A Biblical Understanding of Divorce &

Remarriage

By

Stephen Giles

Revised July 2015

2

Table of Contents

The True Nature of the Marriage Bond ...............................................................................................3

Marriage is a Covenant ............................................................................................................................. 3

Till Divorce Do Us Part? ............................................................................................................................. 6

The Laws of Marriage ....................................................................................................................... 11

Divorce Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 11

The Exception Clause .............................................................................................................................. 16

Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 16

The Early Church View ......................................................................................................................... 18

Interpretation #1: The Current Reformed Consensus ......................................................................... 20

Interpretation #2: Grammatically, Exception Applies Only to Divorce ............................................... 24

Interpretation #3: Erasmian “Deception Clause” ................................................................................ 28

Interpretation #4: Betrothal Infidelity Theory ..................................................................................... 32

Interpretation #5: Assumption of Death Penalty ................................................................................ 34

Interpretation #6: Exception Refers Only to Blame for Violation of Covenant ................................... 37

Interpretation #7: Divorce for Adultery, Remarriage Only After Illicit Marriage ................................ 39

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 49

Just Grounds for Divorce ......................................................................................................................... 50

Divorce and Remarriage, According to Paul ........................................................................................... 54

Handling the Implications ................................................................................................................. 62

Putting God On Trial................................................................................................................................ 62

Divorce and Difficult Marriage Situations ........................................................................................... 62

“I Do” Over: Remarriage ..................................................................................................................... 63

Objections ............................................................................................................................................... 65

Isn’t The Innocent Spouse Permitted to Remarry? .............................................................................. 66

Jesus Used Exaggerations to Make His Point ...................................................................................... 66

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right ........................................................................................................ 68

Ignorance of the Law .......................................................................................................................... 69

Applying the Doctrine ............................................................................................................................. 70

3

The True Nature of the Marriage Bond

God hates adultery, whether in deed or merely in thought. He is a jealous God, and desires the

complete and undivided devotion of His people. The first two commandments state as much,

and command us to have no other gods before Him (Ex. 20:2). Yet his chosen people – Israel –

repeatedly strayed from Him, worshipping idols and thus committing spiritual adultery.

To love anything more than one loves God, whether it is a person, pet, spirit, or object, is a

sinful act that violates the covenant between Christ and his Bride. In the same way, when a man

or woman has sex with someone other than their spouse, or even when they merely lust after

another person, they violate their marriage covenant. Fidelity is so important to God that He

has imprinted it strongly upon the hearts of all humanity. The theme is consistent across

cultures and throughout history: adultery is thought at minimum to be a devastating breach of

trust. For believers, it ranks as one of the most wretched sins.

In order for us to avoid adultery, we must first understand exactly how and when it occurs.

Marriage is a Covenant

In the first paper of this series on marriage, we saw that the act of sex alone is sufficient to

initiate a full marriage covenant, whether a righteous or sinful one. The direct association

between sex and covenant is expressed in the following two passages:

Hosea 4:13-14 (ESV) – “They sacrifice on the tops of the mountains and burn offerings on the

hills, under oak, poplar, and terebinth, because their shade is good. Therefore your daughters

play the whore, and your brides commit adultery. [14] I will not punish your daughters when

they play the whore, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go

aside with prostitutes and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding

shall come to ruin.”

Isaiah 57:8 (ESV) – “Behind the door and the doorpost you have set up your memorial; for,

deserting me, you have uncovered your bed, you have gone up to it, you have made it wide;

and you have made a covenant for yourself with them, you have loved their bed, you have

looked on nakedness.”

4

Worship and sex are deeply meaningful acts, and both possess the power to create or renew a

covenant. In a sense, worship is the spiritual parallel to sexual relations.

“At its foundation, sex is a covenant relationship between two people…”

– 1Dr. Grant C. Richison

A righteous, or blessed, one-flesh union is formed when a virgin man and woman join together

in a marital covenant. To understand this better, let’s take a look at the following trio of OT

passages:

Ezekiel 16:59-60 (ESV) – “For thus says the Lord GOD: ‘I will deal with you as you have done, you

who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant, [60] yet I will remember my covenant

with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish for you an everlasting covenant.”

Malachi 2:14-16 (ESV) – “But you say, ‘Why does he not [accept your offering with favor]?’

Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have

been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. [15] Did He not make

them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly

offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your

youth. [16] For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of

Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your

spirit, and do not be faithless.”

Proverbs 2:16-17 (ESV) – “So you will be delivered from the forbidden woman, from the

adulteress with her smooth words, [17] who forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets

the covenant of her God;”

The Lord’s statement “yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth,” in

Ezekiel 16:60, bears a notable resemblance to the phrases “the wife of your youth” in Malachi

2:14 and “companion of her youth” in Proverbs 2:17. All three passages focus on the timing of

the covenant – it was made in the person’s youth. The implication is that the spouse spoken of

in both cases was the first one, and was the only righteous one.

Most followers of Christ, as well as many unbelievers, would agree that marriage is a covenant.

The point where they would disagree, however, is what that really means. Therefore, it would

be helpful to investigate the Biblical usage of the term.

1 Richison, Dr. Grant C. Theology of Sex. [Online] http://versebyversecommentary.com/articles/theology-of-sex/.

5

“A contract, in distinction from a covenant, only lasts so long as both parties are enjoying the benefits of

the relationship. It is binding upon the condition of being profitable for both parties. A covenant, on the

other hand, is a commitment of love. Since it creates a relationship fundamentally different from the

mutual profit-seeking relationship of a contract, it must be established in a different manner. In the

Bible, a covenant can only be established and sealed by an oath, which usually involves an oath-taking

ceremony like circumcision (that is, in ancient Israel, the act of circumcising a child constituted a

covenant oath).” 1

“The Greek word diatheke is a translation of the Hebrew word beriyth (H1285), which is translated by the King James Version as covenant, league, confederate, and confederacy. One is able to verify the Greek usage of diatheke (G1242) for the Hebrew word beriyth (H1285) by looking at the Septuagint (LXX) Greek. This simply means that LXX translators believed that the Greek word diatheke best represented the Hebrew word beriyth. Part of the definition of the Hebrew word beriyth is that God cuts (Strong’s) a covenant with a human or with a group of humans; and therefore God “cuts” His covenants in blood.”

– 2 Raymond Harris

So a covenant creates a committed relationship, as opposed to the more lightweight,

businesslike nature of a contract. Furthermore, contracts are typically formed by written,

signed agreements, whereas covenants are typically formed by specific ceremonial acts or

spoken vows.

“A covenant is the formal declaration, sealed with a ratifying oath (whether given in a verbal declaration

and/or symbolized in a sign or ceremony), of the parties involved, the framework for the commitments of

the relationship it defines…the covenant extends the otherwise inherent familial or tribal bonds to

those not related by birth or blood ties, so that those within this covenant relationship now belong to

God and to one another as ‘family.’”

– Dr. Scott Hahn 3

Here we can see that this relationship established by a covenant actually forms a kind of

“kinship bond” between the parties involved. In particular, the one-flesh covenant of marriage

unites a man and woman such that they effectively become family. The reason for this is

revealed in the account of the world’s first marriage:

Genesis 2:23-25 (ESV) – “Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my

flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ [24] Therefore a man

shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

[25] And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” 1 Smith, Rev. Ralph A. The Covenantal Structure of the Bible: An Introduction to the Bible. [Online]

http://www.ovrlnd.com/Covenant/chp2.html. 2 Harris, Raymond. Covenant Theology. [Online] http://www.raymondharris.com/?page_id=1105.

3 Hahn, Dr. Scott. The Covenant Relationship. [Online] http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/3936.

6

Originally, Woman was taken out of Man. In marriage, they became reunited into “one body”

through sexual union. God considers every marriage since then to mirror this reunion of sorts,

bonding the couple as the same bone and same flesh, in some mysterious way.

2 Samuel 19:12 (ESV) – “You are my brothers; you are my bone and my flesh. Why then should

you be the last to bring back the king?’”

Genesis 29:13-14 (ESV) – “As soon as Laban heard the news about Jacob, his sister's son, he ran

to meet him and embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his house. Jacob told Laban

all these things, [14] and Laban said to him, ‘Surely you are my bone and my flesh!’ And he

stayed with him a month.”

In both passages above, the phrase “bone and flesh” consists of the same Hebrew words –

etsem and basar – as are used by Adam in Gen. 2:23 when speaking of the relationship he has

with his wife. The people in these examples are inherently related to one another, but Gen.

2:23-24 uses similar terms to show how such a connection can be built between previously

unrelated men and women. The marriage covenant truly creates a new family in every sense of

the word, and is not something to be entered lightly.

Till Divorce Do Us Part?

Can a marriage covenant be voided by divorce? Does adultery effectively dissolve an existing

marriage through the creation of a new one-flesh union? Both possibilities are addressed by

Scripture, though there is much debate over these topics. If we believe in God’s sovereignty, we

surely must believe that He made the answers to such questions clear in His Word. These

answers should emerge if we let Scripture interpret Scripture, and consider the whole

testimony of the Bible on the subjects of marriage and divorce.

In the Old Testament, the Father frequently used the metaphor of human marriage to illustrate

the relationship He had with Israel. In fact, this truly was a marriage – in the spiritual, rather

than physical, sense. Then Israel deserted their God, pursuing foreign gods. Deeply hurt and

angered by this betrayal, seeing that she had become little more than a prostitute, He

ultimately divorced her.

7

Jeremiah 3:1 (ESV) – “If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another

man’s wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the

whore with many lovers, and would you return to me? Declares the LORD.”

Even after the divorce, the remarried woman in verse 1 has become “greatly polluted.” No

cause for the divorce is specified, which indicates that the scope of this passage concerns any

divorce. Therefore, a divorce does nothing to end her previous marriage covenant.

Note also that the case of a woman becoming another man’s wife is directly compared to the

case of a woman playing the whore with many lovers, thus once again making evident the

direct connection between sex and marriage.

Jeremiah 3:8 (ESV) – “She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent

her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too

went and played the whore.”

Israel is said to have “played the whore” with many lovers, committing adulteries, plural,

against her husband. Thus with each new lover, she broke her (still intact) marriage covenant

yet again.

Ezek. 16:26, 34 (ESV) – “You also played the whore with the Egyptians, your lustful neighbors,

multiplying your whoring, to provoke me to anger…[34] So you were different from other

women in your whorings. No one solicited you to play the whore, and you gave payment, while

no payment was given to you; therefore you were different.”

Each successive act was still called “whoring.” Israel was bound to their Lord by covenant, so

every act by which they continued their relationship with others once again broke the

covenant. Israel’s first marriage did not end, nor did a new righteous marriage to her lover

begin, with the first act of adultery. Instead, her adultery and whoring multiplied.

Hosea 2:4-7 (ESV) – “Upon her children I will have no mercy, because they are children of

whoredom. [5] For their mother has played the whore; she who conceived them has acted

shamefully. For she said, ‘I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my

wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.’ [6] Therefore I will hedge up her way with thorns, and I

will build a wall against her, so that she cannot find her paths. [7] She shall pursue her lovers

but not overtake them, and she shall seek them but shall not find them. Then she shall say, ‘I will

go and return to my first husband, for it was better for me than now.’”

8

The mother (Israel) described in Hosea 2 has many husbands, but the husbands she has had

after her first are merely lovers with whom she commits whoredom. She is counted as being

married to them, but the relationships are not righteous.

That passage occurs within the larger context of the complex, somewhat confusing story of Hosea and Gomer. Ultimately, however, the story is referring to the new covenant God plans to make with Israel, which involves death and rebirth before the remarriage (Hos. 1:9-11, 2:14-23). Hosea 5:4 indicates that God couldn't take Israel back as they were at the time. Then, Hosea 6:1-2 describes the restoration that must occur: Hosea 6:1-2 (ESV) – “Come, let us return to the LORD; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up. [2] After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him." Through Christ’s representative death and resurrection, the house of Israel could once again be

married to their God. The defiled wife has died, thus being freed from her previous marriage

covenant (the Law), and becoming once again eligible for marriage.

Isaiah 54:5-7 (ESV) – “For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the

Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called. [6] For the LORD

has called you like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit, like a wife of youth when she is cast

off, says your God. [7] For a brief moment I deserted you, but with great compassion I will

gather you.”

Why is a marriage covenant not voided by an act (such as adultery) that violates it? To

understand this, consider the covenant of God’s Law: if you break His law twice, the second

time is just as sinful as the first. Breaking (violating) a covenant does not nullify it, but merely

brings judgment upon you – for the very reason that you are still bound by the covenant.

Hebrews 9:15 (ESV) – “Therefore [Christ] is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who

are called may receive the eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them

from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.”

Galatians 3:15-17 (ESV) – “To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made

covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. [16] Now the promises were

made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,

but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ. [17] This is what I mean: the law,

which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to

make the promise void.”

9

Not even a human covenant will ever be annulled or changed once it has been sealed. How

much more, then, will a covenant that is sealed by God be immune to change or annulment?

Marriage is just such a covenant (Mal. 2:14-15).

This conclusion is further supported by the research of theologians such as David Jones and

John Tarwater of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as by Dr. Allen

Guenther of the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary:

“Yet, note that non–compliance with the covenant obligations did not dissolve the agreement, but

merely resulted in cursing for the disobedient party (‘you shall surely perish’). In The Consequences of

the Covenant, George Buchanan explores this facet of covenants further, noting that in the Bible

covenanters were expected to follow a prescribed pattern of life in order to remain in God’s favor.

Indeed, scripture equates abandoning the obligations of a covenant with turning from the way of life to

the way of death (Prov. 2:18–19). Moreover, the inability of covenant partners to walk away from their

covenant commitments highlights the enduring nature of such agreements.”

– Jones & Tarwater 1

“A contract is rendered null and void by misrepresentation. A covenant, because of its relational

character, and because it is inherently perpetual, and because it is made under oath before God, cannot

be annulled even though it results in disadvantages to the one(s) making the covenant.”

– Allen Guenther 2

Paul further emphasizes the permanence of marriage by calling it a law:

Romans 7:2-4 (ESV) – “For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but

if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. [3] Accordingly, she will be called

an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies,

she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. [4] Likewise,

my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong

to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.”

1 Corinthians 7:39 (ESV) – “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her

husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

1 Are Biblical Covenants Dissoluble? Toward a Theology of Marriage. Jones, David W. and Tarwater, John K. 1,

2004, Southwestern Journal of Theology, Vol. 47, p. 6. 2 On Making and Breaking Covenants. Guenther, Allen R. 1, 1990, Direction Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 81-98.

10

These verses state that nothing except physical death ends a marriage covenant, and make no

exception for the case of divorce or adultery. Christ emphasizes this point in Mark 10:11-12 and

Luke 16:18. God has ordained that the marriage bond be permanent.

11

The Laws of Marriage

In this chapter, we will take a closer look at how divorce is described in Scripture, and how

God’s legislation concerning marriage and divorce should be applied.

Divorce Regulations

The Jews believed that divorce was authorized in the OT Law, when done for the cause of

“some indecency”:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (ESV) – “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no

favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of

divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,

[2] and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, [3] and the latter man hates her and

writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if

the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, [4] then her former husband, who sent her

away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an

abomination before the LORD…”

It is now widely accepted that this is an example of Biblical case law. 1 2 The first part of a case

law is the protasis, which is the list of condition(s) that must be met for the law to apply. Here,

verses 1-3 comprise the protasis. The last part of a case law is the apodosis, which is the

applicable law itself. Verse 4 is the apodosis in this passage.

Therefore, the only actual command given here is the restriction of the woman’s first husband

from marrying her again if her second husband divorces her or dies. Moses is not commanding

that a man divorce his wife if he finds indecency in her. Nor is he necessarily even condoning a

divorce for this reason, or remarriage afterward. He is simply saying that, should all of this

occur, then her first husband should not take her back – it would be an abomination, for she

has now been defiled.

1 Faculty.gordon.edu website. [Online]

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/otesources/05-deuteronomy/Text/Articles/Laney-Dt24-BS.htm 2 Biblehub.com website. [Online] http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/deuteronomy/24.htm

12

However, some ambiguity remains as to the cause of the woman’s defilement: was it from the

“indecency” mentioned in verse 1, or did it result from her marriage to the second husband?

The first step towards solving this mystery is to determine what “indecency” means here.

The Hebrew phrase translated as “some indecency” is “oruth dbr,” which literally means

“nakedness of a thing.”1 This exact phrase occurs only one other time in Scripture, in the

previous chapter:

Deuteronomy 23:14-15 (ESV) – “And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit

down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. [14]

Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your

enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything

indecent among you and turn away from you.”

This usage of the phrase indicates that it refers to exposure of something that should be hidden

or covered. So in the context of Deut. 24:1, it would seem that “something indecent” means the

wife exposed her body to another person in some way, or perhaps that she did a revolting or

profane thing to somebody (such as her husband). It almost certainly doesn’t refer to actual

adultery, which was punishable by death, as specified two chapters earlier. In that case, a

divorce obviously wouldn’t be necessary. Though the death penalty for adultery was abolished

around the time of Christ, it was certainly enforced when Deut. 23 was written.

“The noun erwah bears the meaning of both ‘nakedness’ and ‘pudenda’ [i.e., the sexual organs],

meanings no doubt to be combined here to suggest the improper uncovering of the private parts.”

– Eugene H. Merrill 2

“Although the term ervat dabar itself could refer to indecent exposure in general, whether or not sexual

relations are involved, Deut 24:1 has in mind indecent exposure without sexual relations. The idea that

something less than sexual relations is in view here is reinforced by the fact that the verse uses the

unusual expression ervat dabar rather than a term which would denote sexual intercourse, such as sakab

im, 'lie with,' gillah ervah, 'uncover nakedness,' or naap, 'commit adultery.'”

– Roy Gane 3

1 Scripture4All Online Interlinear Website. [Online]

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/deu24.pdf 2 Deuteronomy, The New American Commentary. Merrill, Eugene H., Nashville, TN: Broadman

and Holman, 1994, p. 317. 3 Old Testament Principles Relating to Divorce and Remarriage. Gane, Roy, 2001, Journal of the Adventist

Theological Society, Autumn 2001, p. 45. [Online] https://static.squarespace.com/static/51784bc4e4b0cd137cf03ca6/t/5191b2f2e4b06d4272737179/1368503026976/OT%20Principles%20Relating%20To%20Divorce%20&%20Re-Marriage.pdf

13

What is it, then, that defiles the remarried woman? There are two candidates: either the

indecent act that led her husband to divorce her (which fell short of sexual misconduct), or her

marriage to another man after the divorce. To identify the culprit, it will help to review a similar

situation described in Jeremiah 3, which was examined earlier in this paper:

Jeremiah 3:1 (ESV) – “If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another

man's wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played

the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? declares the LORD.”

This verse fails to specify a particular reason for the divorce, thus making it a general

declaration that a woman would “greatly pollute” the land by any divorce and subsequent

marriage to another man. The Hebrew word translated as “polluted” (chaneph) means “to be

profaned, be defiled, be polluted, be corrupt.”1 The same word is used just eight verses later,

where the meaning becomes clear:

Jeremiah 3:9 (ESV) – “Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land,

committing adultery with stone and tree.”

The same root Hebrew word, “chaneph,” appears again in Daniel, where it is used in the

context of breaking a covenant.

Daniel 11:32 (ESV) – “He shall seduce with flattery [chaneph] those who violate the covenant,

but the people who know their God will stand firm and take action.”

Furthermore, the word translated as “defiled” in Deut. 24:4 is “tame” in the Hebrew, and the

primary meaning is “to be sexually unclean.”2 This same word is also used in Leviticus 18 and

Numbers 5:

Leviticus 18:20 (ESV) – “And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make

yourself unclean with her.”

Numbers 5:13 (ESV) – “…if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her

husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against

her, since she was not taken in the act…”

1 BlueLetterBible.org website. [Online]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2610&t=ESV. 2 BlueLetterBible.org website. [Online]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2930&t=ESV

14

From all this, we see that the defilement in Deut. 24:4 is not simply a reference to the earlier

“indecency” the woman’s first husband found in her. Rather, it occurs as a result of her

marriage to a second man, indicating that this new marriage was in fact an unrighteous one –

created by the very act of adultery that defiled her.

Consider the meaning of the marriage covenant, as well as the nature of Biblical covenants in

general. Making covenants with other gods (through worship) was equivalent to marrying

them, yet this was deemed to be whoring and adultery. So there are two kinds of marriage: a

sanctified, righteous one, and a sinful, unholy one.

Matthew 5:31-32 (ESV) – "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a

certificate of divorce. [32] But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the

ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced

woman commits adultery.’”

Matthew 19:3-9 (ESV) – “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to

divorce one’s wife for any cause?” [4] He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created

them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said ‘Therefore a man shall

leave his father and his mother, and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’

[6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What God has joined together, let no man

separate. [7] They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of

divorce and to send her away?’ [8] He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses

allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you:

whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits

adultery.’”

Here we see that the way things were from the beginning is vitally important. Legally, a couple

could get divorced, and Moses allowed this due to the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts. But by

the Lord’s standard, divorce and re-marriage is adultery. God’s definition supersedes man’s

definition.

In Matthew 19, the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked him if it was lawful for a man to divorce

his wife for any cause. His masterful reply, drawn directly from Gen. 2:24: God joins a husband

and wife into one body, and man cannot make this one-flesh union void. The baffled Pharisees

then asked why it is that Moses commanded men to divorce their wives.

But as we saw in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses never made such a command. Rather, he put

regulations in place to prevent a sinful state of affairs from becoming worse. He said if a man

15

divorces his wife, and if she marries another man and he too divorces her, the first man may

not take her back, for she has been defiled. So Moses certainly was not condoning this

situation, let alone commanding that it be done. Jesus understood this, and expanded on

Moses’ words by saying that a man who divorces his wife, and marries another, actually

commits adultery.

Christ’s statement does not make sense unless divorce fails to truly end the marriage

relationship (with one potential exception, which will be examined in the next section). He took

the Pharisees’ question about divorce and used it to demonstrate the permanence of the

marriage union. Husband and wife can be separated, but this does not nullify the covenant

between them. It would follow that the man who divorces his wife and marries another woman

commits adultery against his first wife, violating the one-flesh covenant that still binds them

together.

In his condemnation of the practice of divorce and remarriage, Jesus also effectively

condemned polygamy. For if in divorce the marriage bond remains intact, and if the violation of

this bond through marriage to another constitutes adultery, then a second marriage must

always be sinful when one’s first spouse is alive – even more so when no divorce has taken

place.

Mark 10:11-12 (ESV) – “And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another

commits adultery against her, [12] and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she

commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 (ESV) – “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and

he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

If we compare the discourse on marriage and adultery in Matthew 5 and 19 with these parallel

passages in Mark and Luke, we can arrive at a complete understanding of Christ’s teaching on

the subject.

Matthew 19:9, which is reinforced by Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18a, says that a man who

divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Mark 10:12 states that a divorced

woman who marries another man commits adultery. Matthew 5:32, which is echoed by Luke

16:18b, states that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 also

says that anyone who divorces his wife “makes her commit adultery,” meaning that she was

expected to seek another man to marry.

16

So, in summary:

1) A man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery, because…

2) A divorced woman who marries another man commits adultery.

3) A divorced man who marries another woman commits adultery.

4) A man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The Exception Clause

As you may have noticed, there is one particularly striking difference between the two

Matthean passages on divorce/remarriage and their parallel accounts in two other gospels:

Mark and Luke present Christ’s command strictly, without exception, but Matthew includes an

exception in the case of sexual immorality (Gk. porneia). This is the so-called “exception clause”

that has sparked much debate among theologians.

If we accept by faith that the Word of God is inerrant, then the version of Christ’s sayings in

Matthew must be compatible with the version found in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. We will

launch our study of this topic by examining the first occurrence of the exception clause, in Matt.

5:32.

Overview

The verse occurs during the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus employed a simple but

effective point-counterpoint format.

A) “It was said” + frequently quoted Old Testament command. B) “But I say to you” + condemnation of the corrupt heart motive concealed behind a

veneer of outward compliance. "It was said" is not the way Jesus usually refers to actual Scripture, but rather to the corrupted, distorted teachings of Jewish leaders. Typically, when a verse begins with that type of phrase, it goes on to refute the quoted saying (cf. Matt. 5:22-26, 27-28, 31-32, 38-39, 43-45; also see similar Pauline usage in 1 Cor. 7:1). For example, in Matt. 5:43-45, Christ utterly contradicts the accepted Jewish saying regarding how to treat one’s enemy: Matthew 5:43-45 (ESV) – “’You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”

17

In fact, this saying is precisely line with the teaching from the Torah:

Leviticus 19:17-18 (ESV) – “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason

frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. [18] You shall not take vengeance

or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as

yourself: I am the LORD.”

So in correcting the common Jewish sayings of the day, Christ doesn’t revise the Law, but

simply affirms and clarifies it. With this in mind, let’s revisit Christ’s saying about divorce and

remarriage in the same sermon:

Matthew 5:31-32 (ESV) – "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a

certificate of divorce. [32] But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the

ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced

woman commits adultery.’”

If this is taken in context, then it would seem that Jesus’ intention was to reject the practice of divorce, and the consequences that naturally follow (remarriage to another). If so, then perhaps the exception given here is not what it seems. Keeping this in mind, let’s proceed to the other “exception clause” passage. Matthew 19:7-9 (ESV) – “They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a

certificate of divorce and to send her away?’ [8] He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of

heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I

say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another,

commits adultery.’”

Notice here that Christ is referring to the one unified action of giving one's wife a certificate of divorce and sending her away. After all, he says "because of the hardness of your heart Moses allowed you to divorce [apolyo] your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." He's referring to the case law in Deut. 24:1-4, which includes the provision of a certificate of apostasion. Thus, he does not draw a distinction between the action of “divorce” (root Gk. word apolyo in 5:32) and the noun “certificate of divorce” (Gk. apostasion in 5:32). A bill of divorce has no effect on the validity of the divorce in God’s eyes.

Divorce and subsequent remarriage were allowed only due to the hardness of the peoples’

hearts, and it was not this way in the beginning. Jesus emphatically states his opposition to the

practice in Matt. 5:31-32 as well. But is the exception “for sexual immorality” the one and only

valid cause for divorce, allowing for a righteous remarriage?

18

The Early Church View

Any investigation into a given theological topic should take into account the views of the early

church, whose members were the closest to the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles,

and were better versed in the nuances of the Greek language than even today’s best scholars.

So although the church fathers certainly should not be regarded as infallible, one must give

extra weight to their writings. We will survey their beliefs on the subject, and then take a look

at the evolution of the doctrine of marriage in the Church:

“So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who

look upon a woman to lust after her.”

– 1 Justin Martyr (A.D. 155)

“…that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second

marriage is only a specious adultery. 'For whosoever puts away his wife,' says He, 'and marries another,

commits adultery'; not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end,

nor to marry again. ”

– 2 Athenagoras the Athenian (A.D. 177)

“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained

in the law, 'Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;' and it regards as

fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”

– 3 Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 194)

“But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former

husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so

much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.”

– 4 Origen (c. A.D. 244)

1 Martyr, Justin. “Chapter XV – What Christ Himself Taught.” The First Apology of Justin. [Online]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html. 2 Athenagoras the Athenian. “Chapter 33. Chastity of the Christians with Respect to Marriage.” A Plea for the

Christians. [Online] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm. 3 Clement of Alexandria. “Chapter XXIII – On Marriage.” The Stromata, Book II. [Online]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book2.html. 4 Origen. “Jewish Criticism of the Law of Christ.” Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. [Online]

http://biblehub.com/library/origen/origens_commentary_on_the_gospel_of_matthew/24_jewish_criticism_of_the.htm.

19

“The apostle has thus cut away every plea and has clearly declared that, if a woman marries again

while her husband is living, she is an adulteress. You must not speak to me of the violence of a ravisher,

a mother's pleading, a father's bidding, the influence of relatives, the insolence and the intrigues of

servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every

crime and may have been left by his wife because of his sins; yet he is still her husband and, so long as

he lives, she may not marry another.”

– 1 Jerome (A.D. 394)

To further emphasize the point, this understanding of the permanence of marriage (even in the

face of adultery) was made canon by a council of Christian bishops convened by Emperor

Constantine:

“Concerning those who apprehend their wives in adultery, and the same persons are faithful youths and

are prevented from marrying (again), be it resolved that, as much as is able, they be counseled not to

take other wives while their own wives are still living, even if the latter are adulterous.”

– 2 Council of Arles (A.D. 314)

It is apparent from these quotes, as well as others not included here, that the early church

fathers did not seem to even be aware of the exception in Matt. 19:9. If they were, they made

no commentary on it, in effect treating it as a redundant statement or an improbable scenario.

The Church’s stance on the topic of divorce began to shift with the teachings of Christian

humanists Thomas More and Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus advocated the notion that in the

case of divorce for adultery or desertion, the innocent spouse was allowed to marry someone

else. Under his influence, this view became popular.

Martin Luther further perpetuated this idea, claiming that because adultery required the death

penalty per the Old Testament Law, an adulterous spouse could be considered to effectively be

“dead” to their partner – thus allowing for remarriage. Luther also wrote a letter in which he

told supporter Philip of Hesse that divorce (and subsequent remarriage) was acceptable if one’s

wife was “leprous or similarly afflicted.” 3

From these tainted roots arose the current consensus among Reformed theologians regarding

the meaning of the exception clause in Matthew 19.

1 Jerome. Letter 55 (To Amandus). [Online] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001055.htm.

2 FourthCentury.com website. [Online] http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/arles-314-canons-to-sylvester.

3 John Alfred Faulkner. Luther and the Bigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse. [Online]

http://archive.org/stream/jstor-3154607/3154607_djvu.txt

20

Interpretation #1: The Current Reformed Consensus

The standard interpretation of Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage is simple: a married

person should not seek divorce, unless their spouse has committed adultery. In that case,

divorce is permitted, and the marriage bond has effectively been severed. Both parties are free

to remarry. As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it:

“V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just

occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is

lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the

offending party were dead.” 1

From this perspective, Jesus was effectively siding with the rabbinic School of Shammai, which

held that the only acceptable cause for divorce and remarriage was adultery.

SUPPORTING POINTS

1. Follows A Straightforward Reading Of The Verse

This view draws support from the fact that at first glance, Matthew 19:9 seems to say that

remarriage after divorce is adultery except when adultery has already been committed. It

would make sense that God would want His meaning to be clear, especially for a subject

such as this, so perhaps this verse is to be taken plainly.

2. If Sex Forms A One-Flesh Union, Adultery Presumably Could Destroy It

The one-flesh union between a man and his wife is created through sexual intercourse (1

Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:28-32; Gen. 2:23-24). Thus, it would be logical that the act of sex with a

different person could destroy or nullify the existing union.

OPPOSING POINTS

1. Fails To Explain Disciples’ Reaction To This Teaching

When the disciples heard what Jesus said, they were greatly astonished:

1 “Chapter XXIV: Of Marriage and Divorce.” Westminster Confession of Faith. [Online]

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/.

21

Matt. 19:9-12 (ESV) – “‘And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual

immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.’ [10] The disciples said to him, ‘If such is

the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ [11] But he said to them, ‘Not

everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are

eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs

by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the

kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.’”

Consider how his disciples reacted: they exclaimed that if this was true, then it would be

better not to marry! Now, if Christ was stating that adultery was the only acceptable cause

for divorce and remarriage, then he was simply supporting an existing, well-known position

(of the School of Shammai). Thus, it would not warrant the rather extreme response from

his disciples.

Furthermore, Christ then said: “not everyone can receive this saying [logos].” By his use of

the word “logos,” he indicated that he was speaking of the teaching he had just given on

divorce, and not the disciples’ statement that it would be better not to marry. Again, it is

quite puzzling that he would say such a thing if he had merely agreed with an existing

doctrine of divorce and remarriage.

2. Necessarily Implies That Christ Fell Into The Pharisees’ Trap

The Pharisees had devised a fiendishly clever plan to entrap Christ. In front of a large crowd

(Matt. 19:2), they would ask him if it was acceptable to divorce one’s wife for any cause.

They envisioned three possible outcomes:

He would stick to his guns and repeat the surprising teaching he had already given on

the subject (without exception): that anyone who divorced his wife, and married

another, committed adultery. He said this to a group of Pharisees in Luke 16:14-18, an

incident that occurred prior to their test in Matt. 19:1-9 (to see this, compare Luke 17:11

and Matt. 19:1, then Luke 18:15-18 to Matt. 19:13-16).

He would concede that “some uncleanness” in the Mosaic Law of divorce in Deut. 24:1-

4 might refer to adultery, thus siding with the strict School of Shammai.

He would soften his earlier saying even more drastically, interpreting “some

uncleanness” to truly be “any cause,” thus siding with the liberal School of Hillel.

22

If he reaffirmed his earlier teaching on the subject, they would be able to publicly accuse

him of opposing the Law of Moses on the matter. After all, the Pharisees believed that

Moses commanded a bill of divorce be given to a man’s wife when he found “some

uncleanness” in her. Jesus would appear to reject Moses’ command and elevate his own

words above Scripture, and would likely suffer a severe blow to his reputation and ministry.

If he made the concession that divorce was allowed when one’s spouse was caught in

adultery, they could justifiably call him inconsistent, and accuse him of softening his stance

to attract more followers. In the standard Reformed view, this is indeed what Christ did.

Finally, had Christ elected to side with the Hillelite camp, allowing divorce for “any cause,”

the Pharisees could accuse him of inconsistency and a soft, immoral view of Mosaic Law.

This turn of events would hurt the effectiveness of his ministry, and would also alienate the

Shammaites.

So Jesus would have fallen right into the Pharisees’ hands if he picked one of the options

they so carefully arranged for him. However, we know that his response in fact confounded

the Pharisees. Therefore, they must have understood him to be saying something

completely unexpected. Indeed he did: he appealed to a law superior to the one given to

Moses, one that even predates the incursion of sin into the world – the law of marriage. In

so doing, he affirmed his prior ban on the practice of divorce and remarriage, and explained

from Scripture why it was derived from God’s own words.

3. Leads To A Perverse Incentive To Commit Adultery

If remarriage is allowed in the event that a person’s righteous spouse has committed

adultery, a twisted motivation for adultery becomes possible for a wife or husband with a

wandering eye. They could have sex with someone else once, thus providing valid grounds

for divorce and remarriage. Then they could sabotage their current marriage, making their

spouse miserable enough to divorce them. Subsequently, they would be free to marry the

person of their choice (even the one with whom they committed adultery), and it would not

be an immoral marriage. Thus the cheating spouse would only have to sin once to get out of

their current marriage and be with the new object of their affections.

Although this point is not proof in and of itself that this interpretation is incorrect, it

certainly exposes a potential loophole in the law that would encourage sin in some

situations. It would be unlike the Lord to give an inherently flawed command.

23

4. Fails to Harmonize With The Rest of Scripture

If we believe that Matt. 19:9 allows for one case in which marriage does not endure until

the death of one or both partners, then we are faced with a series of contradictions. We

would need to believe that this one verse should be the barometer by which all other

Scriptures about divorce and remarriage should be judged. For example, we would have to

consider Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 to be incomplete – at best, they would be omitting

an important exception to the general rule that remarriage is actually adultery, with the

reader expected to just mentally fill this in.

Furthermore, Paul does not give any exception to the law of marriage for believers:

1 Corinthians 7:10-15 (ESV) – “To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the

wife should not separate from her husband [11] (but if she does, she should remain

unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his

wife. [12] To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an

unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. [13] If any woman

has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not

divorce him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the

unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be

unclean, but as it is, they are holy. [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.”

In verses 10 and 11 are the only commands Paul gives regarding divorce to married couples

consisting of Christian partners. Such couples are entreated not to divorce, but if they do, to

either remain unmarried or be reconciled to one another. Paul says that it is the Lord who

gives them this charge. Then he addresses unequally yoked marriages, in which two

unbelievers were married, and only one of them has since come to Christ. This situation was

not addressed by the Lord, but Paul says that neither husband nor wife should separate –

and if the unbelieving partner does so, the believer is not “enslaved.” We’ll undertake an in-

depth discussion of Paul’s words here, as well as the rest of chapter 7, a little later in this

chapter. But for now, note that if the brother or sister is not “enslaved” after divorce from

an unbeliever, it is implied that the converse is true of those who are married in the Lord:

they are enslaved even after divorce.

Finally, Romans 7:1-4 and 1 Cor. 7:39 each unequivocally state that a woman married in the

Lord is bound to her husband until death, reinforcing our findings about the permanence of

the Biblical marriage covenant.

24

So this view simply has too many flaws, which more than overwhelm the points in its favor. The

exception clause cannot apply in the case of adultery committed by a Christian spouse.

Interpretation #2: Grammatically, Exception Applies Only to Divorce

Drs. William Heth and Gordon Wenham (authors of the well-known Jesus and Divorce) have

been perhaps the most vocal proponents of this view (although Dr. Heth changed his mind later

on). According to them, the relative positioning of the exception clause in the verse directly

affects the way it should be interpreted:

“whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits

adultery.”

The words in red comprise the protasis, which is the conditional aspect of this case law. The

words in green, of course, constitute the exception to this law, and the words in purple are the

apodosis. Per Dr. Heth, the fact that the exception was placed in the middle of the compound

protasis indicates that it applies only to the part that precedes it (“whoever divorces his wife”),

not to the full compound conditional. 1 In other words, in the event of porneia, only the act of

divorce is excused here. Wenham offers further detail on the reason for this:

“But according to Matthew 5:32 (everyone who divorces his wife ... makes her commit adultery) divorce

by itself can lead to the breaking of the seventh commandment. As we have noted the exception clause

exonerates the divorcing spouse from this charge where the partner has already been unfaithful, but we

should not miss the point that in other cases of divorce, e.g., on grounds of incompatibility, the initiator

of divorce is charged with breaking the seventh commandment. This is not suggested in Mark or Luke.

This is what makes Matthew look stricter than the other Synoptics.

I would therefore sum up Matthew’s version of Jesus’ words in three statements:

1. Divorce + remarriage = adultery (5:32b; cf. Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18) 2. Divorce alone (except for porneia) = adultery (5:32a) These two statements can be combined into:

3. Divorce (except for porneia) + remarriage = adultery (19:9).” 2

1 Heth, Dr. William. Another Look at the Erasmian View of Divorce and Remarriage. [Online]

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/25/25-3/25-3-pp263-272_JETS.pdf. 2 Wenham, Dr. Gordon. Does the New Testament Approve Remarriage after Divorce?. Southern Baptist Journal of

Theology, Spring 2002, p. 36 [Online] http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_2002spring3.pdf.

25

In Matt. 5:31-32, the divorcing husband is held responsible for his wife’s adultery, except if she

has already committed adultery by being unfaithful. He is the divorcing party, she is the

adulterer. He essentially commits adultery by proxy. In Matthew 19:9, the husband is both the

divorcing party and the adulterer, but because he divorced his wife, he is blamed for adultery

twice because he also made his wife commit adultery. Here the word “adultery” has a dual

meaning, and because the exception is said to only apply to the divorce, adultery is excused

only in one of the two senses: the induced adultery of the man’s wife. But regardless of the

cause for divorce, adultery is always committed by the one who remarries.

SUPPORTING POINTS

1. Explains Why Exception Clause Appears In Matthew Alone

This view provides a unique reason for why the exception clause appears only in Matthew:

this is the only Gospel which reports Christ’s sayings about divorce in the Sermon on the

Mount, where he lays out the adultery-by-proxy principle. Thus, since that passage also

mentions an exception to the principle, perhaps Matthew felt it necessary to remove any

potential confusion for his readers by including the same exception in chapter 19. If he

omitted it, as Mark and Luke do in their accounts of the same event, there might be some

who would wonder if this saying conflicts with the one from the Sermon in chapter 5, which

excuses the husband of guilt if his wife had already committed adultery.

So with this in mind, whether the exception clause was part of Christ’s original words or a

redaction by Matthew, Matthew naturally would include the exception clause for the sake

of self-consistency within his book. Mark and Luke did not write about Christ’s Sermon on

the Mount, and thus did not have to maintain internal consistency by including an exception

that otherwise has no real bearing on the overall principle.

2. Harmonizes With The Other Scriptures Concerning Divorce and Remarriage

As described in the fourth opposing point from Interpretation #1 above, the Bible never

teaches that one may divorce one’s righteous spouse and marry someone else. So this view

explains the exception clause in a way that agrees with the rest of Scripture.

26

OPPOSING POINTS

1. Argument From the Grammar Not Logical

It actually doesn’t matter if the placement of the exception clause in Matthew 19:9

grammatically links it only to the first part of the protasis. A simple logical analysis reveals

that the entire conditional is negated in the event that the exception criteria are met.

Given the following:

Let a = “A man divorces his wife”

Let b = “Not for the cause of porneia”

Let c = “The man marries another woman”

Let d = “The man has committed adultery”

Then the Matt. 19:9 structure proposed by Heth & Wenham is:

IF ((a AND b) AND c), THEN d

When presented in this form, the verse can be seen in its true form as a conditional

statement with a two-part conjunction serving as the hypothesis, followed by the

conclusion (apodosis) that the man committed adultery. Note here that the first part of the

conjunction is itself a nested two-part conjunction.

Let’s say that the divorce in Matthew 19:9 was for the cause of porneia. This is equivalent to

replacing b in the statement above with (NOT b). Looking only at the two statements that

are grammatically linked (the nested two-part conjunction), and considering that the

negation of one of the statements in a logical conjunction results in the negation of the

whole conjunction, we have:

(a AND (NOT b)) = (FALSE)

Substituting this back into the original structure of Matt. 19:9, we have:

IF ((FALSE) AND c), THEN d

Applying the same negation rule to this simplified conjunction results in the following

statement:

IF (FALSE), THEN d

27

Obviously, if the condition is FALSE, then the conclusion does not follow. Theoretically, we

cannot say that d is false here, because some other condition (unknown to us) could also

lead to d. But after all of this, we can say one thing for sure – when statement b (not for the

cause of porneia) is negated (that is, the divorce is for the cause of porneia), the conclusion

that the man has committed adultery does not follow. This is the case whether the

exception clause applies only to the first part, second part, or the whole conditional

statement. So, Matthew 19:9 cannot mean that a man always commits adultery if he

divorces his wife and marries another. The verse doesn’t comment on what happens when

the divorce is undertaken because of sexual sin – it only says that adultery occurs if the

exception is not met.

2. The Word “Adultery” Cannot Have Dual Meaning In Matt. 19:9

While certainly a unique and innovative idea, Heth/Wenham’s argument that the exception

only applies to one sense of the word for “adultery” in Matt. 19:9 ultimately falls short. To

see why this is, we must revisit Christ’s words from Matt. 5:31-32:

Matthew 5:31-32 (ESV) – "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a

certificate of divorce. [32] But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on

the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a

divorced woman commits adultery.’”

The reason for the teaching given in verse 32 can be found in the preceding verse, where

Jesus references the common saying about divorce in those times. This saying can be traced

directly to the Mosaic Law given in Deut. 24:1-4, which we examined in depth in the

previous section. As our study revealed, this case law stated that a woman who was defiled

by the act of remarriage after divorce could never marry her former husband again.

Given that Jesus had the divorce case law in view here, his statement “makes her commit

adultery” in verse 32 can be seen to be a shorthand for what happened in Deut. 24:1-4 –

that is, the husband’s act of divorce led directly to the adultery of his wife, through her

marriage to another. What Christ assumes about her actions after a divorce can be found

explicitly within the case law, as Old Testament scholar Richard Davidson explains.

“The first indicator of the reason for this legislation comes in the explanation why the first husband is

not permitted to remarry: ‘she has been defiled.’ The Hebrew for this clause is a single word etmae,

from the root tame ‘to be or become unclean or defiled.’ But the grammatical form employed in this

verse is very unusual in the Hebrew Bible, used nowhere else with tame and only a very few times

28

with a very few verbs. This form is the passive of the Hithpael. Since the Hithpael normally conveys

the reflexive idea (‘she defiled herself’) and is used reflexively in its occurrences with tame, the

passive or Hothpael in Deut 24:4 would probably best be translated as ‘she has been made/caused

to defile herself.’” 1

So although the first husband is held responsible for his wife’s sexual sin, it is crucial to

understand that he does not commit adultery by the act of divorce, but rather is the cause

of the adultery his wife actually commits, which occurs upon her union with another man.

He bears the responsibility, but she does the act.

For this reason, Heth/Wenham’s idea that the exception in Matt. 19:9 only excuses the

husband’s “adultery by proxy” cannot be accurate. In this verse, the actions of the man are

the only ones under consideration. He divorces his wife, he marries another, and he

commits adultery. The verb “moichatai” here (translated “commits adultery”) is in the

present tense, and in the middle-passive voice, a verb form which in ancient Greek means

that the voice is determined by the context, and generally indicates that the subject is

“entering into a state or condition or action either on his own initiative or in response to some

external stimulus or cause or even spontaneously.” 2

Now, Matthew employs two active voice verbs (divorce and marry) earlier in this verse,

which are indicative of actions initiated by the man. Thus the context strongly suggests that

the verb “moichatai” should also be taken to essentially be active/transitive: the man enters

into adultery by marrying another woman. It is true that the divorce also causes his wife to

become an adulteress, but that aspect of the situation is not in view here. The exception

clause only applies to what the man is doing.

This interpretation simply fails to hold up under scrutiny, and cannot be correct.

Interpretation #3: Erasmian “Deception Clause”

British scholar Dr. Leslie McFall recently published a lengthy paper about the exception clause

in Matthew 19:9, in which he claims that the Greek word ei (meaning “if”) was erroneously

inserted before the phrase me epi porneia (meaning “not for sexual immorality”) by Desiderius

Erasmus, the Roman Catholic priest mentioned earlier in this paper. Erasmus was a humanist

1 Davidson, Richard M. Divorce and Remarriage in the Old Testament: A Fresh Look at Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 1999, p. 11 [Online] http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage/Divorce.Remarriage.pdf. 2 Artsci.wustl.edu website. [Online] http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/docs/UndAncGrkVc.pdf.

29

who became disillusioned with the Catholic Church’s firm belief that neither divorce nor

remarriage is permissible. According to McFall, Erasmus consulted a faulty manuscript – Codex

Leicestrensis – in which a textual error in Matt. 19:9 was apparently corrected by a later scribe.1

This correction contained an extra word, ei, not found in other manuscripts, but was

presumably added to help convey the same meaning as the exception given in Matt. 5:32.

Erasmus accepted this unwarranted word insertion as valid, and included it in his publication

(and all subsequent revisions) of the Greek New Testament. He also released a new version of

the Latin Vulgate, distorting Matthew 19:9 even more by changing the Latin fornicationem

(fornication) to stuprum (disgrace). In so doing, he further loosened the grip of the marriage

bond upon a husband and wife, allowing for divorce and subsequent remarriage if the wife falls

into disgrace for any reason.

McFall asserts that Erasmus’ addition of ei to the phrase me epi porneia altered its meaning

from “not for fornication” to “except for fornication.” He believes that the original text,

translated literally, would read something like this:

“Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife – not he may have

divorced her for fornication – and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous

by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by

marrying her.” 2

The words in italics are McFall’s own additions, for the sake of clarification. Based on this

amplified translation, he concludes that the exception clause becomes an exclusion clause, and

is best stated as “not even for fornication.” Jesus would thus be saying that even if a man

divorces his wife for porneia, marriage to another woman still amounts to adultery.

SUPPORTING POINTS

1. Explains the Apparent Contradiction Between Matt. 19:9 and Parallel Passages

If McFall is correct, then the seeming contradiction between Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12,

and Luke 16:18 disappears. Matthew is merely emphasizing the same point that Mark and

Luke make by saying “not even for fornication” may a man divorce his wife.

1 McFall, Leslie. The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage, 2009, p. 6. [Online]

http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/divorce_mcfall.pdf. 2 McFall, Leslie. The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage, 2009, p. 15. [Online]

http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/divorce_mcfall.pdf.

30

2. Harmonizes With The Other Scriptures Concerning Divorce and Remarriage

As described in the fourth opposing point from Interpretation #1 above, the Bible never

teaches that one may divorce one’s righteous spouse and marry someone else. This view

explains the exception clause in a way that agrees with the rest of Scripture.

OPPOSING POINTS

1. Erasmus Did Not Introduce “ei” in Matt. 19:9

Erasmus did not include the word “ei” in Matt. 19:9 solely on the basis of the marginal

correction from Codex Leicestrensis. The Latin Vulgate, which dates from the time of

Jerome in A.D. 420, translated the verse as follows:

“dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit

moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur” 1

The exception clause is highlighted in red above contains the Latin word nisi, which

normally means “except.” McFall, however, states that it “can mean ‘unless’ in some

contexts.”2 Thus he believes that the Vulgate version of the verse should read “And I say to

you that: whosoever shall put away his wife unless for fornication: and shall marry another,

committeth adultery.”

Even if one accepts the unlikely proposition that nisi should be translated as “unless” in this

particular context (a statement he fails to back up), it does nothing to support his position.

“Unless” has the same meaning as “except” in this context. Either way, based on the

Vulgate, Erasmus would have been justified in using the Greek word ei to clarify the

meaning of the clause, even if it was not in the original Greek. If Jerome used the Latin nisi

in this verse, then Erasmus did not introduce the idea of an exception here.

2. Presence or Absence of “ei” Does Not Conclusively Change Meaning of Clause

Suppose that McFall is correct, and that the word ei was not part of the original Greek text,

but rather was introduced by Erasmus in the 16th century due to his consultation of a bad

manuscript, as well as his own biased views on divorce and remarriage. Even in this

1 Vulgate.org website. [Online] http://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/matthew_19.htm.

2 McFall, Leslie. The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage, 2009, p. 6. [Online]

http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/divorce_mcfall.pdf.

31

scenario, the exception clause becomes somewhat ambiguous, at best. The verse would

then read:

“Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife – not he may have

divorced her for fornication – and may have married another woman, he becomes

adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes

adulterous by marrying her.”

If we remove the bolded words, which McFall added for the purpose of his translation, we

get:

“Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife, not for fornication,

and may have married another, he becomes adulterous…”

The phrase “not for fornication” could be taken as a qualifier to the phrase “may have

divorced his wife” – in other words, in this example, the man has divorced his wife for some

reason other than fornication. In an effort to eliminate this potential interpretation, McFall

imports “he may have divorced her” into the exception clause, resulting in the phrase “not

he may have divorced her for fornication.”

So far, this is technically correct: these words are implicit in the clause, because they

describe the situation it references. The word “may” is used because the Greek verb

translated as “divorced” is in the subjunctive mood, and indicates a hypothetical case.

However, McFall then equivocates by combining the words “not” and “may” into a

command: “he may not have divorced her for fornication.” He then puts the finishing

touches on his personal translation of the clause by declaring that the “cleanest” way to

phrase it is “not even for fornication.”

There simply is no justification for McFall to switch the meaning of “may have divorced” in

such a way. Because he copies it from part 1 of the protasis into the exception clause, it has

to mean the same thing in both places. The verb is in the subjunctive mood in the protasis,

thus it must also be so in the exception. There can be no nested “rider” within the protasis

that contains a separate command.

This theory is too problematic to serve as an adequate explanation for the exception clauses.

32

Interpretation #4: Betrothal Infidelity Theory

This theory holds that the purpose of the exception clause is to excuse divorce/remarriage only

for betrothed couples, not the fully married. Per Deut. 22:23-24 and Matt. 1:18-19, betrothed

couples in those days were considered husband and wife. If one of them wanted to end the

relationship, they would have to get a divorce. So in this theory, such a divorce ended a union

that is qualitatively different from that of a married couple, and is the only type of divorce that

God allows. John Piper makes a good argument in favor of this interpretation.1

According to him, the usage of the Greek “porneia” in the exception is the key to properly

understanding the passage. The only time that word appears in Matthew (other than the other

exception clause, in 19:9) is Matt. 15:19:

Matt. 15:19 (ESV) – “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual

immorality [porneia], theft, false witness, slander.”

Here Matthew treats porneia as a sin distinct from that of moicheia (adultery). So the only

other time this author uses the word porneia, he indicates that he understands it to be

something other than adultery in a full marriage.

SUPPORTING POINTS

1. Explains Why Exception Clause Appears In Matthew Alone

This theory does offer a unique and intellectually satisfying answer to the exception clause

puzzle. Consider the story of Joseph and Mary:

Matt. 1:18-20 (ESV) – “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother

Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with

child from the Holy Spirit. [19] And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to

put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. [20] But as he considered these things,

behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do

not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy

Spirit.”

1 Piper, John. On Divorce & Remarriage in the Event of Adultery. [Online]

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/on-divorce-remarriage-in-the-event-of-adultery.

33

Matthew describes Joseph as being a “just man” who resolved to divorce his betrothed,

Mary, because her pregnancy seemed to prove that she had slept with another man. Per

Deut. 22:13-21, a woman who was found to not be a virgin on her wedding night had to be

stoned to death. Joseph wanted not only to preserve Mary’s life by divorcing her (thus

avoiding the sin of adultery), but also to preserve her reputation by doing it quietly.

If Joseph was just in his plan to divorce Mary for her apparent infidelity, then divorce is

permissible for the betrothed in this type of situation. And given that Matthew is alone

among the gospels in telling this part of the story, it is logical that Matthew alone would

also include an exception for porneia in Christ’s otherwise universal condemnation of

divorce and remarriage.

Furthermore, note that Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience, which would be well aware of

the law concerning betrothal infidelity. This would be another reason for him to include the

exception clause.

2. Explains Why Porneia Used In Exception Clause Rather Than Moicheia

This theory explains why the word “porneia” was used here instead of “moicheia”

(“adultery”). Infidelity during betrothal would presumably be in a different category of

sexual sin than adultery. So if the exception clause applies only to virgin couples that have

been betrothed, then “porneia” probably becomes the best word to use.

3. Harmonizes With The Other Scriptures Concerning Divorce and Remarriage

This explanation for the exception clause is compatible with the parallel passages in Mark

10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, which mention no exception. The one Matthew describes would

only apply to betrothed couples, so Jesus’ unqualified statements in Mark and Luke could

be taken to address the situation of married couples only.

OPPOSING POINTS

1. Paul Did Not Believe Christ Addressed Situation of Betrothal

Paul claims that he has no command from the Lord concerning the marriage or divorce of

betrothed couples:

34

1 Corinthians 7:25-28 (ESV) – “Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the

Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. [26] I think that

in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. [27] Are you bound

to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. [28] But if

you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned.

Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.”

The context of verse 27 shows that “the betrothed” are still the class of people being

discussed when Paul encourages a man to not seek divorce from his wife-to-be. So Paul,

inspired by the Holy Spirit, believed that the topic of the divorce of a betrothed couple was

not addressed by Jesus. Therefore neither exception clause can reasonably be said to apply

to such cases.

2. Makes Unsupported Restriction On Meaning Of Porneia In This Verse

Proponents of this view claim that the larger context of Matthew, which tells of Joseph and

his righteous decision to divorce Mary before he learned she was still a virgin, is sufficient to

require that the meaning of porneia here should be limited to “sexual unfaithfulness during

the betrothal period.”

However, the hidden assumption here is that Matthew considered such an act to be

porneia. In actuality, the word porneia was never used in the story of Joseph and Mary. It is

just as likely that Matthew would have referred to it with the word “moicheia,” given that

this kind of sin carries the same penalty as adultery in the OT law of Deut. 22:24.

Furthermore, the only time porneia appears in the book of Matthew (aside from the

exception clauses) is Matt. 15:19, which uses it in the most general sense: sexual

immorality. So even if betrothal infidelity could legitimately be categorized as porneia, this

view fails to offer any evidence that this is the only intended meaning of porneia in this

verse.

This theory does come close to hitting the mark, but its problems appear to be insurmountable,

and thus it should be excluded from consideration.

Interpretation #5: Assumption of Death Penalty

Another possible explanation for the exception clause considers it to be parenthetical in nature.

According to the Law (Deut. 22:22, Lev. 20:10), the penalty for adultery is death for both

35

parties. Because death dissolves the marriage bond, the innocent spouse would be free to

remarry. Porneia here would refer to adultery.

One version of this theory considers the exception clause to excuse remarriage in the event of

adultery: a man might presumably decide to divorce his wife for this cause prior to her

execution. In this scenario, he is free to remarry because her death is assumed. However, we

may easily reject this version because of the poor logic involved: suppose the woman has not

yet been executed when her husband remarries? Recalling the underlying assumption of this

theory – that only death ends a righteous marriage covenant – this would be a loophole in

Christ’s teaching that permits an adulterous remarriage. Jesus would never make such a flawed

statement.

The other version of this theory considers the exception clause as an exception to the entire

statement – in other words, in the event of adultery, a man would not even seek a divorce,

because of the impending judgment upon his wife. Here the exception functions as an aside

(words in italics added to make explicit that which is implied): “If a man divorces his wife for any

cause (except for the cause of adultery, a situation not even in the scope of this case law

because of the death penalty), and marries another woman, he commits adultery.” It is this

concept that will be examined further.

SUPPORTING POINTS

1. Explains Why Exception Clause Appears In Matthew Alone

Matthew, the only gospel author who wrote to a Jewish audience, knew that the majority

would be well-versed in the Law, including the requirement of execution when an adulterer

was caught. Because this law applied to the Jews, it naturally follows that Matthew might

make a reference to it in situations that would be affected by it. Mark and Luke, on the

other hand, would not have as much reason to mention it.

This point is not as strong here as it is in some of the preceding theories, however, which

not only note his audience, but also show that the inclusion of the exception clause helps

Matthew maintain internal consistency on the subject of divorce and marriage.

36

2. Harmonizes With The Other Scriptures Concerning Divorce and Remarriage

This explanation for the exception clause, as with most of the preceding proposed

explanations, is compatible with the parallel passages in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18,

which mention no exception.

OPPOSING POINTS

1. Does Not Account For Shifting Cultural Practices

Even among the Jews, the death penalty had largely faded from use in Christ’s day. It would

thus be poor reasoning to assume that a man (or woman) would never seek a divorce for

the cause of adultery, but would simply await the execution of their spouse. Yet this is

exactly the implicit assumption made here.

2. Makes The Exception Clause A Confusing, Ultimately Useless Addition

If the exception clause is purely parenthetical, pointing out that adultery is not one of the

causes in view of this case law, it says nothing about the person who does divorce for

adultery.

Now, because the exception only appears in the gospel written to Jews, we presume that it

is a special case applicable to their culture in particular. In this special case, an adulterous

Jewish woman would be subject to the death penalty, so a divorce was unneeded and

would not be sought. For the Gentiles, divorce for the cause of adultery is included in the

law that does not allow remarriage, but for the Jews, such a divorce is not addressed

because it should not even happen.

Recall that the underlying assumption of this theory is that only death ends a marriage

covenant. By necessity, if the cheating spouse is not executed but merely divorced, the

covenant is not made void, and the law given here applies. So in this theory, the exception

clause is pointless, because it ignores a case that would still fall in the scope of that law if it

was actually considered.

This view is a creative one, but due to the reasons above, it ultimately falls short.

37

Interpretation #6: Exception Refers Only to Blame for Violation of Covenant

This theory holds that the intent of the exception clause is fundamentally the same in Matt.

5:32 and 19:9: to excuse the divorcing husband or wife from the guilt of adulterating/violating

their marriage covenant, if they are doing so because their spouse has committed adultery. In

that case, the divorcing spouse cannot defile a covenant that has already been corrupted.

This view is founded on Matt. 5:32, which says that a husband causes his wife to commit

adultery when he divorces her for any reason other than porneia. Here the exception clause

concerns only the question of who is at fault for the adultery of the man’s wife. The same

hermeneutic is then applied to Matt. 19:9, claiming that the husband “commits adultery” only

in the sense of being the one guilty of defiling his marriage. By no means does the exception

clause excuse either party from further adulteries – the innocent spouse is still forbidden to

marry someone else. The exception is merely given to help decide who deserves the blame for

initially violating the marriage covenant.

SUPPORTING POINTS

1. Explains Why Exception Clause Appears In Matthew Alone

This common supporting point appears once again here because of Matthew’s audience,

the Jews. Knowing of God’s metaphorical divorce of Israel for her immoralities, they would

surely question Matt. 5:32 if it pronounced an absolute prohibition of divorce. Furthermore,

most Jews would be quite familiar with Deut. 24:1-4, upon which Christ’s saying in Matt.

5:32 is based. So it makes sense that Matthew would include a clarifying exception for a

statement that stands on its own in other contexts. The same argument would then apply

to Matt. 19:9, which in this theory is simply the flip side of Matt. 5:32: the husband is the

one remarrying, rather than the wife.

2. Harmonizes With The Other Scriptures Concerning Divorce and Remarriage

This explanation for the exception clause, as with most of the preceding proposed

explanations, is compatible with the parallel passages in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18,

which mention no exception.

38

3. Scriptural Precedent For This Usage Of The Term “Adultery”

This interpretation draws support from Deut. 24:4, which states that a woman who

remarries after her first husband divorces her is defiled, even if her second husband

subsequently dies. Her defilement persists not because of an active unrighteous marriage to

someone else (which would end when they die), but rather due to the adulterous violation

of the righteous marriage to her first husband. Her righteous marriage continues to exist,

but in a corrupted, unrecoverable state. Based on this example, the scope of the term

“adultery” in Biblical usage may include the corruption of a righteous marriage covenant, as

well as the unholy one-flesh union created with someone else.

OPPOSING POINTS

1. “Adultery” Never Refers Only to Corruption of a Righteous Marriage Covenant

The verb “moicheuo” (G3431, translated as “commit adultery”) appears 14 times in 11

verses.1 Of these 11, the context shows that the word explicitly refers to an act with another

person, and not just defilement of their marriage bond, in 4 verses: Matt. 5:27, 5:28; John

8:4; Rev. 2:22. The context is inconclusive (the word could possess either or both meanings)

in 6 verses: Matt. 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Rom. 2:22; Rom.13:9; James 2:11. The

final verse (Luke 16:18) is one of the verses under consideration here, where we are trying

to determine the exact sense of the word “adultery.”

The noun “moichalis” (G3428, translated “adulterous” or “adulteress”) appears 7 times in 6

verses.2 In 5 of these verses, the context is inconclusive: Matt. 12:39; Mark 16:4; Mark 8:38;

James 4:4; and 2 Peter 2:14. In the last verse, Rom. 7:3, the word could conceivably have

the sense of defilement of the marriage, because the woman is not called an adulteress if

her husband has died. However, the fact remains that she will be called an adulteress due

to an act involving another person: she lives with another man. So even in this case, the

state of moichalis directly results from an adulterous act with someone else.

An analysis of the other words in the “moich-” family (G3429: moichao, G3430: moicheia,

G3432: moichos) yields similar results.

1 BibleTools.org website. [Online]

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G3431/moicheuo.htm. 2 BlueLetterBible.org website. [Online]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3428&t=ESV.

39

So we can see there is no instance of “adultery” (or one of its forms) appearing in the

Scripture in which the corruption of the marriage covenant was instigated by something

other than an adulterous act with someone besides their spouse. In other words, if the

exception applies to the blame for defiling one’s righteous marriage union, then it must also

apply to the adulterous act with another person as well – contradicting the premise for this

theory.

2. Relies On Meaning of “Porneia” Being Same In Both Exception Clauses

This view requires that the word porneia refer to the same type(s) of sexual sin in Matt.

5:32 and Matt. 19:9. However, the evidence argues strongly against this interpretation.

First, the Greek wording of the phrases is significantly different (as found in the Textus

Receptus, the version of the text accepted by most scholars as accurate). In Matt. 5:32, it is

“parektos logou porneias,” which is literally “outside of case of prostitution.” This indicates

a single instance of porneia – something that has occurred in the past.

In Matt. 19:9, the wording is “ei me epi porneia,” which literally means “if not on/upon/in

prostitution.” The meaning of the phrase changes significantly depending on whether “epi”

is translated “on,” “upon,” or “in.” It therefore is difficult to claim that it must have the

same interpretation here as in Matt. 5:32. In fact, as we’ll see in the next section, a good

argument can be made that the sense of the phrase here should be “if [this couple is] not in

porneia.”

Another distinction between the exception clauses is found in the context, which arguably is

an even more important factor than the grammatical structure. The exception in Matt. 5:32

applies to men who divorce their wives and take no further action – unlike the one in Matt.

19:9, which applies to men who divorce their wives and marry someone else.

Based on these points, it is highly improbable that porneia has an identical meaning in each

passage. Therefore this interpretation is not the answer.

Interpretation #7: Divorce for Adultery, Remarriage Only After Illicit Marriage

This is the final proposal we will consider, and is our last chance to solve the exception clause

mystery. According to this theory, the exception clauses must first be understood as different

exceptions made to distinct situations. In the second opposing point of Interpretation #6, two

clues pointing toward this concept became evident:

40

There are non-trivial grammatical differences between the clauses in the Greek of the

Textus Receptus (MT). One exception says “outside of case of porneia,” and the other

says “if not upon/in porneia.”

One exception is applied to a situation in which the guilt for a divorced woman’s

adultery will normally be laid squarely on her husband’s shoulders. The woman will be

held guilty only if her husband divorced her for sexual immorality (porneia). The other

exception is applied to a situation in which the husband is called an adulterer if he

divorces his wife and marries another woman. He will be found innocent of this charge

only if he has divorced his first wife for sexual immorality.

This theory holds that porneia refers to sexual immorality in the broad sense in Matt. 5:32 (with

a focus on acts of adultery), but refers exclusively to unrighteous marriages in Matt. 19:9. This

type of marriage includes incestuous unions, adulterous marriages (whether through

remarriage or polygamy), and marriages formed between believers and unbelievers. Thus the

Bible prohibits remarriage of any kind unless the initial marriage was adulterous, incestuous, or

unequally yoked.

SUPPORTING POINTS

1. Harmonizes With The Other Scriptures Concerning Divorce and Remarriage

This explanation for the exception clause, as with most of the preceding proposed

explanations, is compatible with the parallel passages in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18,

which mention no exception. Matt. 5:32 only excuses the husband of blame for initially

violating the covenant with his wife, and Matt. 19:9 is only allowing for remarriage after

divorce of an illegitimate spouse. This does not contradict Mark 10:11-12 or Luke 16:18 –

which pronounce remarriage after a divorce to be adultery – because they can be

understood to apply only to the case of righteously married couples who then divorce.

2. Explains Why Porneia Used In Exception Clause Rather Than Moicheia

This theory provides a good reason for the usage of porneia (sexual immorality) rather than

moicheia (adultery) in the exception clause: porneia includes unrighteous marriages. By

their nature, they involve a different kind of sin than adultery, which is the violation of a

valid marriage. Because moicheia is a term restricted to adultery, Matthew was obligated to

use the more inclusive porneia.

41

Examples of Porneia Referring to Incestuous and Adulterous Unions

In a pivotal moment for the early church, the Jerusalem Council convened to decide

whether or not circumcision should be required for Gentile converts, and more generally, if

they must follow the laws of Moses. Their ruling was firm: the Mosaic laws did not apply to

Gentiles, except for four laws that also appear elsewhere in Scripture. Being universal

commands from God, and merely restated through Moses, they would still be in force.

Acts 15:28-29 (ESV) – “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no

greater burden than these requirements: [29] that you abstain from what has been

sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual

immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

These four imperatives were mentioned because they were reiterated in the laws of Moses

– in particular, Leviticus 17 and 18. So by examining the laws as they appeared in Leviticus,

we can learn exactly what types of sin (and specifically, porneia) the Gentiles are instructed

to avoid.

Lev. 17:7 (ESV) – “So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after

whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.”

Lev. 17:12 (ESV) – “Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall

eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.”

Lev. 18:6 (ESV) – “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover

nakedness. I am the LORD.”

Lev. 18:20 (ESV) – “And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make

yourself unclean with her.”

Lev. 18:22-23 (ESV) – “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

[23] And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither

shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.”

Therefore the Gentile requirement to avoid sexual immorality includes incest, adultery,

homosexuality, and bestiality.

42

Examples of Porneia Referring to Marriages to Unbelievers (Unequally Yoked)

2 Cor. 6:14 (ESV) – “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has

righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”

While this verse does not specifically mention marriage, that certainly is one kind of

unequal union that is prohibited for believers. Let’s follow a brief, OT-spanning narrative,

starting with God’s command to the Jews to not intermarry with (unbelieving) foreigners,

continuing with examples of Israel’s spectacular failure to follow this commandment, and

ending with an example of the Lord’s response to such disobedience:

Deut. 7:1-4 (ESV) – “When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering

to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the

Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites,

seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, [2] and when the LORD your God gives

them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete

destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. [3] You

shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their

daughters for your sons, [4] for they would turn away your sons from following me, to

serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would

destroy you quickly.”

1 Kings 11:1-2, 6 (ESV) – “Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the

daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, [2] from

the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the people of Israel, "You shall not enter

into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your

heart after their gods." Solomon clung to these in love. ... [6] So Solomon did what was evil

in the sight of the LORD and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done.”

Nehemiah 13:23, 25-27 (ESV) – “In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women

of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. ... [25] And I confronted them and cursed them and beat

some of them and pulled out their hair. And I made them take an oath in the name of God,

saying, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons, or take their daughters for your sons

or for yourselves. [26] Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women?

Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and

God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin. [27]

Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God

by marrying foreign women?”

43

Hosea 4:12-13 (ESV) – “My people inquire of a piece of wood, and their walking staff gives

them oracles. For a spirit of whoredom has led them astray, and they have left their God to

play the whore. [13] They sacrifice on the tops of the mountains and burn offerings on the

hills, under oak, poplar, and terebinth, because their shade is good. Therefore your

daughters play the whore, and your brides commit adultery.”

Malachi 2:11-12 (NKJV) – “Judah has dealt treacherously, And an abomination has been

committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, For Judah has profaned The LORD's holy [institution]

which He loves: He has married the daughter of a foreign god. [12] May the LORD cut off

from the tents of Jacob The man who does this, being awake and aware, Yet who brings an

offering to the LORD of hosts!”

So God considers unequally yoked marriages to be sinful primarily because the heathen will

usually turn away their spouses’ hearts, leading them to idolatry. Idolatry is repeatedly

called “whoring” (Hebew zanah, whose Greek equivalent is porneia) in Scripture. Thus,

contracting a marriage to an unbeliever is sexual immorality because it leads to the

figurative immorality of departure from the faith, and idol worship.

3. Explains Why Exception Clause Appears In Matthew Alone

If this interpretation is correct, then the Matt. 19:9 exception clause is not included in the

parallel passages in Mark and Luke due to their differing audiences. Matthew presumably

added it because of his Jewish audience, which would have known of the Mosaic laws

against intermarriage between Jews and foreigners. Many would have questioned Christ’s

statement if he made no exception for couples in illicit marriages.

4. The Syntax Points To An Ongoing State of Porneia in Matt. 19:9

Matthew 5:32 – “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground

of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman

commits adultery.”

In Matt. 19:9, as we saw in the previous section, the wording is “ei me epi porneia” –

meaning “if not on/upon/in prostitution.” To decide how to translate this accurately, we

must note that “porneia” is a noun in the dative case. There are a number of relevant

Scriptural examples of the usage of “epi” next to a noun in the dative case:

44

1 Corinthians 9:10 (ESV) – “Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our

sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing

in the crop.”

1 Thessalonians 3:7 (ESV) – “…for this reason, brothers, in all our distress and affliction we

have been comforted about you through your faith.”

From these verses 1 we see that “epi” combined with a dative noun can easily have the

sense of living or being in a state characterized by that noun (being in hope; in distress; in

affliction). As Thayer’s Lexicon puts it:

“…with the dative, used of place…of the place where or in which (Latinin with the abl., German auf

with the dative) (English on, etc.), where continuance, position, situation, etc., are spoken of…” 2

Furthermore, there is Biblical precedent for treating sexual immorality as an ongoing state

or condition.

Ephesians 5:5 (ESV) – “For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral

or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of

Christ and God.”

Revelation 22:14-15 (ESV) – “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have

the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. [15] Outside are the

dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone

who loves and practices falsehood.”

So it seems that one highly probable translation of Matthew 19:9 would be:

Matthew 19:9 – “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except [if they are] in sexual

immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

5. Exception Clauses: Direct Commentary On The OT Case Law About Divorce & Remarriage

As we saw from Opposing Point #2 from Interpretation #2, the exception clause in Matt.

5:32 serves as a commentary on the passage that Christ references in the previous verse:

Deut. 24:1-4. His assertion that a man who divorces his wife “makes her commit adultery”

1 Also see: Acts 2:26; 2 Corinthians 1:4, 7:4; Acts 14:3; Rom. 5:2, 8:20.

2 BibleHub.com website. [Online] http://biblehub.com/greek/1909.htm

45

summarizes the situation presented in Deuteronomy 24, in which a man divorces his wife,

she marries another man, and she becomes defiled by that act.

In Matt 19:7-9, the Pharisees ask Christ about the certificate of divorce they believe Moses

allows. Again, the topic of discussion is Deut. 24:1-4 when Christ delivers his reply, so it

follows that he is making another commentary on that passage.

Because the situation he presents here is different from the one presented in Matt. 5:32,

however, he most likely is commenting on a different part of the Mosaic case law. To

demonstrate this more clearly, let’s compare the three passages. The specific portions of

the case law referenced by Christ in a given passage will be highlighted in a unique color in

both places, for easy comparison.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (ESV) – “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no

favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate

of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of

his house, [2] and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, [3] and the latter man

hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out

of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, [4] then her former

husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been

defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD…”

Matthew 5:32 – “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the

ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced

woman commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:9 – “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except [if they are] in sexual

immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Now, it is possible that in Matt. 19:9, Christ could still be approaching the topic from the

first (rightful) husband’s point of view: if after divorcing his wife he marries another woman,

he is an adulterer, unless he divorced her for sexual immorality.

But this reasoning inevitably leads to a contradiction. Recall that Jeremiah 3:1 tells us a

woman becomes unclean through marriage to another man, regardless of the cause for her

divorce. This precept is reinforced by Matt. 5:32b, which states without exception that

whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. There are also some manuscripts of

Matt. 19:9 which include the same saying.

46

Some might object to this point, pointing out that the exception for immorality given in

Matt. 5:32a carries over to the second part of the verse, though it’s not explicitly re-stated.

However, remember that 5:32a does not say that no further adultery occurs if the divorce is

for immorality – it merely concerns who is to blame for the new act of adultery that still

happens. Matt. 5:32b is about a related, but separate topic: it discusses what happens when

a man marries a divorced woman.

“The point to be made here is that in each case where there are dual sayings connected by ‘and,’ the

sayings are independent of each other. No one argues for interdependence for the sayings of Mark

or Luke, neither should it be assumed that the sayings in Matthew 5 should be interpreted

interdependently as is commonly done, i.e., the first clause is seen as making sense only when the

second is a fact.”

– 1 Rev. William Luck, Sr.

Therefore, the Matt. 5:32b statement that a man commits adultery if he marries a divorced

woman stands on its own. This would be impossible unless her original marriage bond was

still intact, and she had entered into an adulterous marriage. This means that the Matt. 19:9

exception cannot apply to the actions of the first husband, or it would contradict Matt.

5:32b (and Matt. 19:9b, in some manuscripts) by implying that he is no longer bound to his

first wife.

If porneia does not refer to any potential actions of the first man, then that leaves only the

actions of the second man – and we have seen that no matter what, he definitely engages

in porneia through his union with the divorceé.

Our study of the grammatical structure of Matt. 19:9 in the previous Supporting Point adds

further evidence for the idea that the exception references the unrighteous marriage in

Deut. 24:2, which would exist in a continuous state of porneia.

6. God Hates Illegitimate Marriages, Considering Them Sinful and Non-Binding

Nobody can deny that God hates porneia. Keeping in mind that in the eyes of God,

marriages are formed through the covenant of sexual union, all acts of porneia actually

create sinful marriages (see Supporting Point #2). His will regarding this subject can be

stated with two basic principles: avoid starting such marriages, and do not continue in those

that are already created.

1 Luck, Rev. William. The Teachings of Jesus on Divorce – (Matthew 5:31-32a). [Online]

https://bible.org/article/teachings-jesus-divorce-%E2%80%94-matthew-531-32a

47

Flee From Sin: Do Not Make Immoral Marriages

1 Corinthians 6:15-18 – “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I

then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! [16] Or do

you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is

written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ [17] But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one

spirit with him. [18] Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is

outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.”

This passage can be paraphrased as follows: “You are betrothed to Christ, so do not join

with a prostitute! Do you not know that lying with a prostitute makes you one flesh with

her? This immorality is a sin against your own flesh – namely, the union you already share

with someone else!”

The next few verses, which stretch into chapter 7, concern how a married couple should

conduct themselves, in order to avoid sexual immorality. This context indicates that 1 Cor.

6:15-18 should be applied to human marriages, as well as the spiritual marriage between

Christ and his bride.

Also remember that God commanded Israel to avoid marriage to foreigners (Deut. 7:1-4,

Mal. 2:11-12), and that Paul instructed believers to not join with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-

18).

Repent From Sin: Put An End To Unrighteous Marriages

God not only tells us to avoid starting illicit marriages, but He goes a step further by

requiring that any believers joined in this way separate from their spouse. The reason for

this is clear: He wants His children to turn away from sin! A good example of this principle is

found in Ezra, where some of the people of Israel married foreigners, against God’s

command.

Ezra 10:2-3 (ESV) – “And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra:

‘We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of

the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. [3] Therefore let us make a

covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the

counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be

done according to the Law.’”

48

Ezra 10:11 (ESV) – “Now then make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers and do

his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.”

Another example of the principle in action can be found in the account of John the Baptist’s

condemnation of Herod the Tetrarch’s sinful marriage to Herodias:

Mark 6:17-18 (ESV) – “For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in

prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her. [18]

For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.’”

Whether Herod’s sin was in marrying Herodias while her lawful spouse was still alive,

marrying incestuously (Lev. 18:16 prohibits marriage to the wife of one’s brother), or both,

the fact remains that he was partaking in an unrighteous marriage. He imprisoned John the

Baptist because he was telling Herod that it was wrong for him to continue “having” (Gk.

echein, “to-be-having”1) his brother’s wife. A similar form of the same Greek word is used in

1 Cor. 7:2, where men are enjoined to be “having” their wives rather than committing

sexual immorality with a prostitute. The verb is in the present tense and active voice in both

verses, denoting an ongoing state of affairs.

In effect, then, John told Herod to stop having Herodias, and separate from her. This

explains the murderous anger of Herodias.

Finally, as mentioned back in the last Opposing Point of Interpretation #1, Paul says in 1 Cor.

7:15 that when an unsaved spouse deserts a believer, the “brother or sister is not bound.” If

this is the case for a couple who married as unbelievers, after which one of them was saved,

how much more does this apply for those who started out unequally yoked?

If God considers unrighteous marriages to be non-binding, then they cannot be violated

through adultery. After all, if it is not sinful to reject the covenant obligations of these kinds

of marriages, then it isn’t possible to sin by violating them (through adultery). And if

adultery is not possible for such a marriage, then it follows that the people involved can

marry others without sin. Therefore Matt. 19:9 can indeed make an exception for illegal

unions, such that remarriage is allowed.

1 Scripture4All Online Interlinear Website. [Online] http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mar6.pdf

49

OPPOSING POINTS

1. Could Contradict Defilement Principle Presented In Deut. 24:1-4 and Jer. 3:1-8

As was previously mentioned, Deut. 24:4 tells us that a divorced woman who marries

another man has become defiled, and her first husband should not take her back. Jer. 3:1-8

expands on this directive by calling Israel and Judah to return to the Lord – but under the

New Covenant in the Day of the Lord, not as they were at that point.

So the potential issue here concerns the Matt. 19:9 exception’s proposed allowance for

remarriage after an illicit marriage. Presumably, if a woman is defiled through an adulterous

union in such a way that she should not return to her husband, then anyone involved in

illicit marriages becomes defiled and unmarriageable. This would conflict with the idea that

Matt. 19:9 allows remarriage for people like that.

So this theory has a wide array of supporting Scriptures and evidence in its favor, and only one

real objection, which will be answered in the next section.

Conclusion

Interpretation #7 is by far the best of the potential explanations considered in this paper, and it

appears to be the correct one. The only objection to this theory is that it could lead to a

contradiction of the defilement principle defined in Deut. 24:1-4, which does not allow a man to

take his divorced wife back after she marries another man and is subsequently divorced again,

or widowed. If Matt. 19:9 permits remarriage after divorce from a porneia marriage, isn’t it in

conflict with Deut. 24:1-4?

In Deut. 24:2, the hypothetical second man is never said to have been married in the past. So

his adulterous union with the divorced woman could be his first marriage, even though it is the

woman’s second. Because the subject of Matt. 19:9 is the man, the exception clause can be

applied to the second man’s situation without contradicting Deut. 24:1-4.

The defilement principle is defined such that it applies only to the remarried woman. As we’ve

seen earlier in this text, this is because she violated her existing, righteous marriage union. If

there is no prior marriage, then this example simply is not relevant. So there is no Biblical

reason to believe that anyone whose first marriage is an unrighteous one is prohibited from

marrying again.

50

Therefore, the correct explanation for the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 must be

Interpretation #7: divorce and remarriage are allowed only for those living in immoral

marriages. This has the support of all pertinent Scriptures, does not have any fatal flaws, and

has the greatest explanatory power – it tells us the purpose of the exceptions, the reason they

are included only in Matthew, the reason why “sexual immorality” was used rather than

“adultery,” the reason for the grammatical and situational differences between the exception

clauses, and how the Old Testament laws and moral code concerning marriage – which have

been carried forward into the New Covenant – are applicable today. This interpretation of the

exception clauses in Matt. 5 and 19 harmonizes all of the relevant passages concerning sex,

marriage, and divorce.

Just Grounds for Divorce

In this section, we’ll examine the Biblical grounds for a valid divorce. Matt. 19:9 permits divorce

from an immoral marriage, as was discussed in depth earlier. However, there are some

commentators who believe that the phrase “some indecency” in verse 1 of the Deut. 24 case

law also constitutes just cause for divorce. That verse may be interpreted in two distinct ways:

As part of the protasis of a case law, this phrase merely serves as an example of some

reason a man may divorce his wife, and is not intended to describe a lawful reason to do

so. Thus this law applies to divorce undertaken for any cause, and if we combine this

with our earlier analysis of this passage, we see that it tells us remarriage is always

tantamount to adultery while one’s original righteous spouse is alive. This is the most

likely reading of the case law, based on the evidence we’ve examined.

Alternatively, the phrase may serve as a qualifier to determine the class of divorce to

which this law applies. But again, the law says that a woman so divorced becomes an

adulteress when she re-marries. Thus, however one might interpret “some indecency,”

it still does not constitute sufficient cause for divorce. The law would be silent on the

matter of divorces for other reasons, and so it cannot be taken to be authorizing them

either.

No matter what, then, “some indecency” does not serve as just grounds for a divorce, and is

not even well-defined.

51

Some scholars, such as Raymond Faircloth1, additionally claim that Exodus 21:7-11 lays out

three marital obligations, any of which – if persistently neglected – would constitute grounds

for a righteous divorce: Food, clothing and intimacy.

Exodus 21:7-11 (ESV) – “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the

male slaves do. [8] If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then

he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has

broken faith with her. [9] If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as a daughter.

[10] If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her

marital rights. [11] And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for

nothing, without payment of money.”

There are several problems with Faircloth’s interpretation of this passage. First, it never

explicitly states that the female slave here is in fact a wife or concubine – the word “wife” in

verse 10 was added by some translators, because they felt it helped clarify the meaning of the

passage. Second, the Hebrew word “ya’ad” (translated above as “designate”) is never used of

betrothal or marriage elsewhere in the Old Testament, so there is no particular reason to

believe it refers to that in this context. Third, the Hebrew word “uonthe” (“marital rights”)

means “habitation of her.”2 This is “from an unused root apparently meaning ‘to dwell

together,’”3 and does not possess marital or sexual connotations by itself. In the Septuagint,

this phrase is translated with the Greek “ten homilian autes,” meaning “her companionship.”4

A literal translation of verse 10 from the actual Hebrew text simply says:

“If another-woman he-is-taking for him meat-of her covering-of her and habitation-of her not

he-shall diminish.”5

The master, if he designates the female slave to be his son’s slave, must deal with her as a

daughter. If he buys another woman, he must continue providing the first slave her food,

clothing, and shelter/companionship (not “marital rights”) in full measure, or else she may be

redeemed from his ownership without payment. So these are the rights of a slave, and the

freedom here is from ownership rather than marriage. Of course, a husband should provide for 1 BiblicalTruthSeekers.co.uk Website. [Online] http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk/wp-

content/themes/biblical/uploadData/7-15.%20PAUL%20ON%20DIVORCE-REMARRIAGE.pdf 2 Scripture4All Online Interlinear Website. [Online]

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo21.pdf 3 StudyLight.org Online Interlinear Website. [Online] http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05772

4 Bayisha Mashiyach Website. [Online] http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Exodus_21.pdf

5 Scripture4All Online Interlinear Website. [Online]

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/exo21.pdf

52

his wife in similar ways, but the Bible is addressing an entirely different situation here, and is

certainly not condoning it.

But let’s suppose for a moment that this passage does concern polygamous marriage. The fact

remains that through this case law, God was only regulating a sinful state of affairs, to protect

the well-being of a woman who had little choice in the matter. The Mosaic laws concerning

divorce, polygamy, and slavery were motivated by the hardness of the people’s hearts. But as

Christ so often taught, these laws were often badly misinterpreted, and were taken to allow or

even condone the very acts they in fact condemned.

So even in this scenario, He wouldn’t be instructing the master to do these three things for the

woman because they are obligations of a husband toward his lawful wife. Rather, these would

be basic human rights for anyone taken as a slave-wife against her will. If these obligations

were not met, she could be set free due to the violation of her rights as a slave. As for the

marital dimension of their relationship, its unrighteous nature would be the only cause required

for the divorce.

Another suggested cause for divorce is the so-called “Pauline privilege”: desertion by an

unbeliever.

1 Corinthians 7:15 (ESV) – “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.”

Some have additionally placed abuse (whether physical or emotional) in this category, under

the label “constructive desertion.”1 In this scenario, the abusive partner effectively has

separated through their repeated attacks and unrepentant heart, whether or not they actually

intend to desert their spouse.

However, the word translated as “separates” here is chorizo, which is used by Jesus in Matt.

19:6 and Mark 10:9 when he said “What therefore God has joined together, let not man

separate.” The context for each of those verses consists of the Pharisees asking Christ about

the Mosaic Law regarding authorized grounds for divorce. So the verb chorizo refers here to

divorce, and not merely a separation of some kind.

Aside from this, the verses immediately before 1 Cor. 7:15 instruct believers to not divorce

unbelievers if they are willing to live with them. So based on the context, then, 1 Cor. 7:15 is

1 Bacchiocchi, Dr. Samuele. The Marriage Covenant: A Biblical Study on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage.

[Online] http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/5.html

53

addressing the other possibility: the pagan spouse is not willing to live with them, and gets a

divorce. Even here, the believer is not allowed to pursue a divorce, but is simply given

permission to let their spouse go. It’s difficult to see how this verse could grant permission to a

believer to get a divorce for a metaphorical or even literal desertion.

On the other hand, Paul has strong words for one who doesn’t care for his family:

1 Timothy 5:4, 8 (ESV) – “But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to

show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is

pleasing in the sight of God … [8] But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially

for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

The context indicates that he has a widow’s children or grandchildren in mind here (verse 4),

but it’s conceivable that husbands could be in view as well. No statement is made about this

being sufficient cause for a woman to divorce her husband, but it would seem that this verse

lays out a general principle about the consequences of consistently (and willingly) failing to

provide for one’s family: it is a denial of the faith.

However, it would not be sound reasoning to combine this verse with the teaching about

unequally yoked couples, so as to permit divorce and remarriage when a spouse isn’t a good

provider. That teaching concerns marriages which are unequally yoked from the beginning, but

1 Tim. 5:8 addresses the case of a marriage between believers where the husband later denies

the faith through his negligence. 1 Cor. 7:15 references another distinct situation: that of a

marriage between two unbelievers, after which one of them comes to Christ (we’ll examine the

evidence for this interpretation in the next section).

At the most, 1 Tim. 5:8 indicates that the believing spouse would no longer be bound if the

unbeliever divorces them. But it still does not grant a believer the right to initiate a divorce.

In conclusion, the Lord permits a believer to initiate a divorce in only one situation: they are in a

marriage that was illicit to begin with. The divorce of two righteously married believers merely

functions to separate them, while still leaving the one-flesh union intact. Divorce attempts to

do what only death can truly accomplish.

54

Divorce and Remarriage, According to Paul

The Apostle Paul held marriage in high regard, and had much to say about it. The lion’s share of

his writings on the subject may be found in Ephesians 5:25-32, Romans 7:1-4, and 1 Corinthians

7. We’ll examine each of these passages in turn.

Ephesians 5:25-32 (ESV) – “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave

himself up for her, [26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water

with the word, [27] so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or

wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [28] In the same way

husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. [29]

For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the

church, [30] because we are members of his body. [31] ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father

and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ [32] This mystery is

profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

Here Paul gives one deceptively simple command to husbands, which he then unfolds to reveal

just how much is truly required of them:

Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies, just as Christ loves the church.

This love nourishes – he meets her needs abundantly.

This love cherishes – he treats the woman as a precious child of God, and makes

her feel valued and comforted.

This love is sacrificial – he gives freely of himself, willing even to die for her.

This love sustains unity – a husband and wife are one flesh through covenant, in

the spiritual sense as well as the physical, and the man “holds fast” to his wife by

his love for her.

So in Eph. 5:25-32, Paul instructs believers on the qualities of a healthy, God-pleasing marriage,

then wraps up his discourse with a brilliant denouement: all of these attributes arise from the

very nature of marriage, which joins two into one body, representing the spiritual reality of the

union between Christ and the church.

Romans 7:1-4 (ESV) – “Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the

law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? [2] For a married woman is

bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the

law of marriage. [3] Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man

while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries

55

another man she is not an adulteress. [4] Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law

through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised

from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.”

Paul opens chapter 7 with an explanation of the process of salvation. He declares that death

offers the only escape route from the Law, using human marriage to illustrate this point. To

better understand the significance of this passage, let’s present it within the larger context:

God Himself instituted human marriage at the dawn of creation, and called it very good

(Gen. 1:27-31; 2:24).

God modeled His relationship with Israel on the concept of marriage, founding it upon

the spiritual covenant of the Law (Jeremiah 31:31-32; Exodus 19:5; Heb. 8:9).

In order to restore His union with an adulterous and defiled people, the Lord required

them to die (representatively, through the Messiah). He would then resurrect them

through Christ to be His spouse once more (Hosea 6; Hebrews 9:15-17).

Human covenants cannot be voided or altered, once ratified (Gal. 3:15-17).

Before a second covenant may be established, the first covenant must be ended:

Hebrews 10:9 (ESV) – “…then he added, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will.’ He does

away with the first in order to establish the second.”

Finally, in the passage under consideration, Paul argues from the nature of human

marriage to make his case that a person is under the Law until death (representatively

through Christ) – indicating that he believed the lifelong bond of the marriage union to

be a well-known, accepted doctrine to his readers.

So in Rom. 7:1-4, Paul highlights the enduring, covenantal quality of the marital union.

His most extensive discourse on the subject of marriage is found in 1 Corinthians 7, which we

will examine by dividing the chapter into sections of related verses, for detailed analysis. The

first six verses were studied in the first paper of this series on marriage. There we found that

Paul commanded each man to regularly have physical intimacy with his wife, in order to avoid

the temptation to sexual sin. He begins to discuss divorce and remarriage in verse 7, which

marks the starting point for this study.

56

1 Corinthians 7:7-11 (ESV) – “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from

God, one of one kind and one of another. [8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is

good for them to remain single as I am. [9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should

marry. For it is better to marry than to burn [with passion]. [10] To the married I give this

charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband [11] (but if she

does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband

should not divorce his wife.”

In Paul’s view, it would be best if the unmarried and widows remained in their current state, so

that they might be undistracted from the things of the Lord in the present crisis. The Greek

word translated in verse 8 as “unmarried” is “agamois,” whose root form “agamos” appears

only four times in Scripture – all in this chapter. In verse 8, it is a masculine noun that is

contrasted with the feminine “cherais” (widows), implying that it refers to widowers.1 Another

hint that it should be translated as “widowers” here may be drawn from verse 11, which

commands the married to either remain agamos or return to their spouse. If agamos refers to

the same type of people in each place, then this command is clearly in conflict with the one in

verse 9, which instructs the agamos and widows to marry if they cannot control themselves.

Thus verse 8 must be concerned only with people who are unmarried because their spouses

passed away.

In verse 11, it is used of a married woman who has separated from her husband in some

manner. Later on, in verse 32, it refers to a man who is free to please the Lord, but the context

contains no helpful clues to determine the scope of the word. In verse 34, it is contrasted with

“parthenos” (“virgin”). So in this passage, “agamos” means “divorced,” “separated,” or

“widowed,” but not “never married.”

We also need to ascertain how to interpret the actions of the wife and husband in verses 10

and 11. In verse 10, the wife is told not to choristhenai (from the root chorizo, meaning

“separate”) from her husband. This verb is in the passive form, allowing for either the husband

or wife to be the actor – so a more accurate rendition of the command would be “the wife is

not to be [separated from] her husband.” The word is the same one as is used by Christ in Matt.

19:6 and Mark 10:9, where he says “What therefore God has joined together, let not man

separate.” As we saw in the previous section, he used this word to refer to the combined acts

of a man giving his wife a divorce certificate (making it official), and sending her away. So

chorizo functions as shorthand for a full and complete divorce.

1 Scripture4All Online Interlinear Website. [Online] http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co7.pdf

57

In 1 Cor. 7:11, “(but if she does [become separated], she should remain unmarried)” again uses

chorizo in the passive voice, permitting either party to initiate the separation. This word is

present in the Greek – shown in brackets above – though it is omitted from the ESV translation.

In the same verse, the phrase “the husband should not divorce his wife” uses the active voice

verb aphienai (“put away”), whose root form is aphiemi. This word is associated with divorce

only three times in the Bible, all occurring within this chapter. From the context, however, it

most likely is equivalent to chorizo, because it is given as one of the husband’s restricted

actions in the same verse that the wife is prohibited from remarrying if she has been separated

(chorizo). The situations presented here are two sides of the same coin: in either case, the

couple has become separated.

So we see that in this passage, widows and widowers are told to remain unmarried if they are

able to control themselves. If not, they should marry again. However, a married person should

not divorce their spouse (but if they do, they should remain celibate or be reconciled).

There is one noticeable omission from Paul’s instructions here: the exception clause. If Christ

permitted divorce and remarriage for those in illegitimate marriages, why does Paul not

mention it?

First, note that Paul is most likely commenting on Christ’s teaching from Matthew 19:6, where

he says “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” The general injunction

from the Lord is to not separate a married couple, but this teaching does include the exception

of sexual immorality in verse 9. Presumably, Paul opts to leave the exception out of his writings

for reasons similar to those of Mark and Luke: it seemed an unnecessary addition, given that

the abridged law implicitly contains such an exception.

Neither of Christ’s exceptions absolves the husband or wife of guilt for divorce from a righteous

marriage. One of them clears the divorcing party of blame for causing their spouse to commit

adultery (Matt. 5:32). The other clears the re-marrying party of blame for adultery (Matt. 19:9).

He never says that divorce is acceptable, but rather clarifies the law regarding the results of a

divorce in certain situations. The only statements Jesus actually makes about divorce firmly

deny men and women the freedom to divorce their righteous spouses.

How then could God symbolically divorce Israel, His righteous wife? Simply put, this is a special

case! Per Matt. 19:6, man should not (and cannot truly) separate what God has joined together

– but God is free to separate what He Himself has joined together. This may be the one aspect

58

of spiritual marriage that is not also reflected in human marriage. God alone has the right to

divorce His lawful spouse.

1 Corinthians 7:12-17 (ESV) – “To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife

who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. [13] If any

woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not

divorce him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the

unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be

unclean, but as it is, they are holy. [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. [16] For how do

you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether

you will save your wife? [17] Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him,

and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.”

Based on verse 12, it becomes clear that the preceding verses were directed at Christian

couples, and that the following commands are for the mixed marriages that were common in

those days: a man and woman who initially were unbelievers, but then one of them later came

to Christ. Consider Paul’s words in verse 14, where he tells us that the unbelieving spouse is

sanctified by the believer. He cannot be speaking of a situation in which a Christian joins with a

heathen, which as we have seen is a defiling act that is expressly forbidden. So he can only be

referring to existing marriages with one convert, and perhaps to marriages between believers

where one later falls away. Commentators such as Ellicott, Benson, Poole, and Gill come to

similar conclusions.1

The Corinthians who found themselves in these difficult situations had likely asked Paul if they

should divorce their spouses. His answer: do not divorce them, and stay with them unless they

desire to leave. However, if they do leave, the Christian is not under bondage in such a case.

The word dedoulotai is translated “enslaved” in verse 15, and is used elsewhere in Scripture to

describe situations of bondage or servitude. The word dedetai is used a little later in the

chapter, and is translated in a similar way:

1 Corinthians 7:39 (ESV) – “A wife is bound [dedetai] to her husband as long as he lives. But if

her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

1 Biblehub.com website. [Online] http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/7-12.htm

59

This word means “has been bound, put under obligation, of the law, duty, etc.,”1 and is used of

a Christian wife in Rom. 7:2. It also derives from a different root word than the one for

dedoulotai, making the connection between the two words tenuous at best. So in 1 Cor. 7:15, if

the believer is “not bound” when their unbelieving spouse leaves them, the best interpretation

would be that they’re not required to fight or stop the divorce. The phrase “God has called you

to peace” indicates Paul’s desire for believers to avoid conflict with their unsaved spouses – so

they are not to initiate a divorce, but neither should they try to restrain a spouse intent on

leaving them. Thus we can see that these kinds of marriages are considered to be righteous and

binding. The Lord wills that the married remain together even if their relationship began when

they were unbelievers.

1 Corinthians 7:25-28 (ESV) – “Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the

Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. [26] I think that in

view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. [27] Are you bound to a

wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. [28] But if you do

marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those

who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.”

This passage is addressing virgins who are betrothed. The Greek word translated “betrothed” in

verse 25 is “parthenos,” meaning “virgin.” In verse 27, Paul addresses those who are bound to a

woman. A virgin who is “bound” to a woman must be betrothed to her, thus supporting the ESV

translation of “parthenos” in verse 25. The word “parthenos” appears again in verse 28, and is

translated “betrothed woman” in the ESV. So this context indicates that those who are “free

from a wife,” but who “have not sinned” if they do marry, are betrothed virgin men. The

subject of this passage must be the betrothal and marriage of virgins, not the remarriage of

divorced people.

1 Corinthians 7:29-35 (ESV) – “This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown

very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, [30] and those

who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not

rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, [31] and those who deal with the

world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing

away. [32] I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things

of the Lord, how to please the Lord. [33] But the married man is anxious about worldly things,

how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed

woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the

1 BlueLetterBible.org website. [Online]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1210&t=ESV.

60

married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. [35] I say this for

your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure

your undivided devotion to the Lord.”

Paul anticipates the Day of the Lord arriving in short order, and as such he recommends that

the Corinthians remain in their current marital state. To become married is to devote a

significant portion of one’s time and energy to another person, rather than preparation for the

Lord’s coming.

Now the question may arise: does Paul recommend singleness above marriage for all believers,

or is his message in this chapter intended for a specific group of people in a particular situation?

A detailed exploration of this question is beyond the scope of this text, but he clearly states that

this advice is his (admittedly weighty) opinion, and not a command from the Lord. Furthermore,

he says that he intends to lay no restraint on them with these words, but simply wants to

secure their devotion to Christ. Given that marriage is regarded highly elsewhere in Scripture,

the most likely interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 is that Paul is advising the Corinthians in particular to

remain in the condition in which they were called to prepare for the Lord’s coming – a

recommendation perhaps motivated by the divisions we know existed within their church.

1 Corinthians 7:36-38 (ESV) – “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his

betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--

it is no sin. [37] But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but

having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his

betrothed, he will do well. [38] So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who

refrains from marriage will do even better.”

Here Paul concludes his line of reasoning about remaining in one’s current state with the

assertion that nothing is wrong with a betrothed couple getting married, if their passions are

running high. But he points out that whoever has the gift of celibacy (at least for the time

being), and is able to refrain from marriage to their betrothed, is in the best position of all.

1 Corinthians 7:39-40 (ESV) – “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her

husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. [40] Yet in my

judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.”

As we have already discussed, verse 39 pairs nicely with Romans 7:2 to emphasize the

permanence of the marriage union in God’s eyes. Once a woman is married in the Lord, she is

bound until death. Only widows may re-marry, as we saw in 1 Cor. 7:8-9. And once again, he

61

closes by recommending that widows are better off if they remain unmarried, as Paul is (1 Cor.

7:9). The implication is that Paul himself was married, and then lost his wife. If this is so, his

advice would carry even more weight.

To summarize this examination of Paul’s views on marriage:

A husband and wife are bound for life. If each one is a believer, neither spouse may seek

a divorce, nor marry another.

A husband ought to love his wife as himself, meeting her needs sacrificially and making

sure she knows that she is precious to him.

If a brother or sister was called to the Lord after marriage, but not their spouse, they

should not get a divorce. If their unbelieving partner divorces them, they should not

seek a new marriage.

The Lord never spoke of the betrothed, but Paul urges them to remain in their current

state if their desire is under control.

It is best to remain in one’s current marital status if possible (but virgins, widowers, and

widows do not sin if they marry). This advice is probably not a general command to the

Church, but more likely is a temporary recommendation made to the Corinthian church

body due to internal strife.

62

Handling the Implications

The conclusions we’ve reached about divorce and remarriage may be off-putting, painting

God’s instructions as unrealistic and harsh. This paper has a particularly hard message for

divorced Christians who are now happily married to their second (or third) spouse. Is God truly

telling such couples to separate, and return to the wife or husband of their youth? What if

there are kids involved?

The doctrine is black and white, but in real life a variety of complex situations may arise,

seeming to challenge the moral basis of God’s law. We certainly need to consider all the

ramifications of this Biblical understanding of divorce and remarriage. At the same time, we

must be careful to distinguish between theological flaws and emotional reactions. If the

Scriptural foundation for a doctrine is sound, it cannot be shaken by arguments born of one’s

personal sense of rightness. The heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9).

Putting God On Trial

When someone is first presented with God’s stance on divorce and remarriage, their natural

reaction may be either skepticism or consternation. For example, what do we say to a woman

(or man) suffering repeated physical or emotional abuse from their spouse? Would the Lord

really require them to remain as they are?

Divorce and Difficult Marriage Situations

God doesn’t seem to give us specific instructions on how to handle cases of abusive marriages,

so the answer may be found through knowledge of His character. Through Moses, our Father

set down many laws that were intended to protect the innocent and helpless as much as

possible (as we’ve seen). It would not be consistent with His nature to tell someone that they

must simply endure abuse from the one person who is supposed to be there for them,

reflecting God’s love for His children and Christ’s love for the church.

We also know that Paul said to terminate our association with “sexually immoral people,”

which he then explains to be a general reference to unrepentant sinners (1 Cor. 5:9-13). In 2

Thessalonians 3:6, we are instructed to “keep away from every believer who is idle and

disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.”

63

A man or woman who consistently abuses their marriage partner can most certainly be

considered an unrepentant sinner, and as such, the victimized spouse should separate

themselves not only from the dangerous situation, but also from the corruptive influence of the

abuser. In such cases, then, a separation is allowed, and perhaps even commanded. However,

there is no Biblical basis to authorize a divorce, and certainly not remarriage.

It may come across as cold or heartless to tell victims of marital abuse that while they may be

separated, they are not allowed to divorce their spouse, let alone remarry. But this feeling

stems largely from the modern Western concept of marriage as a legal contract that may be

freely initiated or ended at any time, as well as the exaltation of personal happiness and

fulfillment into the status of inalienable human rights. This attitude is at odds with the

selflessness and joy in Christ characteristic of God’s children.

We have a higher standard to uphold – God’s standard. He has ordained that the marriage

covenant endures for a lifetime. Once we grasp the true sanctity of this one-flesh union

between a man and his wife, we can understand why the Father wants us to remain faithful to

our spouse even when they fail us time and again. But far from asking that victims suffer

needlessly, He provides an escape for those of us in dangerous or traumatic relationships. The

innocent should remove themselves from these toxic situations, while still leaving the door

open to repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

We are called to love our enemies – even an abusive spouse. We are called to forgive not once,

not twice, but seventy times seven. We are called to be the light of the world, radiant with the

astonishing and supernatural love of the Almighty God. This is impossible, but with God, all

things are possible!

“I Do” Over: Remarriage

How could a loving God forbid divorced men or women from seeking companionship and

romance again after suffering through a bad marriage? At the least, it only seems fair that the

spouse who did not initiate the divorce be allowed to marry again.

Consider the underlying assumption behind this question: through this strict command, God is

denying people the happiness they deserve. This, however, is far from the truth. First of all, we

do not possess an innate right to have happiness in this life. Those who follow Christ are

promised peace and happiness only after they have run the race, enduring until the end –

which is their death, resurrection, and judgment. Until that time, believers are told to expect

difficulties and trials, as well as correction from their Father in heaven when they fall into sin.

64

Marriage is not just another kind of fun relationship, or just another blessing from God. He

never designed it to be a casual arrangement that people may enter or exit as they see fit.

Although humans may deem a divorce to be justified, and a second or third marriage to be

perfectly acceptable, God still sees the first marriage union as being intact. So for those who are

divorced and considering a new marriage, they should remain unmarried: to do otherwise is to

commit adultery.

A more difficult case concerns those believers who have already remarried and begun a good

life with their new spouse. When two people already have an intimate, loving relationship, it

would seem cruel to ask them to abruptly cast each other aside. It becomes even more

troubling if they have kids together. After all, children deserve to have a stable, two-parent

home life. Divorce can really hurt them, and in some cases can hinder their ability to form

lasting relationships later in life.

But think about it from a different angle: what if a remarried person has kids from their first

and second marriages? Either way, at least one set of children will be left without a consistent

father figure. Furthermore, the former spouse is now abandoned by their rightful partner, a

situation that may lead them to further heartache, as well as sin through relationships with

others.

There is no perfect solution to this problem – no matter what, someone will be hurt, or

someone will continue living in rebellion against God. Now, the Lord has proven that He

tolerates sinful situations for a time, and makes the best of them with legislation that guards

the innocent parties and minimizes the magnitude or frequency of the sins committed (Deut.

22:28-29, 24:1-4; Ex. 21:7-11). This principle extends to remarriage situations, in which the new

spouse and any children would be hurt by a divorce.

Genesis 21:9-12 (ESV) – “But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to

Abraham, laughing. [10] So she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this slave woman with her son, for

the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.’ [11] And the thing was very

displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. [12] But God said to Abraham, ‘Be not displeased

because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she

tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’”

Here the Father tells Abraham to follow Sarah’s wishes and send away his illegitimate wife and

the son he had by her. But He doesn’t stop there:

65

Genesis 21:17-20 (ESV) – “And God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to

Hagar from heaven and said to her, ‘What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard

the voice of the boy where he is. [18] Up! Lift up the boy, and hold him fast with your hand, for I

will make him into a great nation.’ [19] Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water.

And she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. [20] And God was with

the boy, and he grew up. He lived in the wilderness and became an expert with the bow.”

God provides for the innocent (yet illegitimate) son, though He ordained that Abraham should

send him away along with Hagar. Thus He ends an ongoing sinful marriage, but takes care of

those who are affected by that act.

The Lord’s will regarding unrighteous marriages is expressed more directly in the following

passage:

Ezra 10:2-3, 10-11 (ESV) – “And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra:

‘We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the

land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. [3] Therefore let us make a covenant

with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord

and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the

Law.’… [10] And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, ‘You have broken faith and married

foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. [11] Now then make confession to the

LORD, the God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land

and from the foreign wives.’”

Ezra 10:44 (ESV) – “All these had married foreign women, and some of the women had even

borne children.”

This is not to say that God always requires that people who have married illegitimately or

adulterously must cast away their kids. He makes it clear that such marriages should be ended,

but He doesn’t specify how custody and care of the children should be handled. This matter

should most likely be decided on a case-by-case basis, with the Spirit’s guidance.

Objections

A number of challenges have been made against the doctrine that remarriage is prohibited for

Christians. Let’s take a look at some of the most common.

66

Isn’t The Innocent Spouse Permitted to Remarry?

This objection treats Christ’s condemnation of remarriage as applicable only to the divorcing

(sinning) spouse. Thus the one who was the victim of the divorce should not be penalized for

the sin of their spouse, trapped in a perpetual state of singleness. As Pastor Ron Riffe explains:

“The phrase ‘causes her to commit adultery’ [from Matt. 5:32] is taken by many to mean if the innocent

woman (or man) remarries--something almost necessary for survival for women in those days--adultery

would be committed. But I believe, as do many others, that what the Lord is saying has to do with public

perception. The responsibility for divorce is clearly laid upon the one initiating it and in doing so, that

individual would cause their innocent spouse to be perceived by others as having been unfaithful. That

perception of unfaithfulness would then extend to anyone marrying her and brand them as an adulterer

as well. But we do not want to overlook the probability of the initiator remarrying first--the most

common reason for divorce in the first place--thereby being unfaithful and committing

fornication/adultery themselves. This then gives the innocent party unquestionable grounds for divorce

and as I understand the Scriptures, adultery is not the result of their remarriage.” 1

This interpretation is problematic. First, there is no reason to believe that Christ’s statement

has anything to do with perception alone. His ministry as a whole is characterized by teachings

which focus on a person’s heart motivations, and which state in no uncertain terms the true

meaning of the Old Testament law. Also, the immediate context of Matt. 5:32 proves that this

statement is not about outsiders’ perspective on the matter. In fact, the general consensus in

those days was that divorce and remarriage were allowed for a variety of reasons (the Hillelite

view). A divorceé would not necessarily be branded as an adulteress.

Second, Riffe suggests that it’s most probable that the initiator of the divorce will be the first to

remarry, which would provide grounds for the innocent party to divorce. But the divorce has

already occurred, so this possibility has no bearing on the question of their right to marry

another. In this scenario, the actual divorce was undertaken for an invalid cause, leading to

unfaithfulness on the part of the initiator. It is highly unlikely that the victim in this situation

would seek another divorce for the “valid” ground of their spouse’s remarriage.

Jesus Used Exaggerations to Make His Point

Some claim that Jesus frequently used extreme overstatements to make a point, including his

sayings on divorce and remarriage. This view holds that it would be fallacious to take Christ’s

1 CuttingEdge.org website. [Online] http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/p194.htm

67

words literally in such cases, and that he failed to mention exceptions that he would

nevertheless recognize as valid.

Dr. David Instone-Brewer, a scholar on the Jewish background to the New Testament, has

written perhaps one of the strongest treatises in support of the idea that divorce and

remarriage are permitted for believers in the event of adultery, desertion, or

emotional/physical abuse or neglect. Part of his argument includes the notion that Christ’s

sayings in Matt. 5:32 and 19:8-9 were not intended to be taken literally.

“When Jesus answered with a resounding no, he wasn’t condemning ‘divorce for any cause,’ but

rather the newly invented ‘any cause’ divorce. Jesus agreed firmly with the second group that

the phrase didn’t mean divorce was allowable for ‘immorality’ and for ‘any cause,’ but that

Deuteronomy 24:1 referred to no type of divorce ‘except immorality.’

“This was a shocking statement for the crowd and for the disciples. It meant they couldn’t get a

divorce whenever they wanted it – there had to be a lawful cause. It also meant that virtually

every divorced man or women was not really divorced, because most of them had ‘any cause’

divorces.

“Luke and Matthew summarized the whole debate in one sentence: Any divorced person who

remarried was committing adultery (Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18), because they were still married.

The fact that they said ‘any divorced person’ instead of ‘virtually all divorced people’ is typical

Jewish hyperbole – like Mark saying that ‘everyone’ in Jerusalem came to be baptized by John

(Mark 1:5). It may not be obvious to us, but their first readers understood clearly what they

meant.” 1

On the surface, Instone-Brewer appears to make a valid point. The question posed by the

Pharisees did concern the validity of an ‘any cause’ divorce – thus Jesus may only be addressing

those who have divorced in this way. It is also true that “everyone” does not always truly mean

“everyone” in Scripture, but in the context could merely refer to a large group of people.

However, this interpretation ignores the fact that Christ actually skipped right over the debate

of valid cause to strike at the heart of the matter: Moses allowed divorce due to their hardness

of heart, but this was not so from the beginning. Here he includes all forms of divorce, however

one might interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-4. So the immediate context denies Instone-Brewer’s

assertion that Jesus exaggerated when he spoke of any divorced person.

1 What God Has Joined. Instone-Brewer, Dr. David. October 2007, Christianity Today, Vol. 51, No. 10, p. 26.

68

Furthermore, Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary responds directly

to Dr. Instone-Brewer’s argument by describing the nature of Christ’s discourse here:

“Instone-Brewer’s response to my argument (as indicated in e-mail correspondence) is that one

shouldn’t press the point about the immorality of remarriage for an invalidly divorced woman.

Jesus, he argues, is speaking here, as with the antitheses in Matt. 5:21-48 generally, in a Jewish

sermonic style loaded with exaggeration and hyperbole. Jesus doesn’t mean that the man in

question is literally or legally committing adultery (with civil penalties attached) when he

married an invalidly divorced woman but rather that he is committing adultery at most only in a

virtual or moral sense (with guilt before God but no civil penalty).

“In my view, this response by Instone-Brewer is inadequate. The setting for Jesus’ discussion of

divorce in Mark 10:2-12 par. Matt. 19:3-12 is more like a halakhic (legal) debate than a

haggadic or sermonic message. Matthew’s inclusion of an exception clause in both 5:32 and

19:9 also suggests a halakhic (not haggadic) mode. Luke, for his part, does not appear to treat

the Q saying in Luke 16:18 as a piece of exaggerated sermonizing but rather as a ruling by Jesus

that safeguards the sanctity of God’s law against human efforts at self-serving manipulation.” 1

So even if Jesus’ saying in Matt. 5:32 was sermonic exaggeration, his response to the Pharisees

in Matt. 19:8-9 most likely was intended as a legal pronouncement, which would allow no room

for hyperbole.

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

Proponents of this objection deny that the Lord requires those who have remarried in sin to

separate, saying that a new divorce would be just as wrong as the one prior. The implicit

assumption here is that all marriages, righteous or unrighteous, are joined by God and binding.

Adultery is a one-time act that begins the union, but does not characterize it.

But they ignore how Scripture teaches that illegitimate marriages remain sinful, meaning that a

divorce in such cases is actually a pleasing thing to the Lord: it marks the end of the unrighteous

union, as an obedient response to His will. Two wrongs may not make a right, but how about

one wrong followed by one right? That would at least be a step in the right direction.

1 Gagnon, Dr. Robert A.J. Divorce and Remarriage-After-Divorce in Jesus and Paul: A Response to David Instone-

Brewer. [Online] http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/DivorceOUPEntrySexualityS.pdf.

69

Now, to revisit an earlier point, would a divorce not create turmoil and distress for both

husband and wife, when they may have had a loving and peaceful relationship until then? How

can this be right?

Again, these questions are posed from a man-centered perspective. To see the issue more

clearly, it may help to analyze a different but comparable situation. Say that a single father is

struggling to make ends meet, working two jobs and taking care of his kids and household. Then

he meets a wonderful woman who happens to be a wealthy CEO, and they fall in love. After a

whirlwind courtship, he proposes to her and she accepts. Once they are married, he’s able to

quit both jobs and start a new position doing something he enjoys. The kids love their new

stepmother, as well as their new, improved life.

The woman often works late or flies out of town on business trips, but still manages to spend

quality time with her new husband and kids. After a year, the man makes a horrific discovery:

his wife is living a double life. She already has a husband, and her frequent “business trips”

were actually trips back to her other home to see her original (true) family. After recovering

from the initial shock, he now faces a choice: keep this knowledge to himself, and continue

living a good and comfortable life, or expose her deception, which will certainly lead to a

divorce (or perhaps an annulment), but probably not much in the way of alimony or child

support.

When presented with this rather extreme scenario, most Christians would probably say that the

man should end his faux marriage, despite the difficult aftermath that would follow. After all, it

would be wrong for him to continue living with this woman when she is already married to

someone else. The Lord is not being cruel or unreasonable to require that they end this

adulterous relationship, as positive and loving as it may be.

But this is essentially the same situation in which any remarried person finds him or herself!

God does not consider their previous marriage covenant to be dissolved, so a new marriage is

in fact adultery.

Ignorance of the Law

Suppose that a man divorces his wife for what he believes is a Biblically justified cause – e.g.,

for adultery. Thinking that he is now free to remarry, he weds another woman, who has a

similar understanding of the subject of divorce and remarriage. Was their marriage truly

unrighteous, given that their motivations were pure?

70

It would be a rare discovery to find a human government whose laws don’t apply to citizens

who happen to be ignorant of said laws. It would be even more unusual to find a government

that would forgive such citizens of continuing to break a law after they become aware of their

guilt, just because their initial violation occurred before they learned of the law.

The same is true of God and his commandments to us. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and

does not cancel out the evil of violating it. Now, it is true that He would not consider the man

and woman from the above example to have guilty hearts, as long as they ended their

relationship after learning what the Bible really says about remarriage. But He would still ask

that they put a stop to their marital relations – their intentions and motivations at the time that

they became married may prove their innocence in God’s eyes, yet their actions would still be

wrong.

Luke 12:47-48 (ESV) – “And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or

act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. [48] But the one who did not know, and

did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given,

of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the

more.”

Acts 3:17-19 (ESV) – “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your

rulers. [18] But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer,

he thus fulfilled. [19] Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out…”

Applying the Doctrine

After learning the Lord’s heart on marriage and divorce, the next step is to apply our knowledge

– being doers of the Word, and not hearers only.

Repentance does not merely require you to be sorry for your sin, ask forgiveness, and then

continue living as you have been. It is an unscriptural idea that the Lord can forgive the

adulterous act of remarriage, thus “blessing” the new marriage and allowing it to remain in

place. Proponents of this view most likely have conflated the doctrine of conversion and

sanctification with repentance. In other words, they believe that just as a sinful person can be

washed clean and made righteous in God’s eyes through His forgiveness, so a sinful situation

(such as an illegitimate marriage) can be redeemed and made righteous through forgiveness.

However, this doctrine fails to recognize that redemption is impossible for those who do not

71

turn from their ways. Through conversion, God frees a person from the mastery of sin, allowing

them to change and become more and more like Christ.

John 8:3-4; 10-11 (ESV) – “The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been

caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst [4] they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman has

been caught in the act of adultery.’ ... [10] Jesus stood up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are

they? Has no one condemned you?’ [11] She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I

condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.’”

Here Christ summarizes the nature of repentance: it begins with a contrite heart, continues

with God’s forgiveness, but is accomplished only if the person puts a halt to their sinful actions

and embarks on a new course.

As we have seen earlier in this paper, participants in an unrighteous marriage are living in a

state of adultery. It is not merely a one-time sin. If it was, the marital union would

simultaneously be an act of adultery and a righteous one-flesh union joined by God. This cannot

be so, for it would be an illogical, contradictory state of affairs. So for Christians who are

married to someone other than their first living, righteous spouse, the only path to repentance

and true forgiveness involves separation from their current partner.

Luke 18:28-30 (ESV) – “And Peter said, ‘See, we have left our homes and followed you.’ [29]

And he said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers

or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive many

times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.’”

As difficult as it may be, as impossible as it may seem to do, believers could be called to leave

those who are most dear to them for the sake of the kingdom (for a variety of potential

reasons). All the more so when the relationships in question are inherently sinful, such as

adulterous re-marriages.

Revelation 21:8 (ESV) – “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers,

the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that

burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Matthew 16:24-27 (ESV) – “Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If anyone would come after me, let

him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. [25] For whoever would save his life will

lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. [26] For what will it profit a man if he

gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? [27]

72

For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will

repay each person according to what he has done.’”

While these passages are intense and fearsome, remember that God does not ask us to do

something without providing us the strength and support we need. If we honestly and

prayerfully seek His will in our lives, He will guide us through the valley of the shadow of death,

bringing others alongside us during our journey. Then in the age to come, He will reward us

with eternal life and with relationships unblemished by sin and selfishness.

Revelation 21:4 (ESV) – “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no

more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have

passed away.”

Isaiah 65:17-18, 23 (ESV) – “‘For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former

things shall not be remembered or come into mind. [18] But be glad and rejoice forever in that

which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. ... [23]

They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the

blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them.’”