Cannons from Canon

Marriage has been under attack since the beginning. The third chapter of the Bible describes what we call the fall of man. In this chapter Satan devises a plan to get humankind to defy God and obey him instead. How did Satan do this? He attacked marriage. Satan did not stop these attacks in the garden. Marriage remains the prime target of the enemy and I believe that some of these attacks against marriage have crept into the church in what  are now called “exceptions for divorce”. 

God’s design for marriage could not be more explicit in the Bible. From the very beginning the design was for the two (one man and one woman)  to “become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). This design was echoed by Jesus thousands of years later when stated “What God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mt 19:6). Furthermore, in case there was any confusion about the immutability of marriage, Paul quotes Genesis 2 while teaching on marriage during the Church age– the present epoch.

We get the most significant insight into this original design in Eph 5 where Paul shares: “I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church,”(v. 32) speaking of the picture of marriage after quoting the Genesis passage. Marriage, then, is a way we reflect the image of God (Gen 1:26) and a way we image Christ and the church.

I might clarify by saying that there are times when divorce happens– because we are sinners– and the Scripture does give us wisdom in handling those times. But if I am correct in God’s design for marriage as briefly stated above, then we can join YHWH in saying “I hate divorce,” (Mal 2:16). 

In the following pages I will argue that marriage is something only God can do and undo and that there is never a circumstance in which divorce is acceptable by Biblical standards. I will also argue that remarriage after divorce is prohibited in all circumstances according to Scripture and that it is adultery. This paper will survey the relevant Biblical material in the Old (OT) and New Testament (NT). I will also consider intertestamental thought and historical background.

DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE IN THE OT

The Old Testament is not a good place to build a case for divorce or remarriage. As we have already briefly seen, Genesis is explicit about the permanence of marriage and the creation paradigm is assumed throughout the rest of the OT. On top of that, “the Jewish Scriptures do not offer a comprehensive body of divorce law.”¹ Only a few passages provide guidelines: Lev 21:7, 13-14; Deut 22:13-19; 28-29; 24:1-4. Each will be looked at briefly.²

The Leviticus passage is concerned with priests. This law forbade them from marrying anyone other than virgins of their own kin. Marrying a prostitute or divorced woman was forbidden for the priest.

Deut 22:13-19 describes a scenario in which a husband accuses his wife of not being a virgin. The stipulations given by the law is for the father of the woman to give evidence of her virginity and if the elders decide that she was in fact a virgin, the man is to pay a fine and “he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.” (Deut 22:19). Here, “he loses what appears to be a general right to divorce. Nothing indicates that divorce or remarriage is otherwise impermissible.”³ In Deut 22:28-29 we find that if a man takes advantage of a virgin who is not engaged, that man must pay the father and marry the woman and he is not allowed to divorce her as long as she lives.

Last in the Pentateuch is Deut 24:1-4. This passage receives the most attention of the OT texts concerning the divorce and remarriage discussion. Wayne Grudem makes his case that divorce and remarriage is permissible by starting in the OT where he says “divorce was allowed in certain cases.”⁴ He makes this bold claim and references Deut 24:1-4 but then goes on to say, “This is not the kind of law that says something like ‘A person may obtain a divorce for such-and-such a reason.’ There is no law exactly like that anywhere in the Old Testament.”⁵

The issue with trying to build a case off of Deutoronomy 24 is that it makes no mention of permitting divorce or remarriage. It actually does the opposite, “her first husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to become a wife to him after she has been defiled,” (Dt 24:4 italics mine). Divorce is not explicitly approved or viewed as sin here but remarriage is explicitly denied in this circumstance. It is only assumed that divorce is happening, not that it is permitted. If divorce was being permitted here then why is she viewed as “defiled” if the second husband dies? 

The second issue with trying to use Deut 24 is expressed well by Kӧstenberger when he writes that “Jesus made clear in Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:5, this passage should not be construed as a divine endorsement of the practice of divorce and remarriage but rather represents an effort to regulate and mitigate existing practices.”⁶

Scholars will also point to the phrase ‘erwat dābār in Deut  24 translated as “something objectionable” in the LEB as the key to understanding the exceptions for divorce.⁷ However, this phrase is likely subjective for a reason. It was not intended to give the circumstances when divorce was allowed but rather it describes the excuse of the man who was divorcing his wife, which Jesus calls “hardness of heart” (Mt 19:7).

If someone wants to make a Biblical case for divorce and remarriage, Deuteronomy 24 is not the place. Neither is the rest of the OT. Some of the prophets do talk about the subject but are not necessarily concerned about whether it is ever permissible or not. Suggesting divorce was “allowed” in the OT is conjecture at best and twisting scripture at worst. Again it must be noted that no verse in all of Scripture permits divorce or remarriage in any circumstance. No matter what someone thinks of the OT, almost everyone would point to the New Testament and claim that there is explicit permission for divorce there. I am not convinced.

DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE IN INTERTESTAMENTAL TIMES

Not much will be stated here other than the fact that divorce and remarriage was widespread and common not only in the pagan world but also in Israel. Jewish divorce certificates have been found  as far back as the 5th century B.C.⁸ And the discussion above highlighted the universality of the practice in Israel during the time of Moses.

One interesting point which comes up in the discussion of Jesus’ teaching on marriage is that a two-sided debate formed among the Jewish rabbis:

In Jesus’ day, rabbinic schools lined up behind two major interpretive traditions. The conservative school of Shammai (c. 50 BC–AD 30) understood ‘ērwat dābār to be a synonym of debar ‘erwāh, “a matter of nakedness,” and therefore interpreted the phrase to be a reference to immodest behavior or sexual immorality (whether before or after marriage). The more moderate school of Hillel (c. 110–10 BC), however, separated ‘ērwat, “nakedness,” and dābār, “something” (cf. LXX: aschēmon pragma, “shameful thing”), and, focusing on the earlier words in Deuteronomy 24:1, “finds no favor in his eyes,” maintained that divorce was allowed in any instance where a wife had done something displeasing to her husband. This more permissive interpretation seems to have held sway among most of Jesus’ contemporaries (see Matt. 19:3), which is perhaps not surprising given that Gamaliel, the most influential rabbi of Jesus’ day (Acts 5:34; 22:3), was the grandson and theological heir of rabbi Hillel.⁹

More will be said on this below.

DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE IN THE NT

Two proof texts are usually cited to support divorce and remarriage: Mat 19:3-12 and 1 Cor 7:15. Yet upon examination, neither of these texts support the claim that divorce is permitted and both support the biblical notion “the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living” (Rom 7:2).

Sadly the discussion is only focused on these two verses when there are numerous other Scriptures which make clear the ‘rules’ concerning divorce. Mt 19:4-6; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11,39; Rom 7:1-3 all teach that divorce is sinful and against God’s design, that any remarriage is wrong without exception, and that marriage is binding as long as both spouses are alive. The following discussion will start with the synoptic teaching of Jesus and then move to Paul and his corpus.

DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE IN THE GOSPELS

Understanding the different contexts and original audiences of each gospel is a necessary starting place for understanding the synoptic gospels’ teaching on divorce and remarriage and how we are to understand the differences in each gospel. 

Modern biblical scholarship has rightly stressed that the gospels were narrating the story of Jesus for specific communities and audiences. Matthew was writing for a law-observant Jewish audience that had split from their mainstream peers in following and worshiping the Christ. Mark’s gentile audience had little need or interest to observe the cleanliness rituals of the Jewish law. The collection of the four gospels into a literary corpus would come later. The interpreter must conceptualize how these stories functioned for their first hearers.¹⁰

We might summarize it like this: Matthew was written primarily to Jews, Mark was written to Gentiles, and Luke-Acts was written with Jews and Gentiles in mind.

Mark 10 will be examined first:

It is important to establish at the outset that the two major passages containing the teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12) record the same incident. Both accounts have the same geographical setting (Matt. 19:1; Mark 10:1), the same audience (Matt. 19:3; Mark 10:2), the same question being asked (Matt. 19:3; Mark 10:2), the same Old Testament quotations (Matt. 19:4, 5, 7; Mark 10:4, 6-8), the same reply by the Pharisees (Matt. 19:7; Mark 10:4), the same rebuke by Jesus (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:5), and the same subsequent incident (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16). Because of these similarities it is doubtful that Matthew and Mark could be referring to two separate incidents.¹¹

Mark 10 starts with Jesus being questioned (v.2). Per His usual custom, Jesus responds with another question (v.3). We should understand here that the original question is an attempt to trap Jesus. Earlier in the life of Jesus, John the Baptist was imprisoned for speaking about divorce and remarriage with Herod Antipas. The Pharisees and Herodians are conspiring against Jesus seemingly to have Him suffer the same fate (Mk 3:6). Jesus simply asks them what the Law says, to which they respond, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away” (v.4). Jesus rebukes their understanding of Deut 24 and explains that this was only because of Israel’s stubborn sin and that, “from the beginning of creation ‘he made them male and female…’ therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate” (v.6-8).

The most interesting part of this narrative is that Jesus’ teaching apparently bothered the disciples (as it does most people today). Later in the day, “in the house again the disciples began to ask him about this” (v.10). Jesus makes himself clear: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (v.11-12). 

The only conclusion to these verses is that God does not recognize divorce. How else would remarriage be committing adultery against your ‘divorced’ spouse? Adultery is only something that can be done within a marriage. “The word for “adultery” (Gk. moichan) occurs twenty-seven times in the NT, always in the restricted sense of immoral sexual activity with a person married to someone else.”¹²

 The implications of these verses are staggering:

Jesus states now what takes place in case of a second marriage following a mere formal divorce. It is to be inferred from the previous statement of the indissolubility of the marriage bond. Any formal sundering of the tie leaves it really whole; the union being of this natural, physical kind, not accomplished by any formal procedure, but in the sexual act uniting man and woman, no formal procedure can break it, but simply leaves it as it was. And so, if any man divorces his wife and marries another, the second marriage goes for naught and the connection is an adulterous one, simply because the divorce is nil; it does nothing towards dissolving the marriage.¹³

Luke 16:18 is an interesting passage at first glance, one might be tempted to think that it is a random interjection that is out of context. I. Howard Marshall is helpful here:

Vs 16–18 answer the objection that the message of Jesus and his followers made the law in the OT and its moral demands out of date. Jesus denied the charge; God’s will was still expressed in the OT (29). Certainly the era of the law and the prophets had ended, and now the new age of the kingdom had come. But this did not mean that the law had ceased to be valid. A specific example is given: divorce, followed by remarriage, is adultery.¹⁴

If Marshall is right then Jesus gives his interpretation of the OT law concerning divorce.¹⁵ Jesus responds to the charge that He and His followers were superseding the OT and makes the famous statement, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the law to become invalid” (v.17). Jesus sets the scene by saying that the law is still valid and the next words out of his mouth are, “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorce from her husband commits adultery” (v.18). “Far from intending to weaken the force of the law, in these allusions to a new economy, our Lord, in this unexpected way, sends home its high requirements with a pungency which the Pharisees would not fail to feel.”¹⁶

Lastly, Matthew 19:1-12.¹⁷ As noted above, this is almost certainly the same account as the one recorded in Mark. Matthew 5 and Luke 16 also lead us to believe that Jesus taught on divorce and remarriage frequently throughout His ministry. After being tested (v.3), Jesus reaffirms God’s design for marriage (v. 4-6). He answers the crowd’s curiosity about marriage, “Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the basis of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (v.9). Weber notes that “there are several controversial issues related to this verse, all of which have some bearing on its exact interpretation. No matter how one interprets Jesus’ stance on divorce and remarriage, it was far stricter than the disciples (or anyone else) expected.”¹⁸

The Greek word πορνεία meaning “sexual immorality” gets most of the intention in these verses. Some attempt to restrict this word simply to the act of adultery.¹⁹ Others would take this word in its most usual sense which would mean any sexual activity outside of marriage would give grounds for a divorce. This is the modern evangelical view. Ryrie summarizes three problems with this view: “First, it cannot substantiate equating πορνεία with μοιχεία. Second, if it could, then it would not be able to account for the disciples’ reaction in Matt 19:10. Third, the position of the exception clause in the protasis of Matt 19:9 does not lead to the conclusion that it modifies both verbs; therefore, even if divorce is permitted, remarriage is not.”²⁰

Modern evangelicals also tend to interpret Matthew 19 (and the synoptic accounts) in light of the Hillel-Shammai debate. Jones and Köstenberger comment,  “on the surface at least, Jesus’ view is much closer to that of the school of Shammai, which restricted legitimate divorce (with the possibility of remarriage) to marital unfaithfulness.”²¹

Das warns against this on many fronts. First, “The gospels do not identify differences in the Pharisaic position; they question Jesus on his divorce teaching, and he responds to them as a group.”²² Second, “for the Pharisees to have convinced Jesus to agree with one or the other subgroup would not have demonstrated their point that he was taking a position opposed to Moses, as they attempt in their other confrontations with him. That Jesus was being pressed by the Hillel position to side with the Shammai position does not seem obvious.”²³

Also, the modern evangelical view forces us to overlook the teaching of the other synoptic gospels and the teaching of Paul, all of which are clear. Ryrie states it well:

When the apostle Paul summarized the Lord’s teaching concerning divorce, he did not include any exception to the total prohibition of divorce by Christ (1 Cor 7:11). This seems to say that Christ taught the indissolubility of marriage and that whatever he meant by πορνεία was an uncommon meaning. Otherwise, Paul might have been expected to include a commonly understood exception to divorce in his summary.

Furthermore, no exception appears in Mark’s (10:11–12) and Luke’s (16:18) accounts of our Lord’s teaching. Some have attempted to harmonize these accounts with Matthew’s inclusion of an exception by saying that Mark and Luke state the general rule while Matthew added the exception (usually understood as sexual immorality). However, the disciples’ reaction to the Lord’s teaching when the exception was included (Matt 19:10) was not the kind one would expect if they understood the exception to mean immorality in general, for they were greatly startled by his teaching. They evidently thought he was teaching the indissolubility of marriage so clearly that they suggested it might be wiser not to marry at all. In reply the Lord did not recommend celibacy as the better course of action, but the very fact that the disciples rejected (v 10) this conception of life and marriage shows that they understood his teaching to be different from what they knew in Judaism. And the Lord did not suggest that they had exaggerated or misunderstood his teaching.

Everything points to the exception being something uncommon, certainly nothing as common as adultery or immorality in general.²⁴

Two alternatives have been proposed that could potentially harmonize the Biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage.²⁵ First, most recently argued by John Piper, is the “Betrothal View”.²⁶

Few evangelicals realize that this view was the subject of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Uppsala in 1965.²⁷ The betrothal view builds on the fact that in Judaism a betrothed or engaged couple were considered “husband” and “wife.”38 Jewish betrothal was a legal contract which could only be broken by formal divorce or by death. If the betrothed proved unfaithful during the period of betrothal or was discovered on the first night not to be a virgin, then the contract could be broken. This is why Joseph was going to divorce Mary when he discovered that she was pregnant (Matt 1:19).²⁸

The biggest weakness of this position is that it forces a very specific use of the word πορνεία that doesn’t seem to fit the context. Jesus wasn’t addressing betrothal and He wasn’t defending His father Joseph in this narrative.

A second view is to see πορνεία as marriages that were prohibited by Mosaic law. “πορνεία is understood by those who hold this view to indicate unlawful incestuous marriages, i.e., marriages within the prohibited degrees of kinship proscribed in Lev 18:6–18. The proponents of this view see the restricted meaning of πορνεία in 1 Cor 5:1 and especially Acts 15:20 and 29 as the key to understanding its meaning in the Matthean exception clause.”²⁹

This view is not without lexical support, “Joseph Fitzmyer and James R. Mueller have shown from the Qumran literature that זְנוּת, the Hebrew counterpart to πορνεία, was used in Palestine in the first century specifically of marriage within those prohibited relationships.”³⁰

W.K Lowther Clarke defends understanding πορνεία this way, especially in Acts 15:29: 

The Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:29 promulgated a compromise … Since the first three articles of the compromise are concerned with practices innocent enough to the Gentiles, the fourth must be of a similar nature. The passage in 1 Corinthians gives us the clue. Porneia here means marriage within the prohibited Levitical degrees … [This] was a live issue, and porneia was the word by which it was known.

Turning to St. Matthew, the problem we have to account for is the obscuring of the plain rule of St. Mark by an exception which seems inconsistent with the teaching of our Lord even in St. Matthew. If the foregoing argument holds, the reference is to the local Syrian problem. One exception is allowed to the universal rule: when a man who has married within the prohibited degrees puts away his wife the word adultery is out of place. Rather the marriage is null …

… There is no divorce, but causes of nullity may be recognized.³¹

This view has great strengths. 1) It accounts for the Jewish nature of Matthew’s gospel. 2) It understands πορνεία  in both a grammatical and historical light. 3) It completely harmonizes the Biblical teaching on marriage found in Genesis 2-3, makes sense of the annulments in Ezra 9-10, and takes away the seeming contradictions with the synoptics and teaching of Paul.

The conclusions of Jesus’ teaching in the gospels on divorce and remarriage can be summarized like this: 1) Any remarriage after a divorce is considered adultery meaning the first marriage has not been dissolved. 2) Jesus understood and interpreted the OT law to forbid divorce and remarriage. 3) The “exception” clause in Matthew “concerns unlawful unions and is no license to justify divorce for sexual immorality. Even if immorality occurs, forgiveness and reconciliation are the goals, not divorce.”³²

DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE IN PAUL’S WRITINGS

There are two relevant passages in Paul’s writings that deal with this topic: 1 Cor 7 and Rom 7:1-3. Both of these passages add more weight to the pile of evidence that suggests marriage is binding for life and that any remarriage is adultery.

In Romans 7:1-3, Paul is not concerned with the divorce and remarriage debate. Rather, Paul is using an illustration to show that Jewish believers in Christ have been released from the law.

Or do you not know, brothers (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is master of a person for as long a time as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband. Therefore as a result, if she belongs to another man while* her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she* belongs to another man. (Rom 7:1-3).

Paul, along with Jesus, assumed the Old Testament teaching was that marriage was binding for life and that remarriage was adultery. Note, if the modern evangelical view on divorce and remarriage is correct, Paul’s point in Romans 7 fails. This cannot be the case, so the modern view must be flawed. Ryrie comments on Romans 7: 

In this passage Paul develops the concept that death releases the believer from his obligation to the law. He then illustrates this principle with marriage, stating that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives (and no exceptions). When and only when he dies is she released from the marriage relationship. If a woman is joined (that is, actual marriage, not illicit intercourse, since the same word is used in both parts of v 3) to another man while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. A second marriage while the first mate is living is adultery.³³

Paul’s teaching here is not confusing, and it aligns with everything else we have seen in the Bible. Daniel Heimbach makes a good observation:

In biblical terms, marriage is not something we do to ourselves, even with God’s blessing. Rather, we are joined in marriage by God (Mal 2:15; Matt 19:6), and for that reason, it is presumptuous to think we can undo marriages ourselves. Divorcing assumes we can unmake something God makes. It assumes we can do away with something for which we answer ultimately to God and not just to each other, our families, our neighbors, or even to the Church. The Bible says, “In flesh and spirit they are his” (Mal 2:15, NIV1984). No one actually undoes anything God does, so marrying another person after wrongful divorce simply adds sinning by adultery to sinning by illegitimate divorce. It compounds one sin with another.³⁴

This helps us understand why any remarriage after a divorce (if the first mate is still alive) is considered adultery. God is the only one who can make and dissolve a marriage. God dissolves a marriage through death.

1 Corinthians 7:10 is Paul’s reiteration of the Lord’s teaching on marriage. Robertson and Plummer understand that Paul is passing along orders, “The meaning is, ‘I give the order; no, not I, Christ gives it.’ Christ Himself had decided against divorce (Mark 10:9; Luke 16:18), and… Christ’s decision was well known.”³⁵ Paul reminds the reader of the teaching of Jesus (no divorce) and tells them what to do if someone leaves, “remain unmarried or be reconciled” (v.10). Paul then continues on to explain how this teaching affects specific situations.

In verse 15 Paul states “If the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. The brother or the sister is not bound in such cases.” This passage speaks of a believing spouse being abandoned by an unbelieving spouse, in which case, Paul says, “Let him leave.” This is in contrast to Paul’s command to live with the unbelieving “consenting spouse” in verse 12. Paul is saying that if the spouse becomes ‘unconsenting’ and leaves, that “you are not bound in such cases” (v.12). Once again, no mention of a divorce clause let alone “remarriage” as Grudem suggests.³⁶ Paul was addressing a specific question, “What if I got saved, and now my spouse wants to leave me?” Here is a summary of His answer:

If, therefore, the heathen partner seeks divorce, the Christian partner may consent. The Christian partner is under no slavish obligation to refuse to be set free. Just to this extent the law against divorce has its limits. Marriages between Jews ought not to be dissolved, and marriages between Christians ought not to be dissolved; but heathen marriages stand on a different basis. These ought to be respected as long as possible, even when one of the parties becomes a Christian. But if the one who remains a heathen demands divorce, the Christian is not bound to oppose divorce.³⁷

Paul is recognizing that unbelievers will inevitably leave their believing spouses in some cases. The believing spouses are not “bound” to chase after their departing mate. They can let the partner leave. Though the only two options moving forward are to reconcile or remain single. Later in the chapter Paul will clarify, “A wife is bound for as long a time as her husband lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wishes, only in the Lord” (v.39).

Paul teaches that marriage is for life that any other relationship or marriage with someone other than the original spouse is adultery (if the original spouse is still alive), and that there is only one thing that permits someone to remarry– death of the spouse.

Paul speaks of a marriage bond in these verses. This is not an issue of personality compatibility or even referring to a deep friendship. Instead, a bond describes the seriousness of the marriage covenant. Ambrose understood the seriousness of this bond and that is why he advised widows not to remarry: 

It is then lawful to marry, but it is more seemly to abstain, for there are bonds in marriage. Do you ask what bonds? “The woman who is under a husband is bound by the law so long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband.” It is then proved that marriage is a bond by which the woman is bound and from which she is loosed. Beautiful is the grace of mutual love, but the bondage is more constant. “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband.” And lest this bondage should seem to be rather one of sex than of marriage, there follows: “Likewise, also, the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” How great, then, is the constraint in marriage, which subjects even the stronger to the other; for by mutual constraint each is bound to serve. Nor if one wishes to refrain can he withdraw his neck from the yoke, for he is subject to the incontinence of the other. It is said: “Ye are bought with a price, be not ye servants of men.” You see how plainly the servitude of marriage is defined. It is not I who say this, but the Apostle; or, rather, it is not he, but Christ, Who spoke in him. And he spoke of this servitude in the case of good married people. For above you read: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified by his believing wife; and the unbelieving wife by her believing husband.” And further on: “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases.”³⁸

Harmonizing the teaching of Paul, we find that spouses are bound as long as they both live. If divorce happens, any remarriage on either side is adultery and the only options are to remain single or reconcile. And again we find that only death frees someone from the marriage covenant. All of this continues the teaching of Genesis 2-3, and the teachings of Jesus.

CONCLUSION

The Biblical understanding of marriage is that it is something God does. Thus we should come alongside Solomon and say “I know that everything God does will remain forever” (Ecc 3:14). 

Furthermore, we should understand that only God “undoes” a marriage, and that this is only when one of the spouses dies. God is ultimately the one who controls when we die. The Psalmist writes, “And in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me,” it is God who gives breath and life (Acts 17:25-26) and God who adds days to our life (Is 38:5). Therefore only God can undo marriage, and if someone is abandoned or divorced “she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor 7:11). Not only would remarriage be adultery, but we must remember the admonition,  “how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”(v. 16).

I submit to you therefore that God has made His design for marriage abundantly clear in the Scriptures: 1) Gen 1-2 teaches that marriage is something that God joins together, and because of that, no man should separate what God has joined. 2) Moses, because of the Jews’ “hardness of hearts”, permitted divorce in certain circumstances (Dt 24:1-4). 3) Jesus and Paul forbid divorce (Mt 5:32;19:6,9; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11,39) Jesus and Paul consider all remarriage after a divorce to be adultery (Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18 Rom 7:1-3) . 5) Jesus allows for the annulment of illegitimate marriages (Mt 5:32;19:9). 6) A Christian who is abandoned by their unbelieving spouse is not bound to that relationship (singleness or reconciliation are the only options). 7) Marriage is binding for life, making any remarriage adultery (if the first mate is alive). 8) Death is the one thing that legitimately ends a marriage and allows for remarriage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carson, D. A., ed. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. 4th ed. Leicester, England ; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Cowley, A.E. Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923.

Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, and William Arndt. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Das, A. Andrew. Remarriage in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2024.

Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002.

Fitzmeyer, J.A. “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence.” Theological Studies 37.2 (1976). https://login.ezproxy.shepherds.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/matthean-divorce-texts-some-new-palestinian/docview/1297004153/se-2.

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Latest impr. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Edinburgh: Clark, 1996.

Grudem, Wayne A. Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2018.

Heimbach, Daniel R. Fundamental Christian Ethics. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022.

Isaksson, Abel. Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple; a Study with Special Reference to Mt. 19.13-12 and 1. Cor. 11.3-16. C.W.K. Gleerup Lund, 1965.

Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Vol. 2. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. 2nd ed. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010.

Kraeling, Emil. G, ed. The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine. New Haven: Yale University Pres, 1953.

Laney, J. Carl. The Divorce Myth: A Biblical Examination of Divorce and Remarriage. Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publ, 1981.

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 1st ed. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Orchard, Dom, and Edmund F. Sutcliffe, eds. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953.

Piper, John. “Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper.” Desiring God, 21 July 1986. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper.

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Latest impression. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Edinburgh: Clark, 1994.

Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. 10 of Second. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1896.

Weber, Stuart K., and Max Anders. Holman New Testament Commentary: NIV Based. Vol. 1: Matthew / Author: Stuart K. Weber. Nachdr. Vol. 1. Nashville Tenn: Holman Reference, 2007.

W.K Lowther, Clarke. New Testament Problems; Essays, Reviews, Interpretations. London, Society for promoting Christian knowledge; New York and Toronto, Macmillan Co., 1929.

1. A. Andrew Das, Remarriage in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2024), 16. ↩︎
2. The following discussion relies on Das, 16-22. ↩︎
3. Ibid., 16. ↩︎
4. Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics:(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 805.
   ↩︎
5. Ibid., 806. ↩︎
6. Andreas J. Kӧstenberger with David W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Restoring the Biblical Foundation (2nd; Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 224. ↩︎
7. See Jones and Köstenberger for a longer discussion. “The critical phrase in the Deuteronomic stipulations that led to extensive rabbinic debate is the expression ‘ērwat dābār, which is commonly translated “some indecency” or “something indecent” (NIV; Deut. 24:1).” David W. Jones and Andreas J. Köstenberger, 224. ↩︎
8. A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923); Emil G. Kraeling, ed., The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953). ↩︎
9. Kӧstenberger, 224. ↩︎
10. Das, 88. ↩︎
11. J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth: A Biblical Examination of Divorce and Remarriage (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publ, 1981), 52. ↩︎
12. James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002), 303. ↩︎
13. Ezra Palmer Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (International Critical Commentary; New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1922), 186.
    ↩︎
14. I. Howard Marshall, “Luke,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (ed. D. A. Carson et al.; 4th ed.; Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1006. ↩︎
15. Contra Grudem who sees Jesus as making a “break with the Old Testament law,” Grudem, 809. ↩︎
16. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (vol. 2; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 116. ↩︎
17. Matthew 5:31-32 records the same teaching and so it will not be examined here. ↩︎
18. Stuart K. Weber, Matthew (vol. 1; Holman New Testament Commentary; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 311. ↩︎
19. This is not likely. See William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 854. ↩︎
20. Charles C. Ryrie, Dr. Ryrie’s Articles (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 174. ↩︎
21. Köstenberger, 228. See also, Grudem. ↩︎
22. Das, 80. ↩︎
23. Ibid., 80. Das continues and references Meier’s work which makes a case that understanding the Hillel-Shammai debate is actually anachronistic. See Das, 80-82; Meier, Law and Love. ↩︎
24. Ryrie, 171. ↩︎
25. There is also a third option which would see the Matthean “exception” as a later addition to the gospel. ↩︎
26. Find Piper’s article here ↩︎
27. Cf. Abet Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry ↩︎
28. Ryrie, , 174–175. ↩︎
29. Ibid., 175. ↩︎
30. Ryrie, 176; Fitzmyer, “Matthaean Divorce Texts.” 213–21 ↩︎
31. Clarke W.K Lowther, New Testament Problems; Essays, Reviews, Interpretations (London, Society for promoting Christian knowledge; New York and Toronto, Macmillan Co., 1929), 59-60. Some Catholics also defend this view: An alternative Catholic explanation (recently revived, amended and given rabbinic background by J. Bonsirven, S.J., Le Divorce dans le Nouveau Testament, Tournai 1948) objects that the usual OT and NT word for ‘adultery’ is μοιχεία. It maintains that πορνεία here means concubinage (cf. 1 Cor 5:1)—incestuous marriage within the degree forbidden by the Mosaic Law, Lev 18:1–17. In such a case a man in dismissing (divorcing) the woman is not only guiltless but is actually doing his duty. Our Lord inserts the clause in order to hint that the Mosaic injunctions remain (cf. CR 20 [1941], 283–94).A. Jones, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St Matthew,” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ed. Bernard Orchard and Edmund F. Sutcliffe; Toronto; New York; Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1953), 885. ↩︎
32. Ryrie, 178. ↩︎
33. Ibid., 176. ↩︎
34. Daniel R. Heimbach, Fundamental Christian Ethics (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 381. ↩︎
35. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (International Critical Commentary; New York: T&T Clark, 1911), 139–140.
    ↩︎
36. Grudem, 807. ↩︎
37. Robertson and Plummer, 143. ↩︎
38. Ambrose of Milan, “Concerning Widows,” in St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters (ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace; trans. H. de Romestin, and H. T. F. Duckworth; vol. 10; A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series; New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 10402–403. ↩︎