What we are discussing here is our doctrinal beliefs regarding divorce. In order to formulate a solid doctrinal stance one must employ systematic theology. Systematic theology is simply using a “systematic” approach in order to see what the entire Bible has to say about a specific issue. By using such a systematic approach we guard against the hermeneutical mistake of building a doctrine based only on scriptures that support the presuppositions we bring to the biblical text.
There are several doctrinal positions on this issue. Those who hold to a “no divorce under any circumstance” view focus their position on the passages of Scripture that seem to explicitly forbid divorce. However, they fail to adequately explain the passages of Scripture that explicitly grant biblical exceptions for divorce. As best as I can tell those who hold this view make one or more of the following hermeneutical mistakes in their biblical interpretation:
1. They simply disregard Jesus’ statement, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife,
except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9, NASB). Similarly they disregard Paul’s statement, “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister
is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15, NASB). The problem here is that they are either willing ignore other Scriptures that are problematic for their interpretation of specific passages, or they are simply being intellectually dishonest with the biblical texts.
2. They conveniently break from the use of literal historical/grammatical interpretation in favor of a spiritualized or allegorical interpretation. This allows them to arrive at the “no divorce” interpretation which lines up with their “no divorce” presupposition. The problem here is that these same interpreters cry foul and “Liberal” when others employ this same type of interpretation tactic in favor of homosexual issues and/or women serving in the pastorate etc.
3. They explain away Matthew 19:9 as being a scribal error (or worse at later insertion) and question why Jesus’ remarks here are not also found in gospel accounts of Mark or Luke. The problem here goes to the very heart of the battle over the inerrancy of the Bible. Do we conservative and fundamental Baptists want to go down this road? Are we willing to say that a single word in the Bible is not the inerrant, infallible, inspired, Word of God? I don’t think so.
4. They explain away the 1 Corinthians 7:15 passage as being from Paul and not the Lord due to 1 Corinthians 7:12. The problem here is that the entire book of 1 Corinthians is in the canon of Scripture. We hold that entire book is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. Again, the use of this argument calls the inerrancy of the Bible into question. Are we willing to go down this road? If we are willing to go this way how do we know which parts of the Bible are God’s Word and which parts are not?
Then there are those who would espouse that divorce is biblically acceptable for just about any reason. Clearly the Bible stands against such an interpretation. There simply are too many passages of Scripture which prohibit divorce and the two exceptions referenced above are very specific to divorce only in cases of adultery and when a believing spouse is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse. Additionally, I’m not sure that I am willing to accept the idea that a spouse can “abandon” another spouse for booze, drugs, sports, or whatever. Clearly these things can be terribly sinful habits. However, I think the intent of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is directed specifically to physical abandonment. I think the thrust of the passage is referring to one spouse disserting the other (i.e. a non-Christian man moving out and leaving his wife and children, taking away his financial support and provision for them, and going his own way as if he had never been married or fathered children). Now in cases of abuse I would say that a wife is to take steps to protect herself and her children from harm. She could move into a safe house, obtain restraining orders, and use the police and legal system to protect herself. However, I don’t see a biblical exception for a Christian spouse to divorce an abusive spouse. Separation and protection yes—divorce no.
Finally, there is the question of divorce and remarriage. Craigbythesea stated:
NO WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS A SECOND MARRIAGE TO A DIFFERENT SPOUSE ALLOWED WHILE THE FIRST SPOUSE IS STILL ALLIVE. AND NO WHERE IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHURCH DO WE FIND SUCH ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIPS SACTIONED BY THE CHURCH. INDEED, THEY WERE ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED IN ACCORD WITH THE HOLY SCRIPTURES!
I’m sorry to disagree. However, 1 Corinthians 7:15 says otherwise. Here the Scripture says that a Christian spouse who has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse is no longer under bondage.
The King James translates the passage: “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister
is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace (1 Cor. 7:15, KJV).
The NASB translates the passage: “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister
is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15, NASB).
The NIV translates it as: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman
is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace” (1 Cor. 7:15, NIV).
Now let’s logically reason through the implications and applications of such biblical statements. If we agree with the Scripture here and say that a Christian spouse who has been abandoned/disserted by an unbelieving spouse is no longer under bondage, how does that flesh out in the real world? Well,… no longer under bondage (or no longer bound) must mean that the Christian spouse is no longer matrimonially connected to the abandoning/disserting unbeliever. In other words he/she is free. If this is the case, and I believe that it is, then the Christian (who was abandoned/disserted) must be free to remarry. Here some will cry that the Scripture nowhere says that they are to remarry (returning to a strict literal interpretation when it aids their presupposition against divorce and remarriage). However, it is completely illogical to say that the Christian spouse is no longer bound to the abandoning/disserting unbelieving spouse, and then turn around a claim that they cannot remarry because they are still married (bound) to the other spouse. I’m sorry, but no longer bound means free and free means free to choose remarriage or not.
Now provided that we agree that Matthew 19:9 is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God, and that it does permit an exception for divorce in cases of adultery and coupled with the teaching of the equally inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God in 1 Corinthians 7:15, we must admit that the New Testament clearly does allow for divorce and remarriage under two specific conditions. Additionally, under those two specific conditions there is no sin of adultery committed by a remarriage because those parties have been declared free by the Scriptures. Perhaps this is why we don’t see “adulterous remarriages” recorded in the records of early church history (because they were not considered adulterous, but rather; they were simply people who were free to marry).
