Divorce and Remarriage—Position Paper
How can a pastor possibly justify officiating in the wedding ceremony of
someone who has been divorced? After all, Jesus was very clear, was he not,
that divorce and remarriage are equivalent to adultery! This is a topic on which
godly, Evangelical scholars and pastors disagree. This essay is my personal
position on the issue of divorce and remarriage.[1]
The united voice of
the biblical writers is that God opposes divorce. Malachi goes so far as to say
that God hates divorce. Jesus insisted that no one should separate what
God has joined (Mark 10:9). Paul also insisted that people should not divorce
(1 Corinthians 7:10). God’s intention was one man and one woman together until
death.[2]
On the other hand, according
to Moses and the prophets, because of the hardness of people’s hearts, God
Himself allowed divorce (Mt 19:8; Mk 10:5). When Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce,
he was referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-3.[3] This passage forbids a man from remarrying his former wife after she had
been remarried to another. The fact that divorce and remarriage were allowed
was assumed and not even questioned.[4] Jesus—clarifying the true intent of the Law—says this allowance for
divorce was made because of the hardness of people’s hearts. In other words,
because some people are so wicked, so violent, so cruel or so utterly perverse,
God sometimes allowed divorce.[5]
The real question is whether Jesus overturned the Father’s allowance for
divorce. After all, Jesus overturned dietary laws (Mark 7:19)—did he overturn
the allowance for divorce as well?
The answer to that question is not entirely clear. My position is that Jesus
did not overturn the allowance for divorce. In other words, God still
allows divorce for the hardness of people’s hearts. In the immediate context of
Jesus’ prohibition of divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5 (in the Sermon on the
Mount), Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the Law and Prophets (our
Old Testament) and that not even the smallest part would disappear until all
was fulfilled.
Although the New Covenant fulfilled and overturned the Old Covenant (the
sacrificial system. See Hebrews 8-9), I see no reason to believe that Jesus had
somehow fulfilled or overturned God’s allowance for divorce. People’s hearts
are still just as hard now as they ever were. When Jesus said that not the
smallest part of the Law would pass away, I am inclined to think that the
Mosaic Law’s allowance for divorce did not pass away either.
When Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce for the hardness of people’s
hearts, many people read that as if Jesus was correcting Moses to say that
there should never have been an allowance for divorce (except maybe for sexual
immorality). I propose that Jesus was not correcting Moses at all. Moses was,
after all, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! Jesus was
correcting the way Moses had been twisted into allowing divorce for any
reason!
A second historical consideration is a more
specific application of the first. In Jesus’ time Herod Antipas, the ruler of
Galilee, had gone to Rome to discuss affairs of state with Sejanus, the
Emperor’s right-hand man. While in Rome, Antipas had an affair with Herodias, the
wife of his half-brother, Philip. Antipas and Herodias agreed to divorce their
spouses so they could marry each other. That way they could make their adultery
“legal.” John the Baptist preached against this affair[6] which was apparently public knowledge. This
was, I believe, the historical background behind Jesus’ prohibitions against
divorce in Matthew 5:32, 19:7-9; Mark 10:2-12, and Luke 16:18. Jesus was
insisting that to divorce your spouse so you could marry another—like Antipas
and Herodias were doing—is still just as much adultery in God’s eyes as if you
hadn’t bothered to go through the motions. In my view, Jesus was not even
addressing a scenario in which a wife, for example, divorces her husband
because of cruelty or other evil (the hardness of man’s heart) and then later
marries someone else.
But many would object that this is simply not
what these passages say! They would argue that Jesus was clearly overturning
Moses’ allowance for divorce, for example, in Mark 10:10-12 which says, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man,
she commits adultery.” That simply does not allow for divorce due to the
hardness of man’s heart.
My response is that Jesus was known for his
use of hyperbole or overstatement! It is something that made his teaching so
provocative, powerful and memorable. So for example, in the Sermon on the Mount
which contains one of the prohibitions against divorce and remarriage, Jesus
also says, “Anyone
who says, “you fool” will be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). Yet
Jesus was apparently speaking hyperbolically since he himself called people
fools in Matthew 23:17. In the same context Jesus also talks about plucking out
your eye and cutting off your hand if it might cause you to fall into adultery
(Matthew 5:27-30). But Jesus was clearly speaking hyperbolically since even if
you literally plucked out your eye, you’d still have another one to lust with. In
the same passage, Jesus also commands his followers not to take oaths (Matthew
5:33-37). Apparently not even Paul interpreted Jesus literally since Paul took
oaths (e.g. Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23)! Most Evangelicals seem to have no
problem swearing “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
so help me God,” which is clearly an oath. They understand that Jesus was using
hyperbole.
Similarly, very few Evangelicals would say that Jesus’ commands to
“turn the other cheek” or not to “resist an
evil person” in Matthew 5:38-39 should prohibit all Christians from
joining the military, serving as police, or protecting their family. We
understand that Jesus is speaking hyperbolically. In Matthew 6:19-21 Jesus specifically says not to lay up treasures
on earth, and yet how many evangelicals have savings accounts and 401k's?
We understand that Jesus regularly uses hyperbole to make his points.[7]
Yet right in the middle of all this hyperbolic instruction is
Jesus’ teaching not to divorce except for sexual immorality (Matthew 5:31-32),
and many Evangelical pastors insist that this could not possibly be hyperbole
but must be taken literally with no other possible exceptions. This seems
a bit selective and inconsistent.
It is certainly true that in Jesus’
prohibitions against divorce there is either no exception given, or only one
exception, i.e. for sexual immorality. But the Bible
was not written like modern American law books in which every exception is
specifically spelled out in the immediate context or in legal cross references and
footnotes. In the Bible, we are expected to compare Scripture with Scripture.
For example,
in First Peter 2:13-17, Peter commands believers to submit to the
government. He mentions no exceptions. And yet Peter himself defied his
government saying, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The
idea that God always comes first is assumed in First Peter 2 as it is in Romans
13:1-6, even though no exceptions to the command to obey government are
mentioned in those letters.
Why would we
think there might be exceptions to the prohibition against divorce? The
evidence is admittedly slim. In Mark 10:10-12 Jesus taught, “Anyone who divorces his wife
and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her
husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” This passage allows
no exceptions. The same is true of Luke 16:18. So if all we had to go on
was the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke, we would conclude that Jesus
allowed absolutely no exceptions to his prohibition against divorce—and we
would be wrong! In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 Jesus says there is an
exception for sexual immorality.[8] Matthew apparently knew there was more to Jesus’ teaching on this
subject than Mark takes time to summarize. Surprisingly, in First Corinthians
7:15-16, Paul teaches that desertion is yet another valid allowance for divorce—and
not only for divorce, but also for remarriage![9] How dare Paul add an exception to Jesus’ prohibition against
divorce! Apparently, Paul either
disagreed with what Jesus’ taught, or was ignorant of what Jesus taught, or (my
view) Paul knew that there were more exceptions to Jesus’ teaching on divorce
than the Gospel writers would later take time to summarize.[10]
Another possibility is the very disputed passage in Matthew
19:4-12 in which Jesus says that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for
sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Jesus’
disciples respond saying that it is better, then, not get married at all, and
Jesus tells them, “Not everyone can accept this word.” In his discussion of
this passage, Biblical scholar, R.T. France concludes, “In the end any of
these options comes to much the same result that Jesus will here be conceding
that not everyone is able to maintain God’s high standard for the permanence of
marriage—in other words, that divorce (other than as a result of pornea) may in
some cases be permissible after all”[11] (“Pornea” is the Greek word for sexual immorality). Like France,
I would interpret Matthew 19:4-12 as saying, if you divorce in order to marry someone else you have committed
adultery. For others who find divorce necessary because of the hardness of a
spouse’s heart, it is preferable that they remain unmarried, but not every
divorced person is able to remain unmarried, and in remarrying, they have not
necessarily sinned (I think, is one of Paul’s points in I Corinthians 7).
Two other considerations affect my thinking on this issue. First, according to Jesus, the second most
important command in all of Scripture is the command to love one’s neighbor as
oneself. In Galatians 5:14 Paul says that “the entire law is fulfilled in
keeping this one command.” Certainly there are no “neighbors” closer than one’s
children. If the only way to protect those children[12] from an abusive or dangerous spouse is by
divorce, then, I believe Jesus would say that following the second greatest
commandment by protecting those children, would take priority over the
prohibition against divorce.[13]
A second consideration is admittedly even more
subjective. Imagine two scenarios. In the first scenario, a woman whose military
spouse was stationed overseas for a year, had a brief affair in a time of
weakness. She quickly ended the affair and sincerely repented of her sin. In a
second scenario, a husband regularly gets drunk, beats his wife and burns his
children with cigarette butts. He absolutely refuses to seek help or to even
acknowledge that he has a problem. I simply find it impossible to believe that
if we could sit across the table from Jesus today, he would say that the first
scenario is valid grounds for divorce but not the second scenario.
It is important to recognize that our decision
on this issue may have serious pastoral consequences. Pastors who insist that
Jesus prohibited divorce for any reason—or only for immorality—are often
condemning people to live with malicious, evil and violent spouses who put them
and their children in danger. One very prominent conservative, systematic theologian
recently changed his view on this issue. After many years of teaching and
writing, he now agrees with my conclusion. I’m glad for that, but one wonders
how many lives he ruined over the years by telling the wives of abusive
husbands that they must never leave
those husbands. The pastoral consequences of this issue are serious and sometimes
have life-and-death ramifications.
My conclusion is that Jesus affirmed and strengthened the Old Testament teaching that marriage was intended as the
union of one man and one woman until death. Divorce should never be considered just
because two people “fall out of love,” become dissatisfied, or are “incompatible.”
Marriage is a life-long commitment that can sometimes be lonely and painful—but
God never promises a pain-free life, and following Jesus often leads to
suffering! In such cases, pastoral or professional counseling may be helpful.
Sometimes medication or temporary separation may be necessary. But the ultimate
goal should be restoration of the marriage (1
Cor. 7:10-16). If someone is looking for excuses to get out of the marriage, they
have already missed Jesus’ point.
Nevertheless, in cases when a spouse
is exceptionally hard-hearted and all efforts at reconciliation fail, God allowed divorce. I do not believe Jesus overturned that allowance. That
being the case, Paul’s admonition to widows and widowers that it is “better to marry
than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:9) would also seem to apply to those who
are unmarried due to the hardness of their former spouses’ heart.
[1] My position
on divorce and remarriage has remained unchanged since I wrote a research paper
on it in seminary over 30 years ago.
[2] Although God allowed polygamy, polygamy was not God’s ideal and every
case of polygamy in the Bible was a disaster.
[3] That God allowed divorce, however, is also implied in the prophets like
Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, which depict God as divorcing Israel because of
Israel's persistent unfaithfulness to the covenant. If divorce was practically
the unforgivable sin that some pastors portray it to be, it seems odd that God
would use an illustration in which he would depict himself as committing that
sin by divorcing his people, Israel! That God allowed divorce is much clearer
in Ezra where Jews were commanded to divorce their foreign, idolatrous
wives, and this was said to be according to the will of God (Ezra
10:11). Everyone agrees that in the Old Testament, God reluctantly allowed
divorce.
[4] The reason for the law was presumably to keep people from using the
divorce allowance as legalized adultery, i.e. divorce your wife so you can
legally marry and have sex with another. Then divorce your new wife and marry
your previous wife again—assuming she was financially bad enough off to have
you (Historically, this has actually happened in some Islamic countries)!
[5] It does not
mean that every time a divorce occurs it was because both spouses’ hearts were
hard, as some pastors have erroneously taught! For example, I once heard of a
case in which a woman’s husband divorced her because she got saved and would no
longer go out and get drunk with him. Her husband even acknowledged that she
was a good wife—he just wanted someone to party with. In this case, the woman’s
divorce was due to her commitment to Christ, not from any hardness on her part.
[6] Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-19; Luke 3:19-20.
[7] A more
graphic example is in John 6 where Jesus tells people they must eat his flesh
and drink his blood in order to be saved!
[8] It is worth
noting that Jesus’ stepfather, Joseph, was characterized as a “just” or “righteous”
man even when he intended to divorce Mary from their betrothal commitment
(Matthew 1:19).
[9] In First
Corinthians 7:10, Paul said that a woman is not to leave her husband, but if
she does…. Paul’s command not to leave her husband appears to be an ideal
but not an absolute. In other words, she has not necessarily sinned by doing so.
She is not to leave her husband but if she does, she is to remain unmarried. But
Paul also says it is better to marry than to burn with passion, which leads me
to believe that his command to remain unmarried is also an ideal and not an
absolute.
[10] Paul, of
course, was not referring to the Gospels themselves, since most, if not all, of
the Gospels were written after Paul’s letters. But Paul was certainly aware of
Jesus’ teachings.
[11] R.T. France. 2007. The Gospel of Matthew (New
International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
723.
[12] Jesus was
particularly protective of children as seen in Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, and
Luke 17:2.
[13] Unfortunately,
this argument could easily be abused and turned in to an excuse to find a
“biblical” reason for divorce. A vegetarian spouse, for example could argue
that divorce is necessary to prevent the children from the “abuse” of being
allowed to eat meat! That, however, would violate the point of Jesus’
prohibition against divorce. If someone is looking for an excuse to get
divorced, they have already violated the intent of Jesus’ teaching.
