Why God
hates divorce
Biblical teaching on divorce:
Chapter 16 from The Great Divorce Controversy
Having examined what the Bible says about marriage, we can now turn to the
issue of divorce. We have seen that the Bible teaches that marriage is the
lifelong union of one man with one woman. That is God’s ideal. What does the
Bible have to say on divorce? This remains controversial as we saw in our
examination of the parliamentary debates. Although a large theological
literature debates the meaning and interpretation of the key biblical passages,
there is still uncertainty among Christians as to what the Bible teaches about
divorce. The issue at stake is this: does Christ allow divorce with
remarriage? In other words, is the marriage bond dissolved by divorce? Those
theologians who support the Protestant doctrine of divorce argue that Christ
allows divorce for marital unfaithfulness, and some claim that the apostle Paul
allows divorce and remarriage following desertion by an unbelieving spouse. On
the other side of the debate are those who believe that the Bible teaches that
marriage is indissoluble and, therefore, remarriage is not permitted following
a divorce. For those who wish to study the detailed theological arguments two
books are recommended. Jesus and Divorce by Gordon Wenham and William
Heth deals in detail with the arguments of those who support the Erasmian view
of divorce.1
They explore the different schools of interpretation, and provide a strong
critique of the view widely held by evangelicals today, that allows for
remarriage after divorce on the grounds of immorality. Andrew Cornes, in
Divorce and Remarriage, provides a comprehensive study of singleness,
marriage, divorce and remarriage from a biblical perspective.2
I believe
that the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage, an issue that effects
everyone, is clear and understandable. Those who claim that the Scriptures are
unclear on divorce imply that Jesus Christ taught in a way that caused
confusion. The confusion does not lie with Christ, but with those who find
themselves unable to accept the plain truth of his teaching. It is a serious
error to claim that the teachings of Christ are unclear. On the contrary, he did
not fail to tell the world God’s plan for marriage in clear, understandable
language. Indeed, he did so in such plain words that his teaching has caused
offence even among those who claim to be his followers. The apparent confusion
over divorce and remarriage is entirely man-made. This chapter examines two Old
Testament passages and the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul.
The message of Malachi
– God hates divorce
The
following passage from Malachi describes God’s attitude to divorce.
Another
thing you do: you flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because
he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from
your hands. You ask, ‘Why?’ It is because the Lord is acting as the witness
between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her,
though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the
Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he
was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break
faith with the wife of your youth. ‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of
Israel, ‘and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his
garment,’ says the Lord Almighty (Malachi 2: 13–16).
The
idea of covenant is a biblical concept used to describe the relationship between
God and his people. It has been defined as an unchangeable, divinely imposed
legal agreement between God and man that stipulates the conditions of their
relationship.3
There are two parties to a covenant, God and man; but man cannot negotiate with
God, or change the terms of the covenant; he can only accept the obligations of
the covenant or reject them. The prophet makes it clear that God sees marriage
as a covenant between a man and a woman. It is a relationship of personal
obligation. Both husband and wife have given their word that they will be
faithful to each other; they are committed to live together for life. As John
Richardson writes in Sex, God and Marriage (1998), ‘This helps explain
why divorce was so hated by God, since the term “covenant” also describes the
relationship between God and his people. Moreover, the covenant between God and
Israel in the Old Testament is itself pictured as a marriage.’4
According
to Malachi, Israel was concerned that God was no longer blessing them. Their
prayers were not being answered because of God’s displeasure with their attitude
towards marriage; they were breaking their marriage covenants and divorcing
their wives. God was displeased and said, ‘You have broken faith with her,
though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant’ (Malachi 2:14),
thereby highlighting the underlying cause of all divorce. God told his people
that unfaithfulness, which is a wider term than adultery, is the root cause of
all broken marriages and the sin that leads to divorce. The prophet explains
why breaking faith with their wives was such a terrible sin—because they had
promised lifelong commitment to their marriage covenant, and God was the
witness.
The
underlying cause of all divorce is always the result of one or both partners
being unfaithful to their marriage vows. In public they promise to be faithful
whatever the circumstances, but because of selfishness they fail to keep the
promises they made when they entered into the marriage covenant. So human
waywardness and unfaithfulness lie at the centre of all marriage failure.
According to Laney, ‘divorce is not only a violation of God’s original plan for
marriage, it violates the marriage covenant to which the Lord is a witness.
Divorce is treachery against life’s most intimate companion and is a grievous
sin which God hates.’5
Yet
contemporary society sees divorce as if no one is at fault; it is no longer
fashionable to speak of faithfulness to one’s marriage partner. Many people
feel little compunction in breaking their vows when it is no longer convenient
to keep them. There is no longer a belief that loyalty to a marriage partner
through thick and thin, for better for worse, is important. Those ideals are
portrayed as old-fashioned and outmoded. Instead when a husband or wife feel
they no longer love their marriage partner, or the marriage goes through a
difficult time, or they fall in love with someone else, then divorce becomes an
option. There is little acknowledgement that human unfaithfulness is at the
heart of all divorce. Yet the Bible is quite clear on this point and warns, ‘Do
not break faith with the wife of your youth’ (Malachi 2:15).
God’s
attitude towards divorce is clearly stated by the prophet Malachi. ‘I hate
divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel, ‘and I hate a man’s covering himself with
violence...’ (Malachi 2:16). The God of the Bible, who instituted marriage for
the good of mankind, hates divorce. Faithfulness is central to the character of
God, he is faithful to all his promises and is faithful to his people. ‘If we
are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself’ (2 Timothy
2:13). Even though we are unfaithful, God remains faithful to us. Marriage is
a covenant promise to live together as man and wife for life, and faithfulness
is the knot that binds husband and wife together. Implicit within the marriage
covenant is the promise to be faithful to our children, to love and care for
them. Divorce breaks the covenant promise of faithfulness to those who are
nearest and dearest. Because it is the ultimate expression of human
unfaithfulness, it is repulsive to the divine nature and God hates it.
Malachi
goes on to explain that in the mind of God divorce and violence are linked. In
God’s eyes, divorce is violence directed against our own family; it is violence
against our own flesh and blood, violence against our husband or wife, violence
against our children. There can be no more brutal act than perpetrating
violence against our marriage partner and children who are dependent on our love
and protection. The spectacle of the terrible violence unleashed by divorce is
clearly visible to all around. Because divorce is violence against the family,
it is hateful to God. He hates divorce because of what it does to the families
involved; the devastation and suffering that result are highly displeasing to
him.
In
particular, God hates the suffering of the children involved in
divorces. God hates it when a home is broken and a family shattered.
God hates it when children are deprived of father or mother by divorce.
God loathes the heartbreak of the children, and the loneliness experienced by
the divorced husband and wife. It is not good for man to be alone and divorce
results in loneliness. It is not good for children to be deserted by their
parents, and divorce results in deserted children. It is unthinkable that God
could have any other attitude to divorce. The message of Malachi is that God
hates divorce.
The message of Hosea –
be reconciled
The
prophet Hosea was called by God to live out his message to his people by
marrying a woman who would be unfaithful to him, and so his marriage was a
symbolic picture of the relationship between God and his people. Hosea was to
proclaim Israel’s need for reconciliation to their faithful, loving God. The
key verse is:
The
Lord said to me, ‘Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by
another and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though
they turn to other gods...’ (Hosea 3: 1).
Hosea’s wife had been unfaithful and committed adultery with other men. God saw
her behaviour as symbolic of the unfaithfulness of his people who were running
after other gods, and being unfaithful to the covenant God had made with them.
They promised to love him with all their hearts, and to have no other gods. But
they had been disloyal by worshipping man-made idols. Yet God did not cast them
aside, even though they had betrayed him. Although he was angry and offended by
their unfaithfulness and waywardness, he invited his people to return and repent
of their sin. The Lord said, ‘I will heal their waywardness and love them
freely, for my anger has turned away from them’ (Hosea 14:4). Despite their
unfaithfulness, God was merciful and offered them the hope of reconciliation.
In the
same way as God acted towards faithless Israel, he directed Hosea to act towards
his unfaithful wife, who was running after other men. Despite the fact that she
was an adulteress, God did not tell Hosea to divorce his wife, but rather to
love her again. It is clear that God wanted Hosea to restore the relationship;
he wanted Hosea to be reconciled, even though his wife was an adulteress, and
the law of Moses permitted him to divorce her.
There is
no more explicit message in the Bible regarding God’s attitude to divorce. God
hates it, and does not want a couple to divorce, even when adultery has been
involved. Instead, he wants them to make every effort to be reconciled and save
their marriage – yes, even to the extent of forgiving an unfaithful wife or
husband. Although divorce is permitted for marital unfaithfulness, the Bible
teaches that we should do all we can to achieve reconciliation. The unfaithful
partner bears a terrible responsibility for they have sinned against God,
against their marriage partner, against their children and against their
family. They should repent of their foolish action, change their behaviour and
ask for forgiveness from all concerned. Adultery is not the unforgivable sin,
and God is able to restore the relationship if there is a true change of heart.
True
reconciliation requires a change of behaviour on the part of the unfaithful
partner, and that the one who has been sinned against should be willing to
forgive and be reconciled. Although this may take a long time to achieve, and
sometimes is not possible because of the unrepentant heart of the unfaithful
partner, the faithful partner should aim at this rather than allowing their
marriage to be broken by divorce. Even after divorce, the possibility of
reconciliation should be left open, and, if at all possible, it should be sought
actively and encouraged. God’s guidance for those who face the possibility of a
divorce because of marital unfaithfulness is that they should do all in their
power to save their marriage. They should be like Hosea and again show their
love to their unfaithful partner, doing everything possible to achieve
reconciliation. The example of Hosea illustrates God’s ideal in the case of a
broken marriage.6 Wenham and Heth write, ‘in the event
of marital unfaithfulness we believe that Jesus would surely require the
forgiveness of seventy times seven and the goal of restoration exhibited by
Hosea’.7
Jesus’ Teaching on
divorce
Jesus
taught about divorce on two occasions. The first time was during the Sermon on
the Mount, recorded in Matthew chapter five, and the second occasion, recorded
in Mark chapter 10 and Matthew chapter 19, was toward the end of his ministry
when the Pharisees confronted him regarding the causes of divorce. The gospel
of Luke also gives a brief summary of Jesus’ teaching.
Moral
responsibility towards marriage (Matthew 5:31–32)
It is
significant that Jesus taught about divorce in his Sermon on the Mount while
setting his standards for human behaviour. He was dealing with the question of
individual responsibility. The Lord outlined a moral framework that was
completely revolutionary in its content. In essence he taught that our inner
attitude toward God and other people is the foundation for morality. Jesus
taught that we ought to treat others as we would like them to treat us. The
attitude of our heart is the essence of morality. By Jesus’ standard, to look at
a woman with lust is adultery; that is, the inward, lustful desire is of itself
sinful. These are the standards of behaviour that God expects from his people;
they have to do with attitudes, thoughts and desires, as well as the way we
treat others. Above all, the standard is that we should be kind and forgiving.
We should not seek revenge when wronged, and should even pray for our enemies
and those who persecute us. Applying his teaching to divorce, Jesus shows that
divorce is not only wrong, but with the correct attitude to one’s marriage
partner should not even be contemplated.
While on
the Mount, Jesus dealt with divorce in the context of his teaching on adultery.
Jesus said,
It has
been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of
divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital
unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so
divorced commits adultery (Matthew 5:31–32).
Here
Jesus sets God’s standard for marriage. With the words, ‘but I tell you that
anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to
commit adultery’, Jesus says that any man who divorces his wife is causing her
great harm, for he is the cause of her becoming an adulteress. It is against
God’s will and cannot be an option to be used for man’s convenience. What Jesus
is teaching is that an attitude of the heart that even entertains the thought of
divorce is adultery against one’s marriage partner. So the principle the Lord
is laying down is that in God’s eyes even the thought of divorce is immoral—an
act equal to adultery. However, he makes an exception to this rule for the man
whose wife is guilty of marital unfaithfulness. For a man to divorce an
unfaithful, adulterous wife is not equal to adultery on the part of the man for
it does not cause her to commit adultery because she has already done so. (The
exception clause is discussed in more detail below.)
Having
established the principle that to divorce is immoral, unless it is for marital
unfaithfulness, Jesus places an absolute restriction on remarriage. He says
that a man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery, unless of course
she has already committed adultery. The assumption is that the divorced wife
will remarry and so commit adultery against her husband. The fact that the
divorced wife commits adultery when she remarries a single man means that her
marriage bond is still intact and therefore was not destroyed by the divorce.
And Jesus lays the responsibility squarely at the feet of the husband; it is his
immoral action in divorcing his wife that causes her to commit adultery.
Furthermore anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery. That is,
the (single) man who marries the divorced woman, whether she is the innocent
partner or not, commits adultery against her husband. This is a remarkable
teaching for it raises the obvious question: how can a man be guilty of adultery
if he marries a divorced woman? The only possible explanation is that in Jesus’
understanding the marriage bond is still intact because she is joined to her
husband by God—so the divorced woman is still bound to her husband for the
marriage bond is indissoluble except by death. Therefore, in God’s eyes, her
first marriage is still intact even although her husband has divorced her, and
so the (single) man who marries her is entering into an illicit sexual
relationship with a married (although divorced) woman. For this reason anyone
who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, and the divorced woman commits
adultery when she remarries.
In
evidence to the Royal Commission of 1912, Professor JP Whitney, a church
historian, explained that the passage was dealing with the question of human
responsibility. ‘A man was responsible if by the act of divorcing his wife he
put her in the position in which she was almost bound to commit adultery. The
question is presented as one of the responsibilities of man and in pronouncing
it the Lord, as it were, pulled himself up before condemning the man, because if
the man put away his wife for adultery it is clear that he could not be held
responsible for her afterwards falling into adultery. The real cause and
responsibility (for the adultery) then lay not with the man but with the woman.’8
The Lower
House of the Convocation of York explained this passage in a report produced in
1896. ‘Here the putting away of the wife for fornication is granted, but for no
other cause. To put her away for any other cause save this would be to put her
into the way of temptation to adultery, and the guilt would lie at the husband’s
door, he would be the cause if she fell into adultery. If, however, she be put
away for fornication, which is a just cause of separation, the guilt of any
future sin rests with her, as the separation came about through her own
misconduct. But to marry a woman thus separated from her husband for
fornication – is adultery. In this passage, then, putting away for fornication
is allowed, but for any woman put away to marry again is adultery. Why? It can
only be because her husband is alive, and because the bond exists. If it exists
for her, it equally exists for him. If a new marriage is adultery for her, so
is a new marriage for him.’9
No remarriage
following divorce (Luke 16:18)
In
Luke’s gospel Jesus deals with the issue of the remarriage of the divorced
husband and the divorced wife. The gospel is written for the Gentile world,
which would have been largely ignorant of the Jewish laws regarding divorce.
Jesus states the simple truth:
Anyone
who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man
who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Luke 16:18).
Here
Jesus warns that both a divorced man and a single man commit adultery by being
involved in a remarriage. The first point is that for a divorced man to remarry
another (single) woman is adultery. It follows that for the remarriage of the
divorced man to be adulterous his first marriage must still be intact in Jesus’
eyes, and that is why his sexual relationship with a single woman is adultery.
Jesus then speaks about the single man who marries a divorced woman. He is
guilty of adultery against the divorced woman’s husband, because in Jesus’ eyes
the first marriage of the woman is still intact. According to Andrew Cornes,
this text is concerned principally with remarriage. The first part of the verse
teaches that ‘legal divorce cannot break the marriage bond because (and this is
Christ’s point) remarriage after divorce is in fact adultery. The second part
of the verse makes the point that it is also adultery for a single man to marry
a divorced woman.’10
The
teaching of Luke is straightforward and clear. It states an absolute position
that all remarriage is wrong. Now there can be no doubt that Luke was familiar
with Christ’s teaching on divorce, and it seems remarkable that he would have
written in the way that he did if, in fact, Christ had allowed an exception.
Indeed, if that were the case Luke could be accused of causing confusion and
misleading the Church. For if Christ had taught that there were grounds for
divorce, it would be unforgivable for Luke to have simply ignored the exception
which fundamentally alters the teaching. It would be highly misleading for
Luke to write in a way that could be construed to support the idea that marriage
was indissoluble, when, in fact, Christ was teaching the opposite. But we know
that Luke, a physician, was meticulously accurate in the way he recorded the
gospel of Christ. It is unthinkable that he would not have qualified his writing
to make it clear that there was an exception if that were the case. But he did
not do so. There is no doubt that Luke believed that Jesus taught that the
marriage bond was indissoluble.
Later in
his ministry a group of Pharisees tested Jesus by asking him about the causes of
divorce. The encounter with the Pharisees is recorded in Matthew 19:3–12 and
Mark 10:2–12. While the two gospels report the same event, there are some
differences between the accounts of Matthew and Mark. The record of Matthew,
which was written for a mainly Jewish audience, mentions the so-called exception
clause ‘except for marital unfaithfulness’, while Mark omits any reference to an
exception. At the time there was a debate among the Pharisees about the
legitimate grounds for divorce, which was required by Jewish law when a wife was
guilty of adultery. This is important because the exception clause has become
the foundation of the Protestant doctrine of divorce, and is used by modern
Christians to justify their practice of remarriage following divorce. While
many books have been written on the interpretation of this clause, the matter
remains controversial among theologians.
Jesus and the
Pharisees (Mark chapter 10)
Jesus
was travelling through Transjordan on his way to Jerusalem and his final
Passover before his trial and crucifixion. While in the territory of Perea,
which was ruled by Herod Antipas, the man who had imprisoned and executed John
the Baptist because of his comments about Herod’s incestuous marriage to his
brother’s wife, the Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking,
‘Is it
lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ Jesus replied [with a question], ‘What
did Moses command you?’ They said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a
certificate of divorce and send her away.’ Jesus repied, ‘It was because your
hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,’ [and then Jesus quoted from
Genesis] ‘But at the beginning of creation, God “made them male and female”.
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and the two will become one flesh”.’ [ Jesus concluded] ‘So they are no
longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not
separate’ (Mark 10:2–9).
The
response of Jesus is highly significant. He does not launch into a discussion
on the possible grounds for divorce or discuss the lawfulness of divorce. In
this dramatic encounter the Lord quotes from the two texts in Genesis (1:27 and
2:24) which form the foundation of God’s ordinance of marriage as an
indissoluble one flesh union. This tells us that if we wish to know the mind of
Christ on divorce then we must take account of these two verses. Essentially
Jesus is saying that God created one man and one woman and when God united them
in marriage they became one flesh. Jesus then draws the conclusion that husband
and wife have been joined together by God to become one. For this reason, man
should not separate them. This was the public teaching of Jesus on the issue of
the lawfulness of divorce.
Later,
when Jesus and the disciples were in the house they asked him to explain this
teaching. Jesus answered,
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
(Mark 10:11–12).
Here
Jesus is saying that remarriage is wrong, reinforcing the teaching given during
the Sermon on the Mount. A divorced man who marries a single woman commits
adultery against his first wife. This is because the one flesh bond created by
God at marriage is still intact in God’s eyes, and so the sexual relationship
with another woman is adulterous. Similarly, the woman who divorces her husband
and remarries another man commits adultery. This is because the divorce has not
freed her from the marriage bond and she is still tied to her husband, although
legally divorced from him. Therefore, being still married in the eyes of God,
she is required either to be reconciled to her husband or to remain unmarried.
For her to marry another man is adultery. The emphatic teaching of Jesus is
completely contrary to human expectations. He refers to God’s creation
ordinance, thereby confirming from the Scriptures that marriage is indissoluble
and so remarriage following divorce is always adultery.
Andrew
Cornes’s comments on Jesus’ teaching in Mark are helpful. ‘Since Jesus
specifically calls remarriage after legal divorce “adultery”, he is saying that
whatever has taken place legally in divorce, the partners are still married.
This means that remarriage is not only wrong, it is impossible at the deepest
level. Jesus makes the astonishing statement – astonishing in his own day and
just as amazing in our own – that it is not actually possible to marry again
during the lifetime of a divorced partner; it is only possible to commit
adultery with a third party, even though from a legal point of view this new
“marriage” has been properly entered into.
‘Jesus’
teaching also means that divorce – at least in the sense in which the Pharisees
thought of it – is not only wrong but is impossible. Again, it is of course
perfectly possible to secure a divorce that is valid from the legal point of
view. But it is not possible to undo what God has done… Since even after
divorce, to marry someone else is to commit adultery, clearly this marriage bond
still remains, even after legal divorce. Therefore full divorce – in the sense
of the “dissolution” or elimination of the marriage bond – is not something
which any legal process is capable of achieving. Only death dissolves the
bond.’11
It is
noteworthy that Mark’s account of this exchange with the Pharisees does not
mention the phrase ‘except for marital unfaithfulness’, but makes it clear that
Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage apply to husband and wife alike.
The
exception clause (Matthew chapter 19)
In
Matthew’s account of the testing of Jesus, the first question put by the
Pharisees was, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every
reason?’ (Matthew 19:3). As we have seen, Jesus did not answer the question
directly, but referred to the Genesis account of the Creation, and the
institution of marriage. He then said, ‘So they are no longer two, but one.
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate’ (Matthew 19:6).
The Pharisees persisted with their questioning, ‘Why then did Moses command that
a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ (Matthew
19:7). Jesus corrected the Pharisees by pointing out that Moses did not command
divorce, but rather permitted divorce because their hearts were hard. He then
reaffirmed his teaching given in the Sermon on the Mount.
Jesus
replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were
hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who
divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman
commits adultery’ (Matthew 19:8-9).
Does adultery dissolve the marriage bond?
A
pillar of the Protestant doctrine of divorce is based on Matthew 19:9. The
interpretation is that adultery (marital unfaithfulness) dissolves the marriage
bond and therefore allows remarriage following divorce. We saw in chapter 3
that Luther and Calvin claimed that adultery meant that the guilty marriage
partner was as good as dead [my italics], and therefore they believed
that the innocent party was free to remarry. Calvin, for example, wrote that a
woman who commits adultery sets her husband free, for she cuts herself off from
him as a rotten member.12
Luther said that whoever commits adultery is considered as one dead [my
italics], and therefore the other may remarry just as though his spouse had
died, if it is his intention to insist on his rights and not to show mercy to
the guilty party.13,14
The Westminster Confession of Faith, which outlines the doctrine of the Reformed
Protestant faith, says ‘in the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for
the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and, after the divorce, to marry
another, as if the offending party were dead [my italics].’15
Significantly, Luther and Calvin both acknowledge that the marriage union is
only broken by death. So the question is whether they are correct in their
amazing claim that adultery equates to the death of a marriage partner.
The
report of the committee of the Lower House of the Convocation of York commented
on the official Protestant position. ‘We cannot but express our strong feeling
that to refuse to the convicted defendant (adulterer), and to grant to the
successful plaintiff (innocent party), a licence to marry is an illogical
position. They – both of them – are either married or unmarried. If both are
married already, then both should be refused, because they already each have a
partner alive, and a licence could only be granted for what would in fact be
bigamy and adultery. If they are unmarried, the bond is broken, and the one is
as free to be married as the other… The Church of England has in no way
sanctioned the idea that the bond has been broken.’16
In the
book Divorce in America (1925), the Bishop of Vermont warned of the
inevitable consequences of a divorce law that permitted divorce for adultery.
‘Where marriage has been allowed to be dissoluble, it has been found
impracticable, first, to restrict this to one cause; or second, in practice to
prevent collusion in the furnishing of this cause; or third, to distinguish
between the “innocent party” (where such really exists) and the guilty as to the
right of remarriage. If the bond of marriage has been broken – either by the
act of adultery, or by judicial sentence following upon this – it must have been
broken for both parties. It can only therefore be a rule of ecclesiastical
discipline which forbids a second marriage to the guilty party. On the
assumption that the bond of marriage no longer exists, the imposition of such
lifelong penalty can hardly be justified.’17
Kenneth
Kirk examined the assertion that adultery breaks the marriage bond, allowing the
innocent person to remarry, in his book Marriage and Divorce. He
contended that two questions arise which prove the view to be entirely
untenable. ‘The first is, why should this power of “dissolving a marriage” be
attributed to marital infidelity, and be withheld from sins in every degree as
flagrant violations of the duty of husband to wife and wife to husband –
persistent cruelty, or neglect, or desertion, for example? Indeed, many of
these sins are very often more flagrant than adultery. An isolated act of
infidelity may be the result of momentary passion or loss of self-control, but
cruelty and desertion are conscious and deliberate. Surely, therefore, they
must destroy the marriage bond even more effectively than adultery is said to
do? There seems to be no satisfactory answer to this question…
‘More
important, however, is the second question, even though at first sight it
appears pedantic and casuistical. If adultery does indeed dissolve the marriage
bond, at what moment does it do so? At the moment it is committed – or at the
moment when it is first discovered by the innocent party – or at the moment when
it is established as a fact after judicial enquiry? …It seems then that what
must be meant by this statement that “adultery dissolves the marriage bond”, is
the very different statement, “adultery makes the marriage bond voidable, if the
injured party chooses to bring an action for divorce”. So stated, we have, in
effect the present English law on the subject…. For it is natural to ask once
more, “Why should this be asserted only of adultery, and not of other causes
too?”’18
In his
discussion of Matthew chapter 19, Andrew Cornes concludes that Jesus had a
different idea of divorce from the Pharisees. While they conceived only of full
divorce with the right to remarry, Jesus taught that divorce could take place,
but it did not break the marriage bond. He makes this clear by calling
remarriage after divorce adultery.19 Jesus teaches that remarriage is not only wrong, it is
impossible, for it is not possible to contract a true marriage while a marriage
partner is still living. ‘And it is not only wrong to divorce one’s partner: it
is actually impossible in any full sense. You may be able to break the legal
ties, you may be able to live apart, but you cannot destroy the marriage; your
unity with your partner still exists in God’s eyes; the marriage bond can only
be broken by death.’20
Supporting this interpretation Wenham and Heth say that the one flesh bond of
marriage is not dissolved by legal divorce, nor by sexual relations with a third
party. ‘Just as we cannot “divorce” our children from being our own blood
relations, no matter how disreputable they may be, so a man cannot “divorce” his
wife who is his own flesh and blood through marriage.’21
They believe that when Matthew 19:9 is analysed into its constituent parts that
it makes a fitting retort to the catch question of the Pharisees. ‘They asked,
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” Jesus
replied: “It is always wrong to divorce what God had joined together: what is
more, divorce, except for marital unfaithfulness, is tantamount to committing
adultery; and remarriage after divorce is always so”.’22
Wenham and Heth conclude that the Erasmian attempt to harmonise the teaching of
Jesus in Matthew with the absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage in Mark
and Luke ‘is flawed by modern assumptions that Jesus taught against the wrong of
unwarranted divorce (a “breaking” of the conjugal life) and not the wrong of
remarriage (an attempt to break the union completely, reversing what God has
done). Jesus was against both; but if a divorce today should take place
against the Master’s will, the faithful disciple must not compound the problem
by remarrying. The disciple must above all have that faith which counts his
Lord’s word as good and perfect. And remarriage, which Jesus calls adultery,
cannot be God’s best for his children.’23
The
belief that adultery breaks the marriage bond persists among evangelical
Christians who permit remarriage today. Some believe that adultery per se
breaks the marriage bond and therefore permits remarriage just as if the
offending husband or wife was dead. But this belief raises many difficult
questions. If adultery does break the marriage bond, and if the innocent party
is willing to be reconciled, do the couple need to be married again? And what
if the innocent party is unaware of the adultery? Is she divorced from her
husband who has secretly committed adultery? According to Heth, the view that
adultery dissolves the marriage bond ‘not only degrades the conception of
marriage by making its physical side the dominant consideration; it involves two
absurdities. First, a man may cease to be married and yet be unaware of the
fact. Secondly, it makes adultery, or the pretence of having committed it, the
one way to get rid of a marriage which has become distasteful, and so puts a
premium on adultery.’24
Others
believe that sexual sin (referred to in the gospel of Matthew by the Greek word
porneia , and translated as marital unfaithfulness) permits the innocent
party to choose between divorce with remarriage, and reconciliation. That is,
adultery does not per se break the marriage bond, but allows the innocent
party the choice of breaking the marriage bond or not. An example of this line
of thinking is given by Stephen Clark in his recently published book, Putting
Asunder (1999). In his discussion of the exception clause, Clark argues
that ‘where the divorce was on the basis of illicit sexual intercourse, then
neither the divorce nor subsequent remarriage by the man whose wife had been the
guilty party would involve him in adultery. Jesus was neither commanding nor
commending divorce for such a reason, nor was he encouraging remarriage. But
neither was he forbidding or discouraging it.’ Accordingly, ‘we are not to
understand divorce as a failure to live up to the teaching that Jesus had given
in [Matthew] chapter 18 on the need for forgiveness’. So the exception clause
in Matthew 19:9 ‘permits divorce where the wife has been guilty of behaviour
which undermines the marriage’.25 The implication of this teaching is that it is the choice of
the innocent party that breaks the one flesh union created by God, and Jesus
does not mind which choice we make. The innocent spouse has the right to choose
whether or not to separate what God has joined together, and therefore the
authority to choose to break the marriage bond. It is not difficult to see that
this approach to breaking up a family appears to be completely against the
spirit of Jesus’ teaching, who warns us not to separate what God has joined
together.
The
serious fault with the view that adultery breaks the marriage bond is that it
ignores the message of Hosea that a husband should love his unfaithful wife
again, and do all in his power to achieve reconciliation. The Bible teaches
that God wants husband and wife to go to the extreme of forgiveness in order to
preserve the family. All attempts in both England and America to legislate for
divorce on the grounds of adultery have proved totally disastrous. Even those
who argued for the initial law were not prepared to go on defending a divorce
law based on adultery as the only ground. It seems inconceivable that a law
based on Scripture should prove unworkable in practice. Moreover, the attempts
of various Christian denominations to carry out church remarriage of the
so-called innocent party have resulted in confusion and hypocrisy. The
arbitrary way in which various Protestant churches have carried out remarriages,
with different denominations applying different rules, and with differences
even within denominations, undermines the credibility of their doctrine. The
Protestant marriage discipline of selective remarriage of the innocent party
after divorce remains a mystery to most people. It is now widely acknowledged
that it is not possible to establish guilt and innocence in any meaningful way.
The Protestant
doctrine of divorce and children
A
further objection to the doctrine that claims an adulterous spouse is ‘as good
as dead’ is that it fails to understand that marriage consists of both a marital
relationship between husband and wife, and a parental relationship between
parents and children. It fails to acknowledge that an ‘offending husband or
wife’ is also a father or mother with parental responsibilities. The Protestant
doctrine of divorce needs to explain whether the offending man is dead both as
husband and father and whether the offending woman is dead both as wife and
mother. Up to now the doctrine has singularly failed to deal with this issue.
If the offending man is ‘as good as dead’ does this mean that the relationship
with his children is also ‘as good as dead’? Take the example of the father who
has an affair with his secretary. Because he is ‘as good as dead’, the
‘innocent’ mother is entitled to divorce him and remarry. But what are the
consequences for the children? If their father is ‘as good as dead’ as far as
the marriage is concerned, is he still their father? Can a man who is ‘as good
as dead’ in the eyes of the Church, fulfil his responsibility as a parent? And
when the ‘innocent’ mother remarries, what is the relationship between her new
husband and her children? Is her new husband also a new father to her
children? And if not, then what is the relationship between her new husband and
her children? Or is the new husband, in the mind of the children and according
to the teaching of Jesus, another man who is committing adultery against the
children’s father? So we see that the Protestant doctrine of divorce fails to
explain the implications of its assertion that the offending party is ‘as good
as dead’ to the children involved. It ignores the parental responsibility of
husband and wife; it ignores the needs of children for the care, love and
discipline of both mother and father; it ignores the need for children to grow
up in a stable family environment.
The idea
that Christ taught that adultery severs the relationship between parents and
their children is absurd. It is unthinkable that Christ taught that children
should regard an adulterous parent ‘as good as dead’. Yet the Protestant
doctrine allows divorce even although one of the essential family relationships
is still intact—the relationship between parents and their children. According
to this doctrine, either Jesus believed that the role of the father is not
really important, or that a father, although excluded from the family, can still
fulfil his responsibilities towards his children. The implication is that Jesus
taught that adultery is a sufficient moral ground to break a family home and
deprive children of the care of either father or mother. This doctrine has a
devastating effect on children. It places the happiness of husband and wife
above the moral well-being of children, and above the stability of the family.
The children’s well-being is considered to be of secondary importance compared
to the needs of the individual parents. What is more, when a parent leaves the
family home because of a marital offence, this is made blatantly obvious to
children, although they do not understand it. Children are astounded that their
parents can so easily depart from the family home, and that they do so with the
apparent blessing of the Church.
Does this
doctrine really express the mind and attitude of Jesus towards children? Is
Jesus, who received the little children despite the objections of his disciples,
the one who is responsible for the doctrine that has led to millions of children
growing up without a father? No, it is unthinkable that people should claim
that the teaching of Jesus allows children to be deserted by their parents. The
express purpose of the teaching of Jesus is to preserve the family and prevent
children suffering the consequences of broken homes, even to the extent of
stating, as he did, that marriage is indissoluble. It is unthinkable that the
teaching of Jesus has made children the innocent victims of divorce. The
falseness of the Protestant doctrine is a travesty of the teaching of Christ.
Because
Jesus’ teaching against divorce was so strong and so opposed to the prevailing
view of the time, his disciples responded with the amazing statement, ‘If this
is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry’ (Matthew
19:10). Clearly even his disciples found it difficult to accept his
uncompromising teaching, for they understood it to mean that marriage is for
life, and so divorce with remarriage is not an option. This teaching was even
stricter than the strictest teaching of the Pharisees. Jesus replied, ‘Not
everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given.
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way
by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.
The one who can accept this should accept it’ (Matthew 19:11–12). With this
reply, was Jesus acknowledging that not everyone could accept this word, which
is the situation today, where remarriage has become common in some parts of the
Church?
Jesus
emphasised the seriousness of marital unfaithfulness by teaching that it can
lead to a divorce (a separation from bed and board). A husband or wife who
divorces his or her marriage partner because of marital unfaithfulness is not
guilty of immoral behaviour. Instead it is the unfaithful partner who has been
immoral. The shame of adultery is that it can split a family, and be the cause
of suffering for all involved. It can therefore never be condoned, even though
it may be forgiven. In some marriages, plagued by persistent unfaithfulness,
divorce may be the only solution. In effect, adultery can wreck a marriage and
damage the family. It is a heinous sin because it affects so many other people;
it is a total disaster for all concerned. However, Jesus taught an attitude of
forgiveness and reconciliation. ‘First go and be reconciled to your brother;
then come and offer your gift’ (Matthew 5:24). In a marriage in which there is
marital unfaithfulness the innocent party should do all he or she can to
persuade their unfaithful spouse to a change of heart, and so bring about
reconciliation that would save the marriage. Many people, when they face the
awful consequences of adultery, come to their senses and repent of their sin.
Jesus taught that divorce can only be considered when there is marital
unfaithfulness––and even then Hosea’s marriage is an example. Everything
possible should be done to save a marriage. However, as we have already seen, a
legal divorce for marital unfaithfulness does not allow a remarriage because in
God’s eyes the marriage bond is still intact.
Teaching of the apostle Paul
The
apostle answered a number of inquiries from Christian believers concerning
marriage in his first letter to the Corinthian Church. In particular Paul deals
with two important questions. The first was––is divorce permitted? Paul
writes:
To the
married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from
her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled
to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife (1 Corinthians
7:10–11).
Paul
is teaching new believers and stresses that he is giving them a command from
the Lord. And the command from the Lord is clear and emphatic––a wife must not
separate from her husband. However, should circumstances arise which make
separation inescapable, then the deserted wife has two options: either to be
reconciled to her husband or to remain unmarried. Note that remarriage is not
an option. It seems unlikely that Paul would have failed to mention the
possibility of remarriage for the divorced woman, if he understood that the
teaching of Christ allowed remarriage. But Paul does not do so. Instead, he
reaffirms the teaching of no remarriage in the strongest possible way.
According
to Andrew Cornes, Paul knew of the one exception that Christ allowed namely,
divorce in a case of marital unfaithfulness. ‘Paul knows this and includes it
in his quotation of Christ’s teaching. Christ taught not only that a woman
should not divorce her husband and a man should not divorce his wife. He also
taught that you may divorce for adultery. Moreover, that exception of Christ’s
came in a setting where remarriage was being discussed. So Christ also taught
(according to Paul here) that if (following Christ’s permission) you divorce for
adultery, then you must remain single or be reconciled to your partner. This is
what Paul is doing: relaying Christ’s teaching about the right marital state
after the one exception Christ allowed: divorce for adultery. The only
difference is that Christ put it negatively (to remarry is to commit adultery)
whereas Paul puts Christ’s teaching positively (after divorce, you must remain
single or be reconciled).’26
FF Bruce adds the comment, ‘For a Christian husband or wife divorce is excluded
by the law of Christ: here Paul has no need to express a judgement of his own,
for the Lord’s ruling on the matter was explicit.’27
Paul then
deals with the issue of the Christian married to a non-Christian. Can they
divorce?
To the
rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a
believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a
woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her,
she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified
through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her
believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they
are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or
woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace (1
Corinthians 7:12–15).
The
essence of Paul’s teaching is that a believing husband or wife must not divorce
his or her unbelieving marriage partner. He mentions that the unbelieving
partner and children have been sanctified through the marriage, indicating that
their hope of salvation lies in the witness of the Christian parent. The
children love both parents, believer and non-believer, and want their family to
remain together. It is unthinkable that the Christian parent would do anything
to destroy their family. Therefore the Christian should do all he or she can to
preserve the marriage and pray for the conversion of the unbelieving partner
which God frequently brings about.
In the
situation where the unbelieving partner chooses to leave the marriage, despite
the Christian spouse having done all they can to preserve it, the Christian
should not resist, but allow the unbeliever to leave in peace. But there is no
suggestion that the Christian who is left by an unbelieving partner is permitted
to remarry. Should an unbelieving partner leave the family home, the Christian
spouse should do all in their power to achieve reconciliation; remarriage,
which destroys the hope of reconciliation, should not enter their mind.
The
so-called Pauline privilege, which allows remarriage for desertion, is derived
from the words ‘a believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances’.
According to Stephen Clark in Putting Asunder (1999), evangelicals who
believe that Jesus allows divorce and remarriage for sexual infidelity have long
been divided over the question as to whether Paul allows another ground for
divorce in this verse. ‘Some have argued that this verse allows divorce for
desertion, while others have said that it teaches no such thing. Those who
believe that it allows for divorce in cases of desertion differ amongst
themselves as to the type of situation with which Paul is dealing.’28 The New Bible Commentary suggests that this verse
probably allows divorce for desertion. ‘Separation in this case presumably
means that the Christian is free to marry someone else––provided he or she is a
Christian.’29
But this interpretation appears to be reading into these
words what human nature wishes to find, for a perfectly valid interpretation is
that a Christian is absolved from pursuing an unbelieving spouse, because ‘God
has called us to live in peace’. To interpret the words as overriding the clear
command from the Lord (that a separated wife must remain unmarried or else be
reconciled to her husband) is perverse. Moreover, such an interpretation is out
of sympathy with the instruction that ‘each one should retain the place in life
that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him’ (1 Corinthians
7:17). Paul’s final summing up leaves no doubt about his teaching regarding
remarriage:
‘A
woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she
is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord’ (1
Corinthians 7:39).
Here
Paul mentions the one and only situation in which a woman is permitted to
remarry, and that is on the death of her husband; and this is because she is
bound to her husband for life. If Paul was teaching that remarriage was
permitted for desertion he would surely have said so––he could have written ‘but
if her husband dies or leaves her’ but he did not do so. Like Jesus, Paul
taught that marriage was indissoluble except by death.
Two
doctrines on divorce, but one is false
From
our study of the history of divorce we have seen that since the time of the
Reformation the Christian Church has been split on the issue. Some theologians,
building on the work of Erasmus and Luther, claim that Jesus allows full divorce
(a divorce that dissolves the marriage bond and allows remarriage) in the case
of adultery and desertion. This view has become increasingly popular during the
20th century, and is held by most evangelical Christians and Protestant
denominations, and is gaining ground in the Church of England. It underpins the
campaign to change the marriage discipline of the Church of England and
introduce remarriage in church during the lifetime of a former partner.
On the
other side of the doctrinal divide are those who believe that marriage is an
indissoluble union created by God; that the teaching of the Scriptures permit
separation without the right to remarry because the marriage bond is still
intact and cannot be broken by legal divorce. The Roman Catholic Church has
always held this position, and it is found in the canon law of the Church of
England.
These two
positions are, of course, diametrically opposed to each other and they cannot
both be right; it follows, therefore, that there is a major error in one section
of the Christian Church. All the evidence considered in this book suggests that
the Protestant doctrine of divorce is based on a false interpretation of the
teaching of Christ. The weight of biblical teaching is that divorce is wrong
and against God’s will; that it is rebellion against God’s divine institution of
marriage. From the very beginning, God’s intention was that marriage is for
life.
Endnotes
Chapter 16. Why God hates divorce
1. Gordon J. Wenham and William A. Heth. Jesus and Divorce.
Updated edition, Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 1997.
2. Andrew Cornes. Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical
Principles and Pastoral Practice. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1993.
3. Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology. Leicester,
Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, p515.
4. John Richardson. God, Sex and Marriage. London, MPA
Books and St Matthias Press, 1998, p40.
5. J. Carl Laney. ‘No divorce and no remarriage’, in H. Wayne
House (ed.), Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Downers Grove,
Ill., Inter-Varsity Press, 1990, p31.
6. Wenham and Heth. Jesus and Divorce, p125.
7. Ibid. p126.
8. J.P. Whitney, in Report of the Royal Commission on
Divorce. London, HMSO, 1912, p275.
9. Divorce. Report of the Lower House of the
Convocation of York. Westminster, National Society, Sanctuary, 1896.
10. Cornes. Divorce and Remarriage, p196.
11. Ibid. p193.
12. John Calvin. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. A
Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, translated by T. Parker,
David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (eds.), Carlisle, Paternoster Press,
1995, vol. 1, p246.
13. Martin Luther. The Christian Society. Walther I.
Brandt (ed.), (Luther’s Works, vol. 45), Philadelphia, Concordia Publishing
House, p32.
14. Martin Luther. Sermon on the Mount. Jaroslav
Pelikan (ed.), (Luther’s Works, vol. 21), St Louis, Concordia Publishing
House, p96.
15. Robert Shaw. The Reformed Faith: an Exposition of the
Westminster Confession of Faith. Inverness, Christian Focus Publications,
Reprint 1974, p257.
16. Divorce. Report of the Lower House of the
Convocation of York, p46.
17. Cited from Rev Arthur C.A. Hall, Bishop of Vermont, in
Divorce in America by Rev Gwynne, Macmillan Company, 1925. p133.
18. K.E. Kirk. Marriage and Divorce. Centenary Press,
1933, pp107-10.
19. Cornes. Divorce and Remarriage, p216.
20. Ibid. p214.
21. Wenham and Heth. Jesus and Divorce, p110.
22. Ibid. p120.
23. Ibid. p126.
24. P.P. Levertoff and H.L. Goudge. ‘The Gospel according to St
Matthew’, in C. Gore, H.L. Goudge, A. Guillaume (eds.), A New Commentary on
Holy Scripture. New York, Macmillan, 1928, p174, cited by William A. Heth.
‘Divorce, but No Remarriage’, in H. Wayne House (ed.), Divorce and
Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Downers Grove, Ill., Inter-Varsity Press,
1990, p100.
25. Stephen Clark. Putting Asunder. Divorce and Remarriage
in Biblical and Pastoral Perspective. Bridgend, Bryntirion Press, 1999, p91.
26. Cornes. Divorce and Remarriage, p243.
27. F.F. Bruce. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free.
Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1977, p1676, cited by J. Carl Laney. ‘No divorce and no
remarriage’, in H. Wayne House (ed.), Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian
Views. Downers Grove, Ill., Inter-Varsity Press, 1990, p41.
28. Stephen Clark. Putting Asunder, p137.
29. Norman Hillyer. ‘1 and 2 Corinthians’,
D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer, A.M. Stibbs, D.J. Wiseman (eds.), The New Bible
Commentary. London, Inter-Varsity Press, 1970, p1060
|