to which he or she has committed: a union
that is separated only by death.
Staying Married Is Not about Staying in Love
In a
2007 sermon given by John Piper, it is proposed that staying married is not
about staying in love.[23]
The marriage union hinges on the commitment two people make to one another,
which is derived from the commitment made to God. In marriage, two people
abandon their own desires to join with those of each other. A man leaves his
father and mother and the two become one flesh (Gen 2:24). The intact union of
marriage is so crucial because marriage is designed to display God.[24]
As a gospel display of God, therefore, spouses must strive to such a likeness
in every way possible. Keeping marriage intact, thus, is not about staying in
love but remaining faithful to a commitment.
Many
questions regarding love, however, might certainly persist (e.g. should spouses
be in love?). To claim that staying married is not about staying in love is not
to negate the responsibility of spousal love and the cultivation thereof. What
many marriages fail to realize is the intentionality of love. Christ loves his
bride enough to give his life for her (Eph 5:25). Likewise, husbands must love
their wives in the same manner, which requires deliberate effort. The roles of
men and women are disparate but “complimentary because of their love for one
another.”[25]
The common thread through both the roles of men and women in marriage is the
source from which their commitment is derived. Husbands love their wives out of
a love for Christ, and wives honor their husbands out of a love for Christ.
When spouses serve from a commitment to Christ, a greater motivation subsists
in the marriage than merely acting out of love for one another. Nonetheless,
the toil of intentionality exists and should be realized (i.e. spouses should
be intentional and, when necessary, toil through the challenges of loving each
other so that the commitment of marriage remains unbroken).
Modern
culture has contrived more selfish reasons for divorce certainly than Scripture
and even than most cultures presented within Scripture. Whereas Israelite
culture, for example, speaks of divorce in cases where the wife commits an
“indecent thing” (Deut 24:1-4), modern notions submit that divorce is allowable
when a spouse is no longer in love.[26]
A biblical view of marriage, however, would not diminish marriage to allow such
a selfish and simple reason for divorce. Because of the stalwart union marriage
represents, it is crucial that (Christian) couples labor through its
challenges, highs, and lows and understand that the commitment they have made
supersedes their ability to stay in love. While perpetually cultivating the
love they have built is vital, staying married is not about spouses remaining
in love with one another but primarily about reflecting the gospel and the
Lord.
“Humanity
fails to emphasize the importance of getting married and staying married
because marriage is not viewed as an essential life goal for some people… the
foundation of marriage should provide a relational example for every individual
especially since the basis of marriage was created after God’s unique purpose.”[27] In a society that seems to
neglect the value of commitment, Christians should seek to reflect primarily
their commitment to the Lord through their commitments to each other. As a
visible display of the gospel, staying married is right and good irrespective
of how spouses feel and whether they remain in love.
Perspectives on marriage
should consider foremost God’s design for marriage rather than permissible
instances to abandon marriage. God has ordained marriage to reflect Jesus and
his bride, the church. Therefore, the importance of marriage overrides the rare
occasions divorce is allowed. When viewed from this perspective, it is more
likely that spouses will painstakingly work through the challenges of marriage
and honor their commitments, for those commitments are made first to God and
then to each other. Staying married is not about staying in love because the
commitment stems from a commitment to God and the spouse rather than the
selfish desires of individuals. Therefore, no matter what difficulties (or
wrongs) arise in marriage, husbands and wives should remember what their union
is to echo: namely the divine union between Jesus and the church.
Permissions for Remarriage
Of the
five major views on divorce and remarriage, only two allow possibilities for
remarriage: namely the modifed Erasmian view[28]
and the modified permanence view.[29]
The other three perspectives do not allow remarriage in any case. Contrarily, I
argue that remarriage is allowed for the spouse against whom the offense
occurred or in cases of a spouse’s death. Since Jesus gives explicit
circumstances under which divorce may occur, it should be assumed that such a
divorce is legitimate. In that incident, the innocent spouse has freedom to
remarry. On the contrary, however, the offending spouse should not remarry
unless the other spouse remarries or dies, for he or she is responsible for the
destruction of a marriage and would continually live in sin if yet another
marriage is pursued.
Church
history largely sees pastors and theologians who do not support the remarriage
of a spouse except for cases of adultery (where only the spouse against whom
the offense has occurred).[30]
Some exceptions, however, subsist. Hermas (c. second century AD), author of The
Shepherd, posits that adultery indeed constitutes separation from the
spouse and should not remarry so that the offending spouse has opportunity to
repent.[31]
Such a view is not uncommon, as even modern scholars interpret the biblical
text to preclude the possibility of remarriage for any divorced spouse so that
the offender holds the opportunity to repent and reconcile. Although most who
hold such a view consider it permissible to remarry if repentance is not
possible (e.g. the offending spouse dies or remarries), some argue that the
divorced spouse should never remarry. This scenario seems to exceed the
instructions of Scripture and force an unnecessary burden on the spouse who has
not committed an offense.
The
view that a divorced spouse should not remarry is biblically founded, for even
Jesus teaches that a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery (Matt 19:9). It should be understood, however, that Jesus offers an
exception of unfaithfulness to his instructions (i.e. Jesus is speaking about
instances that do not include adultery). The Old Testament discusses divorce as
a metaphor by stating that a woman who is divorced and marries another man
becomes polluted (Jer 3:1). Remarriage then is a difficult topic to grasp, for
human nature consists of selfish desires. One who is divorced often holds a
desire to remarry. Scripture, however, sees marriage through the lens of Christ
and the church so the union is held to a high standard. Therefore, remarriage
means destruction of the original marriage, which does not reflect the union
between Christ and his bride. Remarriage then should be considered thoroughly.
Leslie
McFall argues that remarriage is only permissible after death even if a divorce
is legitimate.[32]
Such a stringent guideline is not uncommon, especially in the Erasmian view. I
submit, however, that this view exceeds the bounds of biblical teaching. I argue
that since the Bible offers legitimate reasons for divorce, divorce should be
considered legitimate. Therefore, remarriage is also legitimate. While
legitimate reasons for divorce are rarer than perhaps applied, those reasons
should not be denied. If one is divorced legitimately and without guilt in the
divorce, he or she is free to remarry. Instructions on remarriage are ambiguous
at best, but Scripture does discuss it. The argument here is that because
circumstances exist in which divorce is possible and one spouse is guiltless,
remarriage for that spouse is also possible. Divorce does not reflect God’s
design for marriage. Nonetheless, in a fallen world, the destruction of
marriage is not only possible but realistic. To suggest that a legitimately
divorced person is not eligible to remarry then is to surpass the teachings of
the Bible. The conclusion here, therefore, is that the offending spouse is not
free to remarry but called to repentance while the spouse against whom the
offense occurred (only adultery or abandonment) is free from the bond of the
failed marriage and free to remarry.
Marriage: A Union Not Easily Broken
In
this paper, I have contended for an understanding of marriage that transcends
an understanding of divorce. Those who understand marriage and treat it with utmost
respect and honor should not seek divorce with ease. Marriage is a picture of
Christ and the church. Such a realization should direct one’s approach to
divorce and remarriage (i.e. one’s view of divorce and remarriage is subsequent
to one’s view of marriage). Since marriage is a divine and holy union ordained
by God, it is not easily fractured (e.g. ideally only by death). While divorce
is tolerated in cases of adultery and abandonment, God is still dishonored in
the action. In either circumstance, someone has sinned against almighty God and
given reason for a holy union to be destroyed. Marriage is a union not to be
easily broken.
The
five primary views on divorce offer an overarching perspective on divorce and
remarriage throughout church history. Nonetheless, the ultimate guide for
Christians should be the Holy Bible. In this paper, I have argued a biblical
understanding first of marriage and (derived from that understanding) secondly
of divorce and remarriage. I suggest that one must realize the importance and
gravity of marriage before it is possible to hold a fruitful understanding of
divorce and remarriage. Legitimate reasons for divorce should not be negated.
Nevertheless, a proper understanding of marriage should yield an overwhelming
desire to keep the union intact and seek every way possible to reconcile. God
hates divorce. As followers of Jesus Christ, Christians should also hate
divorce. Divorce is never a good thing, although God surely works in and
through humankind’s imperfections. The foundation of understanding in these
areas is marriage: an understanding of what marriage is and represents.
Marriage is good and should be treated with the highest respect and honor.
Therefore, to understand divorce and remarriage, God’s people should hold a
deep understanding of the union God has ordained: marriage.
bibliography
Adams, Jay E. Marriage, Divorce, and
Remarriage in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1980.
Burgos, Michael R. “Divorce and Remarriage
within the Evangelical Context: A Concise Reevaluation.” Biblical Studies
Journal 5(4) (2023): 22-30.
Byun, Soon Yi. “A Critical Comparison of
Contemporary Coptic, Korean and Western Scholarly Perspectives on Singleness
and Divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 and Related Biblical Texts.” MPhil thesis,
University of Manchester, 2014.
Clarke, Adam. Commentary on the New Testament.
1834.
Collingwood, Jeremy. “Divorce and Remarriage.” American
Evangelical Journal for Theology and Mission, vol. 3, issue 1 (1986):
66-75.
Dane, Timothy L. “Marriage, Divorce, and
Remarriage: Untwisting the Knots of Man’s Sin.” PhD diss., Baptist Bible
Seminary, Summit, PA, 2007.
Foulkes,Francis. Ephesians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 10, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989.
Gafford-Williamson, Aviva. “The Biblical Model
of Marriage in Preventing Divorce: Maintaining healthy Relationships among
Couples.” DMin diss., Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, 2021.
Grab, John Edward. “Divorce and Remarriage:
Applying Biblical Standards to a Modern Culture.” Thesis, Liberty University,
Lynchburg, VA, 2011.
Instone-Brewer David. Divorce and Remarriage
in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids, MI: B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 2002.
———.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral
Realities. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003.
Jones, David W. “The Betrothal View of Divorce
and Remarriage.” Bibliotheca Sacra 165 (January-March 2008): 68-85.
MacArthur, John. “Divorce and Remarriage.” Grace
to You, 2001, https://www.gty.org/library/articles/DD04/divorce-and-remarriage.
Naselli, Andrew David. “What the New Testament
Teaches about Divorce and Remarriage.” DBSJ 24 (2019): 3-44.
Norman, R. Stanton. “Biblical, Theological, and
Pastoral Reflections on Divorce, Remarriage, and the Seminary Professor: A
Modest Proposal.” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, vol. 1, no.
1 (Spring 2003): 78-100.
Piper, John. “Staying Married Is Not about
Staying in Love.” Sermon presented at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis,
MN, January 28, 2007. https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/staying-married-is-not-about-staying-in-love.
Sprinkle, Joe M. “Old Testament Perspectives on
Divorce and Remarriage.” JETS 40/4 (December 1997): 529-550.
[1] Michael R. Burgos, “Divorce and Remarriage within the
Evangelical Context: A Concise Reevaluation,” Biblical Studies Journal
5(4) (2023): 23.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., 24.
[4] Ibid., 24.
[5] Jeremy Collingwood, “Divorce and Remarriage,” American
Evangelical Journal for Theology and Mission, vol. 3, issue 1 (1986): 66.
[6] John MacArthur, “Divorce and Remarriage,” Grace to
You, 2001,
https://www.gty.org/library/articles/DD04/divorce-and-remarriage.
[7] Burgos, 24.
[8] A common debate among evangelical Christians
is that of what exactly Jesus refers to by using this word (e.g. intercourse,
other physical interactions, or even improper emotional involvement).
[9] Justin Martyr, “Teaching on Matthew 19,” in Leslie
McFall, “The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage,” academic article,
Comberton, Cambridgeshire, England, (continuously revised from May 2007)
(August 11, 2014): 303.
[10] Burgos, 25.
[11] Ibid.
[12] “In such cases, the brother or sister is not
enslaved…”
[13] Andrew David Naselli, “What the New Testament Teaches
about Divorce and Remarriage,” DBSJ 24 (2019): 11.
[14] All biblical references are taken from the
English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.
[15] Naselli, 16.
[16] Francis Foulkes, Ephesians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 10,
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1989), 166.
[17] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the New Testament,
1834, https://www.studylight.org/bible/xho/ieb/matthew/5-32.html.
[18] David Instone-Brewer. Divorce and
Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities (Downers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 13.
[19] Ibid.
[20] This statement does not negate the fact that
abuse is a serious offense and the victim of such an offense should not neglect
his or her safety. Safety could, in fact, mean leaving the location of the
abusive spouse and praying for their repentance. Finding safety, however, does
not mean seeking divorce since abuse is not explicitly referenced in Scripture.
[21] Burgos, 24.
[22] Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the
Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, MI: B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2002), 259.
[23] John Piper, “Staying Married Is Not about Staying in
Love,” sermon presented at Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN, January
28, 2007,
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/staying-married-is-not-about-staying-in-love.
[24] Ibid.
[25] McFall, 44.
[26] Ibid., 402.
[27] Aviva Gafford-Williamson, “The Biblical Model of
Marriage in Preventing Divorce: Maintaining healthy Relationships among
Couples,” (DMin diss., Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, 2021), 10.
[28]
Burgos, 24.
[29]
Ibid., 25.
[30]
Collingwood, 66.
[31]
Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 240. Most writings
consulted discuss the issue(s) solely from the perspective of the husband, as
does Scripture, but this is not to say that the wife may be found on the side
of the one against whom the offense occurred.
[32]
McFall, 10.
