What Does the Bible Say About Marriage and Divorce?

The institution of marriage is first given in the context of creation itself (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:18-25).1  It was after God created Eve from one of Adam’s ribs and “brought her unto the man” (Gen. 2:21-25), that the most intimate of relationships was established by God, that is, the permanent union of “the man and his wife” in marriage.  The responsibility placed upon Adam is that he is to “leave his father and his mother” and to “cleave unto his wife” in order that the two would start a new family (2:24).  Arnold Fruchtenbaum used to say in class that the woman was not taken from Adam’s head in order to dominate him, nor from his feet to be trampled by him, rather it was from his rib (under his arm) in order that he would protect her and draw her near to his heart.

God’s purpose in marriage is to provide for a lack that both the man and woman have alone.  The married woman is to be a “help meet” to her husband.  In other words, the man is not whole without the woman in his life.  The wife provides balance to her husband and it is as though they are two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fitting together.

Truly, the marriage relationship is unique.  For instance, both the man and his wife are to be “one flesh.”  In other words, sex is viewed as a normal and vigorous element of the marriage relationship.  Marriage, according to God, is an everlasting commitment of one man and one woman.  The only provision given for ending marriage is death.  This is the point of Christ’s response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:4-6 (cf. Gen. 2:24).

The issue of marriage and divorce is hit head on in Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-12.  In an attempt to discredit Jesus before the crowds (2), the Pharisees raised the issue of marriage and divorce.  The purpose of the Pharisees question was to test Jesus (3), rather than to seek the truth of the matter.

The first question raised was, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”   Two major interpretations on the subject of divorce prevailed among the Jews.  The liberals taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason.  The conservatives taught that only one reason could be given for divorce and that was sexual unfaithfulness.  The Jews thought they had Jesus in a fix because no matter which interpretation He took someone would be upset and He would lose some credibility.

Rather than being stumped by their question, Jesus explained to the Pharisees that they did not understand the institution of marriage.  In verses 4-6, He explains that if they understood the covenant relationship established by God between a man and a woman they would not ask the question.  Their focus should be on the permanence of marriage, not on how to get out of it.

The second question of the Pharisees was to ask, “Why did Moses then command to give writing of divorcement, and to put her away” (7)?  The problem here is that Moses did not command them to divorce their wives; rather, he merely permitted it.  In verse 8, Jesus calls their attention to the fact that Moses permitted divorce “because of the hardness of [their] hearts.”

God’s intention was never for divorce, but divorce is a result of the hardness of man’s heart.  There would be no discussion of divorce if man did not possess such a hard heart.  Divorce takes place out of rebellion towards God, but it is clearly not what God had intended from the beginning of creation.  The problem is not that a couple cannot get along, that is only the symptom.  The real problem is a hardened heart against God concerning what His Word declares.

The only exception for divorce mentioned in Scripture is given in verse 9:  “...except it be for fornication.”  According to this passage, if a couple is not getting along and get divorced only to remarry, Jesus would classify this as adultery.  Scripture is clear then, that whoever divorces except for sexual immorality commits adultery.  In other words, adultery would be the result, not the cause.  Jesus was not contradicting the Mosaic Law rather he was explaining what the law was exemplifying.

In light of Christ’s teaching, the disciples remarked, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” (10).  In other words, if marriage is that binding, the disciples thought, it is better to remain single and not run the risk of committing adultery.  The interesting comment that Christ made was:  “All men cannot receive this saying...He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (vv. 11-12).  The conclusion then is that neither a married life nor a single life should be taken lightly.

Certainly, under the Mosaic Law, divorce was tolerable.  This does not mean that God approved of divorce, but He did permit it.  According to the Mosaic Law, “when a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her:  then let him write her a bill of divorcement” (Deut. 24:1).  In the context, “uncleanness” in the wife is due to the fact that she was not a virgin (Deut. 22:13-21).  In other words, she had deceived her husband as to her virginity.  The husband had been “taken in” by her (cf. Mal. 2:16).  The deceived husband’s unchaste wife would then be required by the law to be taken by her parents to a judge, who in turn would bring her to the door of her father’s house, where the men of the city would stone her to death.  Deuteronomy 22:21 explains that the reason for the judgment was to “put evil away from among you.”  However, if the bride was falsely accused then according to verses 16-19 of the same chapter, the marriage continued but the man was then punished.  The man could never bring a charge of fornication against her, nor could he ever “put her away all his days.”

In the early church, the issue of fornication arose prominently in the Corinthian church.  There were people of various religious backgrounds who had married as unbelievers, and now one of the spouses became a Christian.  The question raised is in regards to their relationship with their unbelieving spouse now that one of them is a Christian.  Paul responds, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:  but an if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband:  and let not the husband put away his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11).  The conclusion is obvious:  the Christian is not to leave the marriage.  The sin in this situation began when a Christian separates from their spouse.  It would be the Christian’s responsibility to begin the process of healing.  According to verse 11, the departing Christian could either remain single or be reconciled to their spouse.2  

First Corinthians 7:12-15 speaks of the fact that the unbelieving spouse may want to leave the marriage since the other has become a Christian.  In this case, Paul says, “if the unbelieving depart, let him depart” (15).  The Scriptures continue:  “a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.”  Barnes interprets the “bondage” in this context as follows:

The sense of the expression “is not bound,” etc., is, that if they forcibly depart, the one that is left is not bound by the marriage tie to make provision for the one that departed; to do acts that might be prejudicial to religion by a violent effort to compel [“God hath called us to peace”] the departing husband or wife to live with the one that is forsaken, but is at liberty to live separate, and should regard it as proper so to do.”3

Therefore, the “bondage” spoken of here is not in reference to the marriage itself, rather it deals only with the subject of separation.  Scripture is teaching that if an unbeliever departs, the unbeliever should be allowed to do so peacefully.  Clearly, God hates divorce and has only permitted divorce for sexual immorality prior to the marriage that was concealed from the one’s spouse.  In such a case, the innocent party is free to remarry so long as the accusation is true.  As far as 1 Corinthians 7:15 teaches, it appears that the passage is referring to separation and not addressing the subject of divorce and remarriage when an unbeliever has departed from a Christian spouse.  It is quite probable that after the desertion that the unbeliever will enter into a new relationship and marry another, which would then break the marriage bond.  At this point, it would be unnecessary for the deserted spouse to remain unmarried and should feel free to remarry.

Regarding those who have broken God’s command, having divorced and remarried, it is important that each “abide in the same calling wherein he was called” (20).  In other words, God views one’s current marriage as binding, even if there have been previous marriages.  The past is the past.  Divorce is not the unforgivable sin, but it certainly is sin and Christians can thank God for His forgiveness.  However, one must be careful to not pervert the teachings of Scripture by adopting an attitude that divorce is forgiven (just as any other sin) and thus one is free to divorce and remarry so long as the same person asks God to forgive their sin.  Grace is never a license to sin!  Sometimes, Christians may sin because they know that they will be forgiven, but this does not mean that God’s discipline will not result.  King David is an example of one whom God forgave for his immorality, but God did punish David and so will He with those who make a mockery of His grace.  Understanding the teaching of Scripture means that we are responsible to live our lives in obedience to God’s commands.  Marriage is a marvelous gift of God and certainly is not to be taken lightly.  The following Scripture is particularly pertinent in today’s society:  “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6).

1 Charles C. Ryrie, “Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage,” in Grace Theological Journal,” Volume 3, Number 2 (Fall 1982):  178.

2 J. Vernon McGee, When Divorce is Scriptural and Marriage is Unscriptural (Pasadena:  Thru the Bible Books, n.d.), pp. 15-16.

3 Albert Barnes, Notes on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Edinburgh:  Gall & Inglis, 1847), p. 150.