Are There Any Biblical Grounds for Divorce?
The Christians who think they know so much of the Bible are arguing against the ipsissima verba of the Lord Jesus Christ. Contrary to His explicit words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, they argue that there is no ground for divorce in the Bible. Although they may be sincere, their argument is borne out of their lack of understanding of what God has taught in the Bible on the subject.
There are two clear biblical grounds for divorce in the Bible. To teach otherwise is to teach human doctrines which deny the truth from God. In this article, I will touch on the two grounds of divorce allowed in the New Testament. The first is immoral sexual act committed by a married woman (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:9). The second is where a spouse who is an unbeliever refuses to remain married to a brother or a sister because of his/her faith in Christ (1 Cor. 7:12-15). Shortly, we will examine what the Bible says on them.
Marital Unfaithfulness
God commanded the Israelites through Moses that any man who finds some indecency in his wife which makes her displeasing to him should give her certificate of divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). This enables the woman to remarry. The New Testament makes us know that God permitted this because of their stubbornness (Matt. 19:8).
As part of His sermon on a mountain (Matt. 5-7) Jesus Christ revised and reenacted the law governing divorce given the Jewish ancestors by Moses. He made his listeners know that the Jewish legalistic observance of the issuance of certificates of divorce to their wives for every frivolous reason was an act in unrighteousness because they exposed their wives to adultery through their heartless and reckless issuance of certificates of divorce to their wives. He said, “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matt. 5:31-32 NKJV, emphases added throughout).
Later in the course of His ministry, the Pharisees in their usual manner tempted Him. They asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (Matt 19:3 NIV). He made them know God’s original plan for marriage which is, that each marriage should last for a lifetime. But determined to trap Him, they asked why Moses in the Law allowed them to give a certificate of divorce? In His answer He told them that God permitted it because of their hard-heartedness. He then asserted once again that the only ground on which God will allow a woman to be divorced by her husband is if she has committed adultery. He said, “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 sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt. 19:8-9 NIV).
The words “sexual immorality” (“fornication” in KJV) used by Jesus in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 is translated from the Greek “porneia” which encompasses all forms of sexual sins including fornication, harlotry, adultery, incest, homosexuality, or figuratively, idolatry.
A woman who goes outside the marriage to sleep with another man has become one flesh with the other man. Compare 1 Cor. 6:15-16. By that act, she has regarded her husband as dead and violated the original marriage bond between her and her husband. Spiritually, she has become dead to her husband and therefore needs to be disposed of. In the Old Testament such a woman was punished by being stoned to death alongside the man who slept with her (Lev. 20:10).
In the case where a woman is divorced because her husband found uncleanness or something indecent about her, the law was, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance” (Deut. 24:1-4 NKJV).
This is the reason King David did what is recorded in the verse of the Bible cited below:
“When David came to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to look after the palace and placed them in seclusion. Their needs were provided for, but he no longer slept with them. So each of them lived like a widow until she died. (2 Sam. 20:3 NLT). Compare 2 Samuel 16:20-22.
David did what we read here because the concubines had been defiled by Absalom, on the advise of Ahithophel, for political reasons. This put them in the same situation as a woman who has slept with another man after she had been divorced by her husband. According to Deut. 24:4, it is an abomination for her former husband to sleep with her again. David therefore would have committed an abomination if he had continued sleeping with the women. He knew they were not to blame for their defilement or uncleanness by reason of the fact that his son Absalom had slept with them. But the fact remained that another man had slept with them and David was therefore forbidden to have the normal husband-wife relationship with any of them again. His action of providing their needs but not sleeping with them showed that he had no grudge against the women. What he did was borne out of his reverence for God’s word. It is a pity that modern men have twisted and distorted God’s word so much that we have drained God’s power out of our lives. To sleep with a wife who has gone into adultery causes the husband to be defiled.
By reason of Absalom sleeping with his father’s concubines, he made them commit what we may call an “involuntary adultery” which, on the part of the women, was adultery all the same. David knew he would have trampled on God’s law if he went to sleep with the women after their “involuntary adultery”. The women themselves knew the evil that Absalom, on the counsel of Ahithophel, had brought on them. They had no choice but patiently bear their seclusion until their death.
According to the Lord, the punishment for adultery is no longer summary execution as required by the Mosaic law (Lev. 20:10; cf. John 8:4-11) but that the adulteress should be put away and remain unmarried until her death. This way she’ll have the chance to repent and her case will serve as a strong warning to others (John 8:11; 1 Tim. 5:20). But the innocent husband can remarry since, spiritually speaking, his adulterous wife is dead and has been “buried,” so to speak, by being divorced.
Religious Intolerance
The second reason divorce is allowed in the Bible is when an unbelieving man or woman cannot tolerate his or her spouse because the other partner has become a believer. Apostle Paul put it this way:
“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 it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace” (1 Cor. 7:12-15 NIV).
The passage is straightforward and explicit enough. The only point of disagreement is the phrase “not bound” which has been interpreted in different ways. Some teach that in such circumstances, divorce can take place but the believer must not remarry. Others are of the opinion that the law of marriage which binds the couple together is removed since it was the unbeliever who rejected all entreaties except that the believer should reject God and remain an unbeliever with him or her. The second school of thought is more likely the one that teaches the mind of Paul on the subject. The believer in this case is free to remarry but he or she must marry a fellow believer.
What Some People Teach
Some teachers often cite Malachi 2:16 where God said, “I hate divorce” and use it as a premise for their argument that there is no ground for divorce in the Bible.
Others deny the explicit words of the Lord in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 and stick to their preference that the Bible does not give any room for divorce. They say the clause “except for sexual immorality” used by the Lord Jesus Christ in the two places is found only in the Gospel of Matthew. Using 2 Cor. 13:1 as a proof text, they argue that “there must be more than one place (different authors) a truth is mentioned in the Bible before it can be taught as a doctrine.”
These arguments are weak because they are borne out of ignorance of the Scriptures. The reader is here called upon to consider these few points:
- God hates divorce just as He hates sin. But until the Judgment Day comes, the people who do not know God will continue in their sins which include unfaithfulness in marriages and divorce for every foolish and frivolous reasons. God hates to see sinners die in their sins (Ezek. 18:32; 33:11). God continues to show His love to sinners so as to make His goodness lead them to repentance (Rom. 2:4). But the truth is that some people will not repent of their sins and yield to God; they’ll still die in their sins. God hates divorce but when adultery has been committed by a woman who is married, she has become dead in the sight of God. Heaven says she has to be put away just as loved ones who are dead are taken away by being buried. Failure to obey this New Testament law has led to the spiritual “contamination” of many homes. This is one reason the power of God has left many of us who profess to be Christians. Denial of this biblical truth of divorcing an adulterous wife is also the reason adultery is now festering in our churches.
- Those who teach that the phrase “except for sexual immorality” should not be taught as a doctrine because it is found only in Matthew, that is, a kind of hapax legomenon, are estopped by the fact that they have taught many such hapax legomena as doctrines. They teach as doctrine, and rightly so, Matt. 5:28 where the Lord said, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This teaching is found only in this verse of Matthew. The phrase “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) is also found nowhere except in Matthew, but they teach it. The word “Calvary” (Luke 23:33) which they use almost everyday is found only in the KJV. Luke did not even use this word in the original manuscript; he used the Greek word “Kranion” which means skull. The phrase “your whole spirit, soul and body” is also found only in 1 Thes. 5:23. These are a few of such things mentioned once in the Bible which they teach contrary to their own rule. Their manmade rule with which they want to set aside the ipsissima verba of our Lord Jesus Christ in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 is a ruse and therefore flawed.
- The fact that the clause “except for sexual immorality” is found only in Matthew is not cogent enough to refute the clause. It should be noted that only Matthew recorded the sermon on a mountain in chapters 5 to 7. This is where many of the Old Testament laws were revised and reenacted by the Lord. See verses 21 to 48 of chapter 5. Therein, Jesus revised and reenacted six Old Testament laws – murder (vv. 21-26), adultery (vv. 27-30), divorce (vv. 31-32), oaths (vv. 33-37), revenge (vv. 38-42), and love for enemies (vv. 43-48). In each of these subjects He made a revision by saying “but I say” (vv. 22,28,32,34,39,44). All of them are revisions from Heaven (Matt. 17:5; John 7:16; 12:48-50). None of them can be said to be an adaptation by Matthew. None of them can be controverted without distorting or mutilating the truth from heaven.
- Jesus is the holy one from heaven. He is the embodiment of truth (Rev. 3:14). Therefore, the law of establishing the truth from the words of two or more people as required in the Bible (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28) should not be applied to the words of Jesus Christ.
- The only acceptable argument that can be brought against the exception clause in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 is if it was not in the original writing of Matthew. Nothing of such is found. The textual experts have noted that there are no Greek manuscripts that omit the exception clause. Therefore, there exists no ground to suggest that the exception clause is an interpolation that was made in the early church.
- The fact that Mark and Luke did not make mention of the exception clause is not a valid ground to reject the clause. A similar case is found in Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. When John reported the event (John 12:12-14), he did not give details regarding where the crowd who went to welcome the Lord met Him and the tumultuous jubilation with which the people entered Jerusalem. But Matthew gave a fuller detail of the event in Matt. 21:1-11. With regard to the exception clause in Matthew, the narrative would have been different if the account of Mark and Luke contradict that of Matthew. In the two cases there are no contradictions. It’s just that one author gives a fuller detail than the others. There’s therefore no valid ground of rejecting the account of Matthew simply because Mark and Luke failed to mention the exception clause. In fact, there would have been a good ground to accuse the gospel writers of plagiarism if they have written exactly the same thing on all the events covered by them. And there would have been no need of having four different gospel authors.
It is evident that those who teach that there is no ground of divorce are simply teaching what they want to believe and not what the Bible teaches. Today’s churches seem to be growing worse and worse in their delusion and distortion of the truth. One of them wrote in 2008, “In the New Testament, fornication and adultery are terrible sins but not unpardonable sins. If the fornicator or the adulterer realizes the enormity of his or her sins, God will forgive and restore fully to divine fellowship” – “Christ’s Sermon on the Mount,” Study 23, page 63.But in 2021, this is what the same church wrote on the same subject: “Divorce and marrying a divorcee when the husband or wife is still alive is sin that the mercy of God does not cover” – Daily Manna, Tuesday, 3rd August, 2021, captioned “Divorce and Remarriage Forbidden”.
In the same article of August 3, 2021, we read this: “God did not anticipate any divorce in His marriage plan for man. But hardness of heart drove the children of Israel to pressurize Moses their leader to amend God’s plan in granting them the issuance of bill of divorcement to put away their wives for every cause.”
This church has changed the sin of adulteryfrom being a pardonable sin to an unpardonable sin. They say the Omniscient God did not anticipate divorce and that it was Moses who amended God’s plan of marriage. These unfortunate statements are clear evidence that this church does not have a proper understanding of the Scriptures. They also do not know the power of the Almighty God. Is there anything that ever happened that the Omniscient One has not foreseen or expected? Why should one teach that Moses, the faithful and meek servant of God, changed God’s plan? It should not be surprising that a church which teach these ridiculous things should say there’s no ground for divorce after Christ had taught that marital unchastity is a ground for divorce. They are wrong because they lacked insight into the Scriptures.
What About Domestic Violence (Martial Abuse)?
Shouldn’t marital abuse be a ground for divorce? Well, the Bible has not given domestic violence as a ground for divorce. However, as domestic violence, especially against women in their marriages, some resulting in death, have become so common nowadays, it should be of concern to the Church and the government. It should be pointed out that although most domestic violence are committed against women, there are few cases where the one abused in a marriage is the man.
According to the American Bar Association, “Domestic violence is a pattern of many behaviors directed at achieving and maintaining power and control over an intimate partner, such as physical violence, emotional abuse, isolation of the victim, economic abuse, intimidation, and coercion and threats.”
In a marriage where a spouse suffers any of the following, such a one must take action to protect her or him from further harm:
- the abuser harms or tries to harm you physically;
- the abuser makes you afraid that serious physical harm is going to happen to you;
- the abuser threatens, pressures or forces you to have sex.
If both partners are Christians, the abused spouse should report the incident to the church for mediation. If the abusive partner repeats the violence after the mediation of the church, the abused partner, if resident in Nigeria, should waste no time in going to the Human Rights Office at any Police Station and lodge a formal complaint against the abuser. The Police will invite the abuser and make him or her sign an undertaking to be of good behavior. The undertaking serves as a restraining order on the abuser.
If the violent partner is not a Christian, there will be no need of reporting him or her to the Church. Getting the Police (Human Rights Office) involved will be the proper thing to do. These are steps that ought to lead the abuser to civility and peaceful relationship with the abused spouse. Divorce is not the intended outcome of these efforts. But if the abuser appears to be unrepentant, the abused partner may need to separate from the abuser for a time to make room for the abuser to come to his or her senses. Separation for a time is not divorce. And when the abuser eventually becomes repentant, his or her reunion with the abused spouse should be supervised by the Church or the Police that handled the matter. Depending on the disposition of the abusive partner, the period of the separation may be some few months. During the period of separation, counselling sessions need to be organized for the partners. It is better that the two partners are made to have the counselling at different dates or times so that their coming together is avoided during the period of separation. They should not be allowed to see each other. They will long for each other if they still have love for each other. The people handling the counselling need to ascertain that the abuser has truly turned over a new leaf before a proper reconciliation can be assured.
It is necessary for reconciliation to be properly and professionally handled so that marital abuse is not allowed to degenerate to the point where one partner either permanently maims or kills the other partner.
Our church leaders should know the enormity of domestic violence in our days. They should always remember that the Bible has warned that in these last days people will not love others except their own selves, become lovers of money, proud, brutal, have no self-control, etc. (2 Tim. 3:1-5). They are therefore called upon to view all cases of domestic violence, at their embryo stages, with utmost seriousness. Many cases of domestic violence will not result in serious harm or fatality if handled with utmost seriousness and professionalism right from the very time they are reported to the relevant institutions. The abused partner will not do herself or himself any good by delaying to report the abuse to the Church or the Police. The Church must handle cases of marital abuse with firmness. I say this because I know that many churches handle disputes brought to them in a milk-and-water manner that they end up having the disputes unsatisfactorily resolved. If domestic violence will not result in divorce or fatality, proper and permanent reconciliation of the partners must be done without fear or favour.
Conclusion
There are two grounds on which divorce is explicitly allowed in the Bible. The first is sexual unfaithfulness within marriage (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). The second is refusal to remain married to a spouse who has become a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 7:12-15). Those who teach that there is no biblical ground for divorce are teaching what they want to believe and not what the Bible has explicitly revealed. They are wrong because they don’t understand the Scriptures and they don’t know the mind and power of God.
Domestic violence is not shown to be one of the grounds for divorce. But in view of the fact that increasing number of women are being brutalized by their spouses who are supposed to protect them, the Church must handle this problem with utmost firmness.
