1

Understanding the Bible on Divorce

Turn with me to Deuteronomy chapter 24. The title today is, Understanding the
Bible on Divorce.
Its a sad commentary divorce is such an issue in our society and even sadder its
an issue in Christian circles, but frankly it is.
Deuteronomy 24:1, When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come
to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some
uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her
hand, and send her out of his house.
2

And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth
it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which
took her to be his wife;
4

Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife,
after that she is defiled;
So here we have the Law of God on divorce as recorded by Moses. In summary it
appears to say a husband may divorce his wife if he sees fit. She may remarry after,
but then may not return to her original husband.
Now turn to Matthew 19. My goal today is to compare and contrast the Biblical
intent of divorce with the modern usage of divorce. The subject is uncomfortable,
but my aim is not judgment or condemnation of those who are divorced. Its to
better understand what God intended and what our attitude toward divorce should
be.
Matthew chapter 19, beginning in verse 3: 3 The Pharisees also came unto him,
tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for
every cause?
4

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them
at the beginning made them male and female,
5

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to
his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

2
6

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder.
7

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?
8

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to
put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put
away doth commit adultery.
10

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good
to marry.
Now turn to John chapter 8. So what did we read here? While Moses said a divorced
wife could remarry, Jesus says divorce and remarriage is adultery.
John 8 and verse 3: 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman
taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Verse 7
7

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He
that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Verse 9
9

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by
one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the
woman standing in the midst.
10

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her,
Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go,
and sin no more.
Now turn to I Corinthians 7. Jesus says divorce and remarriage is adultery, but He
defends the adulteress and doesnt condemn her.

3
I Corinthians 7, verse 10: 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the
Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband:
and let not the husband put away his wife.
12

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,
and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13

And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to
dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
Finally the Apostle Paul is urging reconciliation of the divorced wife to her former
husband, even though Moses said the wife could not reconcile to her husband. He
also says if your spouse leaves, you are not bound even though Jesus tells us in
Matthew 5:32, That whosoever shall put away his wife, causeth her to commit
adultery even though he is the one who divorced.
Confusing? It certainly can appear to be. So does the Bible contradict itself? The
answer is no. Has the law of God changed? The answer is no. Yet these passages on
the surface seem like contradictions. So whats going on here?
Letter of the law verses spirit. Were all aware its possible to use the letter of the
law to actually violate the spirit.
Thats whats going on in the seeming contradictions in the Bible. The people that
Jesus and Paul were talking to used divorce so differently than God originally
intended that it changed what the appropriate answer to their question was. It
didnt change the law. Moses and Jesus do not disagree. But the worldview of the
people changed the way they were using the law so much that while they followed
the letter of the law, they were grossly violating the spirit.
Turn to John 4. So how was Roman society using divorce? The answer is exactly the
same way we use it today.
John 4, beginning in verse 17: 17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus

said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:

18

For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband:
in that saidst thou truly.

4
The woman at the well. There are two things I want to point out from this story. The
first is Jesus again didnt condemn this divorced woman. He attempted to
evangelize her. Second, the fact the woman had had five different husbands and
was currently living with a sixth man which she wasnt married to, tells us a lot
about Roman cultural attitudes on divorce.
The woman wasn't embarrassed or offended by the revelation of her string of
marriages and current illegitimate relationship. Divorce was rampant in the Roman
world. It was widely accepted and carried no social stigma. There was a phrase in
Roman civil law which exemplifies their attitude: "matrimonia debent esse libera" I
probably butchered the Latin, but it means "marriages ought to be free".
Now lets go back to Matthew 19 and verse 3: The Pharisees also came unto him,
tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for
every cause?
The Pharisees question was: Is it lawful to divorce for any cause? No fault divorce.
The Pharisees were asking if no-fault divorce, divorce for any reason or no reason at
all, is lawful. Again this displays the Roman cultural attitude. They saw divorce as
just a personal choice. In their view divorce wasnt about right or wrong. It was
simply an option.
Now verse 9 and 10: 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good
to marry.
Two things here. The first is the statement, If the case of the man be so with his
wife, it is not good to marry. That reflects an extremely self-centered view of
marriage and divorce. If you cant get out of marriage when you want than its not
good to get married at all. The marriage commitment is considered bad, not worth
it.
The second thing is who made that statement. Verse 10 says, His disciples say
unto Him. This attitude came from the disciples of Jesus, not the Pharisees, and it
shows us just how pervasive this view of divorce was. The disciples of Jesus had
unconsciously accepted the worldview of the Roman world on divorce.
The Roman world was a pagan culture. Now a lot of people dont really understand
what paganism is. Most people imagine pagan religions to be just like Christianity,
except they worship a different god and have different rules. Thats not the case.
The Abrahamic religions place God at the center of their worldview as creator of the

5
universe, and man is seen as accountable to Him. But they are the only religions
that do.
All the other religions of the world, the man-made pagan religions, do not place God
at the center. Man created religions naturally put man at the center. They regard
god as basically irrelevant.
Did you know that Taoism, and Confucianism dont even address the existence of
god? Buddhism says there may be a god or gods, there may not. It leaves the
choice of what god to believe in, if any, up to the individual. There are actually
atheist Buddhists.
The Hindus believe god didnt create the world. Listen to this Hindu passage on
creation:
Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Hindus dont believe in a creator god. In fact, the Hindu religion is not concerned at
all with what god its followers believe in. Individual Hindus are free to believe in
whatever god or gods they personally choose.
Its only Christianity and the perversions of it Islam and Judaism that actually
believe in God. All others are man created and simply regard god as a creation of
man.
This leads to morality also being a personal choice. In a Christian society, the law is
seen as a reflection of Gods will. The law represents morality. It represents right
and wrong. Christians look to the law to understand what God wants.
In contrast, in a pagan society, morality is a personal choice. Man is not seen as
accountable to God. He is free to decide for himself what is right and wrong. If you
look at pagan religions, you find they have either no moral code at all, or tend to
have a very vague one. What was the Viking moral code? They were pagan and
they really didnt have much of one.
The founder of Buddhism taught that man should follow only his own reason.
Hinduisms moral code varies from community to community, and represents not
absolutes, but rather community standards.
So how does this relate to divorce? In a Christian culture the law is morality. In a
pagan society the law is just societal limitations. Its just an obstacle to be gotten
around or used as a tool. The Christian looks at the law of divorce and tries to
understand what God wants. Our society, as did the Roman society, looks at divorce

6
and simply sees options. Staying married or divorcing are simply options. Neither
one is better than the other, but equally right because right and wrong are simply
your choice.
And since there is no accountability beyond yourself, the decision is centered
around self. The motivation is about getting what you want. How did Roman society
use divorce? Ask yourself how we use it today. Why do people get divorced?
The most common reasons cited for divorce are: lack of commitment, arguing,
infidelity, marrying too young, unrealistic expectations, inequality in the
relationship, not being prepared for marriage, and abuse.
You can sum all these up with one basic motivation: I am not getting what I want.
Lack of commitment translation I dont want to be here anymore. Arguing
translation my spouse wont give me what I want. Unrealistic expectations,
inequality in the relationship translation Im not getting what I want. Even
infidelity and abuse and dont get me wrong, those are horrible things that God
despises and will punish but even infidelity and abuse as causes for divorce are
about not being treated how I want to be treated. Do you deserve to be treated
correctly? Absolutely you do! But the motivation is still centered on self I am being
mistreated. I deserve better. I want better.
The motivation for divorce as practiced today and as practiced in Roman times is
self-centered. Its about getting what I want, getting what I deserve. Can divorce be
driven by any other motivation than self? Living in our society, its hard to even
imagine a self-LESS motivation for divorce. We are influenced every bit as much as
the disciples of Jesus were. Divorce is seen as an option for us to escape the wrongs
done to us in marriage.
But self-service was not the original intent of divorce. Turn to Ezra chapter 10. There
are two examples of God ordained divorce in the Bible. Two examples of divorce that
were moral. These examples show how divorce was originally intended to be used.
They show the spirit of the law on divorce.
Ezra 10:1, Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and
casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of
Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people
wept very sore.
2

And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto
Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the
people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
3

Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and
such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that
tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

7
We all know what happened here. The people of Israel had engaged in interracial
marriage and upon learning the law of God they repented. Divorce was correcting
an unlawful situation. Notice the different motivation. The people wept. They didnt
want to divorce their wives. It was done because it was the moral thing to do. It was
done because it was right, not because it was an option. It was done in obedience to
God, not to get what the people wanted.
And this helps us to understand why Jesus said to the Pharisees that: Moses
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but
from the beginning it was not so. Some people read that and take it to mean
divorce wasnt part of the original law, that it was sort of added on because people
were imperfect and sometimes they just couldnt make marriage work. So God gave
them a way out.
But Jesus wasnt saying divorce wasnt part of the original law. Restitution for
stealing was part of the original law and it definitely is there because of the
hardness of peoples hearts. The law on killing is there because of the hardness of
peoples hearts. What Jesus was saying is divorce addresses a wrong. Its there
because of the hardness of peoples hearts. A divorce happens because a sin is
occurring and has to end. Its not there just as an option. And using it as an option
was not what God intended. From the beginning it wasnt designed to be used like
were using it.
The divorces of the book of Ezra also give us some insight into another statement of
Jesus. He said 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the

cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery.
What did Jesus mean when He made this comparison of divorce and remarriage to
adultery? Well, adultery is the betrayal of marriage with another relationship. And
what was divorce in the Roman world and still is today? Divorce is the betrayal of
marriage and remarriage is another relationship. Its the same thing as adultery.
Even though the remarriage hasnt happened at the same time as the marriage, the
marriage is still betrayed and its betrayed because the divorcing person wants
something else. The motivation for divorce today is the same motivation as
adultery: I want better for myself and Im willing to betray my marriage to get it.
Now, Jesus says divorce for the sake of fornication doesnt cause adultery. The
common interpretation of the word fornication is that it means adultery. So is Jesus
saying that divorce for the cause of adultery does not cause adultery? I think a more
likely meaning is the other meaning of fornication in the Bible.
Interracial marriage is called fornication in the Bible. I believe this is the fornication
Jesus was primarily talking about.

8
And divorce in the case of unlawful marriage, such as occurred in Ezra, doesnt carry
the same motivation as adultery. The divorced wives in this case certainly did
remarry. Of course among their own kind, but they would have needed to remarry.
And that remarriage was entirely appropriate. They werent doing anything wrong.
They werent committing adultery by remarrying.
Jeremiah 3. So for one, divorce was meant to allow for the dissolution of unlawful
marriages. These divorces were justified and moral. The marriage was not lawful in
the first place and the motivation for divorce was selfless, not selfish, and thus was
not comparable to adultery.
But theres another example of justified divorce in the Bible and this one isnt due to
an unlawful marriage. Jeremiah 3, verse 1, They say, If a man put away his wife,
and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again?
shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many
lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
2

Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien
with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou
hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.

And now drop down to verse 7, 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn
thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I
had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah
feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
9

And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the
land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
10

And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her
whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
And drop down to verse 14,
14

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will
take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
Ok, God divorced Israel. Ive even heard this used as a justification for modern
divorce. God did it, so it must be ok. But why did God divorce Israel? Did He divorce
Israel for the same reasons we divorce today? Did God divorce Israel because she
cheated on Him?
Well, she did commit adultery against Him, but so did Judah and God didnt divorce
her. No, while that is named as the trigger, its not the reason. Did He divorce her
because He wanted something else? You know what the modern church thinks. God

9
divorced Israel so He could have a relationship with the gentiles. But I have to
remind them, He was still married to Judah. So no, thats not why He divorced.
Did He divorce her because she was so terrible He just wanted to be rid of her? Was
she such a nag and such a pain He just wanted to be free of the responsibility? No,
of course not. In fact God already planned how He was going to die for her and
reconcile with her before He ever divorced her.
So what was Gods motivation in divorcing Israel? Notice verse 7 of Jeremiah 3.
7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she
returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
Notice God was concerned that Judah saw what Israel was doing. Verse 8:
8

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I
had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah
feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Why did God write the bill of divorce? It says it was because of Israels adultery, but
what was the motivation? In verse 8, He mentions Judah again. He says that even
though He wrote the bill of divorce, Judah still continued to imitate Israels sin.
Why did God divorce Israel? God divorced Israel as a threat, a deterrent to Judah. By
divorcing Israel He was saying, Look, Judah, I will abandon you if you disobey me.
Thats what He was saying to Judah. And it served the same purpose to the children
of Israel as well.
Jeremiah 2:28 says, But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them
arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble. We all know that basic
threat. If we disobey God, He will abandon us. That is the threat of divorce as God
used it. God used divorce as a threat to push Israel to obedience. He used divorce
as a deterrent to disobedience.
And that deterrent was not for His benefit. It was for hers wasnt it? His motivation
was always love for her. He wanted reconciliation from the beginning. God divorced
Israel for her own benefit, to teach her. God used the threat of divorce out of love
for Israel, not out of self-service. The ultimate goal of the law of divorce was the
reconciliation of a disobedient wife to her husband.
So the two examples of morally justified divorce in the Bible are first: unlawful
marriages and second as a deterrent to disobedience, to cause reconciliation.
But can that be the original intent of Gods law on divorce? To our equalitarian
society today that concept seems outrageous. Divorce as disciplinary to a
disobedient wife? Yet that is how God used it. And thats how the law was written.
For example, only the husband could divorce. In the original law the wife could not.
And the cause is left open to the discretion of the husband. Some try to say
uncleanness refers specifically to adultery as the cause, but given adultery carried
the death penalty that likely isnt the case.

10
And theres also another law used in a very similar manner found in Deuteronomy.
Have you ever known the parent who uses time-outs for discipline? They dont
spank. They give the child a time-out when he does something wrong. Have you
ever wondered what happens when the child simply refuses to take the time-out?
What do you do? Double time-out?
For discipline to be effective, it has to be able to escalate beyond resistance. When
the child refuses the time-out, the parent has to be able to escalate to spanking. If
they cant, than the discipline is useless. Even with spanking, the parent needs to
be able to escalate.
Turn to Deuteronomy chapter 21. By the teenage years parents dont spank their
children. A lot of teenagers are actually more capable of spanking their parents than
the other way around. So what do you do with a child that is utterly rebellious and
can resist all your options of discipline?
Deuteronomy 21:18, 18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not
obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have
chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the
elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and
rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou
put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
What is the intent of this law? The answer lies in how often this law was actually
used? Even in our modern day world, where children tend to be far more rebellious
than they were under more traditional, patriarchal societies like this one; I cant
imagine a single parent that would bring their child that they have lived with and
raised for years, to be stoned.
I believe this law was almost never actually employed. Parents werent regularly
stoning their children. But the law was being used. It was being used in the fact that
as verse 21 says all Israel shall hear, and fear. It was a deterrent to the
disobedience of children, just like a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to war, and just
like divorce was a deterrent to disobedience in marriage.
Divorce is essentially the same law. The primary intent of divorce as written in Gods
law was as a deterrent to the wifes disobedience to the husbands authority. It
enforced accountability in marriage.
And before women think I am picking on them, let me expand this concept. I know
the concept of adult accountability is taboo in our pagan society. Our society holds

11
that when someone becomes an adult they make their own decisions and are no
longer accountable to anyone elses authority.
But as Christians we have to understand one of the primary functions of the
Kingdom of God is accountability. The man-centered world rejects accountability. It
sees us as accountable to no one but ourselves. But Christians are accountable to
God and that accountability is administered through the institutions of nation,
church, marriage, and parent.
We are all accountable to some level of authority in the Kingdom of God. And that
includes men. Now a lot of men are quick to quote I Corinthians 11:3, But I would
have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is
the man.
That statement doesnt mean theres no headship over men other than Christ. You
could say the head of every parent is Christ and the head of every child is the
parent. That wouldnt mean parents have no earthly headship over them.
For anyone who thinks men arent accountable to any other man, I have this
question: If men arent accountable to anyone but Christ, how does Christ lead
them? Through the Holy Spirit right?
Well then my question becomes: Do women have the Holy Spirit? Of course they do.
So why do women have to obey their husbands? Well the Bible says they do.
Children also have the Holy Spirit. Joel 2 talks about our sons and daughters having
the spirit and prophesying. So are they accountable to their parents? Of course,
there are verses in the Bible that say they are.
Turn to Hebrews 13. There are many verses in the Bible that also place men under
accountability to other men. One in particular is appropriate here.
Hebrews 13:7, Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken
unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their
conversation.
So men, who has rule over you and speaks to you the word of God? Thats talking
about your pastor. Its not talking about civil authorities because it says this man
speaks the word of God to you. Its talking about your pastor and it says you are to
follow his faith. You are accountable to your pastor. He has rule over you.
Now does God speak to us in a still small voice through the Holy Spirit? Sure He
does. But if you take 100 men and ask them what the Holy Spirit says, youll get
100 different answers. Its easy to mistake our own thoughts for Godly direction. We
need the accountability of the Kingdom of God. And the fact is the Holy Spirit uses
the institutions of the kingdom to speak to us.

Romans 10:13 says, 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved.

12
14

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall
they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without
a preacher?
15

And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

We need the preachers. And its the Holy Spirit who sends the preachers and speaks
through them. Jeremiah 3 tells us that even after the regathering of Israel in the
Kingdom, God will give us pastors. Men, you are accountable also. You are
accountable to your pastor in much the same way your wife is accountable to you.
Any man who proclaims himself not under the authority of the church is actually
proclaiming his lack of accountability to God.
Now I know adult accountability seems silly and even wrong to our modern thinking.
Does a wife really need to be accountable to her husband? Well, the reelection of
Obama gave us a real world example of the need for accountability. Single white
women voted 63% for Obama. Married white women voted 57% against Obama. It
almost flipped. Why was that? That flip didnt occur for men. It didnt matter much if
men were married or not. Roughly the same percentage voted for Romney. No, in
general, women function more rationally in marriage than out of it. Even in the
disasters we call marriage today, marriage guides women. It offers women some
accountability.
And again, Im not just picking on women. Men had the same flip. It just wasnt from
marriage. 62% of Protestant churchmen voted for Romney, while 70% of nonreligious men voted for Obama. Men are held accountable by the church, again
even with the basically worthless churches we have across America today. Men
need the church for accountability. Women need marriage for accountability.
Marriage is the accountability structure God designed for women. The rest of
societys institutions were not designed to hold women accountable. Women and
children first is built into our nature. If you were in a shopping mall and saw a
woman slap a man you would most likely wonder what he did to deserve it. On the
other hand, if you saw a man strike a woman you would most likely step up and try
to restrain him. In general, society strives to protect women. And thats exactly as it
should be. But women, just like men, need accountability.
Isaiah 3. Now of course, marriage doesnt offer much accountability anymore. Our
culture fights against its natural structure and tries to make it an equal partnership.
And the results of that are catastrophic. Without marriage functioning as an
accountability structure women end up spoiled and men end up irresponsible.

Isaiah 3 beginning in verse 1, For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away
from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and
the whole stay of water.
2

The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent,
and the ancient,

13
3

The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning
artificer, and the eloquent orator.
So here we have a prophecy describing Israel at the time of the end and God has
taken away all the authority figures. The structures of accountability are absent.
4

And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.

And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his
neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base
against the honourable.
Its interesting here that everyone is oppressed not by a dictator or a tyrant king,
but by his neighbor. This is a prophecy of the anti-authority, democratic nature of
our society, written 100 years before democracy was ever practiced.
6

When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, Thou
hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand:
7

In that day shall he swear, saying, I will not be an healer; for in my house is neither
bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people.
This is what happens to men when you take authority out of a culture. Men become
irresponsible. Responsibility goes inseparably with authority. And drop down to
verse 16, Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty. It
goes on with the description, but the consequence of living without accountability is
irresponsible men and spoiled women.
Regardless of what our culture believes, marriage is an accountability structure in
Gods Kingdom. Men become irresponsible and women become spoiled when it
doesnt function as such. And divorce was designed as an enforcement of that
structure.
So where does that leave us? What should be a Christians attitude today toward
divorce?
Unless were talking about an interracial couple, divorce is not a Christian option. I
think its clear divorce as a way out of marriage should be condemned. And given
the legal and social framework of our culture, the original use of divorce is simply
not possible in todays society. Divorce is not a Christian option.
But that doesnt mean condemnation of everyone who has been involved in divorce.
The Apostle Paul made it clear the person who is simply left behind when their
spouse divorces is not at fault.
And Jesus was also very forgiving toward the woman at the well and her string of
five divorces. And He didnt condemn the woman taken in adultery. Why? Was it
because those things were acceptable? No, he told them to go and sin no more.
Forgiveness requires a change of heart.

14
He was readily forgiving because they lived in a broken society. They lived, as we do
today, in a confused culture with broken institutions. People dont even understand
what marriage is supposed to be. When half of all marriages fail, its not because
half of people are incapable of making things work; its because the system of
partnership marriage practiced today doesnt work in the first place.
Divorces that have happened in the past were mistakes God and the church can
forgive. But forgiveness requires us to go and sin no more. A repentant, changed
attitude is a must for acceptance by the church. It must be clear, divorce is not a
Christian option.
Is remarriage adultery? Yes and no. Jesus clearly says when a husband divorces his
wife, he causes both himself and HER to commit adultery upon remarriage. When
marriage is betrayed and another relationship occurs, adultery has occurred. Thats
simply the fact of the matter. The Apostle Paul urges the divorced to reconcile
instead of remarrying.
But at the same time, the wrong, the sin, is tied more to the divorce than it is to the
remarriage. It is the divorce where the fundamental wrong occurs, far more so than
in the new marriage. The original law allowed for remarriage and Jesus was forgiving
of people who had remarried. Jesus says the divorcing husband causes the adultery.
The blame is primarily contained in the divorce, not the new marriage.
So if Christians cant divorce, what should we do to avoid it?
The first thing is: start things off right. And one of the most important pieces of
advice on that is: do not get involved in a physical relationship prior to marriage. I
know to society today that doesnt really matter. But whether we are talking about a
divorcee or a young person, there are reasons not to get involved physically before
marriage.
Studies show couples that live together before marriage are more likely to divorce
and are less satisfied when they do marry than couples who abstain. Thats because
if you enjoy the benefits of marriage prior to marriage, when you finally get married
the only difference marriage brings is added work and responsibility. Marriage
becomes all about work. You disassociate the benefits from the responsibility and
you destroy the sanctity and purpose of marriage.
Also, ladies, a physical relationship before marriage puts you in a bad position. Not
only do you take away incentive for the man to marry, but you also harm yourself.
Remember Genesis which says the womans desire will be to her husband? Studies
show a woman releases the same bonding hormones during a physical relationship
that she does during childbirth. God designed women to bond to their husband at
that point.
Men function differently. The problem is the woman forms that bond before the man
has taken on the commitment of marriage. No matter how our modern society
claims theres no harm as long as its consensual, the fact is you can end up very
hurt. Youre committed while he isnt. And that frequently ends without marriage.

15
Studies show that women are happiest with one long-term committed relationship in
their lifetime. Every additional relationship increases the incidence of depression.
Exodus 22. And guys, in the physical relationship, you are taking on a responsibility
whether you know it or not. I know modern equalitarian attitudes hold that its no
big deal - as long as its consensual there is no harm done. But thats not the case.
Exodus 22:16, 16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her,
he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17

If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to
the dowry of virgins.
You see what its saying here? The man owes marriage to the woman. It doesnt say
she owes him. He owes her. And if her father refuses, he actually owes damages to
her. He has taken something from her that he owes marriage for. The commitment
of marriage is the payment. Prior to marriage its theft and you will answer to God
for that.
A man also undermines his own moral authority in the womans eyes. Whether
either of them realizes it or not, engaging in a physical relationship before marriage
shows a mans willingness to break the rules and harm others to get what he wants.
After that its a little harder for the woman to respect him as her moral authority.
Another part of avoiding divorce is choosing the right spouse.
Men, dont marry a feminist. You carry the responsibility of leadership. And that
responsibility remains even if your wife wont allow you to do the job.
For men, understanding the accountability of marriage should bring with it a
realization of the responsibility we bear. James 3:1 urges us not to be many masters,
because masters receive greater culpability. Husbands, you are the masters of your
home, so its you who are responsible.
I Timothy 5:8 tells us if a man doesnt provide for his family he has denied the faith
and is worse than an infidel. I Corinthians 14:35 tells us a wife is to seek spiritual
instruction from her husband. Ephesians 5 tells men that as leaders of their wives,
they are to love, lead, nourish and cherish them.
Men, your wives are accountable to you. That means youre responsible for them. I
dont care how equal we like to think the relationship is. It isnt. You bear the
responsibility. Its not shared. The Bible doesnt say youre to seek spiritual guidance
from your wife. It doesnt say if she doesnt provide for the household shes to
blame.
If your children dont have clothes on their backs, thats on you. If your family is
going the wrong direction, its your job to guide them. So choose a wife who will
allow you to do your job.

16
Women, in choosing a spouse, give up control. Allow your father veto power over
your choice of a husband. Its not because hes smarter than you or more logical
than you or even because he has more experience than you. Its because Marriage
is an accountability structure. Your husband will be your leader. Human nature puts
mankind in a horrible position to choose our own leadership.
If a man tells a woman that shes perfect in every way, the most perfect being the
world has ever seen; he might get a date. He is also lying. No one is in a good
position to choose a good leader over themselves. Human tendency is to choose
someone who flatters and spoils, not someone who will hold us accountable. Ladies,
allow your father the final say in who you marry. Numbers 30 backs that up.
And certainly dont give the final power of selection of a husband over to yourself in
the form of your emotions. I once heard a discussion between a father and daughter
about her choice of a husband. He told her he would only approve of someone from
kingdom believing circles. She lamented she would end up an old maid because she
didnt like anyone from their church circles. And of course she proclaimed she
couldnt marry someone she didnt like.
So you cant marry someone you dont like? Sounds right, but what if you only like
irresponsible, bad men? Ive seen women who do exactly that. They date bad men.
They know they are bad and even complain about them, but if you recommend a
good man, they lament they arent attracted to him. They like the bad guy so sadly
theyre forced to marry the bad guy.
No they arent. Your emotions are not your master. Theyre supposed to be your
servant. Learn to like the good guy. You shouldnt marry who you like. You should
learn to like who you should marry. And your father is your guide on that. For your
own benefit, ladies, dont even consider a man your father is opposed to.
So what about once youre married and the thought of divorce rears its ugly head?
Husbands, embrace the responsibility you hold. Youre the leader and you have to
lead. You have to be the example. If you want a loving wife, be the example of love
she can follow. If you want submission, show your family an example of a man in
submission to his church. Dont expect your family to end up better than the
example you give them. When they ask a spiritual question, make sure you find the
answer. When theyre going the wrong direction, make sure youre leading the right
direction and arent going the wrong way yourself.
Will this result in a perfect family? Of course not. No ones perfect, not your family
and certainly not you. But the responsibility of leadership rests on you. Youre the
example whether you like it or not. And the more you actually attempt to fill this
role, the more your wife will find it difficult to disrespect you. Be your familys hero.
Thats the best way to fight divorce.
And on your part, remember, what God has joined together, let not man put
asunder. A husbands love for his wife is to be as unconditional as a parent for their
child. How do parents avoid divorcing their children? Do children argue? Do they

17
disagree? Do they disrespect you? Yet you dont even think about divorcing them do
you? You dont think about it because its not an option.
Well, I dont care if your wife nags you. I dont care if she frustrates you. You
shouldnt consider divorce anymore than you would consider abandoning your child
because they frustrate you. Its just not an option. You are not her partner. You are
responsible for her. You are her protector, her provider, and her guide.
For women, what about after marriage when you feel like you just cant stand him
anymore? Again, the answer lies in giving up control. Remember hes not your
partner, hes your protector, provider, and guide. Youre accountable to him, not the
other way around.
Does this mean you arent allowed an opinion? Of course it doesnt mean that.
Exodus 4:25 tells us Moses wife didnt agree at all with Moses demand of
circumcision and she let him know it. Its not wrong to have an opinion and to
disagree and discuss things with your husband. But hes the head of your family and
home. Dont compete for that.
Give up control to him. Divorce comes as the result of conflict. Conflict comes when
there are two competing heads leading different directions. You can short circuit the
conflict. And understand the less you represent argument to him and the more
youre a helpmeet to him, the more valuable youll feel to him. The more you fill
your role, the easier it is for your husband to want to cherish you. And believe it or
not it, studies show the traditional role makes women happier.
Ultimately, no matter how right you think you are and wrong you think he is, youre
no more justified divorcing him than your teenager is justified running away from
home.
And you know what? If things are really bad, divorce wont fix it anyway. Only prayer
will.
Divorce is a scourge. It brings no good. Study after study shows the damage to
children. It leaves both parties worse off financially. It leaves emotional scars on
everyone involved. And even though you might imagine finding a better spouse
than the one you have, realize that husband you cant live with is the same man
you couldnt live without when you married him. And the guy you meet after the
divorce, is likely going to be divorced too. So hes the guy some other woman
couldnt stand. Divorce doesnt solve problems. It makes them.
It was never intended to be a way out of marriage when youre not getting what you
want. It was meant to hold marriage together. For a Christian, divorce simply is not
the answer. What God has joined together, let not man put asunder. May God bless
all the marriages here.