The ultimate meaning of marriage is the representation of the covenant keeping love between Christ and his church. To live this truth and to show this truth is what it means, most deeply, to be married. This is the ultimate reason why marriage exists. There are other reasons, but this is the main one. Therefore, if Christ ever abandons and discards his church, then a man may divorce his wife. And if the blood-bought church, under the new covenant, ever ceases to be the bride of Christ, then a wife may legitimately divorce her husband.

Jesus knew that the Pharisees in general were an adulterous generation (Matthew 12:39). He knew how they defended their divorces. So he lead them to that very place and asks them in Mark 10:3, “What did Moses command you?” He takes them to Moses. But they should be careful here. Moses didn’t just write Deuteronomy, which they are about to quote. He also wrote Genesis. Verse 4: They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” That’s true. It’s a reference to Deuteronomy 24:1.

What will Jesus say in response to this defense of divorce? Verse 5: Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.” This is amazing. It implies, in other words, there are laws in the Old Testament that are not expressions of God’s will for all time, but expressions of how best to manage sin in a particular people at a particular time. Divorce is never commanded and never instituted in the Old Testament. But it was permitted and regulated. Like polygamy was permitted and regulated, and certain kinds of slavery were permitted and regulated. And Jesus says here that this permission was not a reflection of God’s ideal for his people; it was a reflection of the hardness of the human heart. “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.”

Matthew 5:31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, that every one that sends away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

For anyone here who has walked through a divorce and are now single or remarried, or whose parents were divorced, or some other loved one, the mere mention of the word carries a huge weight of sorrow and loss and tragedy and disappointment and anger and regret and guilt.

It is often long years in coming, and long years in the settlement and in the adjustment. The upheaval of life is immeasurable. The sense of failure and guilt and fear can torture the soul. Like the psalmist, night after night a spouse falls asleep with tears (Psalm 6:6).

People don’t know how to relate to you any more and friends start to withdraw. You can feel like you wear a big scarlet D on your chest. The loneliness is not like the loneliness of being a widow or a widower or person who has never been married. It is in class by itself.

Mark 10:2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Deut 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. De 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

1 Corinthians 7:12–16 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord [which I think means, I don’t have a specific command from the historical teachings of Jesus, but I am led by his Spirit]) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever. Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her

Three Main Views on Divorce and Remarriage

Within confessing evangelicalism today, there are three broad positions that are adopted by various subsets on the divorce and remarriage question.

1. First, there is the position that insists, although divorce may be permissible under certain tight circumstances, remarriage is never permissible.

On this view, the clauses that say except for fornication or except for adultery, apply only to the divorce statements but not to the remarriage statements of Scripture.

2. There has arisen in the last few years a position increasingly acceptable in evangelical circles that was almost unknown among us a few years back. Brewer

In addition to the exceptive clauses, all of the biblical passages in the New Testament that deal with divorce and remarriage all wrestle with the question of what constitutes a valid divorce. He then enmeshes the entire discussion in rabbinic thought of the day.

The stance is, Divorce and remarriage may take place, not only for (fornication) but also for serious negligence or abuse.

There is a methodological problem, there is a danger when you do your exegesis by appealing only to parallels.

3. The third position which is basically the traditional position, it says that divorce and remarriage is allowed only when ones partner has been unfaithful.

Matthew 19. “When Jesus had finished saying these things he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’ ”

All commentaries point out this was a standard debate at the time generated in part by developments from the school of Hillel. The question was, “What were the grounds of acceptable divorce? What validated a divorce?”

Jesus’ answer turns in the first instance on creation order.

“ ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate.”

All sides agree, that’s the default position, that’s where we begin. The problem is, of course, although we acknowledge that as the beginning point, we start immediately asking for the exceptions. Then suddenly the exceptions take up so much of our attention that we lose this creation structure. That is what is awful about it.

Creation and the typology of Scripture says something astonishingly important about how one is to approach this understanding.

They are referring is Deuteronomy 24:1–4. It says, in effect, if a man marries and then finds some indecent thing in her and then in due course divorces her, then marries someone else, then divorces her, is he permitted to remarry the first one? The answer is no, he is not. That’s what that passage is about.

So, Jesus reminds them, Moses does not command someone divorce his wife, but clearly Jesus is presupposing Moses permits divorce under certain circumstances, although the command of Deuteronomy 24 is not to remarry the first spouse under those conditions, whatever something the indecent is. That expression, ‘ervah dabar, (indecent) is ambiguous, and people have been arguing about it ever since.

Almost certainly, it is what Jesus interprets to mean by fornication, which is a very flexible term: not simply adultery but virtually any sexual indecency.

The term can refer to individual sexual sins, and yet the meaning of it is a pretty broad category. Unless there is contextual reason for thinking of it in very narrow terms, then the normal way of reading the expression is in the breadth of its semantic range. That is, fornication, sexual indecency without being all that explicit as to which particular form of sexual indecency is in view.

Inevitably, when you have something as broad as that then sooner or later you start asking questions, “Where is the line drawn?”

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.” Already, divorce is seen as a reflection of something ugly, something sinful in the human heart and life, but it was not that way from the beginning.

Jesus said, I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.’ The disciples said to him, ‘If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.’ ”

Then Jesus’ classic response in verses and 11 and 12: “Not everyone can accept this word, 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.”

In some ways, this is a kind of Jesus equivalent of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, chapter 7, where the apostle Paul insists marriage is a charisma. It’s a gracious gift from God, and celibacy is a charisma, so we’re all charismatic. In this instance, we can’t have both charismatic gifts at the same time, but both are gracious gifts from God to be received with thanksgiving.

Thus, the outworking of both in our lives should be received with gratitude without trying to hold up either celibacy or marriage as a kind of superior gift. That removes some of the asceticism of the patristic generations, and it should remove some of the endless hedonism of the twenty-first century too.

So far, what we learn from the teaching of Jesus is that divorce and remarriage are wrong, that from the beginning marriage was divinely instituted, and wherever there is divorce and remarriage there is evidence of the hardness of the human heart. Nevertheless, it is conceded in Moses and it is conceded by Jesus.

Then, the additional factor is the so-called Pauline exception (1 Corinthians 7). It is important in wrestling with 1 Corinthians to recognize the “Yes, but” form of Jesus’ arguments. It seems Paul is arguing against polarized positions in the church on half a dozen fronts, so some of his argument, therefore, has a “Yes, but” form.

He tips his hat in one direction and says, “Yes, yes, yes, you’re quite right, but …” Then he tips his hat in the other direction and says, “Yes, yes, yes, but …” Instead of simply giving a straightforward answer he’s also concerned for pastoral unity.

Likewise, in the chapters on the tongues, “Yes, yes, yes, I thank God I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I’d rather speak five words in a known tongue than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue,” because he’s very concerned for intelligibility in the context of the local church.

He doesn’t quite go so far as to say, “Absolutely no way,” but on the other hand, this “Yes, but” form of argument shows there are higher principles that are involved.

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman …” That is, there is something good to be said about the kind of asceticism that withdraws from any form of sexual contact, “… but since there’s so much immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” There are two things to be observed about this.

The first is that the argument is reciprocal: what applies to the man applies to the woman. In this respect, Paul has already taken the discussion right out of typical rabbinic debates.

The second thing is this is not the only reason Paul would have for marriage (that is, it releases sexual pressure), but it is a valid reason

“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and, likewise, the wife to her husband.

“Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But …” There’s the “Yes, but” argument. “… if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord) …”

You are as aware as I am a little further on he says, “I, not the Lord.” (Verse 12) This does not mean he is saying one part is inspired and another part isn’t.

What he has to say then, “Not I, but the Lord” in verse 10, is a summary of what he understands the Lord Jesus to have taught:

“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.” A summary of the Lord’s basic stance toward marriage and divorce. “To the rest I say …” Now he adds, “(I, not the Lord.)” That is, the Lord Jesus did not actually introduce this particular instance. That is, a mixed marriage, so we come to the so-called Pauline exception.

“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.

Immediately, one faces the astonishing (for that day) the reciprocal description. That is, it cuts both ways. That was simply unknown in rabbinic circles, as it’s unknown, for example, in Muslim circles today. The man can divorce his wife.

In fact, where Sharia law applies, he need merely say, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you” with witnesses and she is divorced. Then under Sharia law, she is not to be acknowledged as a pure woman any longer even by her own family, but here there is perfect reciprocity in the arrangement. He can divorce her; she can divorce him.

The second thing has to do with this sanctification language.

We’re told in verse 16 this becomes the primary mission field of the believing spouse. The believer must not be the one who leaves (it just must not happen). But supposing the unbeliever leaves. Then what happens? Then we’re told the believing spouse is not bound in such cases, and the whole debate turns on what that means.

Does it mean he or she is not bound to try to keep the whole thing together? It seems that’s a desperately insipid inference because, in fact, he or she (the believer, in this case) doesn’t have any choice. This is something that is being pursued by the unbeliever, so most see today the inference is, “is not bound and, therefore, can remarry,” under this instance.

That’s why it’s sometimes called the Pauline exception. That is, it is an exception to what Jesus said in that he has drawn a further argumentation from biblical principles but deals with a case Jesus himself, by Paul’s own admission, did not address. Does that mean, therefore, wherever you have incompatibility or basic negligence you now have sanction,

Immediately, it seems to me, you have to remember this is, first, a mixed marriage and, secondly, it’s a mixed marriage where it seems to be, in the context, the Christian commitment itself that has not stipulated the withdrawal.

In other words, what we have here is not A is a non-Christian and B is a backslidden Christian, and they get married, Then B wants to return to Christ, and after a few more years of neglect and abuse and incompatibility, A withdraws, so now B is happy to go and get remarried.

Almost certainly what Paul has in mind is that A and B are not Christians. B becomes a Christian, and A can’t stand it despite B’s best efforts of holding the whole thing together, so A insists on a divorce. The question then becomes, “May B remarry under such circumstances?”

If we deal with this subject only from the point of view of what we are allowed to do and not from the perspective of what God has ordained from the beginning and of how many things in the created order are actually God-ordained reflections of what we should be able to perceive in the whole eternal, spiritual order of things,

then we’re robbing marriage of its essential beauty and goodness.

Ephesians 5:21–31 Paul shows the relationship between husband and wife is so tied up with the relationship between Christ and the church and, antecedently, God and Israel, that he cannot entirely disentangle them.

One of the things that helps us understand the faces of evil in the world is to see sin and destruction and tornadoes and hurricanes and so on are, in some ways, the result of God’s curse on the world to teach us just how ugly the rebellion is behind it all that shows the inevitable results of the horrific rebellion we call the fall. It affect everything, Marriage and the Family.