Why Do Christians Disagree About Divorce and Remarriage?

In the first three parts of this series, we have tried to move slowly. We began with God’s design for marriage in creation. Then we looked at the debate Jesus entered when the Pharisees questioned Him about divorce. Last week, we examined the major New Testament passages in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians.

By now, one thing should be clear: The Bible takes marriage very seriously. But another thing should also be clear:

Faithful Christians do not agree on every question surrounding divorce and remarriage.

That disagreement can be frustrating. We sometimes assume that if the Bible is authoritative, every faithful reader should arrive at exactly the same conclusion. Yet Christians who sincerely believe Scripture is God’s Word have interpreted some of these passages differently for centuries.

The disagreement is not usually over whether marriage matters. It is over how Jesus’ strong teaching about lifelong marriage should be applied when the covenant has already been violated by sexual unfaithfulness, abandonment, abuse, or divorce itself. So rather than pretending those differences do not exist, I think it is better to understand them.

Begin with What Christians Mostly Agree About

Before discussing disagreements, we should acknowledge substantial common ground.

Historic Christian teaching has consistently understood marriage to be far more than a temporary romantic arrangement.

Marriage is intended to be:

• covenantal,

• faithful,

• sexually exclusive,

• one-flesh,

• and lifelong.

Jesus’ words remain the foundation:

“What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”—Mark 10:9

Christians also broadly agree that Scripture does not treat divorce casually.

Divorce should not be used simply because:

• attraction has faded,

• another person seems more appealing,

• marriage has become difficult,

• one spouse believes personal happiness would be greater elsewhere,

• or someone wants to trade one spouse for another.

The disagreements begin when we ask what should happen after serious covenant-breaking has already occurred.

View 1: No Divorce and No Remarriage

Some Christians understand Jesus’ teaching as an almost absolute prohibition.

They emphasize passages such as:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.”—Mark 10:11

And:

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.”—Luke 16:18

On this view, a valid marriage creates a lifelong bond that human beings do not have the authority to dissolve. A civil divorce may legally end the marriage in the eyes of the state, but it does not necessarily dissolve the covenant before God. Therefore, remarriage while the former spouse is living would constitute adultery.

How This View Understands Matthew’s Exception

Those holding this position generally interpret Matthew’s phrase “except for sexual immorality” more narrowly. As we discussed previously, some believe porneia refers to an unlawful union that was never a legitimate marriage. Others connect it with sexual betrayal during Jewish betrothal rather than after the consummation of marriage.

Either interpretation allows Matthew to be read consistently with the more absolute statements in Mark and Luke.

Strength of This View

It takes Jesus’ words about permanence with tremendous seriousness.

It refuses to allow modern assumptions about personal fulfillment to redefine marriage.

Difficult Question

It can become pastorally difficult in circumstances where a spouse has been abandoned, abused, or divorced against their will. If the marriage is legally and relationally gone because of another person’s choices, does Scripture truly require the innocent spouse to remain unmarried for life? Christians answering “yes” believe faithfulness sometimes requires precisely that costly obedience. Others believe the New Testament provides additional freedom.

View 2: Divorce May Be Necessary, but Remarriage Is Not

A second position distinguishes between divorce and remarriage. Someone might acknowledge that certain situations make separation or legal divorce necessary while still maintaining that the marriage covenant remains binding as long as both spouses live.

This view often draws heavily from Paul:

“The wife should not separate from her husband … but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.”—1 Corinthians 7:10–11

The important phrase is:

“remain unmarried or else be reconciled.”

Under this interpretation, Paul recognizes that separation sometimes happens. But he does not immediately redirect the separated believer toward another marriage.

The possibilities remain: reconciliation or singleness.

Strength of This View

It acknowledges that remaining physically together may not always be possible while preserving the seriousness of the original covenant. It also protects reconciliation as a genuine possibility.

Difficult Question

Paul later says that if an unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage, the believing spouse is “not enslaved.”

Does that merely mean:

“You do not have to prevent the divorce”?

Or does it mean:

“The marriage bond itself has been broken, and you are now free”?

That brings us to the next position.

View 3: Divorce and Remarriage May Be Permitted for Adultery or Abandonment

This is probably the most common position among contemporary evangelical Protestants. It understands Scripture to recognize at least two circumstances in which the marriage covenant may be so seriously violated that divorce becomes permissible:

sexual immorality and abandonment.

Matthew provides the first:

“Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”—Matthew 19:9

Paul provides the second:

“If the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved.”—1 Corinthians 7:15

Under this view, porneia refers to serious sexual covenant-breaking within marriage.

And “not enslaved” means more than simply allowing the unbelieving spouse to walk away. It means the abandoned believer is no longer bound to the marriage. If the marriage has legitimately ended, remarriage is therefore also considered permissible.

Permission, Not Requirement

This position does not mean adultery automatically requires divorce. Nor does abandonment require the innocent spouse to abandon all hope of reconciliation.

Where repentance is real, and restoration is possible, reconciliation can be a beautiful expression of the gospel. But reconciliation cannot be demanded as though sexual betrayal or abandonment were insignificant.

Strength of This View

It takes seriously both Jesus’ insistence on marriage permanence and the exceptions that appear within the New Testament.

Difficult Question

What happens when severe covenant-breaking does not fit neatly into either adultery or literal desertion? That question becomes particularly important when discussing abuse.

View 4: Severe Covenant-Breaking Can Function as Abandonment

Some Christians take a somewhat broader view. They agree that Scripture explicitly names sexual immorality and abandonment, but they believe these categories reveal a larger biblical principle: persistent, unrepentant destruction of the marriage covenant.

For example, what if a spouse remains physically in the home but consistently engages in:

• violence,

• threats,

• severe coercive control,

• sexual abuse,

• prolonged refusal to provide necessary care,

• or other behavior that effectively destroys married life?

  
  

Has that person technically remained married while functionally abandoning the covenant? Those answering yes sometimes connect Paul’s teaching on abandonment with broader biblical commands concerning marital responsibility, love, protection, provision, and care.

Exodus 21 and Covenant Obligations

Some interpreters also point to Exodus 21:10–11, where a wife deprived of basic marital provisions was permitted to go free. The passage concerns a specific ancient legal situation, so we should be careful about applying it directly to every modern marriage.

Still, some scholars understand it as evidence of a larger biblical principle:

Marriage involves real covenant responsibilities, not merely physical residence under the same roof.

Strength of This View

It recognizes that abandonment can be relational as well as geographical.

A person can remain in the house while profoundly violating the responsibilities of marriage.

Difficult Question

How broad should this category become?

If “covenant-breaking” is defined too loosely, almost any serious marital problem could become grounds for divorce. That would undermine the permanence Jesus so strongly defends. So churches holding this position must define severe covenant-breaking carefully rather than allowing the category to become an escape clause for ordinary difficulty.

Abuse Requires Special Care

Whatever position a church holds on divorce and remarriage, we should be able to say something unequivocally: Abuse must never be treated as an ordinary marital conflict.

Someone experiencing physical violence, threats, sexual coercion, serious intimidation, or danger should be helped toward safety.

That may require:

• immediate separation,

• involvement of law enforcement,

• protection of children,

• professional counseling,

• church discipline,

• legal action,

• and long-term accountability.

Telling an abused spouse to return immediately because “God hates divorce” can become a profound misuse of Scripture. The question of whether an abusive marriage eventually meets biblical grounds for divorce may require careful pastoral discernment.

The question of whether the endangered person should be protected does not.

Safety does not have to wait for a complete theology of divorce.

Why Do Faithful Christians Reach Different Conclusions?

Several biblical questions sit underneath these differences.

What does porneia mean in Matthew?

Does it describe:

• adultery and sexual unfaithfulness within marriage,

• an unlawful union,

• or sexual betrayal during betrothal?

Your answer significantly changes how you understand Matthew’s exception.

Why do Mark and Luke omit Matthew’s exception?

Some say Jesus’ general prohibition assumes exceptions known from elsewhere.

Others say Matthew’s exception must refer to something other than divorce from a legitimate marriage precisely because Mark and Luke sound absolute.

What does Paul mean by “not enslaved”?

Does the abandoned believer simply have permission to let the spouse leave?

Or does Paul mean the believer is genuinely released from the marriage?

Does legitimate divorce automatically permit remarriage?

Some Christians reason that if Scripture recognizes a divorce as legitimate, remarriage naturally follows. Others argue that the New Testament sometimes distinguishes the end of married life from freedom to enter another marriage. These are real interpretive questions. They should encourage humility.

Humility Does Not Mean Having No Convictions

Sometimes we respond to disagreement by saying:

“I guess nobody can know.”

I do not think that is necessary. Christians and churches eventually have to decide how they will teach, counsel, perform weddings, recognize remarriages, and care for people.

We should reach conclusions. But there is a difference between:

“After studying Scripture carefully, this is where I believe the evidence leads”

and:

“Any Christian who sees this differently obviously does not take the Bible seriously.”

The first is conviction. The second is arrogance. On difficult interpretive questions, we should aim for conviction with humility.

Not Every Divorce Is Morally Identical

This may be one of the most important pastoral implications.

Consider several different stories.

• A husband secretly develops another relationship, divorces his faithful wife, and immediately marries the other woman.

• A woman desperately seeks reconciliation while her husband abandons the family and files for divorce.

• A couple mutually decides that they are no longer happy and would rather pursue different lives.

• A spouse escapes years of violence and coercion.

• A person was divorced decades ago before becoming a Christian.

• A divorced person remarries, comes to Christ years later, and now wants to faithfully follow Jesus within the present marriage.

All of these people may check the same box on a form: Divorced. But their stories are not morally identical. A label tells us very little. Faithful pastoral care requires hearing the story.

The Church Must Resist Two Opposite Errors

One error says:

Marriage is personal. If it stops working for you, leave.

That does not reflect Jesus’ teaching. Marriage is covenant, not merely compatibility.

Feelings matter, but covenant faithfulness cannot be reduced to whether a relationship is currently fulfilling. The opposite error says:

Divorce is divorce. Every divorced person is equally guilty, and the church simply applies one rule to everyone.

That also fails to reflect the complexity of Scripture. Jesus Himself distinguishes sexual immorality. Paul distinguishes abandonment. Scripture repeatedly cares about oppression, violence, justice, repentance, and the treatment of vulnerable people.

The church must be strong enough to say:

Marriage matters.

And compassionate enough to say:

Tell me what happened.

Grace Does Not Make Marriage Less Serious

Sometimes people fear that emphasizing grace will weaken marriage. But biblical grace does not declare covenant betrayal unimportant. Grace tells the truth about sin. Grace calls people to repentance. Grace accepts consequences. Grace seeks restoration where restoration is possible. And grace also recognizes that failure—even severe failure—is not beyond the redeeming work of Jesus.

Divorce is not an unforgivable sin. Neither is adultery. Neither is selfishness. Neither is abandoning a marriage. That does not erase consequences or automatically repair relationships. But the gospel means that no person’s past must become the final word over their life.

Where I Think We Should Land Before the Final Article

After walking through these positions, several convictions seem especially important.

Marriage should be entered with the expectation of lifelong faithfulness.

1. We should work harder at preserving marriages than our culture often encourages.

2. We should take adultery, abandonment, abuse, and covenant betrayal seriously.

3. We should pursue reconciliation where repentance makes genuine reconciliation possible.

4. We should never pressure someone to remain in immediate danger.

5. We should distinguish biblical permission from biblical command.

6. We should acknowledge that faithful Christians disagree over some questions of remarriage.

7. And we should remember that the church is not simply an institution that determines who violated which rule.

We are a community called to bring truth, grace, accountability, protection, repentance, forgiveness, and healing into some of the most painful experiences people will ever endure.

Conviction with Compassion

Jesus did not weaken God’s design for marriage. Neither should we. But Jesus also consistently moved toward wounded people rather than away from them. So the goal is not to choose between conviction and compassion. We need both.

Conviction without compassion can become cruelty.

Compassion without conviction can become permission for continued brokenness.

Jesus offers something better:

• Grace and truth.

• Marriage matters.

• Sin matters.

• Repentance matters.

• Safety matters.

• Reconciliation matters.

• And people matter.

In the final part of this series, I want to move from the biblical and interpretive questions to the pastoral ones:

Where are we now?

How should Christians think about divorce in a culture where it has become common?

What should the church do when marriages are struggling?

How should we care for divorced and remarried people?

What about shame, church membership, leadership, and second marriages?

And after walking through all of this Scripture, what convictions should shape the way I approach these situations as a pastor?

Reflection Questions

• Why is it important to distinguish areas where Scripture is clear from questions where faithful Christians disagree?

• Which biblical text do you think is most important in the divorce and remarriage discussion? Why?

• How can churches strongly defend marriage without stigmatizing divorced people?

• Why is hearing a person’s story important before reaching conclusions about their divorce?

• What does “conviction with compassion” look like in practice?