Grounds For Divorce: Does the Bible Affirm More Than Two?

Published On: September 9, 2025

In an era when divorce rates have skyrocketed across demographics, the church finds itself caught between two imperatives: extending grace to the broken-hearted and upholding God’s design for marriage. Secular culture increasingly treats marriage as a contract of convenience. What’s more, even believers struggle to know how to apply biblical teaching to complex, painful situations such as abuse, addiction, and abandonment.

The tension has never been more urgent. Pastors counsel devastated spouses weekly. Church members wrestle with questions such as ‘When does separation become necessary?’ and ‘Is remarriage permissible at all?’ In a broken world, the Bible’s doctrine on divorce offers clarity for the confused, hope for the hurting, and a call to holiness that honours God’s design: “Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4)…

The question before us is crucial: Does Scripture provide more than the traditionally recognised two grounds for divorce? While the Reformed consensus has long held to adultery and abandonment as the only biblical grounds, respected theologians such as Wayne Grudem now argue for additional considerations, particularly in cases of abuse.

THE TRADITIONAL REFORMED CONSENSUS: TWO CLEAR GROUNDS

Scripture speaks with remarkable clarity on this painful topic, providing two explicit circumstances where divorce is permitted—though never required. These grounds emerge from Christ’s own teaching and the apostolic instructions that followed.

Adultery—The Exception Clause (Matthew 19:9)

Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ divorce debate establishes sexual immorality as the singular exception to marriage’s permanence. The Greek word porneia encompasses various forms of sexual unfaithfulness that fundamentally violate the marriage covenant. This exception doesn’t mandate divorce but permits it, acknowledging that adultery breaks the “one flesh” union in a unique way. Christ’s teaching here directly contradicts the liberal Hillelite position (divorce for any cause). It also affirms marriage’s intended permanence while recognising this sad exception.

Abandonment—The Pauline Addition (1 Corinthians 7:15)

Paul addresses mixed marriages where an unbelieving spouse initiates departure, declaring that in such circumstances “the brother or sister is not enslaved.” This abandonment represents a fundamental rejection of the marriage covenant by the departing party. The context specifically involves religious differences, but the principle extends to situations where one spouse completely abandons his/her covenant obligations. Paul’s phrase “not enslaved” suggests freedom from the marriage bond, and includes the possibility of remarriage.

Why These Two?

Christ’s appeal to the creation order in Matthew 19:3-8 establishes marriage’s divine design and permanence as God’s intended norm. The two exceptions acknowledge certain actions—sexual betrayal and complete abandonment—so thoroughly violate the covenant nature of marriage that the innocent party is released from their obligations. The Reformed tradition has consistently emphasised these represent exhaustive, not illustrative, categories based on Scripture’s careful specificity.

THE HERMENEUTICAL FOUNDATION: MARRIAGE AS COVENANT

Understanding divorce requires grasping marriage’s covenantal nature. Unlike mere contracts, covenants involve sacred promises before God with built-in expectations of faithfulness. The Old Testament consistently portrays covenant breaking as requiring specific, serious violations—not general dissatisfaction or hardship.

Marriage reflects the covenant between Christ and his church (Ephesians 5:22-33), making it far more than a human arrangement. This theological weight explains why Scripture sets such a high threshold for dissolution. The burden of proof lies with those proposing additional grounds beyond what Christ and the apostles explicitly provided, particularly given the Bible’s clarity on this sensitive topic.

WAYNE GRUDEM’S EXPANDED VIEW: THE CASE FOR ABUSE AS A THIRD GROUND

Theologian Wayne Grudem has argued thoughtfully for recognising abuse as legitimate grounds for divorce—in addition to the traditional two categories—while maintaining biblical authority. His position deserves careful consideration given both his scholarly credentials and pastoral heart.

Grudem’s Interpretive Framework Grudem argues severe abuse constitutes “constructive desertion”—a form of abandonment where the abuser, though physically present, has effectively departed from honouring covenant obligations. He contends that protecting innocent parties aligns with Scripture’s broader principles of justice and mercy. This approach attempts to expand biblical categories through principled reasoning rather than abandoning scriptural authority altogether.
His Textual Arguments Building on 1 Corinthians 7:15’s abandonment principle, Grudem employs lesser-to-greater reasoning: if an unbeliever’s departure frees the believing spouse, how much more should physical danger and systematic abuse? He argues Paul’s phrase “not enslaved” encompasses freedom from relationships that have become fundamentally destructive. Additionally, he appeals to other biblical principles including God’s concern for the vulnerable and oppressed throughout Scripture.
Practical Pastoral Considerations Grudem Raises: Grudem recognises the crucial distinction between temporary separation for safety and actual grounds for remarriage. He emphasises his position doesn’t encourage hasty decisions. He addresses the reality that some marriages become so destructive that maintaining the formal bond actually enables sin rather than reflecting Christ’s love for the church. His approach attempts to provide pastoral guidance for situations where traditional categories seem pastorally inadequate while maintaining commitment to biblical authority.

THE REFORMED RESPONSE: EVALUATING GRUDEM’S POSITION

While Grudem’s pastoral concerns are commendable, the traditional Reformed position maintains significant advantages both exegetically and practically. His arguments deserve respectful engagement, and yet, appear insufficient to overturn the consensus view.

Grudem’s approach demonstrates genuine pastoral sensitivity. It recognises marriage covenants can be fundamentally violated not only through adultery and abandonment, but in multiple other ways as well. His attempt to work within Scripture’s framework rather than abandoning it shows proper reverence for biblical authority and acknowledges real-world complexities that churches face regularly.

However, traditional Reformed concerns remain compelling. The hermeneutical danger of expanding explicit Bible categories beyond their stated bounds risks undermining Scripture’s sufficiency and clarity. If abuse constitutes grounds, why not addiction, emotional cruelty, or chronic financial irresponsibility? Christ’s deliberate limitation of grounds, despite knowing human suffering intimately, suggests divine wisdom in maintaining high thresholds.

The Reformed tradition’s emphasis on separation for safety while maintaining the marriage bond offers a middle path that protects victims without necessarily dissolving the covenant. Church discipline and community support can address covenant violations while working toward restoration where possible. Marriage’s symbolic representation of Christ and the church requires extraordinary reasons for dissolution—reasons Scripture provides specifically and exhaustively.

PASTORAL APPLICATION: WISDOM FOR CHURCH LEADERS

Churches must develop thoughtful approaches to these difficult situations that balance biblical fidelity with genuine care for suffering members. Pastoral wisdom becomes crucial in applying scriptural principles to complex human situations.

Counsel in Cases of Abuse: Church leaders must prioritise safety while working within biblical parameters, helping abuse victims understand that separation doesn’t require abandoning their faith commitments. Wise pastors distinguish between immediate protective measures and long-term decisions about the marriage relationship. This approach validates suffering while maintaining hope for covenant restoration where possible.

The Role of Church Discipline and Community Support: Biblical church discipline should address abusive behaviour firmly while supporting victims practically and spiritually. Churches must never pressure abuse victims to remain in dangerous situations or rush toward reconciliation without genuine repentance. Community support becomes essential—providing safe housing, financial assistance, and ongoing pastoral care during extended separation periods.

When Separation Protects While Preserving Marriage Covenant: Extended separation can protect innocent parties while maintaining hope for covenant restoration through genuine repentance and change. This position acknowledges some situations require indefinite separation while stopping short of dissolving the marriage bond without clear biblical grounds. Churches should support separated spouses practically while encouraging appropriate boundaries and safety measures.

Resources and Safety Planning for Vulnerable Spouses: Effective pastoral care requires connecting abuse victims with professional resources, legal protection, and safe housing options while providing ongoing spiritual support. Safety planning becomes a pastoral responsibility, working with law enforcement and social services when necessary. Churches must never minimise abuse or pressure premature reconciliation while maintaining biblical hope for transformation.

CONCLUSION: HOLDING SCRIPTURE AND COMPASSION TOGETHER

The Reformed commitment to the Bible’s authority requires maintaining scriptural boundaries even in heartbreaking situations. While we must acknowledge the genuine pastoral challenges that led Grudem and others to seek additional grounds, the traditional two-grounds position remains strongest exegetically and practically.

Christ’s deliberate limitation of divorce grounds, despite his perfect knowledge of human suffering, reflects divine wisdom worth trusting. The church’s calling involves creative faithfulness—finding ways to protect and support struggling marriages within biblical parameters rather than expanding those parameters when they feel restrictive.

This doesn’t mean callousness toward suffering. Rather, it calls churches to robust community support, wise use of separation, and patient work toward healing where possible. God’s design for marriage, including his provisions for its dissolution, reflects his perfect knowledge of human nature and need.

GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE: RELATED FAQs

Can God’s grace restore even the most broken marriages? What about testimonies of abuse victims who ‘stayed’? Absolutely. Many believers have witnessed remarkable transformations when they trusted God’s sovereignty even in abusive situations. Sarah (name changed to protect identity), a pastor’s wife, endured years of her husband’s verbal abuse and controlling behavior, choosing prayer and godly boundaries over separation. Through consistent church discipline and her unwavering commitment to biblical principles, her husband eventually experienced genuine repentance and sought counselling. Today, they minister together to struggling couples, their marriage a testament to God’s transforming power. While such outcomes aren’t guaranteed and safety must always be prioritised, God can change the hardest hearts when we trust His timing and methods.

Should pastors be cautious about advising separation, given how rarely couples reconcile afterward? This is a sobering reality that requires pastoral wisdom. Statistics show couples who separate with mutual consent rarely return to honour their marriage covenant, often viewing separation as a stepping stone to divorce rather than a space for repentance and healing. And pastors, overwhelmed with other commitments, fail to provide the intensive guidance separated couples need during this critical period. Churches should consider separation only when safety is genuinely at risk and must commit to ongoing, structured pastoral care for both parties. Without this commitment, well-intentioned advice to separate often becomes an inadvertent pathway to divorce rather than restoration.
How do we handle situations where abuse happened years ago but the couple remained together? Past abuse doesn’t automatically create present grounds for divorce, especially if there’s been genuine repentance, lasting change, and ongoing accountability. However, if patterns of abuse continue or resurface, the situation requires immediate pastoral intervention and potentially separation for safety. Churches must take historical abuse seriously while recognising God’s power to transform relationships over time. The crucial factors are whether there’s been authentic repentance, demonstrated change, and ongoing safeguards to prevent future harm. Each situation requires careful pastoral assessment rather than blanket rules.
Does emotional or verbal abuse constitute biblical grounds for divorce? While devastating and sinful, emotional abuse alone doesn’t fit the biblical categories of adultery or abandonment, though it may warrant church discipline and temporary separation for healing. The church must take such abuse seriously, providing counselling, setting boundaries, and protecting victims without necessarily dissolving the marriage covenant. Some cases of extreme emotional abuse may overlap with abandonment if one spouse completely rejects their covenant obligations. The key is addressing the sin seriously while working within biblical parameters, recognizing that emotional healing often requires time and professional help alongside pastoral care.

What if one divorced for unbiblical reasons before becoming a Christian? God’s grace covers all sin, including past divorce decisions made without biblical understanding. New believers shouldn’t feel condemned for pre-conversion choices made in ignorance of God’s design for marriage. However, this doesn’t automatically validate remarriage without considering whether biblical grounds existed for the original divorce. Churches should approach such situations with grace while encouraging new believers to honour God’s design going forward. If someone is already remarried, they shouldn’t divorce their current spouse to “fix” past decisions, as this would create additional covenant violations rather than honoring God.

GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE: OUR RELATED POSTS