When one spouse perpetually breaks the conditions of the marriage covenant their marriage partner is no longer bound by the covenant because it has been broken. For example, when a married man is addicted to pornography and he refuses to get professional help so that he can escape the addiction, he is breaking the condition of fidelity to his wife. When he prefers images of strange women doing all sorts of lurid sexual actions to men and other women alike so that he can fulfill his own sexual desires and fantasies he is being unfaithful to his wife.
Now those who define “until death do us part” as a divine command to never divorce for any reason would say this situation is unfortunate for this woman, but she still must remain faithful even though her husband is perpetually committing infidelity. Even though he is perpetually committing crimes against her and sins against the Lord she must remain faithful as our heavenly Father is faithful. They claim that she would be committing a crime against her husband and a sin against our Lord if she were to break the marriage covenant by divorcing her unfaithful husband. They claim that her vows are broken by her divorcing her husband—vows made in the presence of witnesses and before God.
First of all, those who hold such a foolish position should bring forward as evidence the vow that says I shall remain faithful to this covenant regardless of my spouse perpetually breaking the conditions of the covenant. The very purpose of the conditions is to assure that both parties are protected from this kind of deception. The conditions of covenants exist so that both parties will be assured to receive the benefits for which they enter the covenant in the first place. The purpose of a covenant is to convey one or more blessings upon one or both parties to the covenant. A bilateral covenant (such as the marriage covenant) conveys blessings on each party—otherwise they would not have any interest in entering into the covenant. A covenant is an obligation. Why would anybody unnecessarily obligate themselves? Again, nobody in their right mind would bind themselves for nothing—they obligate themselves because there is a desired reward for doing so. So when either partner to the covenant demonstrates that they are breaking the conditions that were requirements to the covenant, then they have broken the covenant and the injured covenant partner is no longer bound by the covenant freeing them to enter into another new covenant with someone who intends to and is able to keep the covenant conditions.
Some will argue that as believers in Christ Jesus we should follow God’s example and forgive our spouses even when they perpetually break the conditions of the marriage covenant? This of course restricts divorce more severely than Christ Himself who gave us the exception clause: “except in the case of pornia” (sexual infidelity). In addition, this is a false argument because it is not what God does. God sends unrepentant sinners (covenant breakers) to eternal damnation—“away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thes. 1:9). God only enters into relationship with covenant keepers. Of course it is God who keeps the covenant for (on the behalf of) His beloved children, but the covenant between God and His children has every single condition met without fail.
Not only does God give us the righteousness of Christ so that we are positionaly in good standing with all of the conditions of our covenant with God, but God also places His Holy Spirit within us to cause us to walk according to His statutes and He empowers each of us to observe His ordinances (Ezekiel 36:27). So the reality is that each of God’s chosen children are keepers of all of the conditions of the covenant that God has welcomed them into for His glory and for their salvation. As a result both parties of the beloved’s covenant with God will receive the blessings for which they entered the covenant.
God is and will be fully glorified and shown to be worthy of all praise and His chosen vessels of mercy will receive salvation and eternal life in heaven with God. God guarantees both ends of the covenant. Neither party must languish in and serve a broken covenant providing blessings to their spurious partner while being defiled and derided by that same person, which is precisely what the people who claim all divorce to be sin are insisting upon.
Now if men had the power to keep both ends of the marriage covenant, then it could be argued that a godly person should do so in keeping with the Father’s example, but men do not have the power to repent for another person or to keep another person from sin. Neither can we pay for the sins of another person.
Those who claim that divorce is always a sin would argue that Christians must follow the law of love and endure their unfaithful partner with long-suffering because their reward in heaven will be great. Their reward in heaven will be great because Jesus has won it for them. Having long-suffering for the brethren is not at issue in a marriage to an unbelieving spouse. Believers suffer the imperfections of one another because it is the loving thing to do and because each one remains imperfect as long as they are in the flesh, but believers are commanded to separate themselves from the unrepentant because bad company corrupts good morals, because a believer and an unbeliever have nothing in common, because Ezra’s godly example demands as much, etc.
The damage done to the believer who is strongly encouraged (frightened with the threat of God’s eternal wrath) to remain in an unequally yoked marital relationship is awful indeed. They are providing benefits in exchange for nothing, which is very much like making a house payment faithfully each month even though the house has never been made available to live in and enjoy. In addition any children in an unequally yoked marriage will receive an undue influence from the unbelieving spouse because the children come into the world slaves to unrighteousness, which causes them to feel a greater kinship with their unbelieving parent. The believing spouse will be discouraged in their own sanctification efforts, and the children will be encouraged to sin without consequence, seeing that their unbelieving parent is more often than not rewarded for taking tremendous advantage of the believing spouse.
Another sad reality of the position that says the dissolution of an unequally yoked marriage is always a crime against man and a sin against God is that it appears to turn the unbelieving, perpetually offending marriage partner into the innocent victim while at the same time slanders the name and reputation of the believing spouse who has kept the conditions of the marriage covenant often for years or decades without benefit. The obedient child of God is turned upon and torn to pieces by the very people who should be most supportive as in the days of Ezra.
By seeking a divorce the obedient child of God is following God’s command not to be in any unequally yoked relationship (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; Ezra 10: 3, 11; Judges 3:6-8; Deut. 21:10-14; Psalm 89:38-45) yet he is portrayed by many in the church as the offender against God and man, while the true offender snickers as they are lofted as the poor victim. The godless spouse often goes beyond snickering to libeling their believing partner in order to bring undeserved discredit to them. Those who hold this position in the church happily join forces with the godless partner in order to shame and pressure the believer into repenting of their decision to divorce their unrepentant, unbelieving spouse. Of course doing so would require them to break with scripture, reason and their own conscience, which does not seem to bother those who hold this shameful man-made doctrine of no divorce ever.