Paul's Teaching on Divorce

Introduction

If you remember the context of 1 Cor 7: we have a group of people who believe that singleness is more godly than being married. And it seems as if there were people who were refraining from the physical relationship in vs 2-5; but in the verses we are going to be looking at, it seems as if people were divorcing so they could be single again. The overall teaching of Paul in this chapter is 1 Cor 7:20 “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” This truth is mentioned four times in the text: vs 8,20,24,40 His greatest concern is that people not get divorced just so they could be single again, but in teaching on that truth, he has to deal with the topic of divorce and remarriage.

We are going to tackle this passage verse by verse tonight and then answer two related questions that you might be left with. Our first question tonight is:

What about Divorce Among Believers vs 10-11

Vs 10- Throughout the text, Paul switches between statements like I command yet not I but the Lord and speak I not the Lord. Some have taken these statements to mean that part of this passage is commanded by God and the other parts are merely Paul’s opinions on the subject. As if part of the passage is not inspired. This is not what Paul is trying to say in these passages. When Paul say, yet not I but the Lord he is quoting direct statements from the Lord. When Paul says here speak I not the Lord he is saying that this is the teaching given him by the Spirit but it is not a quote from Jesus. Paul was not saying his statements in this passage were any less authoritative than those of Jesus. In fact Paul claims that he was speaking by the Spirit of God in vs 40. So as we approach this topic we should not approach it as if anything in this text is optional or merely the opinions of Paul.

Paul goes on to expound on the teaching from the OT and Jesus Christ about divorce and remarriage especially as it applies to two Christians. The teaching is that two Christians should not depart or divorce. If they do get divorced, the implication is that they have sinned because they disobeyed Christ’s commands. In that case, there are two biblical options:

stay unmarried

be reconciled

Now your probably thinking already, Pastor Jason, but what about the exceptions that you mentioned and we looked at last week in Matt 19? We are going to circle back around to that in the end, but we are going to take the verses in order. Paul is under the assumption here that two genuine believers will be able to work out the problems in their marriage. But clarification will come by the end of the message.

What about Divorce where one spouse is an Unbeliever vs 12-16

Vs 12-13 Paul then switches to deal with a different group of people. But to the rest- there is a group of people who are not covered under the general rule that he has just laid out. The implication here is that the words of Jesus were not meant to be exhaustive and deal with every situation. They were spoken as an answer to a specific question and audience. So who are the rest?

They are married- if any brother hath a wife

One of them is a Christian and the other is not- that believes not

Vs 14 Paul’s starts off with commanding that if a husband or wife is married to a lost person who wants to stay in the marriage they should not depart from their spouse. Why? God’s influence in that home will be greater with the presence of one Christian. There is a greater chance that that husband or those kids will get saved because of her presence there in the home. This idea of being sanctified or holy does not mean they are automatically saved or that they become part of the covenant, but that they are set apart or of special interest to God because of the Christians presence in the home.

Vs 15 is the key verse we are going to be looking at in this passage. Paul knows that there isn’t much a saved husband or wife can do if their unsaved spouse wants to leave. This passage is actually the only time that divorce is commanded. Paul tells them to let them depart. Let them leave. There really isn’t any recourse to try to get him to stay; so let him leave. In this case Paul concludes a brother or a sister is not under bondage. There are two words for bondage in our text:

δέω= bondage

δουλόω= enslaved

The word used here is the word enslaved. Being in a marriage that you feel you can’t get out of can often feel like being enslaved. Being bound to a marriage with someone who will not listen to you, is beyond the reach of the church feels like being in slavery. God does not desire this for his children. Now we need to ask ourselves what does it mean to not be enslaved or in bondage? Some believe that they are not in bondage to the marriage- so they can get divorced but not remarried. However, we must keep in mind what the intent of this phrase is. If someone is not enslaved, they are what? (have the audience say it) If someone is not bound, they are what? (have the audience say it). The answer is free. The opposite of bound is not to live in another state of bondage, but freedom. I have already said it in the previous message, but any time there is a legitimate divorce, there can be remarriage.

2. Jewish bills of divorce even included the idea that they were free to remarry.

On the ____ day of the week____in the month____in the year____from the beginning of the world, according to common computation in the province of ____I_____ son of ____ by whatever name I may be known, of the town of ____ with entire consent of mind and without any constraint have divorced, dismissed and expelled thee ____daughter of _____ by whatever name thoug art called of the town of ____ who has been my wife hitherto; but now I have dismissed thee___ the daughter of ____ by whatever name thou art called of the town of ____ so as to be free at thy own disposal to marry whomever thou pleasest, without hinderance from anyone from this day for ever. Thou art therefore free for anyone {who would marry thee}. Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel

_____, son of ________ witness

_____, son of ________ witness

(From a Photographic reproduction in Encyclopedia Judaica

To further prove this point, look at

1 Cor 7:27-28 “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”

3. The word loosed in this passage comes from the Greek word to loose or release. Pretty simple right, but what does it imply. Both times it is used in this verse it is the same word and so it must be used in the same way. Context demands this. In the first part, we are dealing with a married man and loosed means to divorce his wife. It does not mean your wife died or Paul would be telling him not to murder his wife. The meaning becomes absurd at that point. So the meaning of loosed in both parts refers to divorce.

Paul says if you are divorced (in context according to legitimate reasons) don’t get married. Stay single (for the present distress), But if you do, you have not sinned. This is important because we must understand that if you divorce for legitimate reasons, it is not a sin to remarry. Paul’s concern in promoting singleness is because of the great persecution they would be facing.

The reason God allows this freedom is because His heart for us as His children is to live in peace. God hath called us to peace. We do not need to enslaved that lost spouse or cause a fight between us. If he wants to go, let him go. Romans 12:18 “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” Is the teaching that Paul is referencing here.

So from these two passages we see two different exceptions that allow for divorce and remarriage:

Sexual sin

Abandonment by a lost spouse

What if the believer commits adultery or abandons his wife?

This question inevitably will come up in this discussion. If an unbeliever leaving you allows you to remarry, why is it that a believer leaving you wouldn’t? What is significant about the unbeliever that makes this even permissible. I think the answer to this question is simpler than we would assume. For a Christian couple, if one spouse is committing unrepentant sin what do we do about that? (Ask the Church) Church discipline.

When a believer is living in adultery or leaving his wife, that believer is subject to church discipline. The goal is to get them to repent and live properly with their spouse, but what if they do not repent? According to

Matt 18:17 “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

1 Cor 5 which deals with an issue of church discipline because of incest teaches that they are to be cast out of the church.

1 Tim 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

A man or a woman who has been excommunicated by Church Discipline is considered outside the church. We are to treat them as a lost person whether they are or not. Essentially, the act of church discipline is saying that this lifestyle puts your salvation at question to the church. You are unrepentant and we are treating you like you aren’t saved. So what does that imply?

If a believer lives in unrepentant adultery or abandons his wife, he is submitted to church discipline. If he refuses to repent, we treat him like a lost person and the spouse is free to divorce and remarry. The ideal here is that Christian marriage be reconciled. We want to restore and get things back the way they should be, but sometimes that can’t happen.

What about Abuse? vs 15

A follow up question could be asked: What about abuse? While the bible does not spell out abuse as a permissible reason to divorce and remarry, I believe the overall teaching of the bible is clear on this issue.

Everything I just said about church discipline could apply to this issue as well. Abuse is hard because there is so much debate about what is included and how far someone can go, but when there is physical harm, I do believe divorce is an option. Often people will advice separation in such cases, but in the bible times, there was no distinction between separation and divorce. They were the same thing. Getting away for a short time is understandable while things can be worked out but long term separation is essentially the same thing as divorce. So there is not need to deny divorce is such cases.

Let me give you my reasons for believing abuse should be included in the permissible reasons for divorce list:

Abuse is essentially forced abandonment. The abuser is making it impossible for their spouse to stay with them. It would be like a husband saying he is going to go on a lifelong trip to Mars without his wife. He is going somewhere she cannot follow. The husband is living in a condition she cannot safely remain in and forcing her to leave.

In such cases- Recent research has been done on this phrase by Wayne Grudem. According to a paper he wrote to the ETS, the fact that cases is plural leaves the door open that there might be other reasons. If Paul had written in such a case it would only apply to this situation. The fact that it is plural opens it up to other situations like this. He has done a survey of literature both biblical and secular that uses this phrase and in the cases that he studied, the phrase would literally mean in cases similar to the one mentioned but not exactly.

Jesus allowed for the violation of the law for the protection of life. Radical danger or harm justifies separation and divorce. Matt 12:3-7 “But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” By telling the abused they must stay in the marriage, you are condemning the guiltless.

Matt 12:11-12 “And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.”

Even though all divorces are the result of sin, not all divorces are sinful. ~Jay Adams

Conclusion:

Some feel that the inclusion of these three exceptions is a loosening of morals. That we are becoming too permissive of divorce; however, you must realize that in Jesus day the common cultural practice was divorce for any reason and it is the same today. We are not advocating a lose morality of divorce. We are restricting divorce to the situations in which God grants an exception. Anything else is disobedience and sin; but God is not a God without mercy. He is not hard and unmoved by the effects of sin on this world and he cares about those who have been victimized by their marriages. Though he hates what divorce has done, he has permitted it because of the effects of sin on marriages in these cases.

The person who is legitimately divorced need not live under the fear that they are in sin or are committing perpetual adultery. According to vs 11 those who are divorced are in fact unmarried. There has been an unfortunate phrase that has been passed around that those who are divorced are married in God’s eyes. I understand why this phrase exists, but Paul says they are not. Consider also that if they were, they would be under obligation to fulfill their marital obligations of sex from 1 Cor 7:5. When Jesus said that when a illegitimately divorced woman marries another man she commits adultery. That word commits is not intended to say every day after that she is committing adultery. For those who want to study the grammar this is a gnomic present and does not imply continuous action.

This series has a two-fold application:

We must take marriage seriously. Our marriages are worth fighting for and not just giving up when things get hard. It is beautiful in the eyes of God and valuable. So I challenge you today to be committed to marriage until death do us part.

The second application is that those who have suffered under a marriage that has been destroyed by these things, should not live in emotional and spiritual bondage because they decided to get divorced or even remarried. That is not God’s heart for you and anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know the heart of God the way they should.

Extra notes for those who ask: Church Fathers:

Origen states that some have allowed women to remarry while their husband was still living. He does not take this view but he acknowledged their were other leaders who did.

Ambrosiastor taught that desertion allows remarriage.

Augustine left the door open for adultery being a reason for divorce and remarriage.

The majority are opposed to remarriage after divorce but it is not unanimous. Was their view the result of exegesis or the result of growing asceticism in the church? Most of these writers were against sex unless it was for children and you better not enjoy it.