There is widescale agreement among evangelicals that both adultery and abandonment are grounds for divorce and remarriage (of course, there are exceptions to this). But are there other reasons why one is permitted to terminate a marriage?

A few years ago, I was visiting Wayne Grudem at his home in Phoenix. He shared with me how he and his wife, Margaret, were re-thinking their view on divorce and remarriage. We had a long and engaging conversation about it. At first, I struggled with his suggestion that there are additional grounds for divorce beyond adultery and abandonment. Later that year Wayne delivered a paper at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society setting forth his new view. He then asked Crossway to release a new and updated version of his book, Christian Ethics (2024), in which he defended what you are about to read.

Wayne (Christian Ethics, 818-28) directs our attention to 1 Corinthians 7:15 –

"But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”

The Greek phrase translated, “in such cases”, appears nowhere else in the NT. However, it does on occasion appear in Greek literature outside the Bible. Grudem cites examples from Philo, Lysias, and Euripides. Grudem believes that is clear from how the phrase is used elsewhere that Paul “implies that divorce is a legitimate possibility not only in cases of desertion by an unbeliever, but also in other circumstances that are similar to but not necessarily exactly like desertion” (820) “In such cases” thus suggests that Paul is saying that divorce is permissible “in this and other similarly destructive situations” (that is, situations that harm or destroy a marriage as much as adultery or desertion)” (820). We might even translate this phrase, “in cases similar to this.”

Grudem is not saying that divorce is legitimate in every case in which a spouse claims to be abused. Rather, he is saying “that there are some cases in which the abuse (whether physical or verbal/emotional) has damaged the marriage as much as adultery or desertion would damage it, and ‘in such cases’ in 1 Corinthians 7:15 would apply and divorce would be legitimate” (822).

Grudem’s point is that Paul is alluding to other instances that are similar to adultery and desertion and serve to destroy a marriage. What might those “instances” be? Although he doesn’t claim to provide an exhaustive list, he suggests that it is reasonable to mention a few: abuse of children, and extreme, prolonged verbal and relational cruelty (by which he means “treatment that is destroying the other spouse’s mental and emotional stability could be so severe that it would fall into the category of ‘in such cases’ and would be a legitimate ground for divorce”) (822). He also mentions credible threats of serious bodily harm, incorrigible drug or alcohol addiction, incorrigible gambling addiction, and incorrigible addiction to pornography.

Wayne is fully aware of the sorts of objections that some might bring against his view. He mentions four of them and provides a brief response to each.

First, “In a case of abuse, why not just counsel lifelong separation without divorce?” His answer is that “this would be leaving the abused spouse ‘enslaved’ to the marriage and the abusing spouse, but Paul says such a spouse is ‘not enslaved’ [see 1 Cor. 7:15] in situations like this” (825).

Second, “This will open the floodgates to many needless divorces in marriages that could be saved” (825). Grudem responds: “My answer is that I am not advocating for ‘needless divorces.’ Genuine efforts to save the marriages should be attempted first. But allowing for these additional possible grounds for divorce will save thousands of sincere Christian believers from suffering horrible abuse for decades” (825).

Third, “Staying in an abusive marriage is a better way to give a witness to society about the goodness of God’s plan for lifelong marriage” (825), to which he replies: “leaving an abusive marriage with the blessing of the church is a better way to give witness to society that God is pleased when we can help to rescue those who suffer unjustly” (825).

Fourth, “Sometimes God calls his children to endure suffering. In fact, Peter says, ‘If when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God’ (1 Pet. 2:20).” Again, Grudem responds:

“I agree that God sometimes calls his people to endure suffering, but there is more to the story. God also rescues his people from suffering and calls them to escape from suffering when possible. ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery’ (Ex. 20:2). ‘And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil’ (Matt. 6:13). ‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next’ (Matt. 10:23). ‘Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity)’” (1 Cor. 7:21).

In summary:

“Several examples from extrabiblical literature show that the expression ‘in such cases’ (en tois toioutois) often refers to a variety of situations that are similar to but clearly not identical to the specific situation. This suggests that Paul considered divorce a legitimate possibility not only in cases of desertion by an unbeliever, but also in situations that similarly brought extensive and severe damage to the marriage” (825).

Am I now persuaded of Grudem’s new view? Yes.