SERMON: “Thinking about Marriage, Divorce, & Remarriage” (1 Cor. 7:8–16)
“Thinking about Marriage, Divorce,
& Remarriage” (1 Cor. 7:8–16)
Series: “1 Cor: Holiness from Messes” #24 Text: 1
Corinthians 7:8–16
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: April 12, 2026
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: AM Service
Introduction
One of the more argued about points of the Christian walk is
on divorce and remarriage. I remember
hearing from a friend in school that three key yes/no questions distinguish pastors
and theologians on this topic:
- 1. Is divorce ever permissible?
- 2. Is remarriage ever permissible after a divorce (while the former spouse is still alive)?
- 3. May a divorced (and/or remarried) person serve in church leadership, such as pastor, elder, or deacon?
For instance, John MacArthur would typically have answered yes,
yes, and no, stating that even innocent parties in divorce might
not be able to overcome the stigma and serve above reproach. John Piper is far more restrictive than that,
answering “no” to each of the questions, upholding the principle of the
permanence of marriage above all. Wayne
Grudem, by contrast, would be more open in his interpretation, answering in the
affirmative for each, though considering the third question on a case-by-case
basis. Historically, those “yes” answers
would reflect most Puritan and Reformed congregations.
This isn’t an academic exercise, of course. Many of you have had to wrestle with these
questions in your own lives. There are
many who have faced severe difficulties in marriage, and you’ve either decided
to stick it out or seek a divorce. Some,
being divorced, have struggled with whether you should seek remarriage. And if you have struggled through these kinds
of questions, you’ve likely consulted this text, among others.
This is still part of the Apostle Paul’s chapter on marriage
and singleness. He is ultimately calling
for people to be content where they are and to glory God in whatever state they
find themselves (cf. v. 24). The
Corinthians had a lot of odd notions about marriage and intimacy, with some
even arguing for ending relationships for “spiritual” reasons. Paul corrects these views with
Spirit-inspired answers which endure for our pressing questions.
We must hold a high view of marriage and count the cost
before entering its covenant. We’ll
consider that in three ways this morning, and we’ll see what we should think
about divorce and remarriage along the way.
First, we’ll note our consideration of marriage (vv. 8–9), then our commitment
to marriage (vv. 10–14), and finally, our cessation of marriage (vv. 15–16).
First, Our Consideration of Marriage (vv. 8–9)
But I say to the
unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them
marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
These two verses present two possibilities for those who
find themselves single through bad circumstances. Paul begins by addressing “the unmarried.” The Greek word here appears only four times in
the New Testament, all in this chapter.[1] Paul uses it to distinguish from “virgins” in
v. 34, and in vv. 10–11, the term refers to those who were previously married[2]
— perhaps divorced or abandoned. He is
speaking especially to those who have been previously married and are now
single, likely including both men and women.
The term “widows” obviously refers to wives who lost their
husbands to death. He doesn’t mention
widowers, but that may simply be because it was far more common for men to die
first through war, work accidents, or the like.
Still, this is simply another category of someone who is single, and we
could consider widowers here.
He says to these single people that “it is good for them if
they remain.” Paul is not issuing a
universal command that everyone must stay single, or even that it is better
to be unmarried.[3]
In fact, he states that remaining
unmarried is good — beneficial, advantageous[4] — especially
in light of the present distress the Corinthians faced (vv. 25–28).[5]
He models this himself, saying, “even as I.” Paul doesn’t hint at having a wife in the NT. Whether he was a widower or had been
abandoned by his wife, it’s only clear here that he’s not married.[6] He lived as a single man devoted fully to the
Lord’s work, and he commends that freedom to others.
Even so, Paul is realistic. So, in v. 9, he says, “But if they do not have
self-control, let them marry.” The
phrase “do not have self-control” points back to the potential of immoralities
he mentioned in v. 2. So, if sexual
desire between two people grows and becomes a source of temptation, threatening
impurity, Paul commands marriage.[7] As Matthew Henry notes, “This is God’s remedy
for lust. The fire may be quenched by
the means he has appointed. And
marriage, with all its inconveniences, is much better than to burn with impure
and lustful desires.”[8] Marriage is necessarily for most people,
assisting with self-control in sexuality.
To be clear, that is the contrast he’s painting in this
verse. Paul says that “it is better to
marry than to burn with passion.” Even
today, we speak of being “inflamed” with passion, and that is how the Greek
language uses “burn” here.[9] This is the same reasoning he gave in verse
5 — spouses should not deprive one another “so that Satan will not tempt you
because of your lack of self-control.”[10] God’s remedy for uncontrolled passion is
marriage, not endless struggle.
Beloved, this is practical wisdom. If you are single — whether never married,
widowed, or divorced — and you seem to lack a drive for celibacy, do not
torment yourself with guilt. It is
better to marry in the Lord than to burn. Count the cost, seek a godly spouse, and enter
marriage to glorify God. Those who are single
and find that to be a gift for serving the Lord undivided should remain as Paul
did, not giving into calls for marriage. Both states are good when submitted to Christ.
Second, Our Commitment to Marriage (vv. 10–14)
But to the married
I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her
husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be
reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if
any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him,
he must not divorce her. And a woman who
has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not
divorce her husband. For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified
through her believing husband. For otherwise your children are unclean, but now
they are holy.
Christians Should Avoid Divorces with One Another!
Paul now turns “to the married.” Here, he rests on commands spoken by Jesus Himself
during His earthly ministry. Jesus
taught clearly on marriage and divorce in the Gospels (Matt 5:32; 19:3–9; Mark
10:2–12; Luke 16:18). Of course, God
also said, “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16).
Marriage is a covenant before God, so “the wife should not leave her
husband … and … the husband should not divorce his wife.” And, to be clear, though the Greek words
translated “leave” (v. 9) and “divorce” (v. 10) are different, Paul uses them
synonymously, as there wasn’t a category in that day for the separated and
yet-un-divorced.[11] The general rule of God’s Word is that
marriage is permanent, and both man and wife should recognize this.
It is interesting who he highlights first, though. In the Greco-Roman world, wives could initiate
separation more easily than in Jewish culture.[12] Paul addresses wives first, perhaps because
the issue was surfacing among them in Corinth. Today is not so different; most divorces in
the US are initiated by women today, with recent studies showing that women
initiate about 69% of them.
Of course, the command binds both. As Matthew Henry notes, “Man and wife cannot
separate at pleasure, nor dissolve, when they will, their matrimonial bonds and
relation. They must not separate for any
other cause than what Christ allows.”[13] There should be no divorce between believers.
Yet, some were divorcing! One theory might be that mystically-minded
women wanted to become chaste “for the Lord,” but v. 11 indicates that many
were divorcing just to get remarried, not to remain chaste.[14] Maybe they couldn’t get over the fact that
their repentant Christian husbands had previously been engaged in sexual sin,
as Paul addressed in 6:9–11 — so unforgiving Christian wives decided they
wanted a divorce to find more “pure” husbands.[15]
Whatever the case, these women were not separating for godly
or biblical reasons. (Considering the
rest of v. 11, it’s possible that Christian men might have thought the same of
their wives.) So, Paul gives only two
options: remain unmarried or be reconciled.[16] Remarriage in such cases would be adulterous,
for God has not permitted a divorce to take place.
Why such a strong stance? Because, again, marriage reflects the
permanent, exclusive, one-flesh union that God designed (Gen 2:24). Jesus said what God has joined together, let
no one separate. Divorce between
believers tears what God has joined, so Paul stands firmly with his Lord.
Christians can and should treat marriage as permanent. They must choose to forgive and work through
issues rather than using the easy escape hatch of divorce that the world does. Pastors and biblical counselors can help if
they feel they need a third-party, but they can work past their conflicts. After all, this passage gives them no option
for dissolving their union under normal circumstances.
Christians Should Also Avoid Divorces from Unbelievers!
“Wait!” you may say.
“What if the husband (or wife) is genuinely an unbeliever?” Of course, Christians shouldn’t marry
unbelievers, becoming “unequally yoked” to those outside of the Lord (v. 39, 2
Cor. 6:14). While that was possibly the
situation in Corinth, since Paul doesn’t address it in these verses, it’s more
likely a scenario that one of the two spouses in Corinthian marriages were
coming to Christ and not the other ones.[17] Such a situation indeed creates unique issues
in relationships, with questions of divided loyalties and conflicts about faith. For instance, “Plutarch’s ‘Advice to Bride
and Groom’ makes the point: ‘A wife ought not to make friends of her own, but
to enjoy her husband’s friends in common with him. The gods are the first and most important
friends. Wherefore it is becoming for a
wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in.’ ”[18] Such a situation is the cause of why
Christians should seek to avoid marrying unbelievers.
Those converting to Christ within marriage must count the
cost, knowing that the sword of His gospel can divide households (Matt.
10:34–36). Once division occurs, Christians
will wonder what to do. Moses permitted
divorce, and Ezra commanded those returning from exile to put away their pagan
wives (Ezra 10:3),[19] so maybe these
Christians thought they were in a similar situation.[20] Divorce seems to be a sensible way to handle
the problem of being unequally yoked, but that would be the Corinthians mixing
their worldly wisdom into Scripture again.
Jesus never said this division would always be irreconcilable.
So, Paul addresses the problem in v. 12. He begins, though, by stating that he is
speaking, “not the Lord.” Don’t be
troubled by this, thinking that Paul is laying down his apostolic authority at
this moment. His words still carry the authority
of this Spirit-inspired apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37). He simply means that Jesus did not address
this specific situation during His earthly ministry; [21] our
Lord came to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), and pre-Pentecost,
this was not yet a relevant scenario to the Jewish people. Now, the Holy Spirit speaks through Paul to the
new missionary reality among the Gentiles[22] — one
spouse becomes a Christian while the other remains an unbeliever.
So, what does the Lord’s apostle reveal for believers who wake
up to faith and find themselves in mixed relationships? Well, the command for them is essentially the
same as for everyone else:[23]
Believers must treat such marriages with value and permanence. Thus, if the unbelieving spouse “consents to
live with him,” the believing husband “must not divorce her” (and the same
applies to a believing wife in v. 14). Our Lord would not have us initiate divorce
simply because a spouse does not share the faith — the marriage remains valid
in His eyes. Indeed, some divorces could
have unforeseen ramifications that could even threaten the lives of believers.[24]
Still, some might scratch their heads here, especially in
Corinth. They were concerned about purity,[25]
so they might erroneously think they would be defiling[26] the
sanctuary of the Holy Spirit by joining their bodies in their one-flesh
marriages with an unbeliever (cf. 1 Cor. 6:19).
As such, Paul corrects that notion by giving a fascinating reason for
staying married in v. 14. He says, “For
the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified through her believing husband.” That’s unexpected — rather than the unbeliever
defiling the Christian in this case, the Christian has some kind of holy affect
upon the unbeliever.
What could that affect be?
Paul is obviously not talking about personal salvation, for no one is
saved by virtue of marriage; besides, the spouse is still called “unbelieving.”[27]
Yet, a kind of horizontal sanctification
takes place in many unseen ways. First, marriage
remains an institution of God, even if one spouse doesn’t know God, and there
is a blessing to those who remain committed to it. Second, there is a sanctifying effect of
truth over time, especially as the unbelieving spouse sees the testimony of the
consistent lifestyle of the Christian spouse.
Third, and related, truth may encourage actions, as the unbelieving
spouse leaves off of some sins. Fourth,
it may even lead to salvation. In short,
the home becomes a sphere of holy influence rather than defilement.
This sanctifying influence extends out to others (and
eventually to all of society). Paul applies
the point to those nearest — the children in the relationship. He says, “For otherwise your children are
unclean, but now they are holy.” In the
Old Testament, children born to covenant parents were considered holy — set
apart under God’s claim (Ezra 9:2; Mal 2:15), and thus avoiding some of the pitfalls
children growing in pagan contexts experience. In the New Testament era, the presence of even
one believing parent brings the children under the umbrella of covenant
blessing, growing up in a home touched by the gospel and protected from a
purely ungodly environment.[28]
Not only do children with two parents fare
better than those with one, divorce robs them of a peculiar blessing in the
Lord, especially if they find themselves in the custody of the unbeliever. Christian parents need not worry that unbelieving
spouses will defile the children.[29]
Brothers and sisters, if you’re in a mixed marriage, and
your unbelieving spouse is willing to stay, stay. Your faithful presence is not defiling; it is
sanctifying. Your life, your prayers,
your example are a channel of common grace to your spouse and your children. You may be the only Bible they read, so do not
throw away that platform.
Unfortunately, though, we must recognize that the choice is
not always ours to make. So, Paul turns
to another sad reality that believers must also face. Let’s consider that before closing:
Third, Our Cessation of Marriage (vv. 15–16)
Yet if the
unbelieving one leaves, let him leave. The
brother or the sister is not enslaved in such cases, but God has called us to
peace. For how do you know, O wife,
whether you will save your husband? Or
how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
Here, Paul addresses the possibility of physical or legal desertion.[30]
What if the unbeliever leaves? Sometimes, the unbeliever initiates separation
or divorce because he or she cannot tolerate the believer’s faith. In such cases, the Christian is not required
to fight to keep the marriage together. “Let
him leave,” commands the apostle.
He also says that the brother or sister “is not enslaved in
such cases.” The word “enslaved” is
strong word that pictures bondage, as the Legacy Standard Bible translation
notes state here. It obviously evokes
thoughts of the slave trade, and Paul uses the same root when he speaks of
slaves in verses 21–23. Enslavement would
be a believer trying to hold onto a marriage after the unbeliever departs. To think about it another way, the marriage bond
has been broken by the unbeliever’s desertion, and therefore, there is no “bondage”
left in the relationship.[31]
If Paul wasn’t clear as to what he means, he adds that “God
has called us to peace.” In other words,
the Lord would not have us engaged in endless conflict in the futile hope of
rescuing a marriage that has ended. A
wife educated on the permanence of marriage might be tempted dive and grab her
husband’s ankles as he’s walking out the door for the last time, but that isn’t
what God would have you to do. Nor is He
calling you to pine away, wondering if your husband will return. Divorce is permissible in cases of
abandonment.
Peace also includes the freedom to live without the torment
of an abandoned marriage. I note that because the question of freedom
from the marriage here doesn’t automatically mean there is freedom for
remarriage. There is some debate on that
point, with some pointing to v. 11 and the general flow of the chapter as
stating that there should be no remarriage; the divorced should “stay as they
are,” i.e., single. That singleness
might even aid in the salvation of the spouse, should they return (cf. v. 16). Yet, Paul clearly gives exceptions, stating
that while the state of singleness is a gift, people in various states are fine
to marry (vv. 2, 9, 29, 36, 39). Some
might appeal to v. 39, saying that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he
lives, even if he departs; yet, Paul says she isn’t “bound” after he dies and
is free to remarry, and he similarly says here the abandoned spouse is not
“enslaved.”
Since this chapter
is so detailed but lacks a command against remarriage for cases such as
abandonment, then we must conclude that that Paul would allow remarriage for
those who seek it. As one commentary
notes, “[S]pouses are not stuck in the slavery of a no-man’s-land where they
have no spouse (because they have been abandoned) and yet are not able to
remarry (because they remain married). They
are free.… This is in keeping with the fact that in the Roman world, most
people remarried (and were expected to remarry) after getting divorced.”[32]
This means that both divorce and remarriage is acceptable in
certain cases. When the marriage
covenant is legitimately broken — by death, by sexual immorality (Matt 19:9),
or by abandonment — the Scriptures assume divorce and remarriage are permissible. To
say otherwise is to go beyond Scripture.
Now, v. 16 might be confusing in light of this. Yet, it provides perspective — “For how do
you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you
will save your wife?” These rhetorical
questions most likely expect a negative answer in context. There is no guarantee that forcing an
unwilling unbeliever to stay will result in salvation. So, you’re not responsible to keep them
against their will in hopes of conversion. As MacArthur notes, “Evangelism is not cause
enough to maintain a marriage, especially if the unbelieving partner wants to
leave. The believer should let God
follow that spouse’s soul with the message of salvation, and use whomever He will
to take up the call to faith.”[33] While evangelism is vital, but it is not a
chain that binds you to a broken marriage; let God pursue the departing spouse
through other means.
Conclusion
So what do we conclude from this text? Based on what we’ve seen here today, a “yes”
to each of those three questions is certainly acceptable biblically. Though marriage is permeant, there are a
couple of biblically-permitted exceptions for divorce which open the door for
remarriage. We could go further and say
that, based on a case-by-case basis, it’s also generally acceptable to have a
pastor or a deacon who has endured a biblical divorce and remarriage (though
that is more of a topic for another day).
Of course, because of the high calling of Christ on
marriage, reconciliation should always be pursued where-ever possible. Yet, the church must love and accept divorced
people, encouraging them toward godliness rather than stigma. We must understand that we are all messy
saints learning to live according to God’s ways instead of our own. Those who want to talk about this more with a
pastor are more than welcome to do so.
Beloved, whether you are single, married, widowed, divorced,
or remarried, the call is the same: glorify God right where He has you. If you’re married, fulfill and cherish your
covenant. If you’re single, use your
freedom for undivided devotion. If you
have walked through the pain of divorce, walk forward in God’s grace. Holiness can emerge from every mess.
[1] John D. Barry, Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael
S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R.
Grigoni, and David Bomar, Faithlife Study
Bible, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 1 Co 7:8.
[2] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed., (Nashville, TN: Word
Pub., 1997), 1738.
[3] A. T. Robertson, Word
Pictures in the New Testament, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 1 Co
7:8.
[4] Barry, et. al.
[5] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The
Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 288.
[6] MacArthur.
[7] Ciampa and Rosner.
[8] Matthew Henry, Matthew
Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume,
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2255.
[9] Ronald Trail, An
Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 1–9, (Dallas, TX: SIL International,
2008), 262.
[10] Ciampa and Rosner, 288–289.
[11] Andrew David Naselli, Romans–Galatians, 2020, X, 281.
[12] Barry, et. al, 1 Co 7:10.
[13] Henry, 2255.
[14] Ciampa and Rosner, 290.
[15] Ibid., 290–291.
[16] Ralph H. Alexander, Evangelical dictionary of biblical theology, 1996, 185.
[17] Naselli.
[18] Ciampa and Rosner, 294.
[19] David K. Lowery, The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 518.
[20] Henry.
[21] Robertson, 1 Co 7:12.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Barry, et. al, 1 Co 7:12.
[24] “Thiselton
reminds us of the case from the second century reported by Justin at the
beginning of the second chapter of his Second
Apology. Justin relates the story of
a woman who had come to Christian faith in the context of a marriage where both
she and her husband had been unchaste.
Upon becoming a Christian she became a chaste wife and tried to persuade
her husband to adopt a similarly chaste lifestyle based on Christ’s
teachings. He alienated her, however, by
continuing to live a sexually immoral lifestyle. ‘[I]n spite of her deep desire to leave him,
her friends advised her to stay to try to win her husband. Her husband so declined in unnatural vice,
however, that in the end she gave him a writ of divorce. Upon this, her husband reported her to the
authorities for her Christian faith.’ ” Ciampa
and Rosner, 296.
[25] Ibid., 297.
[26] MacArthur.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ciampa and Rosner, 302.
[29] MacArthur.
[30] Naselli.
[31] MacArthur, 1739.
[32] Ciampa and Rosner, 303.
[33] John F. MacArthur Jr., 1 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1984), 168.