Did Paul Provide Further Grounds for Divorce and Remarriage?
When God created Eve for Adam, He didn’t simply provide a companion for a single man; He also created an institution that provides all of mankind with a beautiful and enduring picture. God hoped the institution of marriage would prepare mankind for the union Jesus would ultimately achieve with His church and forever provide mankind with an illustration of that union (Ephesians 5:22-33). At its best, marriage mirrors Jesus and the church even as the church, a “kingdom… not of this world” (John 18:36; cf. Colossians 1:13), mirrors Heaven itself.
Satan hates the glimpse that marriage gives us of Heaven. Since the time of that first marriage, he has made every effort first to divide marriages and then, if possible, to see those marriages end in divorce. All at once, divorce seeks to divide “what God has joined together” (Matthew 19:6), destroys the Divine picture God sought to create, and, because of the unique strain and turmoil it brings, very often succeeds in driving a wedge between countless souls and their God. Not only husbands and wives but children, all subsequent progeny, communities, and whole societies are impacted by divorce. Can you see why Malachi records, “For the Lord God of Israel… hates divorce,” and further that divorce “covers one’s garments with violence” (Malachi 2:16)?
In spite of Malachi’s words, some Jews in Jesus’ day felt it was “lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason” (Matthew 19:3; see Mark 10:1-12 for a parallel account). Not everyone agreed with this of course, and the Pharisees saw an opportunity here. If they could get Jesus to weigh in on the debate surrounding divorce, it would guarantee that at least someone would be angry at Him. When they approached Him about it, Jesus simply pointed people back to the beginning, to God’s original design for marriage, adding, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6). This was too radical for even the Pharisees; aware of Deuteronomy 24 and its provision for divorce in at least some situations, they asked, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” (Matthew 19:7).
It’s telling to note that while they used the word “command,” Jesus used the word “permitted” (Matthew 19:7-8). Before we got married, my wife and I agreed never to even mention divorce as though it were an option. In cultures plagued with divorce though, I think people do tend to see divorce as an inescapable conclusion of marriage, an inevitable outcome rather than an avoidable choice. Seeing divorce like the Pharisees did (and like many others did and do) colors the way we see its aftermath and consequences.
Jesus however knew that Moses did not give his instructions because of the inevitability of divorce but, “Because of… hardness of heart.” Further He knew that divorce wasn’t in the original design of marriage: “from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). To bring people back in line with God’s original design for marriage, He authoritatively instituted the truth about marriage that would become a part of His New Testament: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9; though the last phrase is missing in some Greek manuscripts and therefore also in some translations, it’s found in a parallel text recorded in Matthew 5:32).
Some have summarized this passage as well as the remainder of the New Testament’s teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage as follows: marriage involves one man joining together with one woman for one lifetime, with only one exception granting one party the freedom to divorce and remarry. One lifetime should be understood in light of the common phrase repeated in marriage vows (“till death do us part”) as death severs the marriage bond and leaves the living party free to remarry (Romans 7:1-3). The one exception allowing for divorce and remarriage is found in Jesus statement above: “sexual immorality,” not simply “immorality” as in the NASB and better understood as a sexual union taking place outside of the marriage bed (cf. Hebrews 13:4). This one exception doesn’t create divorce; it creates the only justifiable reason for one party who is innocent of sexual immorality to divorce and remarry. Some spouses choose to forgive sexual immorality and keep their marriage together, and, by the grace of God, some marriages do recover from this sin.
If Jesus’ exception sounds incredibly narrow in light of today’s culture of divorce, it should. In fact, it had the same impact on even Jesus’ disciples. I find that a lot of people who seek to reinterpret or ignore Jesus’ words don’t take into account their reaction when reading the text: “His disciples said to Him, ‘If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry’” (Matthew 19:10). Evidently even they had accepted the standard of the day, namely, that marriage had an easily accessed escape hatch that could be used with relatively few consequences. Jesus didn’t shy away from the truth or soften it, saying, “All cannot accept this saying,” and further speaking about some “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake” because of the truth’s implications (Matthew 19:12).
Though some New Testament Christians have accepted Jesus’ words for what they are, others have seen just how challenging these words are and have tried to find another exception for divorce and remarriage. Some of these people believe they have found one in the words of Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 7:15: “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” These individuals see “depart” as implying “divorce” and “bondage” as referring to marriage or being bound to a spouse, and believe that the verse implies a freedom to remarry.
I want to point out here a few things. 1) Divorce is not something I speak about as an unaffected bystander; I have seen divorce play out in several important relationships in my life. Even though I have not been divorced personally, this truth affects me deeply. 2) Whole books have been written on this subject, debates have been waged, and, sadly, battle lines have been drawn. I don’t expect my little article to solve all of the problems or answer all of the questions people have. However, as I did with Matthew 19 above, I do hope to encourage a simple, contextual reading of 1 Corinthians 7:15 and point out some things that I believe are sometimes overlooked by the proponents of the so-called “Pauline privilege.”
At least two things should influence the way we read everything in 1 Corinthians 7, not just 1 Corinthians 7:15. First, it should be pointed out that 1 Corinthians 7 contains responses to some questions that the Corinthians wrote to Paul about: “Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me” (1 Corinthians 7:1). As we read 1 Corinthians 7, we are getting one side of a two sided conversation. I believe we can figure out roughly what the Corinthians asked, but we have to first be aware that there’s a need to try to do so. Second, it should be pointed out that as Paul answers, the information he gives is colored by a “present distress” (1 Corinthians 7:26). Some external difficulty is making marriage difficult (probably Christian persecution), and Paul’s teaching is tailored to that fact.
Starting in 1 Corinthians 7:10, it seems as though Paul is answering a question about Christians being married in this time of distress. To answer this question, Paul was able to turn to the teaching of the Lord we discussed above. Simply put, Paul said, there’s no exception here; the married need to remain married and not allow distance or even seeming abandonment to create another reason for divorce. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
But what about when Christians were married to non-Christians? Jews had to leave unbelieving gentile wives in the Old Covenant (e.g. Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 13:23-31); was this true in the New Covenant? When Paul says, “But to the rest I, not the Lord, say,” we should remember that he goes on to say that he has “the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 7:40) and even later that he writes “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37). Paul, “a bondservant of Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:1; Titus 1:1) is absolutely not being inspired by the Holy Spirit to put himself above his Master or to contradict Him. Instead, it’s reasonable to assume that Paul is writing about something that the Lord could not have spoken about in His lifetime. The New Covenant did not come into effect until after Jesus’ death (Hebrews 9:16), so the situation of a Christian bound by that New Covenant being married to a non-Christian could not exist, necessitating further teaching through Paul and the apostles.
With that in mind, Paul walks through the situation one step at a time. First, our spouse’s unbelief does not invalidate our marriage, so if an unbelieving spouse is not deterred by a believing spouse’s faith, the marriage should continue (1 Corinthians 7:12-13). Christians should take comfort in the fact that their presence in their marriage brings a sanctifying influence to the marriage and any children it produces (1 Corinthians 7:14).
What if though an unbelieving spouse departs? Note several things about this text: 1) In agreement with the Lord’s teaching, Paul previously said departure was not grounds for divorce and that, in facing departure, Christians should “remain unmarried” (1 Corinthians 7:11); 2) Divorce is not mentioned in this text on either side of the issue (for believer or unbeliever); 3) Remarriage is also not mentioned. And, just as we should use Matthew 19:10-12 to help us understand Matthew 19:9, two important details that follow in the text should influence how we see Paul’s teaching and should likewise be noted: 4) The believer needs to remember that he has been called “to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15). 5) In the answer given, Paul envisions a way to save an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:16).
As we seek to reconstruct the Corinthians’ questions to which Paul is responding, these considerations might lead us to see the Corinthians saying something like this: “Paul, there’s a distress here in Corinth. Some non-Christian spouses are threatening to leave us if we don’t leave the faith. Even some of us are running away! What do we do?” Paul cuts through the emotions of the issue with some simple logic: “The Lord’s already spoken here: abandonment is not grounds for divorce. If one of you flees, remain faithful and open to reconciliation. If your non-Christian spouse doesn’t make an issue of your faith, don’t make one yourself. However, if he/she throws down the gauntlet and says he/she will abandon you if you don’t abandon your faith, just remember, you are never so enslaved to marriage so as to lead you to cease being a slave of Jesus. God has called you to peace; don’t let it go! Stick with your faith, and you may just win your spouse.”
Even if my reconstruction of the Corinthians’ questions and my paraphrase of Paul’s answer here isn’t correct, I think those who see in 1 Corinthians 7:15 another exception allowing divorce and remarriage should ask themselves the following: 1) Why isn’t divorce or remarriage mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:15? 2) What in Scripture would lead you to believe that marriage is rightly considered to be bondage or slavery? 3) How does divorce and remarriage lead to peace? 4) More to the point, how does divorce and remarriage afford an opportunity to save your spouse?
Divorce is such a difficult, emotional subject, and the teachings of Jesus that surround it are definitely “hard saying(s)” (cf. John 6:60). In today’s world, I know the temptation can be to try to find ways to soften these teachings to accommodate the many situations into which people get themselves. Let’s remember though, that marriage is NOT slavery or a curse, but a “good thing,” and a way to obtain “favor from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22). Let’s remember further that marriage as God designed it, not as we prefer it, was created in part to teach us something important about Jesus and the church (Ephesians 5:29-32); it’s bigger than any two people. Let’s therefore commit to supporting those who are struggling with the harsh realities of divorce in prospect or in fact while upholding the important truths revealed by God surrounding marriage.
Satan hates the glimpse that marriage gives us of Heaven. Since the time of that first marriage, he has made every effort first to divide marriages and then, if possible, to see those marriages end in divorce. All at once, divorce seeks to divide “what God has joined together” (Matthew 19:6), destroys the Divine picture God sought to create, and, because of the unique strain and turmoil it brings, very often succeeds in driving a wedge between countless souls and their God. Not only husbands and wives but children, all subsequent progeny, communities, and whole societies are impacted by divorce. Can you see why Malachi records, “For the Lord God of Israel… hates divorce,” and further that divorce “covers one’s garments with violence” (Malachi 2:16)?
In spite of Malachi’s words, some Jews in Jesus’ day felt it was “lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason” (Matthew 19:3; see Mark 10:1-12 for a parallel account). Not everyone agreed with this of course, and the Pharisees saw an opportunity here. If they could get Jesus to weigh in on the debate surrounding divorce, it would guarantee that at least someone would be angry at Him. When they approached Him about it, Jesus simply pointed people back to the beginning, to God’s original design for marriage, adding, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6). This was too radical for even the Pharisees; aware of Deuteronomy 24 and its provision for divorce in at least some situations, they asked, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” (Matthew 19:7).
It’s telling to note that while they used the word “command,” Jesus used the word “permitted” (Matthew 19:7-8). Before we got married, my wife and I agreed never to even mention divorce as though it were an option. In cultures plagued with divorce though, I think people do tend to see divorce as an inescapable conclusion of marriage, an inevitable outcome rather than an avoidable choice. Seeing divorce like the Pharisees did (and like many others did and do) colors the way we see its aftermath and consequences.
Jesus however knew that Moses did not give his instructions because of the inevitability of divorce but, “Because of… hardness of heart.” Further He knew that divorce wasn’t in the original design of marriage: “from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). To bring people back in line with God’s original design for marriage, He authoritatively instituted the truth about marriage that would become a part of His New Testament: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9; though the last phrase is missing in some Greek manuscripts and therefore also in some translations, it’s found in a parallel text recorded in Matthew 5:32).
Some have summarized this passage as well as the remainder of the New Testament’s teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage as follows: marriage involves one man joining together with one woman for one lifetime, with only one exception granting one party the freedom to divorce and remarry. One lifetime should be understood in light of the common phrase repeated in marriage vows (“till death do us part”) as death severs the marriage bond and leaves the living party free to remarry (Romans 7:1-3). The one exception allowing for divorce and remarriage is found in Jesus statement above: “sexual immorality,” not simply “immorality” as in the NASB and better understood as a sexual union taking place outside of the marriage bed (cf. Hebrews 13:4). This one exception doesn’t create divorce; it creates the only justifiable reason for one party who is innocent of sexual immorality to divorce and remarry. Some spouses choose to forgive sexual immorality and keep their marriage together, and, by the grace of God, some marriages do recover from this sin.
If Jesus’ exception sounds incredibly narrow in light of today’s culture of divorce, it should. In fact, it had the same impact on even Jesus’ disciples. I find that a lot of people who seek to reinterpret or ignore Jesus’ words don’t take into account their reaction when reading the text: “His disciples said to Him, ‘If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry’” (Matthew 19:10). Evidently even they had accepted the standard of the day, namely, that marriage had an easily accessed escape hatch that could be used with relatively few consequences. Jesus didn’t shy away from the truth or soften it, saying, “All cannot accept this saying,” and further speaking about some “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake” because of the truth’s implications (Matthew 19:12).
Though some New Testament Christians have accepted Jesus’ words for what they are, others have seen just how challenging these words are and have tried to find another exception for divorce and remarriage. Some of these people believe they have found one in the words of Paul recorded in 1 Corinthians 7:15: “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” These individuals see “depart” as implying “divorce” and “bondage” as referring to marriage or being bound to a spouse, and believe that the verse implies a freedom to remarry.
I want to point out here a few things. 1) Divorce is not something I speak about as an unaffected bystander; I have seen divorce play out in several important relationships in my life. Even though I have not been divorced personally, this truth affects me deeply. 2) Whole books have been written on this subject, debates have been waged, and, sadly, battle lines have been drawn. I don’t expect my little article to solve all of the problems or answer all of the questions people have. However, as I did with Matthew 19 above, I do hope to encourage a simple, contextual reading of 1 Corinthians 7:15 and point out some things that I believe are sometimes overlooked by the proponents of the so-called “Pauline privilege.”
At least two things should influence the way we read everything in 1 Corinthians 7, not just 1 Corinthians 7:15. First, it should be pointed out that 1 Corinthians 7 contains responses to some questions that the Corinthians wrote to Paul about: “Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me” (1 Corinthians 7:1). As we read 1 Corinthians 7, we are getting one side of a two sided conversation. I believe we can figure out roughly what the Corinthians asked, but we have to first be aware that there’s a need to try to do so. Second, it should be pointed out that as Paul answers, the information he gives is colored by a “present distress” (1 Corinthians 7:26). Some external difficulty is making marriage difficult (probably Christian persecution), and Paul’s teaching is tailored to that fact.
Starting in 1 Corinthians 7:10, it seems as though Paul is answering a question about Christians being married in this time of distress. To answer this question, Paul was able to turn to the teaching of the Lord we discussed above. Simply put, Paul said, there’s no exception here; the married need to remain married and not allow distance or even seeming abandonment to create another reason for divorce. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
But what about when Christians were married to non-Christians? Jews had to leave unbelieving gentile wives in the Old Covenant (e.g. Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 13:23-31); was this true in the New Covenant? When Paul says, “But to the rest I, not the Lord, say,” we should remember that he goes on to say that he has “the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 7:40) and even later that he writes “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37). Paul, “a bondservant of Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:1; Titus 1:1) is absolutely not being inspired by the Holy Spirit to put himself above his Master or to contradict Him. Instead, it’s reasonable to assume that Paul is writing about something that the Lord could not have spoken about in His lifetime. The New Covenant did not come into effect until after Jesus’ death (Hebrews 9:16), so the situation of a Christian bound by that New Covenant being married to a non-Christian could not exist, necessitating further teaching through Paul and the apostles.
With that in mind, Paul walks through the situation one step at a time. First, our spouse’s unbelief does not invalidate our marriage, so if an unbelieving spouse is not deterred by a believing spouse’s faith, the marriage should continue (1 Corinthians 7:12-13). Christians should take comfort in the fact that their presence in their marriage brings a sanctifying influence to the marriage and any children it produces (1 Corinthians 7:14).
What if though an unbelieving spouse departs? Note several things about this text: 1) In agreement with the Lord’s teaching, Paul previously said departure was not grounds for divorce and that, in facing departure, Christians should “remain unmarried” (1 Corinthians 7:11); 2) Divorce is not mentioned in this text on either side of the issue (for believer or unbeliever); 3) Remarriage is also not mentioned. And, just as we should use Matthew 19:10-12 to help us understand Matthew 19:9, two important details that follow in the text should influence how we see Paul’s teaching and should likewise be noted: 4) The believer needs to remember that he has been called “to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15). 5) In the answer given, Paul envisions a way to save an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:16).
As we seek to reconstruct the Corinthians’ questions to which Paul is responding, these considerations might lead us to see the Corinthians saying something like this: “Paul, there’s a distress here in Corinth. Some non-Christian spouses are threatening to leave us if we don’t leave the faith. Even some of us are running away! What do we do?” Paul cuts through the emotions of the issue with some simple logic: “The Lord’s already spoken here: abandonment is not grounds for divorce. If one of you flees, remain faithful and open to reconciliation. If your non-Christian spouse doesn’t make an issue of your faith, don’t make one yourself. However, if he/she throws down the gauntlet and says he/she will abandon you if you don’t abandon your faith, just remember, you are never so enslaved to marriage so as to lead you to cease being a slave of Jesus. God has called you to peace; don’t let it go! Stick with your faith, and you may just win your spouse.”
Even if my reconstruction of the Corinthians’ questions and my paraphrase of Paul’s answer here isn’t correct, I think those who see in 1 Corinthians 7:15 another exception allowing divorce and remarriage should ask themselves the following: 1) Why isn’t divorce or remarriage mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7:15? 2) What in Scripture would lead you to believe that marriage is rightly considered to be bondage or slavery? 3) How does divorce and remarriage lead to peace? 4) More to the point, how does divorce and remarriage afford an opportunity to save your spouse?
Divorce is such a difficult, emotional subject, and the teachings of Jesus that surround it are definitely “hard saying(s)” (cf. John 6:60). In today’s world, I know the temptation can be to try to find ways to soften these teachings to accommodate the many situations into which people get themselves. Let’s remember though, that marriage is NOT slavery or a curse, but a “good thing,” and a way to obtain “favor from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22). Let’s remember further that marriage as God designed it, not as we prefer it, was created in part to teach us something important about Jesus and the church (Ephesians 5:29-32); it’s bigger than any two people. Let’s therefore commit to supporting those who are struggling with the harsh realities of divorce in prospect or in fact while upholding the important truths revealed by God surrounding marriage.
-Patrick Swayne
patrick@tftw.org
patrick@tftw.org
Recent
Archive
2025
January
March
April
May
June
July
September
2024
January
February
March
May
July
August
September
October
November
2023
January
February
March
April
May