Divorce

Divorce is a tragic dimension of everyday life. With a significant percentage of marriages ending in divorce in the Western world, many people are skipping marriage altogether and are simply cohabiting. Others want to get married “until death us do part,” as the vows state, but enter marriage with a deep fear that they may become a statistic. Still others, influenced by a culture of “throwaway” relationships, enter marriage with an emotional loophole, thinking (often unconsciously), If it doesn’t work out we can always get a divorce. Rather than being a covenant for lifelong companionship, marriage today is frequently reduced to a contract for the mutual meeting of needs. “So long as we both shall live” has become “so long as we both shall love.” Taken in its best light, divorce is regarded by many as part of the process of personal growth. But the negative consequences for children, families, society, morality, mental health and education are documented over and over again in both popular and scholarly works.

Approaching the Divorce Question

It is not the purpose of this article to consider all aspects of divorce including the emotional stages of divorce that precede legal divorce, preparation for a divorceless covenant (Stevens 1990), strategies for turning a for-worse into a for-better marriage (Stevens 1986; Weiner-Davis), or the recovery process when one has been divorced (Wallerstein and Blakeslee; Weiss). Rather it is concerned with the theology and spirituality of divorce: how we are to think about it, how divorce affects our relationship with God, and how we are to relate to this phenomenon in the world today. It must be said at the outset that nobody likes divorce (except a few who profit financially from it) and almost nobody wants to get divorced. Further, those people who have been divorced have not committed the unforgivable sin and are in deep need of love and acceptance.

The fundamental assumption of this article is that a theology and spirituality of divorce must rest on the Bible rather than on statistics, social mores or expediency. When it comes to divorce, taking the Bible as authority is a complicated matter. The church has tried to understand the divorce question in at least three ways: (1) through a legal-like interpretation of Scripture to find the permissible grounds, (2) by interpreting Scripture through the lens of dispensational thinking to find out whether the hard passages are really for today or some other age and (3) through biblical theology that considers two realities—Scripture and contemporary culture. We will consider each of these in turn and then offer a spiritual reflection.

It is difficult to speak of divorce and marriage at the same time. That seems to have been Jesus’ dilemma when he was pressed with questions about the legality of divorce by his contemporaries (Matthew 19:3-4). In effect, he said, “I can’t speak about divorce until I have brought you back to God’s intention in Genesis, which takes us beyond culture into the paradise of God. When two are united by God, and have become one, you would be tearing apart a God-given unity if you divorced them.” To quote Jesus’ actual words, “What God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). While Jesus does not say that divorce causes polygamy (or polyandry), he implies this by stating that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Simply put, someone who already belongs to someone should not, perhaps cannot, also belong to another. Whether the practice results in multiple wives simultaneously (as in some cultures) or multiple wives sequentially (as in our culture), the effect is the same. Modern practice and biblical truth require treating the divorce question as a case study in serial polygamy and polyandry, as unpopular as this might be.

The Textual/Legal Approach

Those who approach the subject of divorce from a legal perspective are concerned to find the correct grounds for permissible divorce. This necessitates dealing with the absolute statements against divorce in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. These must be considered in light of the clause “except for marital unfaithfulness” found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. On the assumption that Mark and Luke knew of this clause, some argue that a person can be divorced if he or she is the innocent party of a marriage that has been destroyed by adultery. If death permits the physical survivor to remarry (Romans 7:3), adultery may permit the “moral survivor” to remarry.

Peter Davids argues, however, that when Jesus was asked for a rabbinic interpretation of Deut. 24, Jesus rejected this passage as a permission for divorce. Davids’s point centers on the argument that one cannot really divorce; that is, the divorce decree is a legal fiction. The parties involved have sinned, but they have not ended the marriage. The relationship can be negative, distant and cold, but it has not been annulled. These two cannot be as they were before marriage. The Deuteronomy passage ceases to have relevance for us in Christ except in the case of a woman or man desiring to return to a former spouse after a remarriage to a second spouse had terminated, for that is what Deut. 24 deals with. Even then, the full light of forgiveness in Christ might make us reconsider this as legislation applying to the Christian today.

A further problem Davids explores concerns the language found in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9: the Greek word porneia is used rather than the usual term for adultery, moicheia. This suggests that Jesus is dealing not with marital adultery but with premarital sexual sin. While the Old Testament called for stoning to death one who committed such sexual sin (porneia), divorce would have been more likely in the New Testament period. Joseph’s predicament with Mary, and his intended righteous action, is a case in point. Frequently, those who try to uncover the legal grounds for divorce in the New Testament fail to notice that in the Gospels adultery is grounds for forgiveness, not divorce. They also fail to note that according to Jesus, the lustful eye—intending adultery—is as evil as the deed. This makes almost everyone divorceable.

What about the second ground for divorce in the Bible, that is, the case of desertion by an unbelieving partner: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances” (1 Cor. 7:15)? In this case one partner has become a Christian, and the other demands either renunciation of faith or the end of the marriage. Where one must make such a soul-wounding choice, Paul advises that the believer is not bound to his or her partner. But, he is careful to note, the believer does not deny his Lord (or defile the marriage) by remaining married to an unbeliever, if this is possible.

In fact, no sooner has Paul said that the believer need not restrain the unbeliever from leaving (though the believer is not to take the initiative) than he reminds the believer that a believing husband may even save the wife (1 Cor. 7:16). Previously Paul had said that an unbelieving husband is already sanctified through his believing wife (1 Cor. 7:14). The use of the term “not bound” in 1 Cor. 7:15 emphasizes the freedom of the Christian spouse, and it is possible that Paul would give cautious permission for remarriage of the believer in those cases where the unbeliever has contracted another marital union. But it is highly unlikely that Paul is counseling divorce and remarriage for the believer when the unbelieving spouse remains unconnected with another marital partner.

One aspect is seldom noted by those who legislate on the matter of a marriage between a believing and an unbelieving spouse: the Christian spouse should not be such a nuisance to his or her partner, such an unpleasant believer, perhaps even a superspiritual believer no longer interested in sex, that the unbeliever simply can no longer tolerate living under the same roof. Just as it is difficult to locate absolutely the “innocent” party in the case of marital unfaithfulness, so it is difficult to locate the innocent party in the case of a deserting unbeliever. In both cases believers are not to end their marriages.

There is no New Testament legislation concerning persons divorced and remarried before becoming Christians. The gospel covers that possibility, and every other one as well, by proclaiming a new start in Christ. The New Testament simply does not deal with the situation of an abused woman (or man). Presumably Paul, if he had ruled on this in the spirit of Jesus, would have said that a woman should not submit to abuse even if her husband, by not getting his own way, leaves her. But Paul would also say that while they may separate for peace, or even for personal emotional survival (assuming that all other means of dealing with it have temporarily failed), they are not thereby granted the right to divorce and find another partner. Grace holds out the hope of reconciliation and never gives up hope that the fractured covenant could be healed.

It is difficult to believe that Paul was more lenient than Jesus on the matter of divorce, even though Paul had to legislate whereas Jesus did not. The burden of Paul’s teaching, as it was for Jesus, is the divorceless covenant, not the grounds for permissible divorce. As a realist within the grace of God, Paul dealt with the difficulties in which believers found themselves, but he refused to reduce marriage to a contract with terms that, through being violated, would annul it. It is impossible to legislate for every possible situation in extremely strained marriages by appealing to the teaching of either Jesus or Paul.

Does “sexual impurity” (porneia) in Matthew refer only to heterosexual intercourse? Does it include homosexual acts? Would one homosexual act require divorce? Would porneia include the demand of a husband for sexual variations that are repulsive to his wife? or sexual abuse? or rape within the marriage? Would a wife or husband’s unwillingness to consummate the relationship except to conceive children constitute sexual unfaithfulness? And what happens if the partner is unwilling to have intercourse because she finds her husband overbearing, demanding and manipulative, rather than loving? Anyone wishing to approach divorce from the legal point of view is well advised to read the postbiblical Mishnah. That document prescribes in the most minute detail the conditions and variations that should guide a decision on the legality of divorce in almost every situation. The problem is that there will always be a situation for which the rule does not apply!

The Dispensational Approach

This view takes seriously the existence of different stages in the story of God’s dealing with the human race. Christ taught the ethics of the kingdom and, as the King-in-person, introduced God’s reign into this age. The new age of the kingdom overlaps with the old. And the ethic of the kingdom, it is argued, is too high to be lived out in a partially saved world. According to this view when Jesus spoke about divorceless marriage, he was speaking about life in his ideal kingdom, not about life in this mixed reality we now have of kingdom and flesh. So, for example, Dwight Small argues that we must balance Jesus’ ideal teachings with the realities of the overlapping kingdoms (this age and the next age). While he does not call this dispensational thinking (different parts of the Bible deal with different seasons of God’s saving activity), the effect is the same. It divides the New Testament into parts that apply now and parts that do not. The problem with Small’s approach is that Jesus says it is the foolish person who does not build his life on obedience to his teaching now (Matthew 7:24-27).

P. T. Forsyth takes a slightly different approach worth considering, arguing that the legislation for divorce regarding “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8) is not a concession to individual weakness and human nature but a reflection on the incomplete development of God’s society on earth. Even if we must recognize divorce as a reality, and perhaps even a gracious reality in the case of an innocent victim, we should never lose sight of God’s intention. God’s design is a divorceless covenant, and no marriage should be conceived on any other foundation. Forsyth notes, however, that a move from basing marriage on covenant to consent would change the very idea of marriage. This has now happened. What we are losing today are not marriages but marriage itself—the whole covenant idea.

While we must be realists, we must never accept divorce in a way that erodes the idea of a divorceless covenant. The Christian community is deeply challenged to do this in such a way that the divorced people among us are not made to feel like second-class citizens or marital lepers.

Biblical Theology

A third approach emphasizes the teaching of Jesus that “what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). Until now I have assumed that God is normally pleased to join together those who will enter into a covenant, “as God’s Word doth allow” (as the old marriage service stated), with all its dimensions: leaving, cleaving and one flesh (Genesis 2:24) (see Marriage). But we must ask now whether God joins everyone who gets married. Are there people whose marriage is neither blessed nor founded in God (whether they believe in God or not), and for these people is divorce right, if not necessary? Perhaps no one has thought more comprehensively on this subject than Karl Barth in his work Church Dogmatics. The following discussion summarizes Barth’s theology on the subject.

Marriage (covenant) is an indissoluble union. According to Barth, “the marriage which rests upon the command of God and therefore upon his calling cannot be dissolved by man even if he wishes” (Barth 1968, p. 34). Such a marriage, he argues, makes the indicatives “I am yours” and “you are mine” into imperatives. We must accept this until death us do part. The little key to the exit door is lost. Whoever would enter marriage must renounce the thought of ever leaving it.

Even a well-married couple should not presume on God’s grace. Such a couple, he says, should not rely on the encouraging indications of their marriage but “can only hold fast the mercy of God without any merit of their own” (Barth 1968, p. 35). Beware if they think they stand by their own effort! This is an important corrective to the pragmatic approach today that if you go to enough marriage-enrichment seminars, you can guarantee a good marriage. It is God’s gift!

Can you know for sure your marriage is not blessed by God? Barth says no. Even though there may be many indications of an unsuccessful marriage and people suspect that their marriage lacks God’s blessing, this blessing may simply be hidden from them for the moment. Barth calls them to consider “whether there may not be indications that its malady can finally be healed and its union given permanence” (1968, p. 36).

No matter what, we are to cling to God’s yes. Covenant marriage is based not on external indications but on the call and provision of God. Therefore, since the Word of God is primarily a word of promise and only secondarily a word of judgment, a believer is called to cling to God’s yes rather than his no. For “no negative indications, however bad, can engender the certainty that a particular marriage is without promise and stands finally under the judgment of God because [it is] not . . .‘made in heaven’ ” (Barth 1968, p. 38).

But in an extreme case we may painfully conclude that a couple should not remain married. We must be cautious and unassuming in thinking that we can discern whether or not a marriage is blessed by God. The saying of Jesus cannot be reversed to say “what God has not joined together, let man separate.” Divorce may be permitted where God has evidently condemned the marriage as a noncovenant. Divorce applies only to the legal institution of marriage and not the divine covenant, which is indissoluble. Therefore the covenant is not dissolved, because there never was one.

The church must show compassion to the divorced. Barth asks rhetorically, “May it not be that those who are joined in a ‘good’ marriage are supremely characterized by the fact that they can manifest toward those to whom this boon has not been granted something of the divine mercy which they themselves may enjoy in this respect?” (1968, p. 36). In passing it is worthy of note that often couples with “good marriages” tend to flock together and avoid those with “bad marriages,” each group developing its own support network.

Divorced persons must not be refused remarriage. In Barth’s view, divorced persons know themselves as judged by God in their (noncovenant) marriages, but the church “will not regard them as polluted, or scandalously . . . refuse them the church’s benediction in the case of a second marriage” (1968, p. 41) if they turn in repentance to Christ and the gospel. After all, the ministry of the gospel is to create a new beginning, whether in a single life or to be married again.

The big question is not divorce but marriage. “Legal divorce,” according to Barth, “is not part of the divine command concerning marriage; for this proclaims and requires its indissolubility. It belongs only to the institution of marriage. The human institution takes into account the possibility of marriages which have no divine foundation and constitution . . . and which therefore can be dissolved” (1968, p. 40). In other words, marriage is dissoluble (that is, marriage as a human institution), but the covenant is indissoluble.

Divorce and the Spirituality of the Church

Barth’s reasoning is an attempt to explore God’s Word about divorce. But equally important is the question of what divorce does to our hearing (see Listening) of God’s voice in Scripture and our knowing God’s presence in everyday life. The pastoral approach to divorce has more than one dimension. There is the obvious pastoral concern of how to prevent divorce if possible and care for those going through a divorce. But what does easy and widespread divorce do to our spirituality?

First, the marriage covenant takes us to the heart of God, who is a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. Second, if we cannot believe that God will work a miracle in our hearts to keep covenant with our spouse, even in a difficult marriage (indeed, what marriage is not?), how can we believe that God could work the greater miracle of raising Jesus from the dead? Like Hosea in the Old Testament, we may seek a solution to a difficult marriage beyond the institution of marriage itself. Hosea called his wife Gomer into court and spoke of her as divorced (and perhaps would have gone through a legal divorce) in order to win her back! Third, the essence of being a child of God—contrary to popular psychology—is obedience. If we obey what we already have from God, we can be given more. As we do the truth, God reveals more. Finally, a hard heart is both the cause and usual consequence of divorce (Matthew 19:8). If we harden our heart to our nearest and dearest neighbor, our spouse, we will be dead to the voice of God.

A church where couples can exchange partners freely, where divorce is accepted as a normal growth experience, and where marriage is entered thoughtlessly and lightly as something less than a lifelong covenant is a church that will soon have no real spiritual power and vitality. Love without truth is deadening, but truth without love is deadly. When a church does not stand beside divorced people and offer grace and hope if they turn in repentance to Christ and the gospel but instead offers judgment, condemnation and exclusion, the church will soon not hear the voice of God. Of the three Christian virtues that should be offered by the people of God today, especially in relation to marriage, the one most urgently needed is hope. And hope is what the gospel of Jesus brings.

» See also: Cohabiting

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Family Problems

» See also: Forgiveness

» See also: Marriage

» See also: Promises

References and Resources

K. Barth, Church Dogmatics 3 / 4, The Doctrine of Creation, trans. A. T. Mackay et al. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961); K. Barth, On Marriage (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); P. Davids, “Divorce: The Biblical Data” (Vancouver: Equippers, 1985, unpublished); P. T. Forsyth, Marriage: Its Ethic and Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.); D. H. Small, The Right to Remarry (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1975); J. H. Olthius, I Pledge You My Troth: A Christian View of Marriage, Family, Friendship (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); R. P. Stevens, Getting Ready for a Great Marriage (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1990); R. P. Stevens, Married for Good: The Lost Art of Remaining Happily Married (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986); J. S. Wallerstein and S. Blakeslee, Second Chances (New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1989); M. Weiner-Davis, Divorce-Busting (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992); R. Weiss, Marital Separation (New York: Basic Books, 1976).

—R. Paul Stevens