Pornography, Lust, and Divorce

Applying Ancient Principles to Modern Sins

Photo by Rezvani on Unsplash

Several times in over 30 years of preaching, and growing more frequently in the last ten, I have been asked questions similar to this:

“My husband looks at pornography, has carried on salacious conversations with other women via text, email, and/or internet chat rooms, has lied to me repeatedly about it, and gets defensive when I confront him. Since Jesus said that lust is the same as committing adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:28), may I divorce him with God’s approval and be free to remarry?”

Following is my attempt to apply the timeless principles of Scripture to this growing modern problem.

Combining Matthew 5:28 with Matthew 19:9

At the heart of pornography consumption is lust, the indulging of visual sexual arousal involving persons that the voyeur has no right to gaze at lustfully. Jesus is clear that looking at another with lustful intent is sin. Jesus affirms that the one who so lusts has committed adultery in his heart (Matt. 5:27-28). In other words, he has fantasized about an adulterous liaison in his mind.

Regarding divorce, Jesus is equally clear that fornication (a word with a specific definition) is the only acceptable reason to dissolve a marriage, leaving the innocent party free to remarry (Matt. 19:9).

The central question before us is: does the combination of Matthew 5:28 and 19:9 allow for lust as an acceptable reason for divorce and subsequent remarriage? Stated another way, does lust fall within the definition of fornication?

My answer to those questions is NO. Following are my reasons for giving that answer.

First, the definition of “fornication” (the Greek word porneia) only allows for physical acts. The gold standard lexicon of New Testament Greek defines the word, “Unlawful sexual intercourse” (Arndt, Danker, Bauer, and Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000, p. 693). Another typical dictionary entry defines porneia, “Any kind of illegitimate sexual intercourse” (Mounce, William D. Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006, p. 268). Every Greek lexicon I consulted agrees that porneia is a physical, not a mental act.

There was a common word available to Jesus that would have encompassed such sins as lust, lewd conversations, and the like. It is the Greek word aselgeia, often translated “lasciviousness” or “lewdness.” But Jesus chose a word that is narrower in its meaning.

To broaden the definition of “fornication” in Matthew 19:9 to include lust, one would have to prove that Jesus was using that word in that passage figuratively, not literally. But nothing Jesus said in that passage indicates that he was speaking figuratively. Words always carry their literal meanings unless there are compelling contextual reasons to interpret a word figuratively.

Second, if we argue that committing adultery “in the heart” allows for the same consequences as committing adultery with the body (i.e., the right to divorce and remarry), we would be forced by consistency to argue that anger, or murder in the heart (Matt. 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15), should allow for the same consequences as actual murder (i.e., the death penalty, Gen. 9:6).

James refers to those who have a “friendship with the world” as “adulterers” (James 4:4). Surely, we are not willing to argue that pairing James 4:4 with Matthew 19:9 would permit a faithful wife to divorce her spouse and enter a subsequent marriage just because he is worldly. Yet, if we allow it in cases of lust (by pairing Matthew 5:28 with 19:9), we would have to allow it in cases of worldliness, which would make the exception in Matthew 19:9 so broad that it would be stripped of any real significance. After all, every sin, in some sense, is worldly (1 John 2:15-17). These examples lead me to conclude that “what proves too much proves nothing.”

What Options Are Available?

Accepting that divorce may only be employed with God’s approval when a spouse has committed fornication, what options does a woman have whose husband has not committed fornication, but has, according to the original question: (1) sought intimate female companionship via online dating sites and/or chat rooms, (2) regularly gazed at pornography, (3) exchanged flirtatious messages with women he met online, and (4) has been deceitful and defensive about it? Must she continue to live under the same roof and share the same bed with him?

My answer to that last question is NO, she would not be obligated to share a home and bed with him. Following are my reasons for giving that answer.

Every person has a right to self-protection. If a husband came home each night and physically abused his wife, we would be right to encourage her to protect herself by NOT going home until her husband had developed a penitent heart and shown the fruits of that repentance in his actions. Emotional abuse, though different from physical abuse, is still evil. A wife has the right to protect herself from the emotional cruelty of a husband who batters her feelings by consistently choosing fantasy lovers over her.

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul addresses several problems and questions that had arisen in the Corinthian church that involved marriage and divorce. I am of the opinion that the general principles that Paul outlined there find application to the current circumstance under discussion. Consider:

First, even in cases where there is some level of incompatibility in a marriage, the ideal solution is that “the wife should not separate from her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10). If, at all possible, togetherness may be maintained, it should be. But, as stated above, the time may come in which a wife needs to be protected from a husband who has so distanced himself from proper moral and ethical conduct that her well-being is at stake. If so, she has the right to protect herself.

Second, the marriage bond is supposed to be a peaceful living arrangement. The union between husband and wife has never been comparable to slavery (1 Cor. 7:15). If a husband abuses his wife (physically, verbally, or emotionally) and pollutes their home and bed with pornography and flirtatious online relationships with other women, a wife is not so enslaved to him that a forced physical proximity for its own sake is demanded. But in a case like this, with the husband guilty of lewdness but not fornication, the wife’s options, should she choose to separate from him, are “remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor. 7:11). Reconciliation should be the ultimate goal (1 Cor. 7:5), but not until the following happen: (1) the wife is given sufficient time and space for her wounds to heal; (2) the husband takes full responsibility for his sins and recognizes how serious they are; (3) genuine remorse leads the husband to so act as to regain the trust of his wife; (4) the husband creates a personal environment in which his wife feels emotionally safe and protected. How long does that take? It will be different for each couple, but in most cases the time will be measured in months or years, not days or weeks.

Concluding Thoughts

If, at any point during separation, the husband’s unchecked lewdness leads him to act on his fantasies and commit fornication, the betrayed wife would be justified in taking advantage of the provision offered by the Lord in Matthew 19:9 – divorce, with the right to remarry if she chose.

Though the options are more limited for the wife of a lewd husband than they are for the wife of a fornicating husband, that in no way minimizes the sinfulness of lewdness. By consuming pornography, engaging in flirtatious behavior with other women, and fantasizing about sexual encounters with them, a man has committed horrible sins that betray the trust of his wife, violate solemn promises he made to her, and inflict her with emotional scars that may take a very long time to heal, if ever.

Any wife so betrayed should be given time and space to complete that healing process. She should desire and pray earnestly for her husband’s penitence and restoration to the Lord. She should work on her own heart, keeping it open to his return and free from animosity and vengefulness. Even if she considers her husband her enemy, she still must love him (Matt. 5:43-48). But she should not be expected to return to him until he has shown, in word, attitude, and action that his heart is no longer captive to lust.