Among the more commonly held perspectives concerning the doctrine on marital divorce in Christian circles is that the Lord Jesus Christ offered adultery as the sole biblical ground for divorce in what is called the “exception clause” (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9).  Our Lord was speaking to the “divorce for any reason” doctrinal position of the Pharisees and had no intention of providing a complete doctrine on divorce or even a complete doctrine on Biblical grounds for a marital divorce, yet these passages have been used to to say that Jesus provided the sole biblical ground for divorce.  Understanding what the  Lord Jesus says on the doctrine of divorce in conjunction with what the rest of Scripture has to say is the only sure way to discern God’s revelation on this important issue.  The hermeneutical rule is to use Scripture to interpret Scripture.  It is generally dangerous to build a doctrinal view from one Biblical passage unless the passage lends itself to such an understanding, and certainly the bare minimum standard would be that the passage as we understand it does not contradict other more clearly stated Biblical injunctions or expositions regarding the doctrine.

The reader ought to note that a second commonly held view on divorce is that two biblical grounds for divorce exist.  First, adultery from Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees, and second, Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian churches in 1 Corinthians 7.  So then, the two most popular views on the Biblical view on divorce are contradictory of one another.  To make matters worse, many Biblical pastors and teachers will strangely hold both views at the same time–holding the position that adultery is the only Biblical ground for divorce, but also believing that if an unbelieving spouse abandons a believer, then the believer is not bound in such cases.  Apparently these scholars do not hold themselves to the standard of eminent reason and logic; for their views may be loving and sympathetic, but illogical.  God is both loving and logical; therefore, one does not have to be abandoned for the other.

Logically, Matthew chapters 5 & 19 cannot rightfully be used as our Lord restricting divorce solely for those whose spouse committed adultery if Paul’s teaching on divorce is as clear as it would seem.  The Biblical ground for divorce found in 1 Corinthians 7 is traditionally called abandonment, which is unfortunate as Biblical expounders have understood Paul’s conclusion well enough, but they misapprehended the cause.  Paul says, “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15).  Obviously, the great Apostle is illuminating a new ground for divorce, but the context strongly indicates something other than abandonment.

Note the context in which Paul teaches this new doctrine (1 Corinthians 7:12-16).   Is it not Christians who are married to unbelievers?  Paul is very careful to point out that he did not receive this doctrine from the Lord or from any other Scriptural passage by saying, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord…”  Jesus did not teach Paul this doctrine when he was taken up into the third heavens, and Paul has not found this doctrine anywhere in Scripture.  It was literally a new doctrine designed for the body of Christ.  Paul’s new teaching, though unprecedented, is consistent with all Biblical injunctions and instructions concerning the doctrines on unequally yoked marriage and divorce.  Most have mistakenly concluded Paul’s new doctrine to be little more than abandonment.  In so doing, church leaders demonstrated a failure to understand the divine inspiration and therefore the brilliance of Paul’s unequally yoked treatise for the church era.

Note: Paul did not add that if the believing spouse leaves, then the unbelieving spouse was not bound.  Abandonment is not a behavior that is committed exclusively by unbelieving spouses.  If the aim of his new teaching was abandonment, then it was poorly constructed and insufficient to solve the dilemma born by the unequally yoked believers clearly stated in the context and followed up with Paul’s subsequent command ‘Do not be bound together with unbelievers’ provided in his next letter to the same church [2 Corinthians 6:14].  Paul’s logic was renown then and has been throughout the centuries.  No, Paul was not introducing a new rule governing abandonment.  Abandonment by the unbelieving spouse from verse 15 exemplifies the obvious resolution for the unequally yoked Christian; however, it is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of Paul’s unprecedented doctrine on unequally yoked Christians.  Bear in mind, the foundations for Paul’s new doctrine are anything but unprecedented as the Old Testament established a law of divorce and states scores of times God’s prohibition for his people to be married to unbelievers as well as divorcing them in order to get right with God.  It was the newly existent Church that required unprecedented instructions for its members who found themselves bound together with unregenerate spouses, and the Great Apostle provided those instructions to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:12-16).

If not abandonment, then what was the nature of Paul’s novel composition?  The believer is being instructed to seek whether their unbelieving spouse was willing to consent to live with them as Christians must live.  Paul realizes that the believer has died with Christ so the old marriage covenant needs to be replaced with a new covenant whereby the unbelieving spouse agrees to first, reflect the increasing sanctification of the believing spouse.  Second, to raise the children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.  Third, to maintain peace in the home and finally, to recognize that salvation is in no other name than the name Jesus.  These four qualities are found in the immediate context and are non negotiable.  They may be relative from one marriage to another, but they are necessary.  In return, with this consent provided by the unbelieving spouse, the believing spouse is not required to divorce the unbelieving spouse.

Failure on the part of the unbelieving spouse to consent to these terms constitutes treacherous behavior toward the believer, which is logically and Biblically the primary ground for divorce.  Consider what a failure to consent to live with the believer looks like.  First, the unbeliever will live as worldly as they desire.  Second, the unbeliever will raise the children in any way but the fear and admonition of the Lord.  “You can go to church, but I’ll be damned if you think I’m going to let you take our children with you.”  Third, the unbeliever will hold Christian beliefs in contempt, they will mock and ridicule the believer for their faith.  Fourth, the believer will not agree that salvation is in Christ.  Paul provides these four as outcomes and not conditions, which give them greater significance.  If only one of them is not consented to, then Paul’s expected outcome for the believer will not exist.  Can the reader see the difference in consenting to live with the believer as they must live the Christian life and fighting the believer every step of the way?  Paul is saying if consent to these minimum standards is refused by the unbeliever, then the believing spouse must begin petitioning the Lord to see if divorce is God’s will for them.  The believer must not live in a house divided for it cannot stand.

Each spouse has been instructed to fulfill one significant request.  The unbelieving spouse must consent to these four outcomes for the marriage.  The believing spouse cannot divorce the unbelieving spouse if true consent is granted and followed.  Finally, Paul adds verse 15 that unequivocally indicates the unbeliever is refusing consent.  The believer has their unambiguous answer.  And is it not obvious that Paul would never request the believer to consent to live with the unbeliever as they choose to live?  To do so would be agreeing to be unfaithful to God.  One cannot serve two masters.  It is equally obvious that Paul would never have said the unbelieving spouse cannot divorce the believer if the believer agrees to give their consent.  Why?  Because the unbelieving spouse has no interest in obeying the apostle, the Bible or even the Lord God Almighty.

However this passage is understood, one thing is clear.  The Church cannot continue arguing that Jesus provided adultery as the sole ground for divorce.  That was not His intention and it has not served the Church well.  Had Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians been followed these 2000 years, the church would have been far more holy.

Paul’s Novel Treatise Article: https://wordpress.com/post/biblicalviewondivorce.com/612