[This essay was written in response to a Christian woman whose faith and personal commitment was given over to the leadership of God and Christ and the Scriptural teaching of the church. She was subject to an oppressive and disrespecting relationship with her husband, a Christian by personal claim, but not by his treatment of her. I did not and do not know this unfortunate woman, but wrote this for at the request of a mutual friend. My analysis, like her faith, is strictly based on the example and teaching of Jesus and the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.)
Questions of Christian marriage—and divorce—are not matters wisely approached through narrow, legalistic dictates or simplistic bromides. Jesus denounced legalism as inconsistent with the Heart and Love of God. Rather, we must approach questions and answers of marriage and divorce filtered through the heart of Jesus, his love and teaching on compassion and kindness. And we must understand the time, context and circumstances of his teaching on divorce, as well as that of Moses and the Apostle Paul. In particular, it is important to understand what assumptions prevailed about theocratic context, shared faith community, and mutual submission to God or to Christ. And what difference does it make when the parties are set in a secular context, or if there is not a mutual submission to a present Spirit of Christ?
Jesus made clear that all faith life and community—however changing or evolving—was to be lived out in the context of the New Covenant of love (John 13:33-35; 15:7-12). This is our starting point and our ending point. Love, compassion, kindness and forgiveness were to mark Christian relationships with all people, and certainly others in faith community. And in that context, the marriage relationship was especially singled out by Jesus and Paul for special attention and understandings (Matt.19; Eph.5; 1 Corinthians 7). Let's take some time to review the relevant teachings and background.
Rules for a Theocratic Israel
Jesus' comments on divorce are often quoted from the Gospels of Matthew or Mark and portrayed simply, legalistically, without qualification, context or history. But it is important to understand more about such things. Genesis 2: 24 sets the first stone of our understanding in its statement that, "For this cause a man shall cleave [that is, "cling"] to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." And I think most all would agree that this call and expectation goes beyond the physical relationships to the loving, serving relationship later articulated by Paul in Ephesians.
But Deuteronomy 24:1 makes it clear Moses understood full well the failings of people, and that some marriage relationships were not ordained or blessed by God. A remedy (albeit a one-sided remedy) was provided: "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce..." While the cultural one-sidedness of the remedy must be noted, it must also be inferred that "some indecency" was intended to describe a material matter or offense in light of God's admonition to "cleave" and "become one flesh" in a relationship subordinated to God and faith community.
Jesus’ Corrective Teaching
But the actual practice of divorce among God's people Israel became more relaxed and perfunctory to the point that by Jesus' time a man was allowed to hand a certificate of divorce to his wife for almost any displeasure or dislike at all. And that is what Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19. In this circumstance of Pharisees baiting Jesus about the necessity for "any cause at all" for divorce, Jesus makes His case as strongly as He can in defense of marriage and limiting the defensible occasions for divorce. Jesus quotes Genesis 2, reiterating that, "they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate." When asked why Moses allowed a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away, Jesus answered, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." Actually, as we noted above, it was not that way even in Moses time, for he allowed it only where a husband "has found some indecency in [his wife]." But to drive home his point, Jesus adds, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
As is understandable in such circumstances--given the extent and gravity of the problem--Jesus errs on the side of the strongest possible statement and the most limited of possible exceptions. The concern and principle addressed here is the importance of a loving, compassionate, committed marriage relationship in reverence and honor to God and community. It is not about the troubling circumstances under which a faithful wife must be protected from physical or emotional mistreatment by a dishonorable spouse. Rather, here, Jesus' love, compassion and admonishments are poured out over the failure of selfish, self-centered Jewish men and the lax, legalistic administration of the Pharisees to honor God and His marriage principles. Here he seeks to protect the many faithful, but defenseless women from the more common, more threatening spousal mistreatment of the time: abandonment by a husband without good or any cause. But does anyone doubt that Jesus would also have stood up to protect otherwise oppressed or abused wives, if that were a significant concern?
And let us remember that this history of faith practice from the time of Moses to the time of Jesus assumed the context of a theocratic culture where faith life and government were under the same authority, where all people and relationships were assumed to be submitted to God and faith community. This was the orientation of God's people Israel, notwithstanding the circumstances of the captivity and the Roman occupation. And this was the context and assumption within which Jesus' acted and spoke. For most all of His ministry, Jesus directed His attention and teaching only to the people and theocratic culture of Jewish Israel (Matt. 10:5-6).
Paul’s Expanded Principles
for Christians in Marriage
It is the Apostle Paul who addresses more fully the issues of Christian marriage and divorce for new Christian communities growing within cities or areas of diverse faiths and philosophies outside Israel. In these communities, the assumptions of shared Jewish culture and faith—or shared Christian culture and faith—are not valid, and the circumstances and relationships in marriage are often far more complex. In these circumstances, only the shared faith and love in Christ and the guidance of an indwelling Spirit would suffice. Legalistic rules would not.
In Ephesians 5, Paul generally admonishes us to be "imitators of God" and advises us of the things to avoid in that endeavor. Then, beginning in the 18th verse, He shares how we are to conduct ourselves with each other: "...be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in hymns and psalms and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear [awe, reverence] of Christ."
What have verses 18-21 to do with Paul's teaching on marriage? A lot. It immediately precedes and sets the teaching foundations and assumptions for the further teaching on the marriage relationship. That is, it is God's ideal and charge to us that, even in the everyday relationships between and among all Christians, there is expected a Spirit-filled, joyful, celebratory thankfulness and submission to God's love and will--and in those relationships we are also to be subject to one another.
That would apply generally to spouses just as much as anyone else. That is to say, husbands are expected to be subject to their wives and wives to their husbands. But then, in verse 22 of Ephesians, Paul focuses on the special expectations of husbands and wives. Wives are admonished to more especially be subject to their husbands "as to the Lord," and to respect them. This makes clear that the relationship of the wife with Christ is at the center of her relationship with her husband. And while all Christians are called to love each other, and especially Christian spouses, Paul admonishes husbands to more especially love their wives "...just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for Her." It is made clear that the relationship of the husband with Christ is also at the center of his relationship with his wife. The husband is called to a love of his wife modeled after Christ’s love, a love so committed that it is sacrificial unto death. Then, making the point in a way easier for some men to relate to, perhaps, Paul says that each husband should love his wife "...even as himself."
In summary, Paul’s guidance in Ephesians 5 stresses the central and mediating role of the marriage couple’s mutually-submitted faith relationship in Christ, and that the marriage relationship is lived in and through their shared love of Him.
Paul sets the bar impossibly high; I think most of us might agree on that. There are no marriages with which I am familiar that reach that Christ-like perfection. But failure to meet God's standard for marriage does not constitute a standard for divorce. It is after all, the standard of God's righteousness, the ideal to which we are called in and through Jesus--and we and God know we all fall short of that. We are unavoidably working with and through our human failings. But just because we cannot live fully to that standard doesn't mean we are not called to strive toward it, to consistently set it before God in a deepening prayer relationship through Jesus. Phillip Yancy, in his book, The Jesus I Never Knew, made the same powerful point about the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 25:21-48). Jesus, in one case after another, takes us beyond a challenging human standard to God's standard of righteousness: don't even be angry; don't even lust in your heart; love even your enemies; don't divorce except for unchastity; and in closing , "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Now that could be—and often is—deeply discouraging to most of us mere mortals. But Yancy also directs us to the Scriptural reminder that, "There is none righteous, not even one," and further on, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift of His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:9, 23-24.) That's the point, isn't it? We are called to a life that strives toward God's righteousness, and despite our human failings and failures, finds promised hope, redemption, and restoration in the teaching, example and saving grace of Christ Jesus. We are His Easter people, living in the well-founded hope of faith and relationship with Him. We understand that we live each day to be drawn a little closer to him, to reflect more of Him.
So, what has that to do with a Christian standard for divorce? Well, before we can talk further about an appropriate standard for divorce, we have to understand the standard for Christian marriage and how to successfully continue in that marriage. And that real-life, everyday standard for marriage—and I hope this is clear—is not perfection in either party to the marriage relationship. The only perfect one in the shared relationship is Jesus. Perfection, God's righteousness, is not in the cards dealt us. Rather, we come to the marriage relationship as we come to the faith community and life generally—flawed creatures, at best well-intentioned and wrestling earnestly with our faith as we daily fall short to one extent or another.
It is the shared love in and through Jesus that anoints and redeems the marriage relationship. It is in the trust, respect and forgiveness that is ours through Jesus that the Christian marriage strengthens and grows. It calls us more each day to humility and selflessness toward each other. It calls us to acknowledgment of shortcomings and an apologetic spirit that allows couples to respectfully, constructively and continually adjust their course and move on together. It is in prayer that we start each day of marriage relationship anew, restored in that relationship with Him and each other. It is the commitment to each other through the Lord that is our foundation—and it is that foundation that carries us through our differences and most challenging times to the greatest joys of the marriage relationship.
But what about the case when one spouse is not a Christian? Or, more difficult to navigate, what about that case where the authentic love of Christ is shared by only one spouse, and where the other lives a life in marriage relationship that does not honor God, and does not honor the spouse--even dishonors, oppresses or abuses the spouse while continuing to invoke, "Lord, Lord"? Is the only standard for divorce narrowly that of "unchastity," as some Christians insist?
Paul’s New Divorce Principle:
The Unbelieving Spouse
Paul gets us started in addressing these questions in 1 Corinthians 7 where he discusses the situation of the "unbelieving spouse." The implied context of this broader teaching by Paul suggests an unsettled time, perhaps a time of change, challenge or threat to the Christian community. But even if marked by a cautionary tone, the teaching is nonetheless timeless and universal in application, and consistent with the earlier teachings and principles we've discussed. But the older teachings do not address the new, more complicated situations. It is here that the issue of an "unbelieving spouses" must be addressed for the first time. Outside of the insular world of theocratic Israel, the failure of assumptions of common faith culture and commitment are now a new reality. Hellenic, non-Jewish married couples are now drawn into the ambit of Pauline Christian evangelism and teaching. Sometimes one spouse would accept Christ and a faith relationship in Christian community, but the other spouse would not. What to do.
Reflecting God's wisdom, Paul proclaims, "And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away." But more, "if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or sister is not under bondage [obligation] in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know O wife [or husband] whether you will save your husband [or wife]?"
Paul, by the example in the this teaching, again makes clear how essential an authentic faith relationship with Christ is on the part of both spouses—essential, that is, to assure that faith principles and teachings on Christian marriage are honored. For without a mutually-shared relationship with Christ mediating the marriage relationship, the narrower assumptions and teachings on divorce cannot apply. The believing spouse, if still bound by the older, narrower assumptions and teachings, would be at the mercy of the unbelieving spouse, and any non-Christian values and behavior he or she independently embraces and brings to the marriage. And if the result is the dishonoring, oppression or abuse of the believing spouse, a legalistic approach would provide no protection or escape to the abused believer. But Paul emphasizes that the believer must be able to rest assured and protected in God’s call to peace in faith in Christian marriage.
Appropriately then, Paul allows that if the unbelieving spouse consents to remain in the marriage relationship, then the believing spouse should not send the unbeliever away. But impliedly, certainly, the unbelieving spouse--by his or her consent to stay--is also consenting to a relationship that honors Christian principles of marriage. This is an essential understanding to assure the protection and "peace" in faith of the believing spouse. And if the unbeliever does consent, but then proceeds to dishonor, oppress or abuse the believing spouse, the believing spouse, impliedly, could still send away—divorce—the offending, unbelieving spouse. For then the marriage relationship cannot honor God, the believer is at risk of physical or emotional harm, and the faith life of the believer is certainly not at peace. And the only way that a believing spouse is likely to be a bridge to faith for the unbeliever is if there is a basic, mutual honoring of the Christian principles of marriage relationship. If that consent and commitment is not given and lived out, the believing spouse is unacceptably at risk and right to leave.
Yet, I do not mean to leave the impression that marriage of a Christian believer to a nonbeliever is more likely to prove unworkable or result in divorce. In fact, it is my understanding that the rate of divorce among married Christians is about as high as between non-Christians who marry. Which is to say two things: first, there are also a lot of non-Christians who marry who love and honor each other, who work hard at their differences and their ability to be a better spouse, who embrace marriage values similar to those of Christians and live them. Second, there are a lot of married Christians who divorce. Far too many. But why?
One answer might be that the Christian faith earnestly embraced and lived prepares spouses for successful marriage no better than any other faith or philosophy, or none at all. A troubling answer, and untrue. The other is that too many Christian spouses who say "Lord, Lord" have not authentically embraced God's love, submitted themselves to Christ and to each other in shared relationship, and meaningfully committed to live their married life consistent with Christian principles and teachings. This, regrettably, is the likely case in far too many Christian marriages ending in divorce. How do we know them? We know them by their lack of a submitted marital relationship, the absence of expressed love, respect, patience and kindness toward a spouse. We know them by their hurtful marital behavior, the lack of fruit in their marriage and, too often, the harm done.
"Lord, Lord":
The Common Case of the Uncommitted Believer
How, then, is the uncommitted believer who does not honor or live his faith in the marriage relationship—but invokes "Lord, Lord"—any different in place or standing than the unbeliever that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7? And more, what of the uncommitted believer who is also unrepentant or unchanging in dishonoring, oppressing or abusing a believing spouse who honors God? The answer is clear, is it not? There is no difference. They necessarily stand in the same place in questions of divorce and protecting an innocent believing spouse. For Jesus made clear that, “Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven….A spouse, a so-called "believer", who invokes "Lord, Lord," but fails to honor, and do his or her best to earnestly reflect, the heart and character of Christ and the love of God, for purposes of divorce stands before Jesus as an unbeliever.
Then, if such an uncommitted believer leaves—divorces—a God-honoring spouse, the divorced spouse cannot be under "bondage," as Paul puts it, and bears no fault or sin in the divorce. And a fortiori, the God-honoring spouse should not be under "bondage" and should bear no fault or sin for leaving—divorcing—the dishonoring, oppressive or abusive spouse, whether or not that dishonoring spouse invokes "Lord, Lord.” The dishonoring spouse must be treated as an “unbeliever” for purposes of divorce considerations.
It is also important to remember that we are called to submit ourselves only to the faith community and those who earnestly strive to reflect that faith, those values, and that behavior. We are admonished not to submit ourselves to the wrong ways, base values and hurtful behavior too often found in the world. And when those baser values of the world are reflected by uncommitted believers, we are not to submit to them as Christians, and we are not to submit to them as Christian spouses. To do so denies God's promises to God-honoring, oppressed or abused spouses; it denies them the fullness of love and joy in Christian life and identity, and the fulfillment of spiritual calling and gifted service. In those cases, the offending spouse has acted the part of a nonbeliever based on unchanging nonconformity to Christian teaching and marriage principles. And the marriage dissolution should be recognized by the church, for in those cases no Christian marriage exists in fact.
This result follows from a fair and reasonable understanding and extension of the teachings of Paul in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. And the same result easily follows from the application of broader Christian principles and assessments of spousal fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) as they speak to us through the Spirit, teaching and example of Christ Jesus. For, as we observed at the outset, we must in the end approach questions and answers of marriage and divorce filtered through the heart of Christ, His love and teaching on compassion and kindness.
In closing, I would also remind church leaders that it is the responsibility of the church to shepherd, teach, and protect the flock of Christ. That includes the shepherding and teaching of immature and uncommitted Christians. But it also includes the shepherding and protection of those God-honoring believers "more sinned against than sinning" in oppressive or abusive marriages that disrespect and dishonor the believer and God.
© Gregory E. Hudson 2009
Questions of Christian marriage—and divorce—are not matters wisely approached through narrow, legalistic dictates or simplistic bromides. Jesus denounced legalism as inconsistent with the Heart and Love of God. Rather, we must approach questions and answers of marriage and divorce filtered through the heart of Jesus, his love and teaching on compassion and kindness. And we must understand the time, context and circumstances of his teaching on divorce, as well as that of Moses and the Apostle Paul. In particular, it is important to understand what assumptions prevailed about theocratic context, shared faith community, and mutual submission to God or to Christ. And what difference does it make when the parties are set in a secular context, or if there is not a mutual submission to a present Spirit of Christ?
Jesus made clear that all faith life and community—however changing or evolving—was to be lived out in the context of the New Covenant of love (John 13:33-35; 15:7-12). This is our starting point and our ending point. Love, compassion, kindness and forgiveness were to mark Christian relationships with all people, and certainly others in faith community. And in that context, the marriage relationship was especially singled out by Jesus and Paul for special attention and understandings (Matt.19; Eph.5; 1 Corinthians 7). Let's take some time to review the relevant teachings and background.
Rules for a Theocratic Israel
Jesus' comments on divorce are often quoted from the Gospels of Matthew or Mark and portrayed simply, legalistically, without qualification, context or history. But it is important to understand more about such things. Genesis 2: 24 sets the first stone of our understanding in its statement that, "For this cause a man shall cleave [that is, "cling"] to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." And I think most all would agree that this call and expectation goes beyond the physical relationships to the loving, serving relationship later articulated by Paul in Ephesians.
But Deuteronomy 24:1 makes it clear Moses understood full well the failings of people, and that some marriage relationships were not ordained or blessed by God. A remedy (albeit a one-sided remedy) was provided: "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce..." While the cultural one-sidedness of the remedy must be noted, it must also be inferred that "some indecency" was intended to describe a material matter or offense in light of God's admonition to "cleave" and "become one flesh" in a relationship subordinated to God and faith community.
Jesus’ Corrective Teaching
But the actual practice of divorce among God's people Israel became more relaxed and perfunctory to the point that by Jesus' time a man was allowed to hand a certificate of divorce to his wife for almost any displeasure or dislike at all. And that is what Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19. In this circumstance of Pharisees baiting Jesus about the necessity for "any cause at all" for divorce, Jesus makes His case as strongly as He can in defense of marriage and limiting the defensible occasions for divorce. Jesus quotes Genesis 2, reiterating that, "they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate." When asked why Moses allowed a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away, Jesus answered, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." Actually, as we noted above, it was not that way even in Moses time, for he allowed it only where a husband "has found some indecency in [his wife]." But to drive home his point, Jesus adds, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
As is understandable in such circumstances--given the extent and gravity of the problem--Jesus errs on the side of the strongest possible statement and the most limited of possible exceptions. The concern and principle addressed here is the importance of a loving, compassionate, committed marriage relationship in reverence and honor to God and community. It is not about the troubling circumstances under which a faithful wife must be protected from physical or emotional mistreatment by a dishonorable spouse. Rather, here, Jesus' love, compassion and admonishments are poured out over the failure of selfish, self-centered Jewish men and the lax, legalistic administration of the Pharisees to honor God and His marriage principles. Here he seeks to protect the many faithful, but defenseless women from the more common, more threatening spousal mistreatment of the time: abandonment by a husband without good or any cause. But does anyone doubt that Jesus would also have stood up to protect otherwise oppressed or abused wives, if that were a significant concern?
And let us remember that this history of faith practice from the time of Moses to the time of Jesus assumed the context of a theocratic culture where faith life and government were under the same authority, where all people and relationships were assumed to be submitted to God and faith community. This was the orientation of God's people Israel, notwithstanding the circumstances of the captivity and the Roman occupation. And this was the context and assumption within which Jesus' acted and spoke. For most all of His ministry, Jesus directed His attention and teaching only to the people and theocratic culture of Jewish Israel (Matt. 10:5-6).
Paul’s Expanded Principles
for Christians in Marriage
It is the Apostle Paul who addresses more fully the issues of Christian marriage and divorce for new Christian communities growing within cities or areas of diverse faiths and philosophies outside Israel. In these communities, the assumptions of shared Jewish culture and faith—or shared Christian culture and faith—are not valid, and the circumstances and relationships in marriage are often far more complex. In these circumstances, only the shared faith and love in Christ and the guidance of an indwelling Spirit would suffice. Legalistic rules would not.
In Ephesians 5, Paul generally admonishes us to be "imitators of God" and advises us of the things to avoid in that endeavor. Then, beginning in the 18th verse, He shares how we are to conduct ourselves with each other: "...be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in hymns and psalms and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear [awe, reverence] of Christ."
What have verses 18-21 to do with Paul's teaching on marriage? A lot. It immediately precedes and sets the teaching foundations and assumptions for the further teaching on the marriage relationship. That is, it is God's ideal and charge to us that, even in the everyday relationships between and among all Christians, there is expected a Spirit-filled, joyful, celebratory thankfulness and submission to God's love and will--and in those relationships we are also to be subject to one another.
That would apply generally to spouses just as much as anyone else. That is to say, husbands are expected to be subject to their wives and wives to their husbands. But then, in verse 22 of Ephesians, Paul focuses on the special expectations of husbands and wives. Wives are admonished to more especially be subject to their husbands "as to the Lord," and to respect them. This makes clear that the relationship of the wife with Christ is at the center of her relationship with her husband. And while all Christians are called to love each other, and especially Christian spouses, Paul admonishes husbands to more especially love their wives "...just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for Her." It is made clear that the relationship of the husband with Christ is also at the center of his relationship with his wife. The husband is called to a love of his wife modeled after Christ’s love, a love so committed that it is sacrificial unto death. Then, making the point in a way easier for some men to relate to, perhaps, Paul says that each husband should love his wife "...even as himself."
In summary, Paul’s guidance in Ephesians 5 stresses the central and mediating role of the marriage couple’s mutually-submitted faith relationship in Christ, and that the marriage relationship is lived in and through their shared love of Him.
Paul sets the bar impossibly high; I think most of us might agree on that. There are no marriages with which I am familiar that reach that Christ-like perfection. But failure to meet God's standard for marriage does not constitute a standard for divorce. It is after all, the standard of God's righteousness, the ideal to which we are called in and through Jesus--and we and God know we all fall short of that. We are unavoidably working with and through our human failings. But just because we cannot live fully to that standard doesn't mean we are not called to strive toward it, to consistently set it before God in a deepening prayer relationship through Jesus. Phillip Yancy, in his book, The Jesus I Never Knew, made the same powerful point about the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 25:21-48). Jesus, in one case after another, takes us beyond a challenging human standard to God's standard of righteousness: don't even be angry; don't even lust in your heart; love even your enemies; don't divorce except for unchastity; and in closing , "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Now that could be—and often is—deeply discouraging to most of us mere mortals. But Yancy also directs us to the Scriptural reminder that, "There is none righteous, not even one," and further on, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift of His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:9, 23-24.) That's the point, isn't it? We are called to a life that strives toward God's righteousness, and despite our human failings and failures, finds promised hope, redemption, and restoration in the teaching, example and saving grace of Christ Jesus. We are His Easter people, living in the well-founded hope of faith and relationship with Him. We understand that we live each day to be drawn a little closer to him, to reflect more of Him.
So, what has that to do with a Christian standard for divorce? Well, before we can talk further about an appropriate standard for divorce, we have to understand the standard for Christian marriage and how to successfully continue in that marriage. And that real-life, everyday standard for marriage—and I hope this is clear—is not perfection in either party to the marriage relationship. The only perfect one in the shared relationship is Jesus. Perfection, God's righteousness, is not in the cards dealt us. Rather, we come to the marriage relationship as we come to the faith community and life generally—flawed creatures, at best well-intentioned and wrestling earnestly with our faith as we daily fall short to one extent or another.
It is the shared love in and through Jesus that anoints and redeems the marriage relationship. It is in the trust, respect and forgiveness that is ours through Jesus that the Christian marriage strengthens and grows. It calls us more each day to humility and selflessness toward each other. It calls us to acknowledgment of shortcomings and an apologetic spirit that allows couples to respectfully, constructively and continually adjust their course and move on together. It is in prayer that we start each day of marriage relationship anew, restored in that relationship with Him and each other. It is the commitment to each other through the Lord that is our foundation—and it is that foundation that carries us through our differences and most challenging times to the greatest joys of the marriage relationship.
But what about the case when one spouse is not a Christian? Or, more difficult to navigate, what about that case where the authentic love of Christ is shared by only one spouse, and where the other lives a life in marriage relationship that does not honor God, and does not honor the spouse--even dishonors, oppresses or abuses the spouse while continuing to invoke, "Lord, Lord"? Is the only standard for divorce narrowly that of "unchastity," as some Christians insist?
Paul’s New Divorce Principle:
The Unbelieving Spouse
Paul gets us started in addressing these questions in 1 Corinthians 7 where he discusses the situation of the "unbelieving spouse." The implied context of this broader teaching by Paul suggests an unsettled time, perhaps a time of change, challenge or threat to the Christian community. But even if marked by a cautionary tone, the teaching is nonetheless timeless and universal in application, and consistent with the earlier teachings and principles we've discussed. But the older teachings do not address the new, more complicated situations. It is here that the issue of an "unbelieving spouses" must be addressed for the first time. Outside of the insular world of theocratic Israel, the failure of assumptions of common faith culture and commitment are now a new reality. Hellenic, non-Jewish married couples are now drawn into the ambit of Pauline Christian evangelism and teaching. Sometimes one spouse would accept Christ and a faith relationship in Christian community, but the other spouse would not. What to do.
Reflecting God's wisdom, Paul proclaims, "And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away." But more, "if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or sister is not under bondage [obligation] in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know O wife [or husband] whether you will save your husband [or wife]?"
Paul, by the example in the this teaching, again makes clear how essential an authentic faith relationship with Christ is on the part of both spouses—essential, that is, to assure that faith principles and teachings on Christian marriage are honored. For without a mutually-shared relationship with Christ mediating the marriage relationship, the narrower assumptions and teachings on divorce cannot apply. The believing spouse, if still bound by the older, narrower assumptions and teachings, would be at the mercy of the unbelieving spouse, and any non-Christian values and behavior he or she independently embraces and brings to the marriage. And if the result is the dishonoring, oppression or abuse of the believing spouse, a legalistic approach would provide no protection or escape to the abused believer. But Paul emphasizes that the believer must be able to rest assured and protected in God’s call to peace in faith in Christian marriage.
Appropriately then, Paul allows that if the unbelieving spouse consents to remain in the marriage relationship, then the believing spouse should not send the unbeliever away. But impliedly, certainly, the unbelieving spouse--by his or her consent to stay--is also consenting to a relationship that honors Christian principles of marriage. This is an essential understanding to assure the protection and "peace" in faith of the believing spouse. And if the unbeliever does consent, but then proceeds to dishonor, oppress or abuse the believing spouse, the believing spouse, impliedly, could still send away—divorce—the offending, unbelieving spouse. For then the marriage relationship cannot honor God, the believer is at risk of physical or emotional harm, and the faith life of the believer is certainly not at peace. And the only way that a believing spouse is likely to be a bridge to faith for the unbeliever is if there is a basic, mutual honoring of the Christian principles of marriage relationship. If that consent and commitment is not given and lived out, the believing spouse is unacceptably at risk and right to leave.
Yet, I do not mean to leave the impression that marriage of a Christian believer to a nonbeliever is more likely to prove unworkable or result in divorce. In fact, it is my understanding that the rate of divorce among married Christians is about as high as between non-Christians who marry. Which is to say two things: first, there are also a lot of non-Christians who marry who love and honor each other, who work hard at their differences and their ability to be a better spouse, who embrace marriage values similar to those of Christians and live them. Second, there are a lot of married Christians who divorce. Far too many. But why?
One answer might be that the Christian faith earnestly embraced and lived prepares spouses for successful marriage no better than any other faith or philosophy, or none at all. A troubling answer, and untrue. The other is that too many Christian spouses who say "Lord, Lord" have not authentically embraced God's love, submitted themselves to Christ and to each other in shared relationship, and meaningfully committed to live their married life consistent with Christian principles and teachings. This, regrettably, is the likely case in far too many Christian marriages ending in divorce. How do we know them? We know them by their lack of a submitted marital relationship, the absence of expressed love, respect, patience and kindness toward a spouse. We know them by their hurtful marital behavior, the lack of fruit in their marriage and, too often, the harm done.
"Lord, Lord":
The Common Case of the Uncommitted Believer
How, then, is the uncommitted believer who does not honor or live his faith in the marriage relationship—but invokes "Lord, Lord"—any different in place or standing than the unbeliever that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7? And more, what of the uncommitted believer who is also unrepentant or unchanging in dishonoring, oppressing or abusing a believing spouse who honors God? The answer is clear, is it not? There is no difference. They necessarily stand in the same place in questions of divorce and protecting an innocent believing spouse. For Jesus made clear that, “Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven….A spouse, a so-called "believer", who invokes "Lord, Lord," but fails to honor, and do his or her best to earnestly reflect, the heart and character of Christ and the love of God, for purposes of divorce stands before Jesus as an unbeliever.
Then, if such an uncommitted believer leaves—divorces—a God-honoring spouse, the divorced spouse cannot be under "bondage," as Paul puts it, and bears no fault or sin in the divorce. And a fortiori, the God-honoring spouse should not be under "bondage" and should bear no fault or sin for leaving—divorcing—the dishonoring, oppressive or abusive spouse, whether or not that dishonoring spouse invokes "Lord, Lord.” The dishonoring spouse must be treated as an “unbeliever” for purposes of divorce considerations.
It is also important to remember that we are called to submit ourselves only to the faith community and those who earnestly strive to reflect that faith, those values, and that behavior. We are admonished not to submit ourselves to the wrong ways, base values and hurtful behavior too often found in the world. And when those baser values of the world are reflected by uncommitted believers, we are not to submit to them as Christians, and we are not to submit to them as Christian spouses. To do so denies God's promises to God-honoring, oppressed or abused spouses; it denies them the fullness of love and joy in Christian life and identity, and the fulfillment of spiritual calling and gifted service. In those cases, the offending spouse has acted the part of a nonbeliever based on unchanging nonconformity to Christian teaching and marriage principles. And the marriage dissolution should be recognized by the church, for in those cases no Christian marriage exists in fact.
This result follows from a fair and reasonable understanding and extension of the teachings of Paul in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. And the same result easily follows from the application of broader Christian principles and assessments of spousal fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) as they speak to us through the Spirit, teaching and example of Christ Jesus. For, as we observed at the outset, we must in the end approach questions and answers of marriage and divorce filtered through the heart of Christ, His love and teaching on compassion and kindness.
In closing, I would also remind church leaders that it is the responsibility of the church to shepherd, teach, and protect the flock of Christ. That includes the shepherding and teaching of immature and uncommitted Christians. But it also includes the shepherding and protection of those God-honoring believers "more sinned against than sinning" in oppressive or abusive marriages that disrespect and dishonor the believer and God.
© Gregory E. Hudson 2009
First written: October 2009
