A Cry For Justice

Awakening the Evangelical Church to Domestic Violence and Abuse in its Midst

Pastor Voddie Baucham’s No Divorce, No Re-Marriage After Divorce Sermon

[September 10, 2022: There have been some changes made to this post. For more information, read the Editors’ notes at the bottom of the post. Editors.]

The following link is to a sermon by Pastor Voddie Baucham of the Grace Family Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. It’s title is The Permanence View of Marriage based upon Matthew 5:31-32.

The Permanence View of Marriage

The summary of the sermon provided by GFBC is:

GFBC holds to the permanence view of marriage. According to the permanence view, there are no biblical grounds for divorce under any circumstance (and thus, no remarriage after divorce). In this sermon from Matthew 5:31-32, Dr. Baucham gives a Biblical defense of that position and explains the differences between the three predominate views held by evangelical churches today. {Source [Internet Archive link]]1

We provide this link to our readers at A Cry for Justice as an example of the no-divorce-for-any-reason position, which also prohibits all remarriage after a divorce. Baucham specifically says that abuse is not biblical grounds for divorce.

One must continue to be befuddled at a pastor and church leadership that not only teaches such a position, but holds the congregation to it, when in this very sermon Pastor Baucham acknowledges that there are at least 3 predominate views on this subject held by evangelical churches. When there is such a diversity of opinion, how is it possible to enforce such a position upon our people? Some churches even go so far as to exercise church discipline for any member who would “violate” this permanence view. It is not clear from this sermon what Baucham’s church does if a member does divorce. He says that there are some people who are members of his church who have been divorced and who are remarried, and yet they have been accepted as members.

1[September 10, 2022: We added the link to the page containing the sermon summary. The Internet Archive link is a copy of that page. Editors.]

[September 10, 2022: Editors’ notes:

—For some comments made prior to September 10, 2022 that quoted from the post, the text in the comment that was quoted from the post might no longer be an exact match.
—For some comments made prior to September 10, 2022 that quoted from the post, the text in the comment that was quoted from the post might no longer be found in the post.
If you would like to compare the text in the comments made prior to September 10, 2022 that quoted from the post to the post as it is now (September 10, 2022), click here [Internet Archive link] for the most recent Internet Archive copy of the post.]


  1. Church discipline….those poor souls. I’m so thankful for a pastor who loves his flock, who shows compassion and grace, and welcomes all who come through the door.

    • MattS

      Judicial church discipline has occurred since the early church. It is a necessary function within a church community.

      • IamMyBeloved's

        Key word there, Matt – judicial. We here at ACFJ are speaking of abusive, lording over, unbiblical, abuse of power and authority – which then in fact – biblically speaking – means there is no real godly or God given authority being exercised by those men in position.

  2. Neal Doster

    All through the Old and New Testaments remarriage was binding even if adulterous. All of the authors of Scripture wrote with the reality that remarriage superseded the former marriage. Not one of them (including Jesus) ever instructed a remarried individual to depart a second marriage to resolve adultery. Most in the permanence view acknowledge this, but there are some that don‘t. They interject that Jesus Himself sought to change the ability to divorce and remarry. They base this claim on His teachings where He states that adultery is the consequence of remarriage (Matt 5:31-32, 19:1-10, Mark 10:1-12, Luke 16:18). They reason that if remarriage results in adultery then the remarriage has no legitimacy at all. If the remarriage has no legitimacy at all then Jesus overturned the possibility of remarriage.

    These observations are very informative because it spells out the practical differences within the permanence view as well as that of the proviso view. If the one flesh union created in marriage endures until death, then the smaller percentage of the permanence view advocates who reason like Steven Wilcox is right. Millions of families need to be broken in order to accomplish God’s will. Conversely, the proviso view teaches that divorce and remarriage (even if adulterous) changes the marital status of the couple and creates a new marriage covenant to which they should remain true. The sad part is, there are people who are following the counsel of those who believe like Steven. Instead of escaping sin, they are causing it.

    To advocate that Jesus was saying that from this point on a second marriage after divorce would no longer be a binding marriage exceeds the text, as well as the rest of the New Testament. No New Testament writer ever instructed an individual to leave their second spouse as these men do. No New Testament writer affirms the extra-biblical idea that “Marriage survives remarriage and precludes it.” No New Testament writer ever taught that divorce and remarriage was now impossible. No New Testament writer affirms that the Old Testament binding that occurred in a second marriage now has no legitimacy. These permanence view teachers advocate these things not because the Bible affirms them, but because the premise they created logically leads to these conclusions.

    [Paragraph breaks added to enhance readability. Editors.]

    • Jeff Crippen

      Thank you, Neal. The proviso view and Steven Wilcox are both new to me. Could you explain them a bit further for me? And maybe mention a little more about Wilcox? I would very much appreciate it. Thank you, again!

      • Neal Doster

        Proviso is my preferred term over permissive view, the view that advocates that divorce and remarriage is justifiable in the case of adultery. Some (including me) also hold that remarriage is not adulterous for the believer if an unbeliever divorces a believer. Proviso implies there is a clause that modifies the rule.
        Steven Wilcox is one in a number of permanence view advocates who’s teaching goes beyond other permanence view pastors in regard to their counsel to the remarried. Steven and the like minded can be found at MarriageDivorce [Internet Archive link].

Leave a comment. It's ok to use a made up name (e.g Anon37). For safety tips read 'New Users Info' (top menu). Tick the box if you want to be notified of new comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: