What are biblical grounds for divorce?

Two great opinions divided then the Pharisees about divorce. Some held to the views of Hillel and others to the views of Shammai. Hillel had taught that indeed for almost every cause a wife may be put away. We care not to fill our space with a record of all the different causes for divorce and the rules, which the elders had laid down and which, at least among the extremely orthodox Jews, are still conscientiously followed. (It has often been our experience to talk with some poor Jewish woman, left by her husband, who got a divorce from the rabbi. We remember one case where a man got a "Gett" -- a bill of divorcement from his wife for an insignificant cause and came to this country to marry again. His divorced wife followed him here. These conditions have been quite a problem in New York courts.) The school of Hillel declared openly, and practised this, that if the wife cooks her husband's food badly, by over salting or over roasting it, she is to be put away. The school of Shammai, to which other Pharisees held, permitted not divorces except in the case of adultery. This will shed more light on the temptation of these Pharisees.

And now the Lord speaks in answer to their question: "But He, answering, said unto them, Have ye not read that He who made them from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, On account of this a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh? What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man separate" (verses 4-7). The Lord passes over all their scholastic reasonings; He ignores all their different opinions and has not a word to say about the law as given through Moses. He goes to the very beginning and shows marriage to be a divinely instituted relationship. And marriage, as instituted by the Creator, is an argument against both polygamy and divorce. Blessed institution indeed, and blessed fact, two shall be one flesh. In the new creation the relationship of marriage has a still deeper significance. The second half of Ephesians 5 acquaints us with what the believing husband and wife represent. Christ and the church and the love of Christ, the obedience of the church, the oneness which exists between Christ and the church, all practically to be seen in the relationship of husband and wife. "For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as also the Christ, the church; for we are members of His body; of His flesh and of His bones. Because of this a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be united to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak as to Christ and as to the church" (Eph. 5:29-32). But the Pharisees have an answer ready. "They say to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and to send her away?" But even in this they were erring. It was not a "command," but something which Moses allowed. The law had much to say about the suspicion of adultery, in which case the wife had to undergo a trial by the bitter waters (Num. 5). Actual adultery was punishable by death. And so the Lord has His answer for their objection. "He says, Moses, in view of your hardheartedness, allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not thus. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery" (verses 8, 9).

Moses but allowed them divorce (Deut. 24:1). Adultery, however, such was the divine law, meant death. The Lord, now in His divine authority as the great "I am," gives a law about divorce, which is binding. Divorce, putting away a wife is wrong, except in case of unfaithfulness, adultery. All divorce for other causes is sin, and whosoever marries such a wrongly divorced person commits adultery. Many questions which arise here, difficulties in individual cases, complications of different nature, we must pass by. And yet we cannot conclude our meditation on these verses, without calling to mind the condition, which prevails about us, in professing Christendom, on these very things. The sacred institution of marriage has never been so misused as in these days. Society, so called, is corrupt in morals. Divorces and scandals are becoming almost fashionable. The frightful increase of unlawful divorces and prostitution is alarming to the moralist and reformer. We know, however, that it will be so in the last days, for He said, "As it was in the days of Lot, so shall it be when the Son of Man cometh."

Yet we know that throughout the Old Testament these things were ignored. Many (even believers) had more then one wife. The Pharisees too thought they could prove the Lord wrong by referring to Deut.24:1, which speaks of Moses, the lawgiver, instructing that if a man had found some uncleanness in his wife, he could give her a bill of divorcement and send her away. This bill of divorce was to guard against a man's cruel treatment of a wife by discarding her while not leaving her free to be married to any other.

However, the Lord's answer to this is most penetrating. Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the manifestation of God's heart! In this case law was more permissive than is the grace of God! For grace enables one to surmount difficulties in a way that law could never do.

Therefore, confirming what was implicit in creation, the Lord adds, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The one exception allowed here is because the marriage bond has been so violated as to be virtually broken already. If the one party is guilty of fornication, then it would not be adultery for the other party to divorce the first and marry another. But the one who married the party put away for fornication would be guilty of adultery.

The Lord added verse 18 because the Pharisees took advantage of what the law had said, to allow divorce for virtually any cause. Deuteronomy 24:1 had required a man, if putting away his wife, to give her a bill of divorcement (Mt.19:3-9). But the Lord calls divorce and remarriage adultery (though Matthew 19:9 gives the one exception); and if one were to marry a woman divorced from her husband, he committed adultery. This is evidently a case where the first husband had not remarried, for adultery is the violation of the marriage bond. The world shows no regard for God's thoughts as to marriage and divorce, but a believer should be most careful to honor God in marriage, with the firm intention of proving consistently faithful. Then the only permission he can find for divorce in Scripture is if his spouse is guilty of fornication. If one is divorced by his spouse, then let him make sure from Scripture that his circumstances allow him to marry again.

So far we have left out of our consideration the fact that the Lord Jesus here gives room for one exception, which clearly excludes any other exception: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication..." Yet this one and only exception is missing in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 does not mention it either. We only find it again in Matthew 19:9, albeit in a slightly different wording ("except it be for fornication"). The Lord does not say that divorce is unavoidable in the case of one partner committing fornication, but only that in such a case the remarriage of the other partner after a divorce is not adultery.

Here we see again that the Lord Jesus in His kingdom does not demand the literal fulfilling of the law of Sinai, but rather seeks that His own might follow Him genuinely and in a wholehearted way. For that reason He does not speak about the death penalty for the woman who had committed fornication, or more precisely, adultery. He warns His disciples about divorce and the sins caused by it. At the same time He in His grace makes room for the possible exception, that a marriage can be dissolved before God when it has been attacked in its spiritual, mental and physical unity by the terrible sin of adultery. The latter is not a commandment, but an exception by which God meets the defrauded partner in his spiritual or emotional weakness. However, it should not be forgotten that the sin of adultery can and should be forgiven if an honest confession has been made, and does not necessarily have to lead to divorce.

The Lord answers that because of the hardness of their hearts Moses had written this. The second giving of the law (on Mt.Horeb -- Ex.34:1-7) included such concessions, and was not therefore absolute law, but law tempered with mercy. It recognized the hardness in man that it had no power to correct. But He refers back to the original creation of man and his wife, reminding them of God's declaration, "for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife." Adam was absolutely confined to having one wife, and Eve to having one husband. They were God's gift to each other. He had joined them together: man has no right therefore to separate them. Governments may publicly do this as a concession to the hardness of men's hearts also, but they do not have God as their authority.

The Lord has spoken this to Pharisees, but inside the house His disciples questioned Him further, to whom He answers that a man putting away his wife and marrying another has committed adultery against his first wife. A wife doing the same would be guilty of adultery against her husband. The Lord does not here mention the exception noted in Matthew 19:9, "except for fornication," because it is, practically' speaking, not even an exception.

Fornication would virtually itself be a breaking of the marriage bond, which is only confirmed by a divorce in this case. The partner who was not guilty would not therefore be committing adultery in marrying another after divorce, though generally there may have been fault on both sides, and before another marriage, one should be broken before God, seeking only His will. 1Corinthians 7:15 shows also that desertion is considered a breaking of the marriage bond, so that the one who was deserted would be left no longer under that bond.

p130 [To the same.] R T Grant, My meaning in saying the tie was broken was this, that God never allowed the Christian to break the tie; but when adultery was committed the one doing so had broken the tie, and the Lord allowed the other party to hold it to be broken and act on it by formal divorce - did not require it, but allowed it. The legalisation of it is submission to the powers that be, for common order, just as the divorce was in Jewish law. Things are so loose in many parts of the States as in Illinois, that Christians should be very particular. A person having left and being a long time away is not sufficient, as they may come back, and the tie had not been broken - only that, as to criminality, after some seven years, in England the courts would not hold a person guilty of bigamy.

On the other hand, according to 1 Corinthians 7, I cannot doubt that the Christian, deliberately deserted by the unchristian partner, was in every way free, free that is to marry; but it assumes deliberate forsaking by the one who went away. The Christian was never to do it, and if obliged to leave, to remain unmarried or return. Romans 7:3 has nothing, I think, to do with it; the case supposed is of being (not "married") to another man while the tie subsists; then she is guilty of adultery - not, if the husband be dead. Divorce is not in question, but acts of sin while the marriage subsists. This is evident. Mark 10 does not annul Matthew 19: a man putting away his wife is looked at as his act or will. If he puts away, he has broken a tie God formed, by his own will; then marrying another is adultery. By act of sin the tie was broken already, and judicial divorce allowed.

The priests were corrupt, and with their bad example the people were likewise corrupt. It is the prophet who speaks in verse 10. The One Father was Jehovah, with whom the nation was in covenant relation. They had one Father, and they were one as a nation. By profaning that covenant they dealt treacherously every man against his brother. The abomination in social life, by which the covenant was profaned, and the holiness of the Lord outraged, was the marriage with the daughters of the heathen. They had put away their own Israelitish wives in order to enter into these unholy alliances. The Jew acted faithlessly toward his brother, both when he contracted a marriage with a heathen woman, and when he put away his legitimate wife, and thereby desecrated the covenant of the fathers, i.e., the covenant that Jehovah made with their fathers when He chose them to be a separated people. Those who have done this will surely be cut off. Verse 13 describes the weeping and the tears of the abandoned Jewish wives; it is the same condition, only worse, which is recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah. All was an abomination unto the Lord. Over fifty years ago a writer called attention to the divorce evil in the United States. He wrote then:

The frequency of divorce in the United States, so that in one of the States divorce is allowed for "misconduct," reveals the same state of things existing now, as was here condemned by Jehovah, and must bring with it the same evils, and the same punishment. What tongue can adequately tell, what heart conceive, the untold misery from this cause, especially to the deserted wives, and the children left without a mother's care! How little is the indissoluble nature of the marriage relation regarded! and the fact, that the Lord was the witness of it, and will be a swift witness against those who violate it! The Saviour only allows of one cause of divorce, and regards divorce for any other as adultery.

In connection with the light of heaven on the lusts of the heart, the Lord adds His word on the permission of divorce in Deut. 24. It is here the woman protected against hard-hearted man. Positive sin in violation of the marriage tie alone calls for divorce. Men abused the licence beyond measure, as if the permission were a precept; and any vexation sufficed. But Jehovah hates putting away, as the last prophet testified to the Jews in their evil day.

In Matt. 19 the question distinctly proposed to Him by the Pharisees, Is it lawful to put away one's wife for every cause? And He answered and said, Have ye not read that He that made from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be united to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God joined together, let not man put asunder. They say to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put away? He saith to them, Moses for your hardness of heart allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been thus. But I say to you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and he that marrieth one put away committeth adultery. His disciples say to Him, If the case of man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. And He said to them, All cannot receive this word, but those to whom it hath been given.

This was explained by the Lord. Moses had suffered a man to put away his wife for any cause, as we see in Deut. 24:1, 3; but the Lord maintained God's original ordinance that what God had joined together, man had no right to put asunder, therefore a man must not put away his wife except for fornication, when she herself had broken the bond. Matt. 5:31-32; Matt. 19:3-9. A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT must be given to the woman, the drawing up of which, and having it witnessed, was some little check upon a man's hasty temper.

Divorce is used symbolically to express God's action in putting away Israel, who had been grossly unfaithful, and giving her a bill of divorcement. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8.