The reasons I write are as follows:

1. I believe the standard Evangelical interpretations that allow divorce and remarriage are in error. There is a more accurate synthesis of the texts concerning divorce and remarriage.

2. This is a biblical subject. Many have relegated it to the area of counseling or sociology. The New Testament addresses this issue six times. It must hold relevance for the church today.

3. A significant portion of the Evangelical Church not only allows, but promotes remarriage and sometimes divorce. In some circles it is presented as a viable option to lifelong monogamous marriage. To others it is merely an academic issue. They say: "Here are the options, pick one." Adultery must be considered a more important subject.

4. Divorce and remarriage are leaving a wake of devastation behind them. It seems odd that believers would practice and sometimes encourage the very thing that is destroying homes, churches, and society. Divorce and remarriage are leaving emotional scars on adults and children alike. Evangelicals are good at speaking out against sins such as homosexuality. Divorce and remarriage have affected society just as much as homosexuality. Very few spouses desert their partners for members of the same sex. The number of people who divorce and remarry is staggering.

5. Divorces do occur even after one spouse has done everything in their power to preserve the relationship. In these cases divorce is particularly heart breaking. Divorce may take place against one’s will; remarriage does not. Those who enter a second marriage do so of their own choice.

6. God has given believers a written revelation as the standard for His church. When interpreted according to normal, literal, and grammatical-historical principles the Word of God teaches remarriage after divorce is sin. It is not a matter of whether God forgives divorce, He does. Nor is it a matter of whether the church should have compassion on divorcees, they should. Rather, the issue at stake is whether the church should regard divorce and remarriage as sin at all.

This subject is controversial but it will not go away. The number of divorces will continue to increase. The Church must have a loving, yet firm, biblical answer.

Man fell when Adam and Eve took of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Sin entered the world and has affected all aspects of man’s life ever since. The sins of adultery, fornication, polygamy, incest, and divorce have perverted God’s divine intention for marriage. When the Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, the oral traditions of Judaism had either nullified or changed many of God’s commands. The theological school of Shammai taught that a man could divorce his wife for sexual sins such as fornication or adultery. The school of Hillel claimed that a man could divorce his wife for almost any reason. The view of Hillel was more popular and usually followed. ¹ Both schools claimed the right for the divorced person to remarry. ²

The Lord Jesus Christ came and stated God’s original intent for marriage:

1. Permanence - The husband and wife are one flesh. They are permanently joined in a covenant relationship for life. No person has the legal right to end what God has joined together. No sin or legal document can dissolve the one flesh bond.

2. Forgiveness - This is Christ’s emphasis on dealing with sin. When one spouse fails, the love of Christ compels the other to forgive. Hardness of heart is the cause of unforgiveness and divorce.

Is it possible that two thousand years later some of the oral traditions of evangelicalism have nullified or changed the commands of Christ? Have they been replaced with the traditions of men? ³ In theory some Christians are taught that they may divorce and remarry if their spouse commits adultery or deserts them. In practice many believers are divorcing and remarrying for almost any reason.

The Lord Jesus Christ reaffirmed God’s original intentions regarding forgiveness and divorce. The Word of God has not changed. "What God has joined together, let no man separate "(Mark 10:9).

____________________________________________________

 Church History

In the first centuries after Christ, Greek and Latin were used extensively by early Christian writers. Though not infallible, these men had a built-in understanding of Greek grammar and Roman culture that may have given them insights into the New Testament which we may not possess. They lived in the social context in which the divorce and remarriage teachings of the New Testament were expounded. We can learn something from their cultural and linguistic understanding of Scripture. In all, twenty-five out of twenty-six early church writers and two early church councils prohibited remarriage after divorce for any reason. ¹ Though their writings are not authoritative, one must take their conclusions into consideration. In an age of debate over some of the most basic doctrines, their virtual unanimity on divorce and remarriage is amazing. ² The early Christian writers who taught that remarriage after divorce for any reason was adultery include Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Athanasius, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Basil of Ancyra, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Innocent I, Pelagius, Jerome, Leo the Great, and Augustine. ³ The Council of Elvira (A.D. 306) and the Council of Arles (A.D. 314) declared the same.

The lone patristic dissenter was a Latin bishop named Ambrosiaster. He wrote commentaries on Pauline epistles between A.D. 366 and 383. Little else is known about him. He is the only writer we have that allowed remarriage after divorce in limited circumstances. He allowed both partners to remarry if deserted by a pagan spouse. He did not allow remarriage if a spouse was deserted by a person who claimed to be a Christian. He allowed only the man to remarry in cases of adultery. ⁴

Space does not permit going into detail of the writings of every early church writer. Some of the earliest writings will be given as evidence of patristic interpretation concerning divorce and remarriage.

Probably the earliest writing we possess is from Hermas. He wrote The Shepherd of Hermas about A.D. 160. In his second book, "Commandments", Hermas speaks about putting away one’s wife for adultery. He writes:

"If any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he is also guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices? And he said, the husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: Shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently". ⁵

Hermas saw the man who continued to live with an adulteress wife, as a sharer in her adultery. Though allowing for the divorce, he saw the marriage as still intact. Because the one flesh bond still existed, Hermas did not allow a person to remarry after their spouse was divorced. This was his interpretation of the ‘exception clause’ in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. He required the husband to cease living with an adulterous wife. If the husband did not leave room for repentance and acceptance of his wife, after repentance, it was also a sin. He adds the term "but not frequently" to show that true repentance will change the actions of one’s life.

Justin Martyr wrote his First Apology about A.D. 150. Chapters 15-17 are a Christian catechism based on the Sermon on the Mount and other Gospel portions. Chapter 15 is subtitled, "What Christ Himself Taught." Justin Martyr quotes Matthew 5:32. He gives no exceptions for remarriage. He lists lust and remarriage as sinning against Christ:

Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery. And, there are some who have been born eunuchs of men, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but all cannot receive this saying. So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eyes of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. ⁶

Athenagoras wrote his Plea for Christians around A.D. 177. He states:

For we bestow our attention, not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions, 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. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race. ⁷

Athenagoras was writing this letter to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Anoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus. The purpose of it was to defend the rationality of the Christian faith and the superiority of its morals. Athenagoras uses marriage as one example of Christianity’s higher standards. Pagans divorce their wives and marry again; Christians do not. Athenagoras’ interpretation of Matthew 19 is that a second marriage equals adultery. He appears to be influenced by Phrygian Montanism for not allowing remarriage after either spouse’s death. This does not nullify the fact that he saw divorce and remarriage to be a form of adultery.

Clement of Alexandria was the headmaster of the Christian school in Alexandria, Egypt from A.D. 190-202. Book II of the Stromata or Miscellanies was written to show that Christian morality was superior to paganism. Book III is an exposition on Christian marriage.

Clement has this to say regarding the biblical understanding of marriage:

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..."He that taketh a woman that has been put away," it is said, "committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress," that is compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. ⁸

Clement is quoting Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. He sees the exception clause as allowing only separation or divorce. It does not allow for remarriage. A complete reading of all Clement’s works tells us the purpose for the divorce is to allow the believer to separate from that which is unclean, namely a fornicating spouse. If the spouse repents of their sin, they become clean and are to be received back unto conjugal relations. The reason for divorce is not to permit remarriage. He claims remarriage after divorce is adultery in every instance while the other spouse lives.

Origen (A.D. 185-254) wrote extensive commentaries on the Scriptures. He has this to say in a commentary on Matthew:

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 her declaration of our Savior. ⁹

A woman may be legally remarried, yet the Savior calls it adultery.

The Council of Arles (A.D. 314) Canon 10 states:

As regards those who find their wives to be guilty of adultery, and who being Christians are, though young men, forbidden to marry, we decree that, so far as may be, counsel be given them not to take other wives, while their own, though guilty of adultery, are yet living. ¹⁰

Men who divorce adulterous wives are not allowed to remarry.

John Chrysostom (ca. A.D. 347-407) lived a pure and simple life. He was called "Chrysostom" (golden mouthed) shortly after his death because of his skill as an Expositor and Orator. In his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew he has this to say regarding the passages which include the ‘exception clause’:

And observe Him everywhere addressing His discourse to the man. Thus, "He that putteth away his wife," saith He, "causeth her to commit adultery, and he that marrieth a woman put away, committeth adultery." That is, the former, though he take not another wife, by that act alone hath made himself liable to blame, having made the first an adulteress; the later again is become an adulterer by taking her who is another’s. For tell me not this, "the other hath cast her out;" nay, for when cast out she continued to be the wife of him that expelled her...And not thus only, but in another way also He hath lightened the enactment: forasmuch as even for him He leaves one manner of dismissal, when He saith, "Except for the cause of fornication;" since the matter had else come round again to the same issue. For if He had commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling herself with many, He would have made the matter end again in adultery.¹¹

But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not, that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many women. But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of law giving, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her. ¹²

Chrysostom sees the marriage as remaining intact even if a wife is divorced or expelled from the home. He allows the man to separate from a fornicating wife so that he is not defiled by his wife’s adultery. He does not allow either the man or the woman to remarry in such instances.

Augustine (A.D. 354-430) was one of the most prolific writers in the history of the church. Augustine taught marriage was a divine mystery and an analogy of the unity of the church. He wrote nine Moral Treatises. On the Good of Marriage reads:

"For whosoever putteth away his wife, except for the case of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery." To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil. But I marvel, if, as it is allowed to put away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed, having put her away, to marry another. For holy Scripture causes a hard knot in this matter, in that the Apostle says, that, by commandment of the Lord, the wife ought not to depart from her husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband; whereas surely she ought not to depart and remain unmarried, save from an husband that is an adulterer, lest by withdrawing from him, who is not an adulterer, she cause him to commit adultery. But I see not how the man can have permission to marry another, in case he have left an adulteress, when a woman has not to be married to another, in case she have left an adulterer. And, this being the case, so strong is that bond of fellowship in married persons, that, although it be tied for the sake of begetting children, not even for the sake of begetting children is it loosed. For it is in a man’s power to put away a wife that is barren, and marry one of whom to have children. And yet it is not allowed; and now indeed, in our times, and after the usage of Rome, neither to marry in addition, so as to have more than one wife living: and surely, in case of an adulteress or adulterer being left, it would be possible that more men should be born, if either the woman were married to another, or the man should marry another. And yet, if to prescribe, who is there but it must make him attentive to learn what is the meaning of this so great strength of the marriage bond?...Seeing that the compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. ¹³

On Marriage and Concupiscence states:

So enduring, indeed, are the rights of marriage between those who have contracted them, as long as they both live, that even they are looked on as man and wife still, who have separated from one another, rather than they between a new connection has been formed. For by this new connection they would not be guilty of adultery, if the previous matrimonial relation did not still continue. If the husband die, with whom a true marriage was made, a true marriage is now possible by a connection which would before have been adultery. Thus between the conjugal pair, as long as they live, the nuptial bond has a permanent obligation, and can be canceled neither by separation nor by union with another. ¹⁴

Augustine begins his argument by citing Matthew 5:32. This passage contains the ‘exception clause’ which allows divorce when fornication has been committed. He calls marriage a sacrament but uses the word in a different sense than later Roman Catholicism. Marriage is such a "compact" that separation does not allow the woman to remarry if her husband deserts her. If the woman remarries she commits adultery. The deserting husband is said to be the cause of this evil. Augustine marvels that society allows a man to remarry after putting away an adulterous wife. He recognizes this "causes a hard knot" but realizes that Paul’s command in I Corinthians 7:10-11 says the woman is not to depart. If she does depart she is to remain unmarried. Augustine synthesizes these passages by allowing the woman to depart only in the case of an adulterous husband. He does not allow the woman to remarry. Since Scripture forbids the woman to remarry after departing from an adulterous husband Augustine does not see how a man could have permission to remarry after leaving an adulterous wife. Men and women are married for the purpose of procreation, this purpose cannot loose them. Scripture forbids remarriage after divorce even in cases of adultery. If they remarry after divorce they commit adultery with whom they are joined.

Although the final determinant of any doctrine is Scripture, one must take these writings into consideration. If Jesus did allow remarriage after divorce, why do we have no record of it being taught or practiced? Where did the no remarriage doctrine come from? The early Christian writers had a first hand linguistic and cultural understanding of the teachings of Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. Their view was the majority view of the church in the East until the 6^th century and of the church in the West until the 16^th century.

In the 13^th century Aquinas taught that marriage was a ‘sacrament’ that conveys divine grace to the recipients. ¹⁵ The Roman Catholic church adopted this view and further erred by allowing divorce and remarriage in the form of ecclesiastical annulments. ¹⁶ These views were canonized by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. ¹⁷

In 1519 the Catholic-humanist Erasmus stated that the innocent spouse in matters of adultery and desertion had the right to remarry. Though the idea did not originate with him it can be shown that under his influence this view gained broad acceptance. In Erasmus’ day salvation was said to come only through the institutional Roman Catholic Church. Erasmus saw injurious and unhappy marriages. He believed that church courts could be established to grant people divorces for serious reasons. The innocent party would then be granted permission to remarry by ecclesiastical authorities. Erasmus was aware of the scriptural teaching of no remarriage after divorce. He was a Greek scholar, yet his views were more influenced by social concerns than careful exegesis of relevant texts.

Since Erasmus allowed people to see their spouse as figuratively dead it is admitted that many today do not strictly follow his exegesis but only his conclusions. Most Christians today do not know this interpretation follows the tradition of Erasmus. The term "Erasmian" will be used to refer to those who allow remarriage after divorce because of adultery or desertion. It is not a derogatory term but one of convenience.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) sought reform of indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church. When Luther broke from the Church, Erasmus opposed this move. Nevertheless, Erasmus’ ideas were latched onto by the Reformers. Luther believed the innocent party of an adulterous situation could divorce and remarry. He taught that since the Old Testament legislated the death penalty for adultery, the adulterous spouse should be looked upon as figuratively dead. This type of legal fiction now allowed the ‘innocent’ spouse the right to remarry. Luther also allowed divorce and remarriage for impotence, refusal of conjugal rights, desertion, and ignorance of a previously contracted marriage. Perhaps his true views can be seen in how he actually applied the doctrine. Philip of Hesse was a supporter of Martin Luther. In 1540 Philip married Margaret Von Der Saale. Philip of Hesse was already married and had not even legally divorced his first wife. Luther did not confront this situation but simply urged the matter be kept secret. ¹⁸

John Calvin (1509-64) took a more conservative approach to divorce and remarriage while still retaining some more liberal conclusions. He rightly understood Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to only be a restraint upon a second remarriage. He did not see this passage as teaching approval of divorce and remarriage by God. Calvin did resort to legal fiction in allowing the innocent partner in the case of adultery to consider their spouse figuratively dead. ¹⁹ He allowed the deserted partner to remarry by way of assumption that the deserter would enter into another conjugal relationship.

In 1643 John Milton taught that Christ did not condemn divorce and remarriage, but only the injury they caused. He believed a couple could divorce for almost any reason, including mutual consent. He was thought of as radical and heretical for this view. ²⁰ His view comes closest to what is practiced by some Evangelicals today.

Summary

The early Christian writers had a virtual consensus in saying that remarriage after divorce, for any reason, was adultery. The Western Church held to a no remarriage view until the 16^th century. At this point Erasmus taught a divorced person may remarry, not by exegesis of the ‘exception clause’ but by interpretive legal fiction based on Old Testament law. The Reformers latched onto this view and canonized it in the Westminster Confession. It has held sway over much of the Protestant Church ever since.

The Westminster confession in Chapter 24 states:

Section V - Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract [Matthew. 1:18-20]. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce [Matthew 5:32], and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead [Matthew. 19:9; Romans. 7:2-3. Emphasis mine].

Section VI - Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage [Matthew. 19:8-9; 1 Corinthians. 7:15; Matthew. 19:6]; where in a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed, and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case [Deuteronomy 24:1-4]. ²¹

The Reformation was an attempt to return the church to first century beliefs and practices. The Reformers held the early Christian writers in high esteem. Calvin in his opening address to Francis, the King of France, stated:

So far are we from despising them, that if this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold are their suffrages. ²²

In some ways the Reformers returned to the faith and practices of the first century church. Concerning the issue of divorce and remarriage the evidence shows the Reformers failed. One thought is worth considering. Luther and some of the other Reformers were Catholic priests. Their emphasis was on the reform of other doctrines. It is doubtful that correct exegesis and application of the doctrine of divorce and remarriage was on the forefront of their minds.

The determinant of any doctrine is neither its newness nor antiquity. Scripture is the final rule on all matters of faith and practice. Nevertheless, a historical understanding may help one think through the issues.

Tony Lane, a lecturer at London Bible College, has used a historical perspective when he says:

If Jesus did allow remarriage, presumably it happened. How did it cease to happen, despite the fact that his teaching was known, leaving no trace either of a period when it happened or any controversy. Such a theory is no more plausible than a theory that the "Lord’s day" was originally on a Friday and that it changed to Sunday without leaving any trace of the change and without any controversy over the change. ²³

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them (Genesis 1:27).

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Genesis 2:23-24).

Marriage was ordained to be a one flesh covenant relationship. Adam and Eve were literally "one flesh". This is because Eve was formed from the physical flesh and bone of Adam’s side. From this time on their descendants were to marry and be joined in one flesh unions. It is possible that one flesh also has a predictive sense to it. Those who marry will normally produce offspring. The children they produce are literally one flesh brought forth by two parents. Children are a constant reminder that two became one flesh.

Genesis 2:24 states:

Man was to "leave" (azab/5800) his father and mother.

Man was to "cleave" (dabaq/1692) to his wife.

Man will become one "flesh" (basar/1320) with his wife.

The word for cleave means to cling, stick to or be joined with. The phrase "one flesh" carries the idea of being kin or blood relatives. John Oswalt writes:

To refer to someone as being of his own "flesh and bone" (Genesis 2:23) was to say more than they shared the same bodily heritage. Again, to say that a man and woman became one flesh is to say more than they are united bodily. ¹

The kinship nature of marriage is also indicated by the formula "bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh" (cf. Genesis 29:14, 37:27; Judges 9:2; 2 Samuel 5:1, 19:12,13; I Chronicles 11:1). ²

When a man and woman are united in marriage it is the same as being "kin" or a "blood relative". It is the same kind of relationship that exists between parent and child. Sin may create disharmony between a parent and child; however, they can never cease to be parent and child. A husband and wife may have disharmony but sin does not cause them to cease being husband and wife.

The book of Genesis teaches marriage is a covenant commitment. The nature of this one flesh covenant is that it is indissoluble. Cleave is a covenant term used to show God’s relationship to His people (cf. Deuteronomy 10:20, 11:22, 13:4, 30:20; Joshua 22:5, 23:8; Ruth 1:14-16). This is why marriage is used as a picture of God’s relationship with His people Israel in the Old Testament.

By this time in history, divorce and remarriage were practiced by the Israelites. God intervened and prohibited the practice of a second remarriage back to one’s original spouse.

The Jews allowed the man, not the woman, the right to initiate divorce for "some uncleanness" (ervah/6172; dabar/1697). Literally this means a "naked" or "indecent thing". By the time of Christ the Jews had interpreted this phrase to mean everything from adultery to burning a meal or talking too loud. "Some uncleanness" cannot refer to adultery. The penalty for this was death. Those who had sexual relations during the betrothal period were also punished by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:20-24). Most likely the Jews were divorcing their wives for any cause (Matthew 19:3) and then remarrying.

Some claim that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 established or gave approval for divorce and remarriage. Take a close look at this passage. A careful exegesis of the text does not produce this conclusion.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, When she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for this is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, NKJV). ³

The text states that divorce was happening because a man found some uncleanness in his wife. We have already shown that this would not equal adultery. It also says she went and became another man’s wife. The text does not say God approved of this. In fact it is possible that this was happening numerous times to the same woman (cf. verse 3).

At this point in history the Law did not regulate the first, second, or subsequent divorces. It only regulated remarriage in one case; the remarriage of a woman back to her original husband. This law was probably given to protect the rights of the woman. If a man could divorce his wife and then take her back this would open the door for covert adultery. The lustful husband could divorce his wife and remarry for a short period of time to have a "legal" affair. When this was over he could then divorce the second woman and remarry his original wife. The law concerning divorce would prevent her from being used in this way. Some see this passage as forbidding wife trading in a culture that bought and traded women like chattel. This law may have been given to protect the rights and dowry of the woman.

Verse 4 gives the only regulations of the text. The woman who was divorced and remarried was forever prohibited from returning to her original husband, even if her second husband died. Two reasons are given for this restriction. First, she had been "defiled" (tame/2930). This word can be translated as "cultically unclean" or "to pollute oneself". ⁴ It is the same word used throughout the Old Testament regarding a person who has sexual relations that are prohibited. These included rape (Genesis 34:5); incest (Leviticus 18:5-18); adultery (Leviticus 18:20); homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22); and bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). The evidence points to it being remarriage that defiled the woman and made her unclean. Second, the practice of returning to one’s original husband, after divorce and remarriage, is an abomination to God and brings sin upon the land.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 did not establish divorce. It did not give Divine approval for divorce or remarriage. The only command or regulation given, was the prohibition of the divorced and remarried woman from ever returning to a conjugal relationship with her original husband. The civil legislation of Moses did not deal directly with the sins of polygamy, concubinage, or divorce. This does not mean God approved of them. The civil legislation was based on moral law, yet it was a practical regulation for the people. It did not deal with all possible matters, nor did it absolutely prohibit all social evils, because, as Jesus said, "their hearts were hard".

The Nature of God’s Covenant with His People.

Many of the Reformers resorted to the use of interpretive legal fiction to allow Christians to divorce and remarry. Since the Mosaic Law sanctioned the death penalty against an adulterous spouse, the New Testament Christian could now see their adulterous spouse as figuratively dead. They were then free to divorce and remarry. I do not know of any modern writers who currently hold this view. Instead they have taken another route to allow divorce and remarriage. They claim God divorced Israel, therefore the believer is also free to divorce their adulterous spouse and remarry. At the outset it needs to be stressed that the doctrine of divorce and remarriage is to be grounded in exegesis of relevant New Testament passages. Nevertheless, since this argument is used by current writers, we will look at what the Old Testament has to say about God’s covenant relationship with Israel.

Did God completely forsake Israel so that she had no future hope of restoration? God disciplined Israel for disobedience, but did He put her away and take another nation to be His wife? For modern expositors to claim God’s relationship with Israel allows Christians to divorce and remarry, these questions must be answered in the affirmative.

The Abrahamic Covenant

The beginning point for the Jewish nation took place with the call of Abraham. Before this time in history there were no chosen people. Individuals trusted in the living God but Yahweh had not yet called any particular nation. In Genesis 12 God called Abraham and promised to make him a great nation. God made three unconditional promises to Abraham. 1. He promised him land. 2. He promised him a seed. 3. He promised to make him a blessing.

Now the Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3).

Is this covenant conditional or unconditional? Genesis 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Chronicles 16:16-17; and Psalm 105:9-10 all claim this covenant is eternal. It is based on the sovereign choice and promise of God. If a covenant is eternal, then it can not be conditional ⁵. O.T. Allis has this to say about the covenant:

It is true that, in the express terms of the covenant with Abraham, obedience is not stated as a condition. ⁶

If the covenant was unconditional at its inception, it remains such throughout history. Galatians 3:15 makes it clear that the Abrahamic covenant cannot be altered or tampered with.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto (Galatians 3:15).

In Genesis 15:17 God passed through the cut animals to confirm what He had previously promised. The fact that God alone passed through the sacrifice, emphasizes that the promise was unilateral and therefore unconditional.

Later in Genesis 17:9-14 God gave Abraham the rite of circumcision as an outward visible sign of the covenant. This rite was a personal act that related each male to the covenant but had nothing to do with the unconditional nature of it. Women could not be circumcised, yet became partakers of the covenant. One uncircumcised man could not annul the covenant for the rest of the nation, any more than one unbeliever can void the grace of God for everyone else.

The covenant was reiterated and confirmed to Isaac and Jacob after disobedience on the part of each. ⁷ Certain blessings may be attached to unconditional covenants which may require some response from each individual in order to receive personal benefit but the integrity of an unconditional covenant remains intact whether an individual remains loyal or not. There may be delays, postponements, and chastisements but an eternal unconditional covenant cannot be broken. If a covenant is unconditional at its’ inception, it remains so through out history. Since God chose Abraham’s seed to always be a nation before Him, He will never permanently put Israel away and marry another nation.

Out of the Abrahamic covenant came three more covenants: Palestinian (land), Davidic (seed), and New (blessing) Covenants.

The Palestinian and Mosaic Covenants

The Palestinian covenant is found in Deuteronomy 30:1-10. It was given in fulfillment of the land promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Ezekiel 16:60 calls it an eternal covenant because it is an amplification of the unconditional Abrahamic covenant. It was given because God knew the people would break the law. This was a reminder that God would never completely forsake the nation of Israel. The Mosaic covenant is given in Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy 28. It was conditional and based on the people’s obedience. If the people obeyed, they would be blessed. If the people disobeyed, they would be cursed. Most conservative scholars place the date of Abraham around 2100 B.C. Moses received the Law around 1440 B.C. In the 600-700 years between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants there were many opportunities for God to cut off the seed of Abraham for their sinful behavior. Nevertheless, the unconditional promise of God stood firm. God chose Israel in an unmerited act of gracious favor. Obedience to the Mosaic covenant did not decide who the people of God would be. It did not decide whether they would retain their status as a chosen nation. These were decided centuries before through the sovereign choice of God. Obedience to the law decided if Israel would be cursed or blessed.

The Mosaic covenant anticipated the disobedience and subsequent dispersions of Israel under the Assyrians (722 B.C.), Babylonians (586 B.C.), and Romans (A.D. 70). The Palestinian covenant assured Israel that when these calamities were over, they would repent and God would restore the people. Israel would once again possess the land. This is a frequent theme of the prophets (Jeremiah 30:3; Joel 3:1). This will ultimately be fulfilled at the second advent of Messiah, before the beginning of the millennial kingdom. The unconditional Abrahamic and Palestinian covenants are in no way abrogated by the temporal and conditional Mosaic covenant.

The Davidic Covenant

The Davidic covenant is the seed part of the Abrahamic covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-16). It was made while the Mosaic Law was in effect. God promised three things to David. First, David would have a son. Second, David’s lineage would be established forever. Third, David’s throne and earthly political kingdom would be established over Israel forever. God promised similar things to Solomon. God promised Solomon he would build the temple. He also promised that the throne would remain forever. He did not promise Solomon that his seed would always be on the throne. This is important because Solomon’s line was cut off because of disobedience. 1 Kings 9:6-7 makes it clear that God would cut off Solomon or his sons if they turned away from God. David’s line would continue as God promised.

In accordance with the Word of God, Jesus the Messiah did come from the line of David. The final fulfillment of this covenant will be a future literal reign of Christ on the throne of David in Jerusalem (cf. Revelation 20:6). God seems to have anticipated the arguments, that disobedience abrogates unconditional covenants. Disobedience brought punishment to Solomon and his sons. Disobedience brought death to David’s first son through Bathsheba. Disobedience brought the sword of the Angel of the Lord on the people for David’s census. Disobedience has currently interrupted the reign of David’s seed on the throne. Disobedience does not nullify God’s covenant with His people. An important thing to realize is that God made his covenant with David before David committed adultery with Bathsheba. If adultery or any other sin could break God’s covenant, then why wasn’t this accomplished by David’s sin? The answer is simple. Sin does not, and can not, nullify an unconditional covenant created by God.

The New Covenant

In Jeremiah 31:31-37 God made a new covenant with the nation of Israel. He claimed that they had broken the conditional Mosaic covenant, but His (chesed/2617) unconditional love wouldn’t give up on them. The new covenant is an extension of the blessing part of the Abrahamic covenant. It is based on unconditional grace resting on the "I will" of God. The new covenant is everlasting and promised impartation of a renewed mind and heart. It promises Israel that her sins will be forgiven and that God will never forsake them.

Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all they have done, saith the Lord (Jeremiah 31:35-37).

God uses the unsearchableness of the universe and the foundations of the earth as proof that He will never completely cast off Israel as His chosen nation. This, in spite of the fact that they broke the Mosaic law.

Was God divorced and remarried?

Some have surmised that since God claims to have divorced Israel, then divorce is allowed for the Christian also. In response to this, it must be reiterated that New Testament doctrine is to be built on New Testament passages that specifically speak on this subject. Doctrine can be rooted in the Old Testament, as Jesus did by quoting form Genesis chapters 1 and 2. It is not to be built on Old Testament metaphors or analogies which use similar terms, but do not speak directly to the subject.

We have shown the permanent relationship God has with Israel. With this foundation laid, we’ll look at some verses which interpreters use to allow Christians to divorce and remarry.

Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away (Isaiah 50:1).

God called Abraham about 2100 B.C. The Mosaic covenant had been in effect since 1440 B.C. The book of Isaiah was penned around 700 B.C. The seed of Abraham had been a chosen people for 1400 years. They had lived under the Mosaic law for 700 years. They had sinned many times during this period, but they were still God’s chosen people. This passage speaks of God divorcing His people, but it also speaks of Him selling them to creditors. These are figures of speech that are used to show God’s punishment and discipline of His children. There is nothing mentioned in this passage of them ceasing to be the wife of God. The basic theme of chapters 40-66 is comfort and salvation for the nation of Israel. They must undergo discipline for their sin, but God will restore them. The furthest Isaiah 50:1 could be taken is that the adulterous wife could temporarily be put away for her sin, yet she doesn’t cease being a wife. Even this would be stretching New Testament doctrine since husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Christ disciplines His church, but He never divorces them. Notice this passage also says Israel was sold to creditors. The Jews bought and sold women like merchandise. If taken in the same literal manner, then a man could sell his wife to creditors. Isaiah 54:4 speaks of Israel being a widow. Did God actually die? If taken literally, we wouldn’t know if Israel was widowed or divorced. The basic meaning of this passage is that God allowed Israel to be temporarily chastised for her sins. When taken as a whole, the book of Isaiah is filled with other verses that show God’s steadfast and forgiving love to Israel.

Isaiah 54:5-10 has this beautiful passage that sums up God’s relationship to Israel.

For your maker is your husband, The Lord of hosts is His name; And your redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth. For the Lord has called you like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a youthful wife when you were refused, says your God. For a mere moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you. With a little wrath I hid my face from you for a moment: But with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you, says the Lord your redeemer. For this is like the waters of Noah to me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you or rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from you, nor shall my covenant of peace be removed, says the Lord who has mercy on you (Isaiah 54:5-10, NKJV).

Notice that this passage comes after the passage used by people to allow for divorce and remarriage. God still claimed to be Israel’s husband. His wrath lasts only a moment, but His mercy is forever. The mountains and the hills will pass away before God will break His covenant with Israel.

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also (Jeremiah 3:8).

Jeremiah chapter 3 was written about 625 B.C. Israel went into captivity for her sin and it was to be a warning and call to repentance for the southern kingdom of Judah. Some have used this verse to prove divorce and remarriage is appropriate under certain circumstances. Israel had not committed literal but spiritual adultery. Jeremiah 3:9 makes it clear that her adultery was with stones and trees, meaning idolatry. If consistency is applied, this kind of interpretation would allow a man to divorce a wife who had committed spiritual apostasy. The point of the entire passage is that Israel was the treacherous one. God was faithful and was beckoning Israel to return. Not a word is mentioned about God remarrying another nation after the divorce. God claims the Mosaic law does not allow the divorced and remarried woman to return (Jeremiah 3:1) yet God allows Israel to return in direct violation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. When rules of normative interpretation are taken away (as some have conveniently done), Scripture can be made to say whatever one wants it to say. God claims to have married Judah as well as her sister Israel. This would be in violation of Leviticus 18:18. If a Christian can use this verse to divorce his wife and remarry, then it would be just as valid (using this interpretive method), to allow polygamy. All this proves is that Old Testament metaphors shouldn’t be stretched to teach New Testament doctrine.

Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it will come to pass, that in the place where it is said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God (Hosea 1:9-10).

Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: Let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts; Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst (Hosea 2:2-3).

Hosea’s ministry took place preceding and following Israel’s captivity (722 B.C.). Hosea was a divine messenger to warn Israel that her apostasy would bring the curses of God as promised in Deuteronomy 28:15-68. A cursory reading of Hosea will show that one main theme of the book is to show God’s forgiveness to a sinful people. Rather than giving up on Israel, God used Hosea’s marriage to a harlot to illustrate His steadfast unceasing love. Though God did claim to have divorced Israel, the entire picture must be kept in perspective. Israel had broken the conditional Mosaic covenant yet they still had the unconditional Abrahamic covenant as proof that they would always be the people of God. The fact that God was disciplining them, proves that they still were His chosen people.

Amazingly enough, some expositors use these very passages to try and prove Christians have a right to divorce and remarry. They completely overlook that Hosea 1:9 is temporal, yet verses 10-11 give the final condition. Namely, in this same place Israel and Judah will be called sons of the living God. Lo-ammi (not my people) is used as an analogy for God’s discipline of Israel. It should not be stretched to say that God permanently put away Israel. It cannot be used to prove a divorced person ever has a right to remarry. In Hosea 2:2 the word adultery is used as a metaphor for spiritual apostasy. Hosea 2:3 claims God will strip Israel naked and cause her to die of dehydration in the desert. Are Christians to punish adulterous wives in this manner?

The permanence of Israel’s relationship is rooted in the unconditional Abrahamic covenant. Their discipline, captivities, and divorces are rooted in the conditional Mosaic covenant. God uses different metaphors and analogies to show disfavor towards His people. None of these can rightly be stretched to say a man can divorce and remarry. Although God temporarily put Israel away, forgiveness of His people is always on the horizon. God is always seen as the permanent husband of Israel, even during times of punishment. At no time is it ever hinted that God completely forsook His people and married another wife. Hosea does not teach that Christians have the right to divorce and remarry. Rather, it teaches that God is gracious and forgiving to an adulterous people. The Christian should also be gracious and forgiving to an adulterous spouse.

Ezra returned to Jerusalem in 458 B.C. Nehemiah returned in 444 B.C. They both encountered spiritual apathy and low moral standards by the Jews living in Jerusalem. Malachi prophesied between 450-430 B.C. The people had external formal worship and were religious in offering sacrifices. Internally their heart was not right before the Lord. This was shown in their daily lives. The people were living in sinful rebellion against God’s Law. They were bringing lame, blind, and stolen animals for sacrifice (Malachi 1:6-14). Even the priests and Levites were corrupting justice (Malachi 2:1-9). The people were guilty of sorcery, perjury, and adultery. They were oppressing the poor, widows, aliens, and orphans (Malachi 3:5). They were robbing God of tithes and offerings (Malachi 3:8-12).

On top of all these sins they were profaning the Lord’s holy institution of marriage. They were weeping and crying out to God to accept their sacrifices and offerings. God was not regarding them because of their corrupt and sinful lifestyles.

Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? Judah hath dealt treacherously; and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts. And this have ye done again covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with crying out, in so much that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not He make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That He might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied Him? When ye say, everyone that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment? (Malachi 2:10-17).

Malachi begins verse 10 by arguing that since God created the Israelites, and He is their Father, they should not deal treacherously by profaning the covenant. He warns them that the man who marries the daughter of a strange god (an idolatrous woman) will be cut off. In verses 10-12 the Jews were said to be profaning the covenant given by God. God had specifically commanded Israel not to intermarry with pagan idolatrous people. God knew these marriages would lead Israel to follow other gods (Exodus 34:14-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4). Ezra and Nehemiah both dealt with this sin (Ezra 10; Nehemiah 13).

In verses 13-15 Malachi rebukes the people for not only marrying pagan women, but for divorcing their wives in order to do so. The sin of divorce is specifically mentioned as the reason God had no regard for their offerings. Verse 14 says the marriage of one’s youth is a covenant. It calls the divorcing of one’s wife treachery. Verse 15 also calls divorce treachery . Although this verse is difficult to translate, the context speaks of marriage and divorce. God made man and woman for the purpose of bearing godly offspring. Divorce is not conducive to nurturing godly children. The purposes of God were being corrupted by divorce and intermarriage with pagan wives. God warned the Jews not to deal treacherously with the wife of one’s youth.

Verse 16 gives God’s thoughts concerning divorce: He hates it. This is because it covers ones garment with violence. ⁸ The phrase may be seen as "covering one’s garment with sin", or "sin covering one’s garment". The meaning is the same either way: wickedness will adhere to such a man and cannot be removed. ⁹

Malachi 2 concludes with the people questioning God, "How have they wearied Him?" The answer: those who were doing evil were claiming they were doing good. The context leads one to believe that the Jews saw no problem with divorcing their wives and remarrying. It is possible that they were divorcing and remarrying, and then claiming God’s blessing upon such practices. God had already spoken on how He views these acts.

Conclusion

From Genesis to Malachi marriage is viewed as an important aspect of true religion. It has its’ foundation in the one flesh covenant (Genesis 1:27, 2:23-24). The unconditional Abrahamic covenant shows God’s permanent relationship with the nation of Israel (Genesis 12:1-3). Marriage is used as a picture of God’s faithfulness to Israel (Proverbs 2:17; Isaiah 54:1-10; Jeremiah 3:8; Hosea 3:1; Malachi 2:14). By the time of Moses, men were divorcing and remarrying for various reasons. The only legislation given by God was that a divorced and remarried woman could never return to her first husband. The woman was defiled. Returning to her original husband was an abomination to God. This would bring sin upon the land (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). God did not approve of, nor establish, divorce. He claims He hates it and likens it to treachery (Malachi 2:15-16). Why did not God prohibit divorce and remarriage in the Mosaic Law? We are not told! He did not forbid polygamy or concubinage either. We do know that the Mosaic law was temporal and given to regulate the hardness of man’s heart. The Lord Jesus Christ came in the fullness of time and taught all God’s righteous standards.

Divorce and remarriage are mentioned in the New Testament six times. The first occurrence appears in ‘The Sermon on the Mount’. This sermon represents Jesus’ relationship to the Law of God. Jesus was not presenting a rival system to the Law of Moses. His message was fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets in contrast with the Pharisees’ traditions. ¹ Christ taught the people that unless their righteousness surpassed that of the scribes and the Pharisees, they would never be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:20). This did not mean they could earn salvation by obeying a higher standard of rules and regulations. Salvation came only by faith in the Messiah. One point of this sermon was to show God’s true righteous standards as compared with the man-made traditions which had been established by the Jews.

The religious leaders claimed a man could divorce his wife by simply giving her a certificate of divorce. Those who were divorced were then free to remarry. If this second marriage did not work, the process could be repeated as often as necessary (cf. John 4:18). The theological school of Shammai taught that a man could only divorce his wife and remarry for serious offenses such as adultery. The school of Hillel claimed a man could divorce and remarry for almost any reason. These included talking too loud, burning a meal, or finding another woman more attractive.

The Lord Jesus Christ begins this section with stating the seventh commandment, "you shall not commit adultery" (Matthew 5:27). Jesus gives two examples of violations which His audience might not contemplate as adulterous: lust and remarriage. Whoever looks at a woman lustfully, commits adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Whoever divorces and remarries, commits adultery (Matthew 5:32). The people had been told that if a man wanted a divorce, all he had to do was give his wife a certificate that would allow or even force her to depart. Both parties were then free to remarry. The certificate was a written bill of divorcement which was worded in this manner:

On the ____ day of the week, the day of the month ____ , in the year ____ from the creation of the world, in the city of ,____ I, ____ , the son of ____ , do willingly consent, being under no constraint, to release, to set free, and to put aside thee, my wife, ____ , daughter of ____ , who has been my wife before. Thus I do set free, release thee, and put thee aside, in order that thou may have permission and authority over thyself and to go and marry any man thou desire. No person may hinder thee from this day onward, and thou art permitted to every man. This shall be for thee from me a bill of dismissal, a letter of release, and a document of freedom, in accordance with the Law of Moses and Israel. ________ the son of ________ , witness. ________ the son of ________ , witness. ²

Some claim Matthew 5:32 agrees with this practice and furthermore allows Christians to divorce and remarry if their spouse commits adultery. They believe that adultery severs the one flesh bond and therefore Jesus must have used the word porneia (fornication) as an equivalent term for moicheia (adultery). English translations render this word in various ways: Fornication (KJV); Sexual Immorality (NKJV); Unchastity-Matthew 5:32 and Immorality-Matthew 19:9 (NASB); Marital Unfaithfulness (NIV); Unchastity (RSV). The NIV comes closest to rendering this word as adultery yet falls short. The NIV uses the dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) theory rather than a more literal (word for word) rendering of the biblical text. The translators of the NIV may have unwittingly substituted their interpretation into the text rather than letting the reader decide the issue for themselves.

The Bible student must determine what porneia and moicheia mean. Strong’s Concordance codes each Greek word to a number. This allows those who are unfamiliar with the Greek language to look up the basic definition of any given word. This can then be cross referenced with other biblical passages. Porneia and its cognates are coded as follows: porneia\4202; porneuo\4203; porne\4204; pornos\4205. Moicheia and its cognates are coded as follows: moicheia\3430; moichalis\3428; moichao\3429; moicheuo\3431; moichos\3432.

Lexical Study. Five Greek Lexicons will be examined to find the definition or range of meaning for the terms porneia and moicheia. The criteria for choosing these Lexicons is as follows. A. Length of time in print. Have they been published for a sufficient length of time so as to allow grammarians the chance to correct any errors? B. Acceptance by students and scholars. Are they widely used by Greek teachers and students from various backgrounds because of their precision and accuracy? C. Historical Research. Have the authors and editors researched a broad enough source of Greek literature to enable them to give an accurate range of meaning to each word? The Lexical definitions given for porneia, moicheia, and their cognates are as follows:

porneia- Fornication is the basic definition. Distinguished from adultery. May equal adultery because Sirach 23:23 uses it this way. Used metaphorically of idolatry.

porneuo- To prostitute the body for hire. To commit fornication. Idolatry.

porne- A prostitute or harlot. Metaphorically for Babylon (i.e. Rome).

pornos- A male prostitute. A fornicator.

moicheia- Adultery.

moichalis- An adulteress.

moichao- To commit adultery with.

moicheuo- To commit adultery.

moichos- An adulterer.

Non-Jewish usage.

porneia- Fornication or licentiousness.

porneuo- To prostitute or commit fornication.

porne- A harlot for hire (usually referred to slaves).

pornos- A whoremonger or male prostitute.

The Old Testament (Septuagint).

porneia- Fornication sometimes involving adultery.

porneuo- To play the harlot (sometimes involving adultery). It may be used of the prostitute or a betrothed woman who proves to be unfaithful.

porne- Harlot.

pornos- Does not appear in the Old Testament. Only appears in the Apocrypha during this time. No definition given.

The New Testament.

porneia- The problem in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is perhaps that Jewish Christians who keep the Law are required to divorce adulterous wives and hence cannot be responsible if these contract a new relationship which is from a Christian standpoint itself adulterous. Divorce itself is not conceded. In John 8:41 the Jews claimed they were not born of fornication (porneia). Acts 15:20, 29; 21:15 requires the Gentile Christians to avoid fornication (cf. Leviticus 17-18). Porneia has no part in God’s kingdom.

porneuo- degeneracy.

porne- degeneracy. The center of paganism with its harlot-like apostasy from God.

pornos- Excluded in I Corinthians 6:9 and Ephesians 5:5.

moicheia- Adultery.

moichalis- Adulteress or adulterous.

moichao- To commit adultery with.

moicheuo- To commit adultery.

moichos- Adulterer.

The Apostolic Fathers.

porneia- Hermas Mandates 4.1.1 warns against porneia, which differs from, but also includes, adultery (cf. Mandates 8.3; 4.1.5). We do not find the transferred use in the apostolic fathers, who abandon the terminology of the O.T. prophets.

porneia- Originally meant prostitution or fornication. Came to be applied to unlawful sexual intercourse generally. It was a wider term than adultery, embracing the idea of barter or sexual vice. In the Old Testament there was a tendency to assimilate the two terms.

porneuo- To commit fornication.

porne- Prostitute.

pornos- A male prostitute, but generally understood in the N.T. in the sense of fornication.

moicheia- Adultery.

moichalis- A married woman who commits adultery.

moichao- To commit adultery with.

moicheuo- To commit adultery.

moichos- Adulterer.

porneia- Prostitution. Refers to fornication in Matthew 19:9. Metaphorically of idolatry.

porneuo- To become a prostitute.

porne- A harlot or prostitute.

pornos- A catamite, sodomite, or fornicator.

moicheia- Adultery.

moichalis- Adulteress.

moichao- To commit adultery.

moicheuo- To commit adultery.

moichos- Adulterer, sodomite, or idolatrous person.

porneia- Basic definition is fornication, prostitution, or unchastity. Of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. Differentiated from adultery in Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21. Appears as adultery in Sirach 23:23. Sexual unfaithfulness of the married woman in Matthew 5:32; 19:9. An illegitimate or bastard child. In the Old Testament as a symbol of apostasy from God or idolatry.

porneuo- To prostitute or practice sexual immorality. Distinguished from committing adultery.

porne- A prostitute or harlot.

pornos- A fornicator, one who practices immorality. Differentiated from an adulterer.

moicheia- Adultery.

moichalis- Adulteress.

moichao- To commit adultery.

moicheuo- To commit adultery.

moichos- Adulterer.

New Testament Survey. A study of relevant New Testament passages may shed light on how the term porneia could be interpreted. We will examine other New Testament texts where the term porneia is used. Special attention will be paid to passages where porneia and moicheia are used in the same context.

Matthew 15:19. Porneia and moicheia are used in the same sentence to differentiate between the two sins.

Mark 7:21. Porneia and moicheia are used in the same sentence to differentiate between the two sins.

John 8:41. The Pharisees accused Jesus of being born of porneia. In this context porneia refers to unlawful sexual relations during the betrothal period.

Acts 15:20, 29 and 21:25. Porneia is one of four things which Gentiles are to abstain from. In this context porneia refers to the unlawful incestuous marriages listed in Leviticus 18:6-18.

Romans 1:29. Porneia refers to sexual deviancy in general.

I Corinthians 5:1. The incestuous man who has his father’s wife is committing porneia.

I Corinthians 6:13, 18. Porneia refers to sexual deviancy in general. No claim is made whether the man who joins himself to the harlot is married or not.

I Corinthians 7:2. Porneia is used as a term for sexual deviancy in general.

2 Corinthians 12:21. Porneia is used as a term for sexual deviancy in general.

Galatians 5:19. Porneia and moicheia are used in the same sentence to differentiate between the two sins.

Ephesians 5:3, 5. Porneia refers to sexual deviancy in general.

Colossians 3:5. Porneia refers to sexual deviancy in general.

I Thessalonians 4:3. Porneia refers to sexual deviancy in general.

Revelation 2:21. Porneia refers to sexual deviancy in general.

Revelation 9:21. Porneia refers to sexual deviancy in general.

Revelation 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; and 19:2. Porneia is used to refer to spiritual harlotry or apostasy.

Cognates that are related to the word porneia appear 29 times in other New Testament passages. The words porneia and moicheia are clearly differentiated in the following passages.

I Corinthians 6:9. Pornoi and mochoi are used in the same sentence to differentiate between the two sins.

Hebrews 13:4. Pornos and moichous are used in the same sentence to differentiate between the two sins.

Those who wish to study the remaining 27 passages will find the following definitions are used: 1. Sexual deviancy in general. 2. A prostitute. 3. Spiritual harlotry or apostasy.

Summary. Porneia means fornication or prostitution. It is often used for sexual deviancy in general. This may include homosexuality, incest, polygamy, adultery, pre-marital sexual relations, or prostitution. In certain contexts the New Testament does limit the meaning of porneia to specify spiritual apostasy, incestuous marriages, or unlawful sexual relations committed during the betrothal period. There is no evidence that porneia is used as an exact one-to-one equivalent for adultery in the entire New Testament.

Moicheia means adultery. Some Lexicons claim Sirach 23:23 uses porneia as a synonym for adultery. This usage in Sirach is far from certain. Sirach is an Apocryphal book of wisdom literature written about 200 B.C. The phrase used is (en porneia emoicheusthe). Joseph Jensen, possibly the author of the finest article examining the uses of porneia in relevant literature, translates Sirach 23:23 ‘she wantonly committed adultery’. ³ Bruce Vawter believes it is difficult to prove Sirach 23:23 uses porneia as an equivalent to marital infidelity. ⁴ Abel Isaksson thinks that porneia in Sirach 23:23 refers to the ‘sexual desire’ that led the woman to commit adultery. ⁵ The same is probably true of porneia as recorded in The Shepherd of Hermas Mandate 4.1.5 and Tobit 8:7. If Sirach did use porneia as an expression for adultery this in no way proves that Jesus or any other biblical writers used the word in this manner. New Testament authors use the terms porneia and moicheia together when they wish to differentiate between the two sins. Most commentators do not hesitate to admit that Matthew 15:19 uses moicheia and porneia in the same sentence to differentiate between the two. It is most probable that Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 intend to show a distinction also.

Interpretative study. Some claim that Matthew 5:31-32 teaches a man may divorce his adulterous wife and then remarry. Let’s take a closer look at what it actually says. In Verse 31 Jesus is merely recounting what Rabbinic tradition allowed. He does not give approval of this practice. He told His listeners "to be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Every other point of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ reflects a higher standard than the Rabbinic traditions of Jesus’ day. Why would this subject be the one exception? Those who claim a person can divorce and remarry in cases of adultery are simply making Jesus a disciple of Shammai. Jesus would not be upholding the ideal but would be teaching an ideal with one exception.

As Edersheim writes:

It is a serious mistake on the part of commentators to set the teaching of Christ on this subject by the side of that of Shammai. ⁶

If lust is seen as breaking the seventh commandment (Matthew 5:27-30) it should not surprise us to find divorce and remarriage condemned in similar terms (Matthew 5:32).

Matthew 5:32 is phrased in this manner:

"But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife except for a matter of porneia\fornication, makes her moichasthai\commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced moichatai\commits adultery."

When interpreting this passage attention must be paid to the fact that the ‘exception clause’ appears only in Matthew’s Jewish Gospel. The cultural and historical context must be taken into consideration. The man in Jewish society was not simply allowed to divorce his fornicating wife, he was compelled. If his wife was found to have committed sexual sin, he would have no choice but to put her away. According to Rabbinic Law, the wife could intentionally cause the man to divorce her by being unfaithful. The man would have no say in the matter. Both Roman and Jewish cultures compelled the remarriage of a divorced woman. When she remarried, Christ claimed that she would commit adultery. Matthew 5:32 teaches that the man, who divorced his wife for any other reason except fornication, was the cause of her adultery. This does not mean a wife who was put away for adultery was allowed to remarry. Rather, it teaches that when porneia has been committed by the woman, her husband is not the cause of her adultery . If the wife was unfaithful, it was she and not the man who was responsible for the divorce and the subsequent adulterous remarriage. In this case the exception merely exempts Jesus’ disciples from the responsibility for the divorce which an unfaithful wife brings about. These teachings relieve the man of the responsibility for the divorce and its consequences. The wife bears the responsibility. Remarriage is still called adulterous. This is what the ‘exception clause’ means.

Augustine in his exposition of Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount has this to say about the exception clause listed in Matthew’s gospel:

Wherefore did he not add, saving for the cause of fornication, which the Lord permits, unless because he wishes a similar rule to be understood, that if he shall put away his wife (which he is permitted to do for the cause of fornication), he is to remain without a wife, or be reconciled to his wife?...And for this reason also, because He who says, It is not lawful to put away one’s wife saving for the cause of fornication, forces him to retain his wife, if there should be no cause of fornication: but if there should be, He does not force him to put her away, but permits him, just as when it is said, let it not be lawful for a woman to marry another, unless her husband be dead; if she shall marry before the death of her husband, she is guilty; if she shall not marry after the death of her husband, she is not guilty, for she is not commanded to marry, but merely permitted...Now when He says, "saving for the cause of fornication," He has not said of which of them, whether the man or the woman. For not only is it allowed to put away a wife who commits fornication; but whoever puts away that wife even by whom he is himself compelled to commit fornication, puts her away undoubtedly for the cause of fornication...But in reference to what He says, "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery," it may be asked whether she also who is married commits adultery in the same way as he does who marries her. For she is also commanded to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; but this in the case of her departing from her husband. There is however, a great difference whether she put away or be put away. For if she put away her husband, and marry another, she seems to have left her former husband from a desire of changing her marriage connection, which is, without doubt, an adulterous thought. But if she be put away by the husband, with whom she desired to be, he indeed who marries her commits adultery, according to the Lord’s declaration; but whether she also be involved in a like crime is uncertain, -although it is much less easy to discover how, when a man and woman have intercourse one with another with equal consent, one of them should be an adulterer, and the other not. To this is to be added the consideration, that if he commits adultery by marrying her who is divorced from her husband (although she does not put away, but is put away), she causes him to commit adultery, which nevertheless the Lord forbids. And hence we infer that, whether she has been put away, or has put away her husband, it is necessary for her to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. (Bold emphasis mine) ⁷

Some modern writers wrongly teach that Jesus gave an exception for remarriage after divorce without calling it adultery. Their logic is manifestly absurd. It would make no sense at all for Jesus to claim the woman who was divorced for porneia was allowed to remarry while the woman who was divorced for any other reason was not. Jesus clearly refutes this kind of thinking by stating "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery". He gives no exceptions.

Summary. Matthew 5:32 places the emphasis of the guilt on the husband who divorces for unwarranted reasons. The exception clause is given to show that in the one exception, fornication, the primary blame lies not with the man, but with the woman. The remarriage is still adultery but the blame is shifted from the man to the woman. The exception clause is simply a matter of fact recognition that the woman has already committed fornication. She is responsible for the divorce, he is not. This does not allow her to remarry. The last part of verse 32 makes it clear by claiming "whoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". Jesus taught a higher moral standard than either Hillel or Shammai. Every standard given in Matthew 5-7 surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees. This subject is no exception.

Matthew 19

Matthew 19:3-12 records an encounter Jesus had with the Pharisees concerning divorce.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall become one flesh? Wherefore they are no longer twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They said unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:3-12).

Differing views. Six interpretations of the ‘exception clause’ are listed below:

1. God Forgives. This view states that since God is forgiving, the divorcee may remarry. If remarriage meets their needs, then it is allowed. It is believed that God wants people to be happy. Sometimes this view is substantiated with claims such as the divorce happened before the person became a believer. This interpretation is built on half-truths and very little exegesis. It is true that God forgives sins. It is not true that forgiveness allows the believer to break His commands. It is also true that God wants fulfilled children. Fulfillment comes only from obeying Christ. There is not one verse of Scripture to back the belief that it makes a difference whether the divorce happened before or after conversion.

2. Erasmian Adultery. Those who hold this view believe a person may divorce and remarry if their spouse has committed adultery or deserted them. Though there are minor variations to this view, but it is commonly assumed that adultery severs or dissolves the one flesh bond. This view is so named because it was given its greatest impetus by Erasmus in the 16^th century. The Erasmian view hinges on three major assumptions. First, Jesus was speaking of the same kind of divorce the Jews were. Namely, The dissolution of the one flesh covenant with the right to remarry. Second, the exception clause modifies both the preceding "whoever divorces his wife" as well as the following "and marries another" phrase. Third, porneia equals adultery

3. Unlawful Marriage to Gentile Idolaters. In Ezra’s day the Jews were required to divorce their Gentile wives in order to keep the Jewish ancestral lineage free from impurity and idolatry (Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah. 13). Some have applied this to mean that a Christian may divorce an unbelieving spouse and remarry. There are at least three problems with this view. First, most marriages take place between two Gentiles. It would make no sense for God to command Gentiles to divorce in order to keep their lineage pure. Second, First Corinthians 7:12-13 makes it clear that a believing spouse is not to divorce their unbelieving partner as long as they consent to live with them. Third, what took place in the restoration community under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah was a unique occurrence. The separation from Gentile wives was necessary to insure the continued existence of the Jewish nation (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). ⁸

4. Betrothal. Unlike western societies that practice engagement, the Jewish culture practiced betrothal. Betrothal was a binding legal contract that could only be broken by death or divorce. A betrothed couple were considered husband and wife. ⁹ The marriage was usually arranged by parents. The bride price or dowry was paid to the father of the bride for economic loss to the family. This would compensate the father for the daughter’s work he would lose. He could earn interest off the dowry but it was not to be spent in case his daughter was widowed or divorced. Next, a betrothal promise was made, but the marriage was not yet consummated. During this time the bride would prepare herself for marriage. The groom would prepare a home for them, usually in his father’s house. At the end of one year, a ceremony and wedding feast took place. During the feast, the bride and groom would go into the bridal chamber and consummate the marriage. A cloth would be brought out to prove the bride’s virginity. If the bride was found to not be a virgin, either before the wedding or at the time of consummation, she was to be divorced. This is why weddings of virgins were usually held on Wednesdays and weddings of widows were held on Thursdays. The courts sat on Mondays and Thursdays. If it became evident to the groom on Wednesday night that his bride was not a virgin, he could go to court on Thursday and bring suit against her and her father. ¹⁰

This was the situation Joseph thought he was in with Mary. Before the marriage was consummated Mary was found to be with child. Joseph was not simply allowed to divorce her, Jewish law compelled him to do so. Luke 2:5 only mentions the betrothal to his Greek-Gentile readers. Matthew 1:18-25 gives a fuller account to his Jewish readers. This view claims porneia is sexual relations between a betrothed person and a third outside party. It takes into account Matthew’s inclusion of the ‘exception clause’ to his Jewish audience. Christ stated a consummated marriage was permanent until death. One could divorce his betrothed wife because of porneia This view has been proposed by James Montgomery Boice and Abel Isaksson.

5. Unlawful Marriages. This view is sometimes called the incestuous marriage or Rabbinic view. It teaches that fornication refers to unlawful marriages which are prohibited in Leviticus 18:6-18. Some leading adherents of this view include W.K. Lowther Clarke, F.F. Bruce, J. Carl Laney, J.A. Fitzmeyer, and Charles C. Ryrie.

Leviticus 18:6-18 deals with prohibitions of incestuous marriages. The phrase used is "you shall not uncover the nakedness of". This is a Hebrew euphemism for sexual intercourse in the confines of an incestuous marriage. A man was not allowed to marry his mother, sister, daughter, granddaughter, niece, aunt, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sister-in-law. Incestuous marriage may be what Christ meant when He said "whoever divorces his wife except for fornication". I Corinthians 5:1 may refer to a man marrying his father’s widow. This would be a flagrant violation of Leviticus 18:8. ¹¹

Acts 15 uses the term porneia to refer to incestuous marriages. Some converts from the Pharisees had come down from Judea and were teaching the Gentile believers that unless they were circumcised and kept the law of Moses they could not be saved (Acts 15:1). Paul, Barnabas, and other brethren met at Jerusalem to discuss this issue. After much debate they were led by the Holy Spirit to tell the Gentile converts that they should abstain from idols, things that were strangled, blood, and fornication (Acts 15:20, 29). These are the things which are listed in Leviticus 17:10-18:18. It seems to be assumed that a believer would abstain from adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, and sacrificing of children (Leviticus 18:20-23). The Jerusalem Council would have no need to tell believers to refrain from fornication if it meant adultery or other sexual perversions in this context. The evidence points to them telling the Gentile believers not to enter into incestuous marriages. These four prohibitions may have been designed to promote peace between Jewish and Gentile believers. ¹² Gentiles were not to practice those things which were offensive to Jewish brethren. Some believe these four prohibitions are binding on Christians for all time. In either case, this would explain why Matthew would include this exception clause in his Gospel to Jewish readers.

Some may wonder how probable it is that a person would enter into an incestuous marriage? The Romans had laws against incest but they were not as strict as the Mosaic law. They also did not seem to be well enforced. The Bible gives us the narrative of Herod Antipas. Herodias was the wife of Herod Philip I. Herodias was the niece of Herod Philip I, which means she was married to her uncle. Herodias was also the niece of Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas and Herod Philip I were half brothers. Herod Philip I and Herodias divorced. Herodias remarried Herod Antipas. Now Herod Antipas was married to his half-brother’s wife who was also his niece. According to Leviticus 18:11 and 20:21, these were illegal incestuous marriages. John the Baptist preached against this sin and was thrown into prison and beheaded. Josephus also reports the practice of incest among Roman rulers. Archelaus divorced his wife and married Glaphyra, the former wife of his half-brother. Bernice was originally married to her uncle, Herod Chalcis. Bernice also had an incestuous relationship with her brother, Herod Agrippa II. Bazeus married his sister, Helena. ¹³

6. The Early Church View. The early Church believed porneia meant general sexual deviancy, but was not limited to adultery. If a man’s wife committed fornication, he was to separate from her until she repented of her sin. He was then to receive her back with the same love with which Christ loved the Church. To live with an unrepentant adulterous wife was a sin; to not forgive her was also a sin. If a full legal divorce took place, remarriage while one’s spouse was alive was still prohibited.

Interpretive study. The Pharisees came to test Jesus. Three motives have been proposed as to why they asked this question. 1. John the Baptist had recently been beheaded for speaking against the divorce and remarriage of Herod. They were attempting to get Jesus to say something against the political authorities. 2. They were attempting to get Jesus to incriminate Himself by speaking against the Mosaic Law. (Actually it would be against their interpretation of the Law since the Law did not specifically address the issue of divorce and remarriage). 3. They wanted to know what Jesus’ interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would be. Would Jesus side with the followers of Hillel or Shammai?

It appears that this group of Pharisees assumed the dominant Hillelite position. They did not ask if a divorced man could remarry. They assumed that any divorced person could remarry. ¹⁴ They wanted to know if a man could divorce his wife for any reason. The answer they received surprised them! Instead of entering into a debate over the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jesus by-passed their way of thinking and took them back to the beginning of creation, Genesis 1 and 2. To Jesus, man and wife were one flesh. Because God had joined them together, no man was to separate them (Matthew 19:6). The Jews retorted with the Mosaic concession. They claimed Moses commanded a man to divorce his wife. Jesus replied that Moses only allowed this to happen because of the hardness of man’s heart. From the beginning of time this was not God’s plan.

Up until verse 9, all agree that Jesus taught an absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage. It is verse 9 that causes people problems. The main reason for this is that few Christians take into account the cultural and Jewish legal considerations when examining the ‘exception clause’ in Matthew’s gospel. Matthew records one exception for divorce when writing to his Jewish readers. Mark writes to Romans and gives no exception for divorce. What does the ‘exception clause’ mean? The Pharisees wanted to know under what circumstances a man was allowed to divorce his wife. Jesus answered their question, porneia. The societal structure under which the Jews lived did not merely allow a man to divorce his wife, it compelled him. A man in Jewish culture, who found his wife to be guilty of porneia, would be compelled by society to divorce her. This could mean a man’s wife was found to be guilty of sexual sin after consummating a legal marriage. It may simply be speaking of the man who found his wife to have lost her virginity before their wedding night.

It is highly probable that Matthew 19:9 should be understood in a similar manner as Matthew 5:32. Since the culture of Jesus’ time compelled a man to divorce a fornicating spouse, then Jesus does not hold his followers responsible for the divorce of a wife who has committed porneia. The Pharisees asked the question: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" The answer was no! A man can not divorce his wife for any reason, except porneia. Lest they should think that the man had the right to remarry, Jesus added, "and marries another commits adultery".

Some have assumed that since the Pharisees used the word divorce to include the right to remarry, then Jesus must have used the word in the same way. It is true that the Jews of Jesus' day believed the right to remarry came with the right to divorce. Is it correct to assume that Jesus must have taught the same kind of divorce that the Jews practiced? To assume this wrongly makes Judaism, not the teaching of Christ, the decisive factor in interpreting Scripture.

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that Jesus was using the term ‘divorce’ in the same manner as the Pharisees. Namely, divorce with the right to remarry. Lest they should think that the woman had the right to remarry, Jesus added, "and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." Some translations (NIV, RSV, and NASB) that are founded on the eclectic Critical Greek Text omit this final phrase. Those translations (KJV, NKJV) which follow the majority of Greek manuscripts retain this saying. Recent research has shown that there is much evidence that the longer reading of Matthew 19:9 is to be preferred. ¹⁵

Verses 10-12 are contextually related to what Jesus had previously stated in verses 4-9. They give strong support that Jesus was teaching a higher standard than the scribes and the Pharisees. The disciples had an astonished reaction to the teaching of Jesus on the subject of divorce and remarriage. They realized that the permanence of marriage meant a man might be better off not to marry. If Jesus had allowed remarriage for cases of porneia He would have simply been agreeing with the conservative school of Shammai. The response of the disciples confirms that man was in a serious situation. He could not be freed from a marriage, even if his wife was guilty of porneia.

In response to their reaction Jesus assures them that they would be able to accept such a high standard. Jesus uses the illustration of eunuchs to prove what He has just commanded. Some are born eunuchs. Some are made eunuchs by other men. Some voluntarily make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Since eunuchs are able to refrain from sexual relations then His followers would be able to refrain from remarriage. The true disciple of Christ will be given the grace to obey what God has commanded.

Summary. No legislation or cultural pressure exists in modern Western society which would compel a man to divorce his wife if she was guilty of porneia. Jesus told His disciples to forgive seventy times seven. Men are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. If a man’s wife is found to have been unfaithful love and forgiveness are God’s standards, not divorce. If one spouse deserts the other, to live in an adulteress relationship, the one flesh bond may be polluted but still remains intact. Since the one flesh bond is never truly broken, except by death, remarriage after divorce is considered adultery.

Grammatical Study. Grammar and syntax regulate the formation and usage of words in a sentence. They come from analyzing and classifying the language itself. They do not externally govern the language; they simply deal with the internal facts of how the language is constructed. Grammar and syntax tell us how words relate to one another in any given sentence. Lexicons give the possible range of meanings for a particular word. Grammar and syntax tell us how each word is used in a particular sentence. The syntactical relations and groupings of words are factors just as important for the bearing of significance as the lexicographical aspect of a single word.

The main grammatical issue appears in Matthew 19:9. A person can get an adequate understanding of the issues involved by comparing several good English translations of the Bible. A better grasp can be attained by looking at the sentence structure in Greek.

Matthew 19:9 states, "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except porneia, and marries another, commits adultery". ("Lego de hymin hoti hos apolyse ten gynaika autou, me epi porneia, kai gamese allen, moichatai").

Which clause(s) does the phrase "except porneia" modify? Some claim the phrase "except porneia" modifies the following verb phrase "and marries another" as well as the preceding "whoever divorces his wife". In saying this they wish to prove that the person who divorces for the cause of porneia does not commit adultery if he remarries.

One popular commentator writes:

Although it is not directly stated it seems obvious from the words of our Lord that where a divorce has been obtained on grounds of adultery, the innocent party is free to remarry (emphasis mine). ¹⁶

D.A. Carson in his book Exegetical Fallacies calls this the "abuse of obviously". He writes:

It is perfectly proper for a commentator to use "obviously" when he or she has marshaled such overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of readers would concur that the matter being presented is transparent, or that the argument is logically conclusive. But it is improper to use such expressions when opposing arguments have not been decisively refuted, and it is a fallacy to think the expressions themselves add anything substantial to the argument. ¹⁷

The previously mentioned commentator does not decisively refute or even mention opposing arguments regarding Matthew 19:9. He does not deal with lexical, grammatical, or exegetical evidence. He simply gives his opinion on this subject. He openly admits that what he is teaching is not directly stated. This is unwise. If it is not directly stated in Matthew 19:9, then it is not stated anywhere in the entire New Testament.

There are grammatical problems with claiming porneia allows a person to remarry as well as divorce. ‘Except porneia’ is a prepositional phrase. It does not contain a verb. One must be supplied from somewhere else in the sentence. Prepositional phrases are adverbial and normally qualify the verb which they follow. Matthew 19:9 contains a compound conditional clause (two verbal actions).

Matthew could have placed "except porneia" after the first verbal action, "divorce". Like this:

In this case ‘except porneia’ would modify only the preceding verbal action, divorce. This construction would allow divorce for the cause of porneia but not remarriage. This is where it is placed in the Greek text.

He could have placed "except porneia" after the second verbal action, "and marries another". Like this:

In this case "except porneia" would modify two sequential actions, divorce and remarriage. This construction would allow remarriage if the divorce occurred for the cause of porneia.

Summary. The syntactically burden of proof lies on those who claim that the clause "except porneia" modifies the following verbal action "remarries", as well as the preceding verb "divorces". The grammatical evidence points to Jesus only allowing a very restrictive form of divorce without the right to remarry. The early church writers (who used Greek as their mother tongue) interpreted Matthew 19:9 to allow divorce, not remarriage. If the exception clause modifies ‘remarriage’ as well as ‘divorce’, it would seem strange that these native Greek speakers would not recognize this.

Bill Heth writes:

The syntactical argument that except fornication modifies remarriage as well as divorce is unique to the latter half of this [the 20^th] century. The early church Fathers understood the exception clause as a simple limitation of the divorce action only, not a "dissolution" of marriage. They never discuss or debate the modern day controversy about which verb or verbs the exception clause qualifies [brackets mine]. ¹⁸

The grammatical evidence shows that Matthew’s construction was not meant to qualify both the following, as well as the preceding, verbal action. If it was, then this would be the only place in the entire New Testament where such a grammatical construction appears.

Logical.

God has given man a logical mind. Logic alone is fallible. Logic guided by the constraints of God’s infallible word can help determine if one’s arguments and conclusions are consistent with all the biblical data. Those who claim Matthew 19:9 allows a divorced person freedom to remarry create logical fallacies which are inconsistent with all the biblical evidence.

1. Those who allow remarriage usually maintain that porneia is a one-to-one equivalent for adultery in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. They then claim this adultery breaks the one flesh bond and allows a person to remarry without committing adultery. No biblical passage clearly teaches the one flesh marriage bond is ever broken by anything except death. Those who claim the one flesh bond is broken by adultery, must contend with inconsistency. If a man’s wife committed adultery then the two would cease to be one flesh. One act of adultery would break the one flesh bond. If the wife subsequently committed adultery the process would begin all over again. The man who continued to live with his wife after she committed adultery, would be having sexual relations with a woman whom he had ceased to be one flesh with. Consistency would require the couple in this instance to remarry in order to restore the one flesh bond. If the wife committed adultery a second time, the process would need to be repeated all over again. Some have taught that it is persistent or continual adultery, not a single act, that breaks the one flesh bond and allows a person the freedom to divorce and remarry. This is also illogical. One act of adultery either does or does not dissolve the marriage bond. There can be no middle ground.

2. Some teach that Matthew 19:9 allows only the ‘innocent’ spouse freedom to remarry in cases of adultery. This is inconsistent as well as illogical. If adultery truly breaks the marriage bond then both parties would be free to remarry. Not just the ‘innocent’ one. This teaching would put a premium on the sin of adultery. A person who wanted to divorce and remarry could commit adultery (or claim they had) in order to be released from their marriage.

3. Matthew 5:32 teaches that the man who divorces his wife for any reason except porneia causes her to commit adultery. A man could put away his wife for reasons other than porneia and simply wait. Once she committed adultery (or remarried) the Erasmian interpretation of Matthew 19:9 would allow the husband freedom to remarry without himself committing adultery. The man who caused his wife’s adultery would be the one who was allowed to remarry. The woman who was unjustly put away would not be allowed to remarry without committing adultery. Consistent application of the Erasmian position would allow a man to divorce his wife for any reason and remarry without committing adultery. The early church position causes no such problems.

Conclusion: The lexical, grammatical, exegetical, and logical evidence points to the ‘exception clause’ as allowing divorce only in the limited instance of porneia. Jesus was not compelling people to divorce an adulterous spouse. Man’s legal bill of divorcement could never separate what God had joined together (Matthew 19:6). He was not telling divorced people to remarry. This would be in opposition to God’s one flesh covenant (Matthew 19:5). This is why the disciples were so astonished at the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 19:10). They knew Christ was teaching a higher standard than the religious leaders of His day (Matthew 5:20, 7:28-29).

No plain rendered statement in the entire New Testament clearly mandates the right of a divorced person to remarry while their spouse is alive. Matthew 19:9 may come closest, but the ‘exception clause’ gives an exception for divorce which does not include the right to remarry. Jesus taught that the permanence of marriage was based on the one flesh bond which God had ordained for man and woman from the beginning of creation. It is for this reason that man is not to separate what God has joined together.

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mark 10:2-12).

It was now the spring of Jesus’ final year of ministry. He had just left Capernaum, went through Judea, and ended up on the east side of the Jordan in Perea. Perea was one of two districts under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas had previously thrown John the Baptist in prison for preaching against his divorce and remarriage. It is under these circumstances that the Pharisees came to ask Jesus a test question concerning divorce.

The Pharisees asked Jesus whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife? Jesus said to them, "What did Moses command you?" The Pharisees believed that Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife if he protected her rights by giving her a certificate of divorce. ¹⁹ First century Rabbinic law not only allowed divorce it compelled it. A man was not permitted to be reconciled to a fornicating wife. ²⁰

In verse 5 Jesus claimed that it was their hard-heartedness and obstinate refusal to accept God’s view of marriage that allowed for divorce. The Law of Moses only acknowledged the presence of divorce; it did not institute or authorize it. ²¹ Jesus took his tempters back to God’s original divine intent regarding the institution of marriage. The man and woman are not simply two partners in a legal contract. They are joined together in an indissoluble one flesh covenant union that is the same as a blood relationship between parent and child. ²² Because of this, what God has joined together let no man separate.

Later, while the disciples and Jesus were in a house, the disciples asked him for a confirmation of what he had previously spoken. Since Jesus spoke to the religious leaders in proverbs he answered their questions in a straight forward manner: "The man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery." Both Matthew 19 and Mark 10 give a synopsis of the same event. Each author was inspired by the Holy Spirit to record those items which would be needed by their intended audience. Matthew wrote primarily for Jewish readers and recorded the exception for divorce in the case of fornication. This was probably included because of the Rabbinic law which compelled a man to divorce his fornicating wife. Mark wrote to a Roman audience. He included Jesus’ teaching regarding a woman who divorced her husband and remarried. Under Roman law a woman could initiate a divorce. Rabbinic law did not allow this. Though Jewish, Greek, and Roman law allowed remarriage after divorce, Jesus boldly claimed that whoever remarries after divorcing their spouse commits adultery.

And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery (Luke 16:14-18).

The Pharisees scoffed at Jesus for teaching man cannot serve both God and money. Their covetousness was detestable to God. They had nullified the true interpretation of the Law and the Prophets. They had justified their actions by living according to the traditions of men. Jesus announced that since John the Baptist, the kingdom of God had been preached. The coming of the New Covenant did not set aside God’s law, rather it was the fulfillment of it. It would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the law to fail. The Old Testament prophecies would be completely fulfilled, and the moral law of God would remain absolutely authoritative. ²³ The Pharisees were very adept at setting aside the true meaning of God’s law and inventing their own standards of righteousness (cf. Mark 7:13).

In verse 18 Jesus uses an illustration to show the Pharisees how far they were from obeying the true intent of God’s law. He tells them that everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. The man who marries the divorced woman also commits adultery. The Pharisees allowed both divorce and remarriage. The evidence shows Jesus did not.

Man may attempt to justify himself by lowering God’s standards and then judging himself accordingly. God knows the hearts of everyone. In the end, all judgment will be based upon God’s impeccable righteousness.

Conclusion

Jesus based His teaching about marriage on the one flesh union created by God. His standards were permanence and forgiveness. Though realizing culture may compel one to put away a fornicating spouse, He never commanded divorce. Divorce was caused by hardness of heart (Mark 10:5). Hardness of heart may lead one partner to commit adultery. Hardness of heart may cause a spouse to be unforgiving. Neither are God’s will. If adultery occurs, it does not dissolve the one flesh bond or replace it with a new one. If a legal divorce takes place, it cannot nullify the kinship relationship which exists between husband and wife.

Heth and Wenham have correctly understood the teaching of Christ in its cultural context:

Should a man be forced to put away his unfaithful wife, as the Jewish readers of Matthew’s Gospel would have been, Jesus does not hold him responsible for breaking His command not to divorce. The guilt and the blame lie with the woman who is an adulteress by reason of her offense. And should the hard-heartedness of one of the partners result in an unfortunate divorce, lack of forgiveness and a refusal to be reconciled, Jesus requires His disciples to remain single. One thing appears certain from this study: the New Testament and the early church as a whole are not vague or confusing when it comes to the question of remarriage after divorce. It is clear that Jesus said that a man may have one wife or no wife, and if someone puts away their partner for whatever reason, they must remain single. ²⁴

Jesus did not command people to divorce a fornicating spouse. He told them to forgive. He did not tell divorced people to remarry. He told them to reconcile or remain single (I Corinthians 7:11).

Verses 1-3 relate back to Romans 6:14.¹ In Romans 6:14 Paul states the believer is not under law but under grace. Though Paul’s primary concern is to show the believer’s release from the law, the illustration he uses sheds light on the permanence of marriage. ² The law of marriage binds a woman to her husband as long as he lives. No exceptions! Only when her husband dies is she free to remarry. If a woman marries another man while her husband is alive she shall be called an adulteress. "Shall be called" is in the future tense. A good rendering of this would be "she shall from this time on, be known as an adulteress". The widow who remarries is not an adulteress. When a woman’s husband dies, she is free from the law of marriage.

Paul is neither contradicting nor adding to the teaching of Christ. Paul is reaffirming the one flesh concept of marriage that is expressed throughout the Bible. Marriage is a permanent kinship bond that can only be broken by death.

This is one of the clearest passages on the permanence of marriage. Not surprisingly some have gone out of their way to say Paul wasn’t teaching about divorce and remarriage at all. The argument usually given is that Paul was teaching a widow has the right to remarry.

Paul’s main intention is to teach the believer’s release from the law. He uses what is known (the permanence of marriage) to illustrate what he wishes to teach (the believer’s release from the law). The woman whose husband has died, is free to remarry. The woman who remarries while her husband is alive is an adulteress. Neither is the main point of the passage. Nevertheless, both are true. One cannot be chosen without the other.

First Corinthians 6

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall become one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body: but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body (I Corinthians 6:15-18).

First Corinthians 6 does not speak about marriage, divorce, or remarriage. Nevertheless, some have attempted to use this text to teach adultery dissolves or creates a second one flesh bond. Some even claim the man who commits fornication with a harlot is actually married to her.

The context of this passage speaks of the believer’s oneness and union with Christ. The believer is to flee fornication because his body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Those who claim First Corinthians 6 teaches on marriage, simply aren’t interpreting contextually.

One significant observation is that the text does not mention whether the believer is married or not. Porneia might include adultery but may simply refer to sexual relations before one is married. Even if it could be assumed the believer was married, nothing is stated about the dissolution of marriage by fornication. If it were true that fornication could sever a marriage, it would be more consistent with the text to say this fornication could also wed the man to the harlot. Every time a man committed fornication he would cease to be married to his current wife and be wed to the harlot.

The context actually speaks of the believer being united with Christ, not with his wife. The believer who unites himself to a harlot is, in a sense, one flesh with her. Yet this does not mean he is married to her. True biblical marriage is more than a sexual act. The believer who commits fornication mars, but does not dissolve the unique relationship he has with Christ.

First Corinthians 7

General Outline

In I Corinthians 7 Paul deals with marriage and issues related to it. Paul addresses different groups of people and gives them guiding principles and instructions for each situation. Difficulties arise when people interpret this chapter without first examining the context and identifying structural markers and transitions.

Chapter 7 has two main divisions. Paul uses the structural marker "now concerning" (peri de) to address two different groups. Verses 1-24 give directions to married couples and those who were previously married, i.e... widows, widowers, and divorcees. Verses 25-38 address those who were never previously married, i.e...virgins and bachelors. Paul gives advice concerning their betrothal or engagement.

7:1-7 Paul instructs married couples to fulfill their conjugal duties to one another.

7:8-9 Paul directs widows and the unmarried (possibly a reference to widowers) concerning self control. It would be good for them to remain unmarried, but for those who burn with passion it is better to marry.

7:10-11 Both the Lord and Paul taught the permanence of marriage for all people. Believers in particular are not to divorce. If a divorce occurs, they are to remain single or be reconciled.

7:12-16 The Lord Jesus Christ left no specific teaching in the gospels for believers who are married to unbelievers. Paul instructs believers to be at peace with their unbelieving partner.

7:17-24 Believers should remain in the same condition they were in when saved. External circumstances and human masters are of secondary importance to spiritual life and the Lordship of Christ.

7:25-38 Paul instructs those who were previously unmarried, concerning marriage and betrothal.

7:39-40 Concluding remarks on the law of marriage.

First Corinthians 7:1-7

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that (First Corinthians 7:1-7).

Verse 1 The Corinthians had previously written to Paul and made the statement: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Paul gives his reply in verses 2-7. The NIV translates this verse "it is good for a man not to marry." This is an interpretation rather than a translation. It is also a doubtful meaning of the verse. It is more probable that the Corinthians had questioned Paul concerning the practice of celibacy within the confines of marriage. The term "to touch" is used in Classical Greek and the Septuagint as a figurative expression for sexual intercourse (cf. Genesis 20:6).

Chrysostom makes this comment in his Homily on I Corinthians 7:

Wherefore he says, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me." For they had written to him, "Whether it was right to abstain from one’s wife, or not:" and writing back in answer to this and giving rules about marriage, he also introduces the discourse concerning virginity: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." ³

Although he allows Paul to introduce the topic of virginity, Chrysostom realizes the Corinthians main question regarded the practice of celibacy within the confines of marriage.

Verse 2 Fornication, or sexual immorality, was rampant in Corinth. Because of this, each man was to have his own wife and each wife was to have her own husband. The context of the passage and its relationship to verses 1-7 suggests the word "have" does not mean single people should get married. Rather, it means that married people should continue to perform their conjugal duties. Paul uses have as an expression for sexual intercourse in First Corinthians 5:1 as well.

Verse 3 The husband is to give to his wife the affection due her and also the wife to her husband. Affection speaks of the conjugal duties performed for the benefit of both spouses. The word due means what is owed in the common sense of payment of a debt (cf. Romans 13:7).

Verse 4 When two people marry, they become one flesh. A married person actually belongs to their spouse. Individual rights cease in the bond of marriage. The man who loves his wife, is actually loving himself (cf. Ephesians 5:28).

Verse 5 Depriving one’s spouse without consent is fraud. Paul gives four stipulations for couples who wish to abstain from sexual relations. 1. It must be for a designated period of time. 2. It must be mutually agreed upon before hand. 3. It must be for the purpose of devoting oneself to fasting and prayer. 4. At the end of this period the couples must resume sexual relations. This is to thwart Satan’s temptations because of their lack of self control.

Verse 6 Paul’s concession allows married Christians permission to abstain from sexual intercourse for a given period of time. Paul does not want the statement given in verse 5 to be misconstrued as a command. A couple is allowed or permitted to abstain from sexual relations for the purpose of fasting and prayer. They are not commanded to do so. It would also be acceptable to fast and pray while continuing in normal sexual relations.

Verse 7 Paul wished that all men could live as he did. Because Paul was unmarried He was able to continually practice celibacy and totally devote his life to Christ. There is nothing intrinsically spiritual about being single. The benefit is the freedom it gives to serve Christ rather than one’s spouse. Paul also recognized that some men are given different gifts by the Holy Spirit. The word used here for "gift" is (charisma/5486). It is the same word used in First Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 for spiritual gifts. Singleness is a gift from God, but so is marriage.

First Corinthians 7:8-9

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn (First Corinthians 7:8-9).

Verse 8 Paul wishes that the unmarried and widows could remain as he was. Namely, maintaining a state of continual celibacy which gives freedom to serve Christ. The word widow here is feminine. It means a woman who was previously married but whose husband has now died. Some assemblies maintained an official list of widows for those who were to receive financial assistance from the local assembly. Only those women who were over sixty years of age and met other criteria were to be put on the list. Younger widows were to remarry and bear children rather than burn with lust. (cf. First Timothy 5). Paul felt it would be good for widows to remain single, but also understood if they did not.

The definition of the term unmarried (agamois/22) is of some debate. Some believe it means bachelors or those men who have never been married. The word is in the masculine gender. It is also possible that unmarried includes widowers, as well as bachelors. In context however, it may simply mean widowers. In verses 1-24 Paul seems to be dealing only with those who were married or previously married. Paul deals with bachelors and virgins in verses 25-38. Paul uses the word unmarried in a parallel structure with the word widow (cherais/5503). There is a word in the Greek for widower (cheros), but it is not used in the New Testament or Septuagint. Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon states the word "unmarried" can denote bachelors or widowers. ⁴ Paul does not deal with single people until the end of Chapter 7 so it is doubtful he would use the word in this verse to refer to men who have never been married.

A side note here needs to be dealt with. Those who cross reference verse 8 with verse 11 to prove that a divorcee may remarry are simply not interpreting contextually. Paul plainly states that the unmarried in verse 11 are people who are legally separated or divorced from their spouse. For them they are to remain single or be reconciled. The word unmarried (agamos/22) is used only four times in the New Testament. All of them occur in First Corinthians 7. In verse 8 Paul uses the word to refer to bachelors or widowers. In verse 11 it means those who are legally divorced. In verses 32 and 34 unmarried speaks of both men and women who have never married. A word may have different nuances which fall within its semantic range but its exact meaning is best determined by its use in context.

Another issue that has relation to verse 8 is this: was Paul a bachelor or a widower? In favor of Paul being a bachelor is that no where in Scripture is there any mention of a wife or a child. In favor of Paul being a widower are the following. A. Unmarried rabbis were few and far between. The Mishnah appears to make marriage obligatory for all Jewish men except those who were impotent. B. Some believe Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin and therefore must have been married. But Acts 26:10 may simply mean Paul agreed with the Sanhedrin, not that he was a member of it. C. If contextually, "unmarried" means widowers in verse 8, then it would make Paul’s statement, "it is good for them to remain even as I am", even more consistent. Unless further evidence is unearthed, we cannot be sure whether Paul was a bachelor or widower. All we know is that at the time of his writings Paul was unmarried and abiding in a state of celibacy.

Verse 9 If these unmarried men and widows do not have control over their own passions they should get married. This is the same advice that Paul gave widows in First Timothy 5:11-12. The word "burn" here means to inwardly be on fire. An inward struggle is in view here that could be fatal to ones peace and sanctification.

First Corinthians 7:10-11

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife (First Corinthians 7:10-11).

Verse 10 Paul now transitions from those who are unmarried and may want to marry to those who are married and may want out. What he states here is not a concession or even his opinion. It is a direct command from the Lord. The Lord gave specific directions in the gospels regarding the permanence of marriage.

F.F. Bruce comments:

For a Christian husband, or wife, divorce is excluded by the law of Christ: here Paul has no need to express a judgment of his own, for the Lord’s ruling on this matter was explicit. ⁵

Some see verses 10-11 as teaching the permanence of marriage applies only to a believer who is married to another believer. They claim that verses 12-16 allow a believer who is deserted by an unbeliever to divorce and remarry. It is said that the permanence of marriage does not apply in the case of a believer being deserted by an unbeliever.

It is doubtful that Paul is limiting his statement in verses 10-11 only to believers. A better and more consistent understanding of this section seems to be that verses 10-11 give the general teaching of Christ regarding the permanence of marriage as applied to believers who are married to one another. In verses 12-16 Paul applies the doctrine of the permanence of marriage to believers who are married to unbelievers. The believer is to allow the unbeliever to depart, but after that the believer is to remain unmarried or be reconciled.

Why? The one flesh bond exists between two people irregardless of whether one, both, or neither are believers. Paul claimed that he was teaching what Christ taught on divorce and remarriage. It is doubtful that Paul was speaking of a special revelation he had received from the Lord regarding a believer who was married to another believer. If this was so, why didn’t Paul also receive a revelation concerning believers who were married to unbelievers? The more probable scenario is that this was Paul’s inspired understanding of Christ’s teaching concerning divorce and remarriage as recorded in the gospels. Jesus left no specific gospel record concerning marriage between two believers or between a believer and an unbeliever. Rather, Christ spoke about the permanence of marriage for all people whether they were believers or not. Jesus preached to the mixed multitudes, unbelieving Pharisees, and His disciples. Since the one flesh covenant of marriage is rooted in the creation ordinance of Genesis 1 and 2 Christ made no delineation that the marriage bond was permanent between two believers but not between a believer and an unbeliever.

Verse 11 Though Christ’s will is no divorce, the Bible recognizes that divorces do occur. The divorce here is the woman’s act, not her husbands. If she no longer wishes to remain with her husband, she has only two options: return to her husband or remain single. Marrying another man is not a biblical option.

The woman is probably not just separated from her husband, but legally divorced. Paul uses two terms (chorizo/5562) and (aphiemi/863) interchangeably to refer to divorce (cf. vs. 15). He realizes that according to Roman law, the woman was allowed to remarry. The law of Christ prohibits such an action.

Paul states that the Lord commanded the husband not to divorce his wife. Fornication is not listed as an exception for divorce. The Corinthian Christians were not coerced by Jewish customs to put away a fornicating wife. Christ allowed divorce in this one instance because of the hardness of man’s heart. Paul had no need to make mention of this allowance. The biblical pattern is forgiveness, not divorce.

First Corinthians 7:12-16

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: if any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean: but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? (First Corinthians 7:12-16).

Verse 12 Paul now shifts to a particular group of believers; those who have come to faith in Christ after being married, but their spouse has not. "I, not the Lord" does not mean this statement is uninspired or any less authoritative. Paul is merely stating that the gospels record no specific teaching by Christ concerning a believer who is married to an unbeliever. If a believing man has an unbelieving wife who consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

Verse 13 If a believing woman has an unbelieving husband who consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.

Verse 14 The believing spouse in a mixed marriage is "holy" or set apart unto the Lord. By way of relationship through the covenant of marriage the unbelieving spouse as well as the children are also sanctified. Not that unbelieving partners or children are automatically saved, but that the marriage between the believer and the unbeliever is holy and approved by God. The believing spouse sanctifies the home and gives the children a Christian influence they would not otherwise have. ⁶

Verse 15 If the unbelieving partner wishes to depart, the Christian is to let them. God has called His children to live in peace with all men. This includes one’s spouse. The believing spouse is to love their partner and allow them to stay. If this fails, they are not in bondage to preserve a working relationship.

In Romans 7:2 and First Corinthians 7:39 Paul teaches that the wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. In First Corinthians 7:27 he claims the betrothed man is bound to his wife. The word in these three passages is (deo/1210). It means to tie or to bind. ⁷ In First Corinthians 7:15 Paul uses a different and unrelated word (douloo/1402). It means to be enslaved. ⁸ The Bible never uses the word "enslaved" to refer to the marriage relationship. Many have attempted to read into this verse that a deserted spouse is free to remarry.

One commentator errs when he writes:

Paul did not say as he did in verse 11, that the Christian in this case should remain unmarried. ⁹

This is an argument from silence. Jesus claimed fornication was the only grounds allowed for divorce and no where stated that the ‘innocent’ spouse was free to remarry. Paul understood what the Lord had commanded and would not be led by the Spirit to teach otherwise. Paul never once stated that the Christian in this instance was free to remarry. Would it truly be necessary for Paul to reiterate that a spouse was to remain single or be reconciled, when he had already done so four verses earlier? Paul twice writes that the married woman remains bound to her husband as long as he lives; not until adultery, not until desertion, but until death.

The best interpretation of First Corinthians 7:15 is that the believer is not enslaved to keep the unbeliever from departing. The Christian is exempt from the responsibility for the divorce which the unbelieving partner initiates. The believer is called to peace and does not need to resort to coercion or legal maneuvers to preserve the relationship.

Robertson and Plummer write:

We cannot safely argue with Luther that ou dedoulotai [not under bondage] implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by the heathen partner, may remarry again. All that ou dedoulotai clearly means is that he or she need not feel so bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation [brackets mine]. ¹⁰

Paul uses the same word for divorce (chorizo/5563) in both verses 11 and 15 to refer to divorce. This shows that we are in the realm of full legal divorce. The laws of men allow remarriage, the laws of Christ do not.

This is how the early church Fathers interpreted and applied First Corinthians 7:15. They allowed the unbeliever to depart and freed the believer from guilt or liability of divorce. The departure of the spouse did not grant the believer freedom to remarry. The one flesh bond exists between husband and wife whether they are legally divorced or not. The laws of men, and physical proximity of spouses to one another, have no bearing upon the one flesh covenant.

Verse 16 The Christian spouse is to allow the unbelieving partner to depart without bearing the responsibility for the unbeliever’s actions. There are two primary reasons for living in harmony within this situation. First, there is no way of knowing whether the unbeliever will turn to Christ. Second, the Christian partner may be the channel used by God to save their partner. Until their last dying breath, there remains hope for their salvation. Until they remarry, there remains hope for full reconciliation. Living in a state of tension, disharmony, and legal battles with an unbelieving spouse would not display the peace of Christ. It may close off future possibilities for witness and testimony of Christ’s love and forgiveness.

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches. Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God (First Corinthians 7:17-24).

The main emphasis of verses 17-24 is that believers should remain in the same situation in life in which they were called. Outward physical circumstances are of little concern in the life of the believer. The emphasis is upon Christ as Lord and obeying Him from the heart.

Hodge writes:

Paul was not only averse to breaking up the conjugal relationship, but it was a general ordinance of His that men should remain in the same social position after becoming Christians, which they had occupied before...Paul endeavored to convince his readers that their relation to Christ was compatible with any social relation or position. It mattered not whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised, bond or free, married to a Christian or married to a Gentile, their conversion to Christianity involved, therefore, no necessity of breaking asunder their social ties. ¹¹

Verses 17-24 These verses are not a digression or an interlude to Paul’s train of thought. Rather, they are an extension of it. One’s marital status before the Lord is not of primary importance. Paul illustrates this by showing that those who belong to Christ should remain as they were called.

Verse 25 Paul begins with the structural marker "now concerning" (peri de) to transition to a different group of people, namely, virgins. A virgin is one who had never before been married. Paul had no specific commands from the Lord regarding virgins and whether they should marry or remain single. Paul received mercy from the Lord and was faithful and trustworthy to give the Corinthians Spirit-led guidance on this issue.

Verse 26 Paul spoke of the present distress that would make it good for a man to remain as he was. This may refer to a present crisis the Corinthians were facing. Martyrdom and persecution would be much less difficult for a single person to endure than for a married person who was responsible for a wife and children.

Verse 27 Contextually those who are bound to a wife most likely refers to betrothed couples. Paul claims they are virgins yet claims they are bound to a wife. Paul would not call them virgins (parthenos/3933) if they had already consummated a marriage. Betrothal was more than being engaged. A betrothed couple was legally married and considered husband and wife even though they had never consummated their marriage (cf. Matthew 1:18-25, 2 Corinthians 11:2). Once betrothed, a legal divorce was necessary to be released from the marriage. Here Paul applies the same principle to virgins as he does to others; remain as you were called. Those who had entered into a marriage agreement should not seek to be released from it. Those who are released from a marriage agreement should not seek to enter into one. Paul uses the verb (deo/1210) not (douloo/1402) to refer to the marriage bond here. He uses the word (lusin/3080) to refer to the being released from a wife. Paul uses a different word in verses 11 and 15 to refer to divorce.

Verse 28 Paul has just told the Corinthian men that they should not seek a wife. This is his advice but he assures those who have already done so that they "have not sinned". Those who do marry, bachelor or virgin, have done nothing wrong. Paul’s instruction is not to limit their freedom in Christ or to downgrade marriage. His heart is to spare them troubles in this life.

A side note should be added here: those who attempt to use this verse to claim a divorced person may remarry are not interpreting contextually. The context and grammatical structure show Paul now makes a transition to speak of virgins and bachelors. Paul has already taught concerning widows and divorcees in verses 8 through 16.

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction (First Corinthians 7:29-35).

Verse 29-31 Since the return of the Lord is near the believer should not become engrossed in human relationships or day to day activities such as mourning, rejoicing, buying, or selling. The world is temporary and one’s life should be devoted to Christ. Christians can use the world but they must not become permanently attached to it. Those who become overly absorbed in the things of the world are misusing it.

Verse 32 Paul’s emphasis was not on remaining single. Singleness in and of itself is of no benefit. The benefit of singleness is that it allows one to be free to be more fully devoted to Christ.

Verse 33 The married person is under divine command to care for their spouse. Once a man is married his devotion is divided between his wife and Christ.

Verse 34 The virgin, or unmarried woman, is free to care about the things of the Lord. This is the difference that exists between the married woman and the virgin. The unmarried woman is free to be holy to the Lord. Being single does not make one pure or holy. Holy here means to be set apart unto Christ. The laws of God and His creation are so established that the wife will be concerned about pleasing her husband. In pleasing her husband, the wife is actually obeying and pleasing Christ (cf. Ephesians 5:22).

Verse 35 Paul’s aim was not to limit a believer’s freedom but to allow them to truly be free to serve the Lord without distraction or divided attention. The word translated snare (broxos/1029) is better translated as a leash (NKJV). It is not a trap, but a bridle or a restriction.

First Corinthians 7:36-38

But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let him marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better (First Corinthians 7:36-38).

Verses 36-38 The interpretation of verses 36-38 is of some debate. The issue revolves around the indefinite pronoun "any man" (tis/5100) and the pronoun "his" (autou/848) in verse 36. Does this man refer to the virgin’s father or the betrothed bridegroom? The traditional view has held it means the father of the bride. The view held by some modern day commentators is that it means the bridegroom. The NIV has gone so far as to translate this passage as referring to the bridegroom while giving the traditional interpretation in the margin. It seems best to leave the translation speaking of any man and allowing the reader to decide which view is correct. The strength of the bridegroom view is that it allows for a consistent subject for the verbs used throughout the passage. The weakness of this view is that it requires the words (gameo/1060) and (gamizo/1061) to be used as synonymous. Lexically, gameo means to marry while gamizo usually means to give in marriage. The RSV translates the word "virgin" as betrothed in verses 36 and 37. This is an error. The RSV also translates verse 38 "he who marries his betrothed". This is an interpretation, not a correct translation.

In favor of the ‘father’ view is that the context appears to be speaking of a man who is giving his virgin to be married. In the Corinthian culture the decision was not the bride’s but the father’s. The virgin could only marry with the father’s approval. It would be strange to say a bridegroom would "keep his virgin" for the purpose of betrothal is marriage. The choice would still be the father’s not the bridegroom’s. It would make little sense for a man to enter into a betrothal and then "keep" her from marriage. Keep here does not mean to leave her a virgin but to retain possession of her. If the bridegroom was to "keep his virgin" then he would be living in a state of permanent betrothal without ever consummating the marriage.

Paul seems to be giving advice to the father of the virgin. Paul doesn’t mention the girl’s desires but places the whole affair in the hands of the father. The father was the one who exercised decision-making authority in regards to family matters. The father may have already purposed in his heart that the daughter would not marry. If there was no ‘necessity’ or ‘compulsion’ from evidence that his daughter would not be able to remain single he would do well to follow his convictions. If he decided she should marry he does well, but if he decided not to let her marry he does better.

First Corinthians 7:39-40

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God (I Corinthians 7:39-40).

Paul concludes his teaching on marriage and the issues related to it with an admonition restating the permanence of marriage. The marriage bond may have been held in low regard by the pagan Corinthians, but Paul reminds the believers that marriage is permanent until death. When a woman’s husband died, she was free to remarry. This was Paul’s Spirit-led teaching regarding the permanence of marriage and his inspired understanding of the teaching of Christ in the gospels on this subject. He gives no exceptions for remarriage except the death of the spouse. If the woman’s husband died, she was free to remarry only another Christian. Paul’s judgment was that she would be happier by remaining single.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as also Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband (Ephesians 5:22-33).

Ephesians 5 teaches how husbands and wives are to treat one another. It also teaches the permanence of marriage based upon the one flesh concept established by God.

5:22-24 Wives are to be under the authority of their husbands. This does not mean they are inferior. Rather, God has established a divine order in creation. Christ the Son submits Himself to God the Father. This does not mean He is inferior or less than God. Instead it shows order. Christ is the head of the church. The church is to submit to Christ as its head. In the same way wives are to submit to their husbands.

5:25-29 Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. He died on the cross to cleanse and sanctify her. Husbands are to show the same sacrificial love to their wives. The wife is really one body, or one flesh, with her husband. The husband who does not love his wife is really hating himself. The husband who loves his wife loves himself. The husband who commits adultery has failed not only to submit to Christ, but also to love his wife. The husband who will not forgive an adulterous wife is not loving his wife as Christ loved the church. Those who divorce their wives for sexual immorality are not loving their wives as Christ loved the church.

5:30-33 The church consists of the members of Christ’s body. In verse 31 Paul cites Genesis 2:24 to show how inseparable the church is from Christ. He uses marriage as an illustration of Christ and the church. This covenant bond that binds Christ to the church is the same type of bond that exists between husband and wife. This is evidence against the claim that a marriage may be dissolved by sin. Not even continual persistent adultery can sever the one flesh covenant. The man whose wife lives in this manner is bound by the law of Christ to forgive her and receive her back. Anything less, is to disobey the commands of Scripture. A man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. Christ will not break his covenant with the members of his body, the church (cf. Hebrew 13:5; Matthew 28:20; John 10:28; Romans 8:35-39; II Corinthians 1:22; Ephesians 1:13-14).

Since the bond between Christ and His church cannot be broken, neither can the bond be broken between husband and wife. If the marriage bond can be dissolved or severed, then Paul, under divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has made a serious mistake by comparing marriage to Christ and the church. The symbolic purpose of Christian marriage is to show the world the type of love Christ has for His church.

Those who claim the right to divorce a sinful spouse, have missed the spirit of the New Testament. Those who forgive and receive an erring spouse, are an illustration of the love, forgiveness, and oneness Christ has with his church.

Conclusion

If Christ did allow remarriage after divorce, Paul seems not to know of it. Paul teaches the permanence of marriage with no exceptions. He states the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives (Romans. 7:2; I Corinthians 7:39). If a woman remarries while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress (Romans 7:3). If a woman separates from her husband, she is either to remain single or be reconciled (I Corinthians 7:11).

The only allowance Paul makes is that if the unbeliever deserts a believer, the believer is not enslaved. The word used here is entirely different and unrelated to the word Paul uses for the marriage bond. Paul sees the one flesh permanence of marriage as being a picture of Christ’s permanent relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:31-32).

There are clear statements claiming marriage is permanent, and remarriage after divorce is adultery. There is no clear mandate teaching that a divorced person may remarry while their spouse is alive.

It is one thing to interpret Scripture to form doctrine on paper. It is another to apply doctrine to people’s lives. Doctrine and theology were never meant to be divorced from practical application. Doctrine was intended to be lived and practiced. The book of James warns us not to simply be hearers of the word, but doers. If we do not practice what we hear we are said to deceive ourselves (James 1:22).

The doctrine of divorce and remarriage must be lovingly applied. There are many possible scenarios for which a multitude of questions could be raised. This is not an attempt to answer every question that may arise (it would be impossible to do so). Rather, it is an attempt to consistently apply doctrine to some of the more common situations or questions that arise.

Let me say at the outset that I am not advocating going through congregations and removing people simply because they are divorced or remarried. Jesus died for them also and many have had all their sins washed clean by His blood. I am also not advocating breaking up second marriages. The answer lies not in legislation, but education. Pulpits and Sunday schools need to re-emphasize the permanence of marriage. They need to teach that couples need to stay together and forgive one another no matter how tough things get.

Many find it easier to simply ignore this issue and hope it goes away. Faithfulness to God and His word requires teaching and applying the whole counsel of God. This is a biblical issue with biblical answers to questions, if one desires to know.

1. If a person divorces before he comes to Christ, may he remarry after becoming a believer?

The answer to this seems to be a difficult "no". The Bible makes no distinction on whether divorce occurs before or after regeneration. Some have attempted to use Second Corinthians 5:17 as a proof text.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17).

This verse teaches that at the point of conversion a person is a new creature in Christ. It does not teach that the believer is allowed to remarry or commit any other sin. In context it teaches exactly the opposite. The believer is a new creation and has the indwelling Holy Spirit of God to enable him to obey the commands of Christ. It is true that at salvation all sins are completely forgiven. Forgiveness does not necessarily release one from the consequences of their past.

2. Is remarriage necessary to lead a fulfilled life?

Many who have never married are able to find fulfillment in Christ. Divorced people who never remarry can find satisfaction and fulfillment by remaining in the state in which they were called (1 Corinthians 7:17). True satisfaction and fulfillment are found only in obeying Christ as Lord.

Geoffrey Bromiley has captured the spirit of New Testament discipleship. He writes:

In the world of the fall the redemptive work of God carries with it a service of God not necessarily a technical ministry but a service according to God’s will, by God’s appointment, and in God’s discipleship which means that some part of life, if not all, must be lived temporarily outside the regular patterns of God’s created order. This reminds us of the order of priorities which Jesus demands in the calling of His disciples. What God requires must come before all else, the good as well as the bad. The followers of Jesus must be ready, should He will, to renounce even marriage for the sake of the gospel. They must be ready to obey God and not remarry after separation even though they might plead, as they often do, that they have a right to happiness and fulfillment of natural desires. To talk of a right to happiness is to delude oneself. Happiness, when attained, is a gift from God and it cannot be attained, nor can life be fulfilled, where there is a conflict with God’s stated will or a defiant refusal to see that true happiness and fulfillment lie only in a primary commitment to God’s kingdom and righteousness. For God’s sake, some may have to put it in a new perspective, and some who have broken their marriage may have to refrain from marriage. Marriage is a good thing but it is not ‘the one thing needful’ (Luke 10:42). Hence it may be and in some instances it may have to be surrendered. ¹

3. Does time change things?

Some have assumed that time heals and therefore changes one’s marital situation. It is true that the grace of God and time can heal damaged emotions. The Bible gives no hint to the thought that a ‘period of healing’ changes the one flesh bond to allow a divorced person to remarry.

4. Is God’s blessing on a second marriage evidence of His approval?

Some claim that since God has blessed the lives of remarried couples, it is proof of His approval. All men are sinners. Each lives only by God’s grace. God is good to the righteous and the unrighteous alike. It is the goodness of God that leads a person to repentance. Outward circumstances are not the determinant of right and wrong. Some second marriages seem to go quite smoothly. Many carry guilt. Some are filled with strife and end in a second divorce.

5. Is it legalism to require such a high standard?

Legalism is attempting to earn or keep one’s salvation by works of the law. Obeying Scripture is not legalism. Jesus chided the legalistic Pharisees for allowing divorce and remarriage. It is not legalistic, divisive, or judgmental to teach what Christ has already commanded. The balance is found in the command to "speak the truth in love". Jesus’ dealings with the adulteress woman in John 8:1-11 is a clear example of love without compromise. He did not condemn her to die by stoning, He did not lower God’s standards. He told her to go and sin no more.

6. Is a remarried person living in a continual state of adultery?

Jesus used the phrase "and marries another commits adultery". The word used in the Greek for "commits adultery" is (moichatai/3429). This is the present indicative. The present tense can be used as a durative to show continuous action. It can also be used to show a present fact that is now occurring. ² The book of Matthew uses the present tense more than 700 times. The majority of the time it is used in a descriptive sense with no continuity under consideration. ³ Continuous action may or may not be involved but the use of the present tense does not necessitate it. The context seems to be stating a general truth rather than dealing with a future continuous action. The phrase "and marries another" seems to contextually be speaking of the remarriage itself rather than the continuous sexual relations that will follow. A scriptural case could be built for a remarried person to separate from a relationship if convicted that it is adulterous. It would be unwise to return to one’s former spouse in light of the current revelation we have from Scripture (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

7. What if a remarried person recognizes their error?

They should confess their sin to God and be assured that He is faithful and just to forgive them (I John 1:9). Forgiveness may need to be sought of those who were harmed or offended. In some cases restitution may need to be made.

The question naturally arises whether they should cease the marital relation they are in and return to their former spouse. This is a difficult question that is not specifically addressed in the New Testament. Since the one flesh bond is never broken by divorce, the logical implication seems to be that a remarried person should terminate the current relationship and seek reconciliation with their original partner. However, logical implications apart from revelation from God should not be the determining factor in formation of doctrine.

Under the Old Covenant, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 claims that to return to one’s former spouse is an abomination to the Lord. Though believers are now under the New Covenant, it would seem wise to base our conclusions on the revelation already received if not superseded by further revelation. We should try to answer questions and do theology, but logical conclusions alone do not always make for good exegesis. ⁴ First Corinthians 6:11 may shed light on the issue:

And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (NKJV).

Paul refers to adulterers, which probably includes some who were previously divorced and remarried. If Paul wanted them to break off their current marriages, he doesn’t directly address the subject. This seems to be a unique situation which the New Testament does not specifically address.

8. What if a person has counseled a divorced person to remarry?

If a person encourages someone else to sin they should confess it to God and ask their forgiveness. Teaching another person to break one of God’s commandments is a serious issue and should not be taken lightly (cf. Matthew 5:19).

The Evangelical world has become enamored with counseling and so-called "Christian Psychology". The sincere desire to help hurting people is an admirable goal. Erroneous or misguided counsel can hurt people more than help them. All counseling must have its source, method, and authority rooted in Scripture. Every counselor, whether personal or professional, must first begin with the question: What does the word of God teach about this subject?

Many counselors want so badly to help hurting people that they will counsel a person to remarry no matter what the circumstances were behind the divorce. To others, every divorce is to be judged as different and one is usually encouraged to remarry based upon various criteria such as how long has it been since they were divorced or have they had time to ‘heal’. It is not uncommon for counselors to tell women with children it is all right to remarry because they need a man in the house to protect and provide for them. Others are told to remarry if it will make them ‘happy’ or ‘fulfill’ their emotional needs. This may seem right, but what does the Scripture say? Is there any verse which teaches that a woman who remarries without children commits adultery, while the woman with children does not? What if the woman has adequate means to support her children and herself? What if it is the man that has custody of the children? Those who base their decisions on these, and other situations, are practicing a form of situational ethics. Compassion for people is a good thing, but answers must be rooted in the authority of Scripture. Those who claim a person may remarry because they are lonely, or unfulfilled, are subjecting the word of God to a form of moral relativism. The answers are to be found inside, not outside, the Scriptures. I firmly believe that many divorced people remarry because the local church is not functioning as God intended it to. This is no excuse for sin, but local congregations must stand ready to spiritually, emotionally, and financially support divorced people who need help, especially those who have children.

9. May a divorced and remarried person be received into fellowship?

A person who remarries before coming to Christ is completely forgiven of all sin when he or she turns to Christ. One’s sphere of ministry may be limited, but that person’s position in Christ is secure. Those who remarry after turning to Christ may be seen in two different categories. Those who sin ignorantly, and those who sin intentionally. Both sin, but the heart is different. In the Old Testament, intentional defiant sin was called "sin of the high hand" (Numbers 15:30). No mercy was shown in this situation. Hebrews 10:26 also speaks of the seriousness of sinning after receiving knowledge of the truth. Though all sin is forgivable, it would be foolish to test God. Believers who sin can be assured of God’s loving discipline (Hebrews 12:5-11). God will judge those who defile the marriage bed (Hebrews 13:4). Those who sin ignorantly should be taught and encouraged to confess their sin to God. It should be kept in mind that some have been encouraged to remarry by friends or church leaders. All who are truly repentant may be received into fellowship. If a person confesses his sin to God (says the same thing about it that God would say) he is forgiven and received by God. If God has received a believer, so should the local congregation.

Paul warned believers not to allow sinful men to continue in fellowship (I Corinthians 5). The Corinthians were too hard on the offender, and Paul exhorted them to forgive and comfort him so he would not be overwhelmed with grief (2 Corinthians 2:6-8). All discipline should be undertaken with repentance and reconciliation as the desired outcome. It is worth noting that the truly repentant person is one who not only confesses one’s sin but also refrains from encouraging others to divorce and remarry.

10. What about vows?

Ecclesiastes 5:4 makes it clear that a man should keep his vows made to God. Most people who get married make vows before God that their marriage will be "until death do us part". If the Erasmian position is true, then vows should be changed to read "until adultery, desertion, divorce, or death do us part".

11. Did Jesus approve of the Samaritan woman’s five marriages?

In John 4:4-26 Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well. When Jesus told her to call her husband she claimed, "I have no husband". Jesus prophetically replied that she was correct. She had been married to five men and the man she was now with was not her husband. Some have pointed out that Jesus recognized the legality of the Samaritan woman’s five marriages. There is little doubt that Jesus recognized the cultural legality of the woman who had been married five times. The issue is that He used this to show the woman her sin and the need for a Savior. He was not approving of her multiple marriages. Her marriages may have been legal according to Rabbinic law, but they did not receive divine approval. The passage does not teach the dissolution of marriage with the right to remarry. It teaches the sinfulness of the woman who had multiple marriages. It also teaches the forgiveness Christ bestows on all who believe on Him no matter how great their sin.

12. What if Elders of a congregation encourage remarriage after divorce?

It is common to hear people claim that since this is a tough subject the elders of each local assembly are to examine each case and give approval or disapproval for remarriage. Elders are established to shepherd the flock by teaching and upholding God’s word. They have no more biblical authority to say a person can divorce and remarry than the Roman Catholic Church has the right to grant annulments. Both are extra-biblical teachings of men which have no scriptural basis.

13. Is divorce allowed in cases of abuse or cruelty?

Jesus allowed divorce for one reason only, porneia. It would be adding to Scripture to claim this includes physical or emotional abuse. Though the continuation of marriage is always God’s will, separation is allowed (and may be advisable) in situations where one’s life or safety is involved. Any such separation should be taken as a step towards healing and reconciling the marriage. Paul said the wife who departs is to remain single or be reconciled to her husband (1 Corinthians 7:11).

14. What if a Christian friend chooses to remarry a divorced person?

First, one should pray for them and then for yourself for wisdom based on Scripture. The person should express Christ’s unconditional love to their friend but be prepared to follow Christ no matter what the cost. One should carefully show from Scripture that divorce and remarriage is adultery. It is out of concern, not condemnation, that this should be done.

15. What if this friend commits adultery by remarrying?

Whenever adultery occurs the biblical teachings of Matthew 18 should be followed. First, those involved need to examine their own life for sin so that they may not also be tempted. Initial contact should come from one individual who should go to reprove the brother and turn him from the error of his way. This should be done in person if at all possible. A letter can be sent if an individual refuses to speak to you personally. It can also be used as a guide to help in the initial confrontation. It is always good to have an exact record of what was and what was not actually said. If he will not listen two or three should go. If after prayer and patience the person refuses to confess their sin, the entire assembly should be informed to have no fellowship with this brother. Reconciliation, unto full fellowship, is the desired goal. If at any point the brother repents, he should be forgiven. A limitation of future ministry may also be in order. If he will not accept reproof, he should be placed under discipline and put out of fellowship. If he goes to join another group of Christians, the elders of that assembly should be informed that this person is currently under discipline for adultery and rebellion.

Below is a sample letter I have used as a guide to exhort Christians to repent of their sin after they have divorced and remarried:

Dear _______;

I am writing you this letter in obedience to our Lord’s commands given in Matthew 18. It states: "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault between you and him alone". I believe you are my brother in the Lord. Rather than talk about you to others, I need to obey the Lord and follow the steps laid out in Matthew 18.

According to the plain rendered statements given in the Gospels and Epistles you have committed adultery by remarrying a person who is divorced and has a living spouse (cf. Matthew 5:31-32, 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:1-3; I Corinthians 7:10-11, 39). It is my God given responsibility to ask you to repent and be restored back into fellowship with the Lord and His people.

I say this for two reasons:

1. The Lord loves you and died for you. I Corinthians 11:27-34 and Hebrews 12:5-11 warn that those who continue to live in unrepentant sin may be chastened by our loving heavenly Father.

2. The local assembly is to be a place where God’s standards are upheld. I Corinthians 5:9-13 warns Christians not to allow sin to go unchecked. We are to ask an immoral brother or sister to repent.

Since you have chosen to commit adultery by marrying a divorced person who still has a living spouse, I would ask you to first confess your sin to the Lord and then to the elders and saints of the local congregation.

Sincerely,

Joe Fogle

Summary

I have endeavored to deal with some of the more common questions that are raised in applying the doctrine of divorce and remarriage. One fact should be noted, even Erasmian interpreters will have to deal with these same issues. The majority of divorces (even among Christians) come not from one partner committing adultery against the ‘innocent’ spouse. Rather, they take place for various unbiblical reasons and remarriage usually ensues. The church must love and encourage people to turn to Christ, without lowering biblical standards.

The New Testament lists two offices for the servant leadership of each local congregation, elder and deacon. The books of First Timothy and Titus give specific qualifications for men who are to shepherd God’s people. The qualifications listed are the minimum standards of what an elder or deacon "must" be. All believing men should seek after these character traits for their lives. Not all will meet these standards and qualify for leadership. Being disqualified from leadership does not mean a man cannot carry on a fruitful ministry for the Lord. The phrase "husband of one wife" has been the subject of much discussion.

The phrase "husband of one wife" is "mias/3391 gunaikos/1135 andra/435". It could be translated "man of one woman". Some have attempted to translate it as "one woman man" but this is not precise. The numeral "one" (mias) is genitive as well as feminine. Since it is genitive it must be translated in the possessive sense. In an English translation this normally requires the use of the word "of". Since it is feminine it modifies the word "woman" or "wife".

1. The elder or deacon must be married.

This is doubtful. The verse claims a man must be the husband of "one" wife not "a" wife. ¹ In New Testament culture most men were married. Paul was giving character traits. Neither being married nor remaining single is directly a character trait.

2. The elder or deacon, if a widower, cannot be remarried.

This view was held by some second and third century commentators. It is improbable that this was what Paul was saying. Paul not only permitted but encouraged younger widows to remarry (I Corinthians 7:39-40; I Timothy 5:14). If widows were allowed to remarry it would seem probable that a widower would be allowed to do the same. In the centuries following the Apostolic age, remarriage after the death of one’s spouse was seen as a weakness but not a sin. ²

3. An elder or deacon may not be a polygamist.

Paul is definitely ruling out an elder or deacon being a polygamist. Is this all he is excluding? Some commentators claim this statement concerns missionaries going to a tribe that practices polygamy. When the people turn to Christ and want to appoint elders those men who are practicing polygamy would be disqualified from leadership. This may be an application, it is a doubtful interpretation. It is highly unlikely that Paul’s original intent was to deal with tribal polygamists.

Basic rules of interpretation should be applied to discover the meaning of Scripture:

A. Interpret in a plain and normal grammatical sense.

B. Interpret obscure passages in light of the clear.

C. Interpret historically and contextually with the original author’s intent in view.

D. Cross reference words or phrases with similar ones made in the same book.

Was Paul dealing with polygamists who were candidates to be elders or deacons? Justin Martyr tells us that in the second century A.D. some Jews were still practicing polygamy but gives no mention of it occurring among Gentiles. Paul was speaking primarily to Gentile Roman citizens in Crete and Ephesus. The historian Will Durant tells us that polygamy was prohibited by Roman law by this time. ³ Greeks and Romans practiced adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and concubinage. They did not practice polygamy. They did practice divorce and remarriage. It seems more probable that Paul would deal with something that was a problem: divorce and remarriage, rather than something that was not: polygamy.

4. An elder or deacon cannot be divorced and remarried.

This seems to be included in Paul’s prohibition.

A.T. Robertson has argued against this view:

"Of one wife", means one at a time, clearly. ⁴

His view would allow a divorced and remarried man to be an elder or deacon. He gives no elaboration or proof of this view. Since this is an obscure passage, it would be wise to cross reference it with similar words or phrases made in the same book. In First Timothy 5:9, Paul gives instructions on who may be placed on the list of widows to receive financial support. He states that qualified widows must have been the "wife of one husband". The original phrase is "henos/1520 andros/435 gune/1135". This is the same phrase, exactly reversed, as in First Timothy 3:2, 3:12; and Titus 1:6. The words "andros" and "gune" have the same lexical roots as "andra" and "gunaikos" in I Timothy 3. The only variation is that "henos" is genitive masculine while "mias" is genitive feminine. Both words should be translated "of one".

In dealing with widows, Robertson claims:

Widows must not be married a second time. ⁵

This is inconsistent interpretation. Since "wife of one husband" excludes women who had divorced and remarried, "husband of one wife" would exclude men who had divorced and remarried. It is doubtful that Paul was excluding women who had previously been widowed and remarried. Remarriage after the death of one’s husband was not considered a sin. Paul actually encourages younger widows to remarry (I Timothy 5:14). It is improbable that Paul was dealing with polyandry, being legally married to more than one husband at a time. There is no record that this was practiced by women in New Testament times.

Some claim the use of present tense Greek verbs in First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 allows divorced and remarried men to be placed in leadership. The present tense is primarily used to show the idea of progress. It is generally, though not exclusively, a durative tense. It is used in First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 when giving the necessary qualifications for those who desire to be in leadership. It is erroneous to believe the use of the present tense allows divorced and remarried men to be elders or deacons.

The interpretation of First Timothy 3 and Titus 1 does not hinge on the use of present tense verbs. Rather, it hinges on the permanence of marriage. The marriage bond is not dissolved by adultery, divorce, or any other thing short of death. The man who divorces and remarries, is actually taking a second wife. He would be the husband of more than one wife until one wife dies.

Some allow a man who was divorced and remarried, before he came to Christ, to be an elder or deacon. It is assumed that God’s forgiveness clears the slate for the man to be in leadership. It is true that God forgives all sin and releases each believer from guilt and eternal punishment. There are consequences for sin in this life. If pressed to its logical conclusion, then all divorced men, who confess their sin of divorce and remarriage, may become elders or deacons. It would not matter whether it happened before or after conversion. An elder could divorce his wife and remarry. He could ask forgiveness and be reinstated to leadership. He could then divorce and start the cycle all over again.

Augustine has this to say:

On this account the Sacrament of marriage of our time hath been so reduced to one man and one wife, as that it is not lawful to ordain any as a steward of the Church, save the husband of one wife. And this they have understood more acutely who have been of opinion, that neither is he to be ordained, who as a catechumen or as a heathen had a second wife. ⁶

Augustine claimed the man who had been married a second time, even before his conversion, was not to be made an Elder in the church.

Chrysostom writes:

"A Bishop then," he says, "must be blameless, the husband of one wife." This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one. But as prohibiting his having more than one. For even the Jews were allowed to contract second marriages, and even to have two wives at one time. ⁷

Chrysostom knew Jews not only practiced polygamy, but also divorced and remarried. Both actions would mean a man had more than one wife. Both would disqualify a man from leadership.

Those who assume that God would not require such high standards for leadership should read the Old Testament. In Leviticus 21:7 the sons of Aaron, the priests, were not to marry a harlot or a divorced woman. In Leviticus 21:13-15 the high priest was not to marry a harlot, a widow, or a divorced woman. He must marry a virgin. It is admitted that believers today are not regulated by the Levitical law. It is also acknowledged that the passage does not restrict divorced men from being priests, but rather those who had married a divorced woman. Nevertheless, those who assume that God wouldn’t disqualify a divorced person from spiritual leadership may be assuming too much.

What if a man is not himself divorced but marries a divorced woman? There are qualifications mentioned in First Timothy and Titus which cover this. The elder is to be blameless. Would an elder who has committed adultery by remarrying a divorced woman be considered blameless? He may be forgiven, but is he blameless? There is a difference!

What if a man was divorced but has not remarried? "Blameless" includes anything in a man’s past or present that would bring his character into question. ⁸ The elder must be one who "rules" his house well. If he cannot govern his own house, he cannot govern the church of God. Even if his wife was the ‘guilty’ party, Scripture states that the wives of leaders must be faithful. The wife of an elder can make or break his ministry. An elder must also have his children in subjection. If a man’s children do not live with him because of divorce, how can he claim they are in subjection to him?

Conclusion

God has high qualifications for elders and deacons. Those who are in leadership are to have impeccable character. The phrase "husband of one wife" prohibits polygamists, adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals from leadership. It prohibits men who are given over to lust of other women. It would also prohibit men who have committed adultery by divorcing and remarrying. Those who claim an exception, if the divorce and remarriage happened before conversion, need to put forth exegetical proof.

Outside of staying single, it may not be possible to eliminate all risk of divorce. It takes a conscious act of the will by two individuals to make a marriage work. It takes the grace of God to daily resist the temptations that seek to tear a marriage apart.

I am aware that a significant number of sincere Christians believe it is perfectly all right to divorce and remarry. Sincerity is not the issue. Correct interpretation of Scripture and obedience to Christ are.

I claim no infallibility. Some arguments may be stronger than others. I have written for the average Christian, not the scholar. More scholarly men than I have capably dealt with these same issues and come to similar conclusions. Their works are in print for those who wish to read them.

Adultery is a serious charge and is not to be taken lightly. If my conclusions are wrong, I will be judged by God for being an inaccurate teacher of His word. If I am right, a significant portion of the Evangelical Church will need to change its teaching and practice. All the church allows, or disallows, must be based upon God’s word.

1. God created marriage to be a lifelong one flesh covenant bond between husband and wife.
2. Sin has distorted God’s original plan for marriage.
3. The Mosaic law did not establish or approve of divorce. It was already occurring and God gave a law that only prohibited the divorced woman from ever returning to her first husband after she had remarried.
4. Christ allowed divorce only in the limited case of porneia. The ‘exception clause’ is only listed in the Jewish Gospel of Matthew.
5. The Rabbinic laws of Christ’s day compelled a man to divorce a fornicating wife. No such law exists in modern Western society. The Christian is to forgive his brother seventy times seven. The Christian should forgive his spouse in the same manner.
6. There is no plain mandate in the entire New Testament which teaches that a divorced person may remarry while their spouse is alive.
7. There are clear statements in the New Testament which call remarriage after divorce adultery.
8. The early church writers interpreted the Scriptures to teach remarriage after divorce, for any reason, was adultery. They took the ‘exception clause’ as modifying the divorce action only. There is no record of early believers practicing divorce with the right to remarry based upon scriptural interpretation.
9. The church in general accepted a no divorce and remarriage interpretation of the texts until the 16^th century. The Reformers allowed divorce and remarriage based on Old Testament interpretive legal fiction.
10. God completely forgives all sin, including divorce and remarriage.
11. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean freedom from consequences of sin in this life.
12. The Evangelical Church must not allow more than Christ allowed. The local church should stand ready to forgive those who repent of divorce and remarriage. It must be willing to teach those who seek truth. It must care enough to emotionally and financially support those people who seek to honor Christ by not remarrying.

The permanence of marriage is proven by the grammatical, exegetical, and historical interpretations of the relevant New Testament texts. The following points are normally used by those who wish to allow remarriage after divorce. The evidence shows that all 3 are incorrect.

Claim: Erasmian interpreters normally claim that Matthew uses porneia as a one-to-one equivalent for adultery.