Divorce, Remarriage and the Christian?

This difficult question has been answered by the entire body of 'Reformed' opinion, in every age, with the same consistent understanding of the teaching of Holy Scripture. Some quotations from leading Puritan and Reformed authorities will demonstrate this unity of understanding that faithfully and perceptively expresses the teaching of Scripture.

The underlying principle is that when the marriage covenant is broken by adultery or desertion that marriage is destroyed and has ceased to be in the sight of God. In these cases the Bible offers a realistic assessment of the situation. This assessment is made in the light of the reality of the marriage, not its appearance. In these cases the Bible outlines a number of options:

i] the wronged partner is to be offered, sensitively and without pressure, the option to attempt reconciliation with the aim of repairing the marriage

ii] the wronged partner has the right to separate

iii] the wronged partner has the right to divorce

iv] where the wronged partner chooses to divorce, both partners are free to remarry.

John Owen: 'What shall a brother or a sister that is a Christian do in this case, who is so departed from? Saith the apostle, "They are not in bondage, they are free,—at liberty to marry again." This is the constant doctrine of all Protestant churches in the world.'

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

'In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue for a divorce, and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.' (Chapter XXIV, sec VI) The same freedom is recognised for those whose marriage is dissolved by 'willful desertion'.

The essence of the Reformed view is stated by A. A. Hodge: when Paul says a marriage partner departs he refers to conduct that, 'makes the marriage an empty name, void of reality; and being causeless, leaves the deserting party without any right to be defended'.

R. H. C. Lenski stresses the forcefulness of Paul's words,

'The unbeliever leaves his believing wife. Whether he also proceeds to procure a legal divorce makes no difference in the case whatsoever. What disrupts and destroys the marriage is the fact that he keeps himself separated. "If he keeps himself separated, let him keep himself separate!"'

John Murray says,

'[L]et him depart', has bearing not so much upon the unbelieving spouse as upon the believing spouse who is deserted. It is not a command to the unbeliever to depart; it is not even a concession to the unbeliever of the right to depart; it enunciates, rather, the liberty that is granted to the believer in this event, and is, in effect, "let the unbeliever be gone!"'

Charles Hodge understands the issues in the following terms:

'Marriage is an indissoluble compact between one man and one woman. It cannot be dissolved by any voluntary act of repudiation on the part of the contracting parties. The compact may, however, be dissolved, although by no legitimate act of man. It is dissolved by death. It is dissolved by adultery; and by wilful desertion'.

Hodge's contemporary, Robert L. Dabney, agrees,

'Marriage is a permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman; and so, can only be innocently dissolved by death. The only sins against the bond, which have the effect of annihilating the marriage bond, are those which are absolutely incompatible with the relation, adultery, and wilful, final desertion. In those cases the bond having been destroyed for the innocent party, he is as completely a single man, as though the other were dead.'

A considerable weight of testimony from other reliable authorities supports this united view, which is also echoed in The Westminster Confession of Faith, which holds that either party divorced for adultery or desertion is free to remarry.

Charles Hodge emphasises there is no conflict between the teaching of Jesus and Paul:

'There is no conflict here between Christ's command and Paul's instructions. Both say, a man cannot put away his wife (nor of course a wife her husband) on account of differences of religion, or for any other reason but the one of fornication. The apostle only adds that if the believing party be, without just cause deserted, he or she is free.'

John Calvin: 'This clause has been very ill explained by many commentators; for they have thought that generally, and without exception, celibacy is enjoined in all cases when a divorce has taken place; and, therefore, if a husband should put away an adulteress, both would be laid under the necessity of remaining unmarried. That was a gross error; for, though Christ condemns as an adulterer the man who shall marry a wife that has been divorced, this is undoubtedly restricted only to unlawful and frivolous divorces, where the married remain married in the sight of God.' [on Matthew 19.9]

John Trapp: 'This sin [of adultery] dissolves the marriage knot, and directly fights against human society. The apostle adds the case of wilful desertion, (1Co 7:15).' [on Matthew 19.9]

Matthew Poole: 'Here our Lord saith nothing but adultery dissolves the knot and band of marriage, [in every other case] though they be thus illegally separated, yet according to the law of God, they are still man and wife. Some have upon these words made a question whether it be lawful for the husband or the wife separated for adultery to marry again while each other liveth. As to the party offending, it may be a question; but as to the innocent person offended, it is no question, for the adultery of the person offending hath dissolved the knot of marriage by the Divine law.'

Matthew Henry: 'In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. It does not seem reasonable that they [the deserted party] should be still bound, when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts, through the mere fault of their mate: in such a case marriage would be a state of servitude indeed.'

John Gill: 'Nor are they bound to remain unmarried, but are free to marry another person, after all proper methods have been tried for reconciliation and that appears to be impracticable; desertion in such a case is a breach of the marriage-contract, and a dissolution of the bond, and the deserted person may lawfully marry again.' [on 1 Corinthians 7.15]

C.H.Spurgeon: 'Fornication makes the guilty person a fit subject for just and lawful divorce, for it is a virtual disannulling of the marriage bond. In a case of fornication, upon clear proof, the tie can be loosed, but in no other case. Any other sort of divorce is by the law of God null and void, and it involves the persons who act upon it in the crime of adultery. Whoso marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery, since she is not really divorced, but remains the wife of her former husband. Our King tolerates none of those enactments which, in certain countries, trifle with the bonds of matrimony. Nations may make what laws they dare, but they cannot alter facts: persons once married are, in the sight of God, married for life, with the exception of proven fornication and, Paul adds, desertion.' [on Matthew 19.9]

R.C.H.Lenski: 'From that day onward [the day the unbelieving spouse 'departed'] the fetters of the marriage tie have been broken and remain so, now and indefinitely. No law binds the believing spouse. Let us add that no odium on the part of Christians has a right to bind such a believing, deserted spouse. A believing spouse will by Christian kindness and persuasion do all that can be done to prevent a rupture. But when these fail, Paul's verdict is: 'Thou art free!' [Interpretation of 1 and 2 Corinthians]

'Desertion is exactly like adultery in its effect. Both disrupt the marriage tie. The essence of marriage is union. When this is disrupted, the union which God intended is destroyed. To speak of 'two causes for divorce' is a mistake. Neither Jesus nor Paul discusses what we term 'divorce'; both speak about what destroys a marriage.'

C.K.Barrett: 'If the unbeliever separates (more than the refusal of conjugal; rights, but less than legal divorce is probably intended), a brother or sister is not enslaved to a retention of a relationship the other partner wishes to abandon.' [The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black's NT Commentaries]

G.B.Wilson: 'This clause cannot simply mean that they are free to be deserted, but must mean that they are free to be remarried.' [1 Corinthians, Banner of Truth]

M.R.Vincent: 'Christianity has not made marriage a state of slavery to believers. Wilful desertion on the part of the unbelieving husband or wife sets the other party free.' [Word Studies]

John Murray writes:

'Now when we ask the question, what woman [by remarriage] is made to suffer adultery? the answer is, undoubtedly the woman who is put away without adequate cause. It is not the woman who is put away for the cause of fornication, for in that case she is not made 'to suffer adultery'; she committed adultery prior to her being put away.'

'The considerations preponderate rather in favour of the conclusion, that when a man or woman puts away his wife or her husband for the cause of fornication, this putting away has the effect of dissolving the bond of marriage with the result that he or she is free to remarry without thereby incurring the guilt of adultery. In other terms, it means that divorce, in such a case, devolves the marriage and that the parties are no longer man and wife.'

Conclusion: The Biblical principle is simple and clear: where a marriage is ended in the sight of God, because the divorce was for reasons permitted by Scripture, adultery and desertion, both parties are 'free', that is free to remarry because now as a consequence of their adultery or desertion neither the one offended nor the offender remain married in the sight of God. This principle is set out in detail by John Owen in a long essay, that is probably the finest and most careful exposition of this whole question. The Works of John Owen, vol 16, 254-257. I include this short extract.

Of Marrying After Divorce In Case Of Adultery by John Owen

'Our blessed Saviour gives express direction in the case, (Matthew 19:9) "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." Hence it is evident, and is the plain sense of the words, that he who putteth away his wife for fornication and marrieth another doth not commit adultery. The bond of marriage in that case was dissolved, and the person that put away his wife is at liberty to marry. The rule here in general is affirmative: He that putteth away his wife and marries another committeth adultery. The exception is negative: But he that putteth away his wife for fornication and marrieth another doth not commit adultery.' 

This also applies in cases of desertion: whoever divorces on the grounds of desertion and marries another does not commit adultery.

John Owen makes three significant points:

1. The Bible denies no one the sacred right of a married life; after legitimate divorce a person has a divine right to remarry.

2. Forbidding remarriage after legitimate divorce would place intolerable pressure on a single person to sin, denying them the means God has provided for sexual relief and pleasure.

3. Forbidding remarriage after legitimate divorce is a moral outrage, depriving an aggrieved person a sacred humanitarian right on account of the sin of another.