John Piper is responsible for this article.
In it he answers this question, "Does the Bible allow for divorce in the case of adultery?"
With this response:
"I don't think so. I don't think the Bible allows divorce and remarriage ever while the spouse is living. That's my radical, crazy, conservative, narrow, hard-nosed, very needed view in our divorce-happy culture." (italics mine)
I do not think that the New Testament authors would allow for such a marriage as many that exist today wherein dangerous abuse takes place or disregard for the spouse as a personal agent with needs, wants, and a destiny in Christ to even be called such. If they would allow for this, I am glad they did not write about it. I do not want to open the floodgates for divorce to take place more often than it already does, but so many people get married to somebody who is not being entirely honest from the get-go. I think that to hold somebody accountable to the biblical standard of marriage, which presupposes a certain kind of theological commitment on the part of both parties (even arranged marriages in the churches apparently presupposed something like this 1Cor 7), when they got married by a different standard is confusing. It is perhaps akin to adding dogmatic pronouncements to the church's creed without consulting any of the Christians who make up the church. In other words, teaching people who do not know the gravity of marriage, particularly if they are in an abusive or morally impure marriage, that they ought not get a divorce under any circumstance just seems wrong headed.
Instead of making divorce more difficult, teachers in the church should make it impossible by magnifying marriage more thoroughly. We should be magnifying it as a permanent commitment made on both ends in our culture, magnifying it as a means towards sacrificial living, magnifying it as a difficult road, magnifying it as Christ honoring and God exalting, magnifying it as beautiful, and magnifying it as worthy of careful consideration before ever attempting it. Marriage is much more grave than even running for political office, for though politicians get elected based on their inability to actually accomplish anything of value, they have advisers to make it seem like they aren't ruining people's lives. Spouses have no such advantage, do marriage wrong and you mess somebody up for ever.
Note: Piper wrote this article particularly to husbands who have been cheated on, so insofar as it is a call to faithfulness and forgiveness I am on board. But insofar as Piper's view entirely excludes the possibility of a morally acceptable grounds for divorce or dissolution of a marriage (which from reading other sermons, articles, and books he does this) I have to say, "No sir, I don't like it." So, if somebody who has an intentionally Christ honoring commitment to their spouse, and presumes reciprocation, then gets cheated on then sure, they are responsible to forgive. Even then I would qualify that by saying that if the disruption to that marriage was ultimately destructive to the broader purposes of God's kingdom (see the Lord's prayer), then it might be better to end it, for instance, if it hinders feeding the poor, the spread of the gospel, the worship of the church, or causes temptation for others. Not that one could easily claim that their problems with a spouse's immorality hinders the purposes of God, though perhaps somebody who walks in the way of Christ daily intending to do his will in all the spheres on life would easily recognize such a situation, and such a person would also be most able to forgive.