Having examined the Old Testament and the Gospel's teaching concerning divorce, we now turn our attention to the epistolary teaching of the New Testament. It is here that we find that which is binding upon God's people for the dispensation of time in which we live. There are two particular passages that must be dealt with, which I am convinced, simply do not permit a believer to seek a divorce in the will of God. We will also look at New Testament passages which speak of the nature and permanency of love and how it relates to the marriage relationship.
The first passage that we need to examine is Romans 7:1-3. While the passage itself, is not directly teaching on marriage or divorce, it uses the marriage relationship as the illustration of the relationship of God's people to the law of Moses and to the law of Christ. What applies to the believer's relationships to these laws, then applies to the marriage relationship. The Apostle Paul is dealing primarily with the question of whether the law of Moses is still binding upon Christian today. In verse 2, Paul states that if a woman has a husband, she is bound by the law to him while he yet lives. Should he die, the marriage relationship ceases, along with the obligations she had toward her husband. In reference to the law of Moses, Paul is saying that as long as the law lives (that is until fulfilled by Christ at Calvary) then the wife (God's people, Israel) was obligated by the conditions of the covenant. However, when the law died, then the people of God were no longer accountable to its obligations. In verse 3, Paul backs up a bit and states that if, while the husband is yet living, she should leave her husband and marry another man, she would be called an adulteress. This means that if the nation volitionally put aside its obligations to the Mosaic law, while it was yet in effect, and put itself under the obligations of a different relationship, it would be out of the will of God. If however, the law had passed away, the people were free to obligate themselves to Christ under another covenant (the new covenant).
Two salient points need to be quickly highlighted from this brief passage. First, there is no mention of divorce within the passage. Secondly, even if divorce was an option, the first man was still called her husband, not ex-husband. This would indicate an ongoing obligation to him and a relationship with him. It seems to me that Romans 7:1-3 simply does not allow for the opportunity of divorce in the Christian marriage relationship.
We now turn our attention to the second of these two passages which is 1 Corinthians 7:10-17. 1 Corinthians 7 is the most extensive passage in the New Testament concerning the marriage relationship. In verses 1 and 2, Paul states that sexual intimacy outside of the marriage covenant is also outside of the will of God. In verses 3-5, Paul goes on to state that there is a definite need for sexual intimacy between a husband and wife, that a lack of intimacy puts a couple in the place of satanic temptation. In verses 6-9, Paul speaks of the excellency of singleness, but realizes that not all people all called to a single life. He concludes that for the unmarried and widows, if marriage is something that they can't live without, it is best for them to marry.
Beginning with verse 10, Paul once again addresses those who are married. Unlike the previous section, which Paul states was written by permission, the following verses were given to Paul by a direct command of Jesus Christ. This is of great significance to our study. What Paul wrote in verses 6-9 was not addressed anywhere else in Old Testament literature or in the teaching of Christ during His earthly ministry. Paul was simply giving some practical advice by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But with verses 10 and 11, Paul states that what he is writing was addressed by the teaching ministry of Christ. What he will now write is an inspired commentary on the teaching of Jesus, found in the gospels, as it pertains to the Church. In these two verses are the options of a man and a woman united in marriage. According to verse 10, the wife is not to depart from her husband and according to verse 11, the husband is not to divorce his wife. In other words, Paul says that Jesus forbids marriage relationships to be broken. Should the marriage relationship be broken though, by the departure of the wife, two options remain to her: either be reconciled to her husband or remain in an unmarried state. It must be stated emphatically that the directions of the first part of verse 11 do not in any way give someone permission to divorce. These directions are found only because some have been and will be disobedient to the command of verse 10 of not departing. Should a wife leave her husband (whether by divorce or desertion) there is no opportunity for her, in the will of God, to marry another.
Some insist that since the "exception clause" was part of the teaching of Christ, to which Paul refers, we must insert it here in 1 Cor. 7. Usually the argument is stated that the Corinthians would have been familiar with the exception clause and therefore there was no need for Paul to reiterate it here. There are a number of reasons why this argument must be rejected. We must question whether it is reasonable to believe that the Corinthians were familiar with the exception clause as Christ taught it. The Gospel of Matthew, which is the only gospel record with the exception clause, was written around 50 a.d. 1 Corinthians was written around 55 a.d. It is possible that the Corinthians may have had a copy of the gospel in its possession, but it is also very possible the gospel did not make its way to the church yet. Whether a copy of Matthew's gospel had made it to their library is really inconsequential. One must really question why Paul would omit the exception clause from his treatise. If the Corinthians were familiar with the clause, then of necessity, they were also familiar with Jesus' teaching on the creational order of marriage where there is no provision for divorce. It is this creational order that Paul is citing in verses 10 and 11. If there was no need to reiterate the exception clause because of its familiarity with the Corinthians, then there was no need of Paul to write the injunctions of verse 10 and 11. In that he did write these injunctions, it indicates either they were not familiar with all of these teachings, or, all that they were familiar with was not necessary to developing a biblically correct understanding of the marriage relationship.
We must also ask, why, in the most difinitive and complete discourse on marriage in all of Scripture, would something as important as the exception clause be omitted, unless it was not applicable. This is precisely the case. We have already seen that the exception clause was given to the nation of Israel, not to the Church. It was given under the law of Moses, which by the time of 1 Corinthians was no longer binding upon Christians. It was given for the purpose of preserving a national purity of race from which the Messiah could come and did come. The reason Paul did not include the exception clause was not because it was already familiar to the Corinthians, but that it simply did not apply to them or anyone else, any longer. In this passage, Paul does not provide an opportunity for Christians to divorce, in the will of God, under any circumstances.
In verses 12 through 24, Paul addresses another situation that the Lord did not address in His earthly ministry. Here we have the situation where one partner in a marriage relationship is saved and the other is not. Believers should never marry unbelievers, it is contrary to God's will (2 Cor. 6:14). More than likely, what has happened here is that two unsaved people married and subsequently, one of them has trusted Christ to be saved. Now there is an unequal yoke between them. Should the saved partner divorce the unsaved partner so that the yoke disappears? Paul says no. There are a number of practical reasons Paul offers for not dissolving the marriage union. Foremost is that the saved partner has the greatest opportunity of reaching the unsaved partner for Christ. What greater reenactment is there of Romans 5:8 than a Christian loving their unsaved spouse? Secondly, one of the natural products of a marriage is children. Should the believer divorce the unbeliever, the opportunity of providing a sanctifying influence to the children is diminished or discarded altogether. For these two reasons Christians need to do their utmost to preserve the marriage relationship with an unsaved partner.
Unfortunately, not all unsaved people want to be married to "someone who has gone off the deep end" in their worship of God. Paul addresses this in verse 15. Here the unbeliever departs and it is assumed that divorce is associated with the departure. While the believer is not given permission to actively seek a divorce, Paul states here that if an unbeliever initiates a divorce, the believer may passively permit it.
Beginning at verse 25, Paul addresses another situation that was not addressed by Jesus during His earthly ministry. Most people will marry, but not all. Some are called to a life of singleness in order to serve the Lord (Matthew 19:11-12). But even of those who will marry, there might be times, due to certain "distresses" where marriage should be postponed. Paul does not specifically state what the present distress of verse 26 was, but for whatever reason, he stated that there was a temporary advantage to being single. In verse 27, Paul says that a man who is married to a woman should not seek to free himself from the marriage relationship. Some, apparently, were wanting to divorce their wives in order to serve God. Paul states that they still can serve God while married, although they will have distractions that single person will not have. Again, there is no provision made for divorce here, only a prohibition of it.
We find then, that in all of the New Testament literature that directly deals with the divorce issue, there is not one place where divorce is permitted to be sought by a Christian. The only time divorce can come into the life of a Christian is when an unsaved spouse files for it and the Christian has exhausted reasonable attempts to save the marriage. The addition of the exception clause of Matthew 19 to any epistolary passage is simply bad Bible hermaneutics.