What God Has Joined Together: Free Will, Human Error, and the Moral Weight of Divorce

The familiar wedding declaration, “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder,” is spoken with such gravity that it often feels like a divine seal placed upon a couple’s union. It is recited as though God Himself has reached down and fused two souls into one, and that any attempt to separate them is a violation of sacred order. Yet this assumption raises a profound theological tension. If human beings possess free will, and if free will includes the ability to choose poorly, then it follows that many marriages are not divinely orchestrated unions at all. They are humanly constructed relationships, formed through personal desire, cultural pressure, emotional need, or simple misjudgment. When this reality is acknowledged, the moral condemnation of divorce becomes far more complicated than traditional Christian doctrine allows.

The phrase itself originates from Jesus’s exchange with the Pharisees in the Gospel of Mark. When asked whether divorce is permissible, Jesus responds by appealing to the Genesis creation narrative, describing marriage as a covenantal union rooted in God’s original design. He concludes with the statement that has echoed through centuries of Christian liturgy: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mark 10:9). Modern readers often interpret this as a universal claim that God personally authors every marriage. But biblical scholarship suggests that Jesus’s statement was part of a larger rhetorical conflict with the Pharisees, not a metaphysical declaration about divine matchmaking. Tanja Forderer’s 2023 study in Novum Testamentum argues that Jesus’s prohibition of divorce in Mark 10 emerges from a dispute over authority and interpretation of Torah, rather than a blanket assertion that every marital union is divinely joined. In this reading, Jesus is defending the creational ideal of marriage, not declaring that every marriage humans enter is the product of God’s direct action.

This distinction matters because it opens the door to a more realistic understanding of how marriages actually form. Even devout Christians rarely claim that God explicitly told them whom to marry. Most marriages arise from attraction, convenience, timing, shared interests, family expectations, or emotional need. Many are formed before either partner has developed spiritual maturity. Many are entered without prayer, discernment, or any serious attempt to seek divine guidance. If free will allows humans to choose wrongly—and Christian theology insists it does—then it must also allow humans to choose the wrong spouse. The idea that every marriage is divinely authored collapses under the weight of human experience.

Scripture itself contains examples of unions that were not God’s will. Samson’s marriage to a Philistine woman in Judges 14 was driven by impulse rather than divine intention. Solomon’s marriages to foreign wives led him into idolatry and spiritual ruin, demonstrating that even the wisest of men could choose partners who pulled them away from God. Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel brought devastation to Israel, showing that political or personal motivations can produce unions that oppose divine purpose. These marriages were real, binding, and socially recognized, yet they were not God’s doing. They were the result of human choice, and in some cases, human folly.

If humans can enter marriages outside of God’s will, then the moral condemnation of divorce becomes ethically problematic. Traditional Christian teaching assumes that marriage is always a divine covenant, and that breaking it is a violation of God’s will. But this assumption only holds if the marriage was actually God’s doing. If the marriage was formed through human error, immaturity, fear, or convenience, then divorce may not be rebellion against God. It may be correction. It may be the act of stepping out of a union that obstructs spiritual growth and stepping toward the life God intended.

This tension becomes especially painful when a person later encounters someone who feels spiritually aligned—a partner whose presence brings clarity, purpose, and emotional resonance that the earlier marriage lacked. Traditional doctrine condemns any romantic connection outside the first marriage, even if the first marriage was formed through immaturity and the new connection feels like the one God intended. This creates a theological paradox. Why would God condemn a person for leaving a union He never authored in order to embrace one He did? The traditional answer is that marriage is permanent, but permanence only makes sense if the marriage was divinely authored. If it was not, permanence becomes a prison.

A more coherent interpretation of Jesus’s statement recognizes that He was speaking about the ideal, not every humanly constructed union. The phrase “what God has joined together” can be understood as referring to marriages that align with divine intention, not marriages formed through human impulse. This interpretation aligns with the doctrine of free will. If humans can choose wrongly, then they can choose wrongly in marriage. Jesus’s statement does not deny this possibility; it simply affirms that God’s intended unions should not be broken. It does not claim that every union is intended.

This perspective reshapes the moral landscape of divorce. Divorce is not always sin. Divorce may be the act of acknowledging that a marriage was formed outside of God’s will. It may be the act of stepping out of a union that harms spiritual growth. It may be the act of freeing oneself from a relationship that was never meant to be permanent. And remarriage may not be adultery. It may be obedience. It may be the act of embracing the partner God intended, after years spent in a union formed through human misjudgment.

This does not trivialize marriage. It elevates it. It insists that marriage should be a union aligned with divine purpose, not merely human impulse. It acknowledges that humans make mistakes, and that those mistakes can have lifelong consequences if doctrine refuses to allow correction. A theology that honors both free will and divine will must allow for mistaken marriages, harmful marriages, spiritually misaligned marriages, and marriages formed without divine guidance. It must also allow for divorce as correction and remarriage as restoration.

The traditional interpretation of “what God has joined together” assumes that every marriage is divinely authored. But biblical scholarship, human experience, and the doctrine of free will all suggest otherwise. A more compassionate theology recognizes that God joins some unions, humans join many unions, and humans can choose wrongly. It recognizes that divorce can be corrective and remarriage can be redemptive. It frees Christians from the crushing guilt of believing they must remain forever bound to a union God never intended. And it allows them to embrace the possibility that God may still lead them to the partner who aligns with their spiritual calling, emotional health, and divine purpose.

This is not permissiveness. It is realism. It is compassion. And it is a theology that honors both the sovereignty of God and the freedom of human beings to choose, to err, and to seek restoration.

References Forderer, Tanja. “What God Has Joined Together, Let No Man Pull Asunder? The Prohibition of Divorce in Mark’s Gospel in the Context of the Controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees.”

Novum Testamentum 66, no. 1 (2024). Bible Hub, commentary on Mark 10:9.

Pohle‑Preuss, Tour of the Summa, “Matrimony Chapter II §2: Indissolubility of Christian Marriage.”