Is Divorce (Not For Fornication) Scriptural, As Long As There Is No Remarriage?

Many gospel preachers teach it is scriptural to divorce one’s spouse for reasons other than fornication as long as no remarriage follows. As a matter of fact, this might be the majority view of Christians. Let’s examine a few of their arguments, and then prove their position false by God’s word.

Contingency Legislation, Not An Exception

I Corinthians 7:10-11 is a critical passage to examine in regard to this issue. It reads "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." One key to verse 11 is to understand it does not contain an exception to verse 10, but instead expresses "contingency legislation." Contingency legislation (‘if … then’ legislation) gives instructions about what to do if something occurs, but does not necessarily give approval for the something that has occurred. This is how I Corinthians 7:10-11 is parallel to I John 2:1. The two passages are parallel in that both passages follow a command with contingency legislation, that is, what do I do if I sin by violating the command stated previous? Neither passage gives an exception to the command expressed; contingency legislation does not necessarily imply an allowance. The only exception to verse 10 is found in Matthew 19:9, therefore it is wrong to separate/divorce from your spouse for any reason other than fornication, even if you don’t remarry.

Galatians 5:15 and James 3:14

Saying I Corinthians 7:11 shows it is not a sin for one to depart as long as she doesn’t remarry, is about like saying it would not be a sin to "bite and devour one another," as long as you "take heed that ye be not consumed one of another" (Galatians 5:15). It would be about like saying it would not be a sin to "have bitter envying and strife in your hearts," as long as you "glory not, and lie not against the truth" (James 3:14).

Does I Corinthians 7:12-13 Allow Departing?

More than one has made the argument that because "Paul says that if the unbeliever is content to dwell with the believer, the Christian is not to leave" (from verses 12-13), that "implies that if the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the Christian, then the Christian can leave." But verses 12-13 do not imply what is claimed. The "if" construction does not necessarily imply it is okay to leave a spouse who is "not agreeing on an amiable relationship." Notice a parallel passage, I Cor 7:28, "… and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned." If the reasoning on verses 12-13 is correct, this verse would imply "if a virgin does not marry she hath sinned." Notice also Matthew 11:14, "And, if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." Again according to the divorce only advocate’s reasoning, this verse would imply "if ye will not receive it, this is not Elias, which was for to come."

Notice also in I Corinthians 7:12 we have a conclusion based upon two conditions: (1) "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and" (2) if "she be pleased to dwell with him." If it is valid to assume the converse of the conclusion if the second condition is not met (but the first is), why would it not likewise be valid to assume the converse of the conclusion if the first condition is not met (but the second is)? Therefore, by the reasoning under examination, this verse would also teach "If any brother hath a wife that does believe, and she is pleased to dwell with him," then the brother may leave. I doubt even Olan Hicks believed that.

The real converse of verses 12 and 13 is found in verse 15, "If they are not pleased to dwell with you” (verse 12), then “let them depart” (verse 15), not … then leave them yourself, or put them away. We should let the Bible interpret itself!

Does Luke 18:29-30 Allow For Departing?

The last common argument that I would like to deal with is from Luke 18:29-30 which reads, "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Some argue this verse allows for another cause for divorce ("for the kingdom of God’s sake" – who knows what this could include) in addition to the cause of fornication. But I would ask the reader, "have you ever mentioned this passage when asked where the Bible ever tells a man to leave his wife in the case of an unscriptural marriage?" The point is – this passage does not provide another cause for divorce, it is just talking about a person leaving his spouse because they are in an adulterous marriage.

I Corinthians 7:10 Obviously Does Forbid Divorce

So far we’ve dealt with several arguments being made to advance the position of divorce without remarriage. Now let’s notice a few affirmative arguments against the position. First of all, after proving I Corinthians 7:11 does not provide an exception to verse 10 but instead only provides contingency legislation, I Corinthians 7:10 can now be used as conclusive proof that divorce is wrong, in and of itself. Paul states here the general rule that departing is wrong; Matthew 5:32 gives the only exception to that rule. Since divorce involves departing, then divorce is necessarily forbidden by I Corinthians 7:10.

Matthew 19:3-9

Contrary to popular belief, Matthew 19:3-9 does not just condemn divorce and remarriage; it also condemns divorce all by itself. The initial question raised by the Pharisees in verse 3 pertains to divorce and not necessarily also to a remarriage. And Jesus answers the question of verse 3 ("Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?") with a resounding NO ("what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder") in verse 6. Jesus then gives an additional thought ("And") in verse 9, when he states if you divorce for a reason other than fornication and remarry, you commit the further sin of adultery. So Jesus provides the general rule that divorce is wrong in verse 6, and then gives the only exception to that general rule in verse 9.

Matthew 5:32

This same argument can be made even stronger from Matthew 5:32, because this verse does not mention the remarriage of the person doing the divorcing (as Matthew 19:9 does). Matthew 5:32 reads "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." This verse teaches it is wrong for a man to divorce his wife (not mentioning the remarriage of the man), and gives the only exception to that rule, fornication. Put in the words of the text, if a man divorces his wife (unless it is for fornication), he sins by putting her into a place of undeserved temptation ("causeth her to commit adultery"), regardless of whether or not he remarries. Anybody that can see Matthew 19:9 gives the one and only cause for "divorce and remarriage" by using the word "except" and therefore rules out Homer Hailey’ interpretation of I Corinthians 7:15, ought to be able to also see Matthew 5:32 gives the one and only cause for divorce (period) and therefore rules out any interpretation of I Corinthians 7:11, I Corinthians 7:12-13, or Luke 18:29-30 allowing divorce for causes other than fornication.

Two Options, But Are They Equal?

Some say it is wrong to leave, but if you do, I Corinthians 7:11 shows it is scriptural to remain apart. Besides flying in the face of what repentance means, this understanding is not born out by verse 11. Just because I Corinthians 7:11 mentions two options about what to do if someone departs (sins), that does not mean these two options are on equal footing. Notice a parallel verse that illustrates this possibility (that two given options are not necessarily "equal") – Revelation 3:15: It says "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot." I raise the question "Did the Laodiceans have the scriptural ‘option’ to be cold?" If not, why not? (since two options are given) All understand God wants a person to be hot, but if he isn’t hot, God would rather him be cold than lukewarm. Now this verse is not parallel to I Corinthians 7:11 in every respect, but it is parallel in that both passages give two options where one option is preferable over the other.

In our passage, verse 11 could mean the person who departed is to be reconciled if possible, but if reconciliation is not possible (suppose their former spouse won’t take them back), then they are to remain unmarried; they are not to commit the additional sin of adultery via remarriage. The fact that verse 11 could mean this, means verse 11 cannot be used as proof that either divorce, or a refusal to return, is not sin. As a matter of fact, not only could verse 11 mean this, it must mean this considering what the previous verse says!

Must She Be Reconciled?

Not only does Matthew 5:32 teach you sin by divorcing your spouse (even if you don’t remarry), it also teaches that if you do sin by divorcing your spouse, you continue in sin as long as you refuse to return back to the marriage. Matthew 5:32 teaches you sin when you divorce your spouse saving for the cause of fornication, because you place your spouse in a position of undeserved temptation. This implies that as long as you have opportunity to reconcile and don’t, you continue to be guilty of placing your spouse in that position of undeserved temptation.

Repentance of sin always requires correcting the sin where possible. For example, a man repenting of stealing should return what was stolen. But sometimes, only limited correction is possible. If a person commits murder, he will never be able to bring back his victim from the dead, but he can still be forgiven upon genuine repentance. Likewise, repentance by a woman who sins by departing from her husband would demand she seek restoration of the marriage – God expects her to fulfill her marriage vows. But if the man refuses to take her back, then she has done all she can do; she is forgiven; she cannot do the impossible. If the man will take her back (like he should), but she is unwilling, then she hasn’t really repented of breaking up the marriage, has she?

Conclusion

Yes, God "hateth putting away" (Malachi 2:16), even if no remarriage follows. God expects husbands to "dwell" with their wives according to knowledge.” And duh, you can’t dwell with your spouse according to knowledge unless you are dwelling with them. The Lord commands, "Let not the wife depart from her husband" (I Corinthians 7:10).

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:04 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 or at BibleCrossfire.com