What do the Scriptures teach on the matter of divorce and remarriage? This is a very important topic in our day when unbiblical divorces and remarriages abound. The church must often grapple with this question in its counseling, and it has often received much flak for its positions, no matter where it comes down. In this article, I will present what I believe the Bible to teach on this matter. Evangelical positions on divorce and remarriage fall roughly into three camps.
The two-clause exception view: that divorce and remarriage is permitted for adultery and desertion, but prohibited for nearly all other reasons.
The one clause exception view: that divorce and remarriage is permitted for adultery alone.
The permanence of marriage view: that divorce and remarriage is prohibited in all cases.
The position of the author is the two-clause exception view, which has been generally been the traditional evangelical position of most of the church, and in my view is the one best supported by a plain reading of the Scriptures, and by the study of the whole Bible and its teaching on the topic. However, in recent years, this view has been challenged by the permanence of marriage view, which, despite its minority position as a view, has been embraced by such prominent men in the conservative evangelical and reformed world as Voddie Baucham, whose other views on marriage and the family I largely agree with, and for whom I have much respect, and John Piper, for whom I have less. Let us now survey what the whole Bible has to say on the matter. There are several key texts on the matter of divorce and remarriage. This is a topic that the Bible addresses quite explicitly, so we are not left in the dark, and to conjecture.
The Old Testament on Divorce and Remarriage
The landmark text on this subject in the Old Testament is Deuteronomy 24:1-4:
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
A straightforward reading of this passage leaves no doubt, that divorce was lawful under the Old Covenant, and remains so today, unless it can be shown that further divine revelation changed this law of God. Note for our purposes that divorce is codified into God’s law, which strictly regulates the practice.
The phrase some uncleaness is the word ervah and it is defined by such words as “nakedness, nudity, shame, shameful exposure, nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behavior,” by Brown-Driver and Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.[1] Strong translates the word as “indecent” and “nakedness.” The word denotes not simply adultery, but nakedness of a shameful sort. In Leviticus 18, we must remember, the phrase uncover the nakedness is used as a euphemism for sexual sin, coming from the root of such sin, in that it involves first the exposure of the privates prior to the commission of the sexual act. There is every reason to understand the word as a euphemism for the same in Deuteronomy 24:1. So why then, is the word for adultery used in Deuteronomy 5:18, na’aph not used instead? I believe it is because God was allowing divorce for all manner of serious sexual sins, not strictly adultery as defines as a married woman having sex with another man besides her husband, but it would include bestiality, sodomy, etc., Of course, the seventh commandment should not be understood as only forbidding adultery in its most narrow and technical meaning, omitting bestiality, sodomy, etc. Such things are included under the prohibited acts in the seventh commandments, and are expressly prohibited in the case law applications of the seventh commandment found throughout the books of the Pentateuch. Indeed, such a narrow interpretation of the seventh commandment was what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for in Matthew 5:27-28. John Gill explains, commenting on that passage:
the meaning of our Lord is, not that the then present Jews had heard that such a law had been delivered “to the ancients”, their fathers, at Mount Sinai; for that they could read in their Bibles: but they had received it by tradition, that the sense of it, which had been given to their ancestors, by the ancient doctors of the church, was, that this law is to be taken strictly, as it lies, and only regards the sin of uncleanness in married persons; or, what was strictly adultery, and that actual; so that it had no respect to fornication, or unchaste thoughts, words, or actions, but that single act only.[2]
We see therefore, that God allowed for divorce in this case law only for gross sexual sin. The passage goes on to require the man to write a bill of divorcement, before sending the woman out of his house. Divorce was thus not simply kicking the woman out of a man’s home; it was formal process that was officially recorded and official notice made of. Gill records:
A man might not dismiss his wife by word of mouth, which might be done hastily, in a passion, of which he might soon repent; but by writing, which was to be drawn up in form; and…before the sanhedrim, in a court of judicature, which required time, during which he might think more of it, and either recede from his purpose before the case was finished, or do it upon mature deliberation; and a firm resolution.[3]
And Jamison, Faucett and Brown note:
The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance[.][4]
Note further that the passage states that when after a man divorces a woman and she marries someone else, she cannot become the wife of her previous husband, after the current husband dies or divorces her. The point has often been made by advocates of the permanence of marriage view, though not by Baucham and Piper, that all remarriages are invalid and that the spouse who is divorced must divorce their current spouse if they have remarried and return to their former one, because the second remarriage was invalid. However, we see here that Scripture specifically forbids such remarriage. The argument that remarriages are null, void, and invalid is thus itself null, void, and invalid, and we shall comment on this point again later. We see God’s original design for marriage thus baked in to this case law. The requirement of an act of divorcement allowed time for repentance on the part of the offending spouse and for thinking the matter of the divorce through by the offended. And the prohibition on remarriage after the one party to the marriage married someone else likewise discouraged hasty divorce. Knowing that remarriage was barred after marriage to someone else would mean that one would seriously consider the matter of divorce and encourage the taking of marriage vows seriously. Note finally that failure to keep God’s law on the matter of divorce would result in the land becoming defiled. It was a sin that brought God’s corporate judgment down on a land and community, no small matter indeed. In conclusion, then, we can note several facts:
First, divorce was permitted by God for gross sexual sin. Second, the case law was designed to prevent hasty divorce. Preserving marriage was the operating principle on which this law was based. Third, remarriage to the original spouse after one divorced individual had married someone else was forbidden. There was no prohibition on a divorced couple reconciling if one of the parties to the original marriage covenant had not married someone else in the interim.
With these conclusions in mind, we shall now turn to the landmark texts on divorce and remarriage in the New Testament.
The New Testament on Divorce and Remarriage
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)
Note the context here in which this appears. This is the sermon on the mount, in which Jesus corrects the Pharisaical and Rabbinical additions and misinterpretations of the law of God, and clarifies it. That Jesus was in fact clarifying and not repealing the moral law of God is made explicit when Christ said that “think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” It often assumed that Jesus meant by the word fulfill, the perfect keeping of the law after which it would be annulled, but that interpretation does not square with what Jesus said afterword:
“For verily, I said unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)
It has often been asserted that in the sermon on the mount, Jesus added to or broadened the scope of the Old Testament Law. It is falsely claimed that the Old Testament Law did not address the heart, but Jesus broadened the law to include this. Thus, it is said, rather than nullifying the law, Jesus confirmed and expanded it. A variation of this argument is that Jesus did abrogate the law, and immediately replaced it with the law of Christ – a new law, which in contrast to the Old Testament Law, was focused on the heart and not merely external behavior. But such arguments misunderstand what Jesus actually said, and they ignore the historical context of his words. In the words of Jesus that follow Matthew 5:20, Jesus did not actually add to the law; rather, he defended the original meaning of the law as given by God through Moses against the legalistic additions to, and corruptions of, the law by the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus was not antinomian. The moral law was not defective or insufficient as a guide for righteous living. Rather, the law was perfect, but it had been corrupted by the current teachers of the law. And Jesus now was going to clarify the original divine meaning and rescue it from the corrupt additions and perversions of men. The key to understanding the context of his words is verse 20 of Matthew 5: “For I say to you, that except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.” In light of this statement, we can understand the following statements of Jesus. Henry comments on this verse
This was strange doctrine to those who looked upon the scribes and Pharisees as having arrived at the highest pitch of religion. The scribes were the most noted teachers of the law, and the Pharisees the most celebrated professors of it, and they both sat in Moses’ chair ch. 23:2 ), and had such a reputation among the people, that they were looked upon as super-conformable to the law, and people did not think themselves obliged to be as good as they; it was therefore a great surprise to them, to hear that they must be better than they, or they should not go to heaven; and therefore Christ here avers it with solemnity; I say unto you, It is so.[5]
And Calvin writes
But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather blame the corrupted manner of teaching, which the Pharisees and Scribes followed in instructing the people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained their disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy. (393) They lived, I readily admit, as ill as they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their corrupted doctrine, I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false righteousness. The principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine may be easily learned from what follows in the discourse, where he removes from the law their false and wicked interpretations, and restores it to its purity. In short, the objection which, as we have already said, was unjustly brought against him by the Scribes, is powerfully thrown back on themselves.[6]
And the commentary of Gill is worth quoting from here:
He mentions the Scribes, because they were the more learned part of the people, who were employed in writing out, and expounding the law; and the Pharisees, because they were the strictest sect among the Jews for outward religion and righteousness; and yet, it seems, their righteousness was very defective; it lay only in an external observance of the law; did not arise from a purified heart, or the principles of grace; nor was it performed sincerely, and with a view to the glory of God; but for their own applause, and in order to obtain eternal life: besides, they neglected the weightier matters of the law, and contented themselves with the lesser ones; and as they were deficient in their practice, so they were very lax in their doctrines, as appears from the foregoing verse. Wherefore Christ informs his hearers, that they must have a better righteousness than these men had, if ever they expected to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [7]
And Poole writes
What the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees was we cannot better learn than from St. Paul, who was himself a Pharisee, and bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, a great doctor amongst them, Acts 23:6 26:5 Philippians 3:5. That it was a righteousness of works appeareth from Philippians 3:1-21, and the whole Epistles to the Romans (Romans 1:1-16:27) and Galatians (Galatians 1:1-6:18); and their not owning Christ as the Messiah, nor believing on him, John 7:48, made it impossible that it should be any other. That they looked upon their mere obedience to the ceremonial law as their righteousness cannot be proved, yea, the contrary is enough evident by their obedience to the moral law, according to the interpretation they put upon it. But their interpretation of the moral law was so short and jejune, that it is manifest that their righteousness was not only a righteousness not of faith but of works, but works that were very imperfect and short of what the true sense of the law required, as our Saviour afterward proveth. That is to say, it was no righteousness, for he that keepeth the whole law, if he be guilty in one point, is guilty of all, Jam 2:10.[8]
Jesus’ statement would have come as a shock to his listeners since the Pharisees and scribes were known as meticulous law keepers. How could anyone be more righteous than the Pharisees, they would have thought? But Jesus did not leave them in suspense, and he quickly explained what he meant. As before stated, it is often assumed in the following words of Christ that he was either expanding or replacing the law of Moses. But this is not the case. And to understand what was happening one must understand the historical context of his words, as before stated. As one author put it:
To adapt and make the Law of Moses relevant for the Jewish people upon their return to Jerusalem, the rabbis, with Torah as their point of reference, interpreted and applied the law (i.e., casuistic or case law) to resolve issues, controversies and conflicts that arose as during the intertestamental period as the Jewish people intermingled with and confronted the legal and spiritual challenges posed by Greco-Roman culture. These expositions and applications of Torah were known as Halakah. In some instances, Rabbis claimed these new case laws were transmitted from Moses via “oral tradition.”[9]
It is this oral law of the rabbis, which the Pharisees and Scribes set on a par equal with Scripture, and though ostensibly an exposition and application of it, which Jesus addressed, not the Old Testament law itself.
Jesus then goes on to clarify the meaning of the law of God in regard to divorce. It hath been said, Whosever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but, I say unto you , That whosever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32) Again, the phrase, it hath been said, refers to the oral teaching on the law by the rabbis, and not the law itself. Jesus is not quoting Moses here, or he would have said “It is written, not it hath been said.” The law here referenced by the Rabbis is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. It should be noted, however, that Jesus is not quoting Deuteronomy 24:1 verbatim. He is quoting what perverted oral teaching of the Rabbis in regard to this verse. However, it must also be noted that Christ does not say It has been said by them of old, you have heard it said, but rather it hath been said. What is the significance of this? Unlike the previous clarifications of the law by Christ, which involved the oral law and Rabbinical traditions passed down by the Rabbis for generations and had gradually been elevated on a par with divine revelation, and which had corrupted Scripture, the Rabbinical corruption of this law was of far more recent origin. Hence, Christ puts his words differently when attributing the source of this corruption of God’s law. The historical context of this verse is the controversy between the Rabbinical schools of Shammai and Hillel, contemporary to the time of Christ. The former taught that divorce was only permissible for adultery, the taught a much more permissive and liberal attitude about divorce. The school of Hillel maintained that what was required here was only that a bill of divorce be presented to the wife; they alleged that the phrase some uncleanness referred to anything the husband might not like in his wife. Thus, they claimed that it was permissible for a man to divorce a woman for almost any reason whatsoever, including such trivial ones, as burning his dinner, not being as attractive as someone else, or for talking too loud.[10] The interpretation of the school of Hillel was quite popular in the time of Christ. Jesus here took the side of the school of Shammai, in resolving this Rabbinical dispute. Against the Pharisaical interpretation of this passage (which was in line with the school of Hillel) he clarifies the law in according to its original meaning. He says “But I say unto you, that whosever shall put away his wife, saveth for the cause for fornication, cause her to commit adultery, and whosever shall marry her that is divorced commiteth adultery.” Gill comments on this and explains:
But I say unto you; that whoever puts away his wife
Christ does not infringe, or revoke the original grant, or permission of divorce; only frees it from the false interpretations, and ill use, the Pharisees made of it; and restores the ancient sense of it, in which only it was to be understood: for a divorce was allowable in no case,saving for the cause of fornication;
which must not be taken strictly for what is called fornication, but as including adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation; and is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Hillell: who admitted of divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous pretences whatever; when Shammai and his followers insisted on it, that a man ought only to put away his wife for uncleanness; in which they agreed with Christ. For so it is written ,“The house of Shammai say, a man may not put away his wife, unless he finds some uncleanness in her, according to ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) The house of Hillell say, if she should spoil his food, (that is, as Jarchi and Bartenora explain it, burns it either at the fire, or with salt, i.e. over roasts or over salts it,) who appeal also to ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) . R. Akiba says, if he finds another more beautiful than her, as it is said, ( Deuteronomy 24:1 ) “and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes.”[11]
And Poole explains:
The Pharisees had extended this toleration which God gave husbands amongst the Jews to other cases, besides that of uncleanness or adultery; so as they put away their wives upon every slight occasion, interpreting those words, that she find no favour in his eyes, separately from the following words, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, and gave a liberty for men upon any dislike of their wives to put them away, provided that they first gave them a bill of divorcement; and that in these cases it was lawful for the parties, thus separated from each other, to marry to whom either of them pleased; and this is expressed in terms in their form of those writings of divorcement, in Josephus and other writers. [12]
However, Jesus’ limitation of the right of divorce to unfaithfulness was not an addition to the law, but harmonious with its original intent. No new standard was being set here. The phrase some uncleaness did not, as the school of Hillel maintained, refer to anything a husband might dislike regarding his wife, but rather referred to sexual unfaithfulness of some sort. The word used ervah, denotes not simply adultery, but literally nakedness, of a shameful nature. Of course, this would include adultery, but would also include such things as bestiality and sodomy. It refers to gross sexual impurity that it is not limited to adultery alone, although it certainly includes it. The word fornication used by Jesus is porneia, from which we obtain our English word pornography. The meaning of fornication is broader than adultery, and like ervah, denotes shameful conduct, especially of exposure of the genitals, and especially refers to shameful exposure and nakedness. The meaning of porneia is almost identical then, to the word ervah. As Bahnsen explains “…the two terms and their cognates are virtually coextensive in their applications.”[13] The point of this word study is to demonstrate that Jesus in Matthew 5:35 was not setting forth a new and higher standard, but rather reaffirming the original meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1 against the perversions of the law by the oral tradition of the Pharisees.[14]
In light of the above, therefore, we can thus clearly rule out the opinion of John Piper “that Jesus did in fact reject, for his disciples, what Moses commanded (Mark 10:5) or permitted (Matthrew 19:8) in Deuteronomy 24:1.”[15]
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 ye 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 be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to 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 5:3-12)
The Pharisees certainly got the memo the first time Jesus spoke on the subject. Their intention here, was not to ask a legitimate question, to which they already knew his answer, but to entrap him. Their intention here, as usual, was to trap Jesus into making a verbal gaffe. Gill explains their strategy by asking him if it was lawful to divorce a wife for any cause:
…be it ever so trivial, as said the school of Hillell: for there was a difference between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillell about this matter; the former insisted that a man might not put away his wife but in case of uncleanness; but the latter allowed putting away for very trifling things; as if she spoiled her husband’s food by over roasting, or over salting it; and, as one of the doctors say, if he found another woman that was more beautiful than her… This question being now agitated in the schools, they artfully put to Christ; not for information, but with a view to reproach him in some way or other; and that he might incur the resentment of one party or another, as he should answer. They might argue thus with themselves, and hope to succeed in this manner; should he be on the side of the school of Shammai, which was the weakest side, and less popular, as they had reason to believe he would, he would then expose himself to the resentment of the school of Hillell, and all on that side the question; should he take the part of Hillell, he would make the school of Shammai his enemies; should he forbid putting away of wives, which Moses allowed, they would then traduce him as contrary to Moses, and his law, which could not fail of setting the people against him; and should he consent to it, they would charge him with contradicting himself, or with inconstancy in his doctrine, since he had before asserted the unlawfulness of it, but in case of adultery; and should he abide by this, they might hope to irritate the men against him, who would think their liberty granted by Moses was entrenched on; as, on the other hand, should he, according to the question, admit of putting away for every cause, the women would be provoked at him, who would be left to the uncertain humour and caprice of their husbands; so that either way they hoped to get an advantage of him.[16]
Jesus however, being God and having all wisdom, was too wise to fall into their trap. In his answer, Jesus inferred that they already should know the answer to the question (Have ye not read…?” (Verse 4) Of course, the Pharisees had read; they were experts in the law of God, and the question was probably taken by them as almost insulting. Jesus did not create a new law; instead, he referred to the Pharisees to God’s will as it had been from the beginning and stated that man should not divide what God had joined. The Pharisees, preoccupied as they were with the exceptions to the rule rather than the rule itself, missed the point. They assumed that Jesus was contradicting the law rather than clarifying it. “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” They asked. (Verse 7) Jesus answered, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” It is important to understand here that Jesus was not modifying the Old Testament Law in regard to divorce. As we saw in our study of Matthew 5: 31-32, Jesus words there are in agreement in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. So then, Jesus here is not repealing Deuteronomy 24:1-4; rather, he is explaining Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Though this statement is taken by many as a repeal of that law, it is important to note exactly what Jesus said. He states that from the beginning it was not so. Remember that this judicial law is a case law application of the seventh commandment, part of the moral law that derives from his very nature and is hence unchanging. What Jesus is saying therefore, is that God’s design has all along been for marriage for life. The exception for divorce is not because the Israelites were too stubborn to accept what God really wanted in the way of marriage, forcing him to give them a way out of their marriages. The key to understanding this is the phrase from the beginning it was not so. It was not so in the beginning because there was no sin in the world at that time. The reality of human sin made it necessary to include divorce legislation. Jesus is saying that the reason divorce legislation is in the law is because sin made it necessary to include it. Thus, in his teaching on divorce, Christ was not at odds with Moses. Baucham however, in my opinion does set Christ against Moses. He says, dealing with Matthew 5:
We usually go here and we look for the exception clause except for sexual immorality. Now there’s an exception clause when we keep reading, we’re going to look at the next part of this passage but here’s what I want you to get and this is what we often miss: Jesus only gives the exception clause after he’s asked another question. This question is asked and answered and there is no exception clause in it. Is it lawful for any cause for a man to divorce his wife? Jesus says, “No, not under any circumstance.” No. Unequivocal. No, they two are one flesh. You can’t undo that. It’s like trying to separate a man from his heart. You can’t do it. No. The question is asked and answered. There is no exception.[17]
Baucham is correct that Christ is asked two questions here, but there is no reason to adopt his interpretation. The question that was asked by the Pharisees was “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” What the Pharisees were asking was whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever. The school of Hillel would have answered this question in the affirmative. Jesus was being asked to weigh in on this scribal debate. It is that question that Jesus answers emphatically in the negative. He does not answer the question of whether divorce was lawful at all, because that question was not asked him, and in any case, there was no dispute on this point among the rabbis. He does this by reminding of them of God’s creation ordinance of marriage, quoting from Genesis. The Pharisees then asked the second question. “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” Jesus answered that this was done “because of the hardness of your hearts.” Here we refer the reader to what I have said above regarding this phrase. Baucham goes on to state:
Now here’s what’s interesting: he says you’re reading the case law wrong. They say, “Why did Moses command one to give her a certificate of divorce?” Did Moses command Israel to give certificates of divorce? No. He says when a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes and because he found insufficiency in her and writes her a certificate. Did he just make a command? The case law in Deuteronomy 24 is not about writing certificates of divorce, it’s about remarriage. Moses assumes the issue of the certificates because that’s something that was already happening in Israel. He’s not writing about the certificate of divorce, he’s writing about the issue of remarriage. He’s saying, “You’ve sent your wife away. The marriage that she entered into was adulteress. She gets out of that one, you can’t marry her again.” Moses is making a statement about remarriage, he’s not making a statement about divorce in Deuteronomy 24. That’s not what the case law is covering. It’s not covering the issue of divorce, it’s covering the issue of remarriage.[18]
But if the second marriage was adulterous as Baucham thinks, then why would not repentance involve leaving the adulterous marriage and entering into marriage again with the previous spouse?! This makes no sense. Baucham states that certificates of divorces are simply assumed by Moses. Perhaps, but what we have to remember is that when something is codified into God’s moral law, it becomes part of it, and therefore acceptable. And even in the New Covenant era, it remains binding in its general equity. For example, consider Deuteronomy 22:8: “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.” Was God commanding the Israelites to live in houses in this verse? Of course not; they were free to live in caves or in tents if they liked. But we can certainly establish from this verse that it was not wrong for them to live in a house. But if they did build a house, they were obligated to do so with a certain stipulation: building a parapet. Likewise, therefore if it be lawful for the Israelites to build houses, it must have been lawful for them to issue divorce certificates, not merely some pagan custom which Moses simply had no way of stamping out but really wanted to. It certainly did not keep God through Moses from prohibiting idol worship, despite its rampant acceptance by the Israelites at times. Baucham interprets the exception clause in Matthew 5 as follows:
And then our passage today, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,” there’s the exception clause, “except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Here’s what I want you to see from the Matthew 5 passage, “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,” then there’s the exception clause, “except on the grounds of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery.” What’s this a statement about? If you’re not divorcing her on those grounds, she made herself commit adultery. In other words, if she’s committed this act, she’s made herself an adulteress, you haven’t made her an adulterous, but if you divorce her for some other reason, you’ve made her an adulterous when she goes and remarries. “Whoever marries a divorced woman,” notice there’s no exception clause here. “Whoever marries a divorced woman,” he doesn’t say, “unless her divorce was a lawful one.” You notice that Jesus doesn’t say that. There’s no exception clause for the marriage to a divorced woman. None. Whoever marries a divorced woman for any reason, under any circumstance, again, as long as her previous spouse is still alive, it is an act of adultery.[19]
But if marriage to a divorced woman is an act of adultery under any circumstance, then why did God not prohibit all remarriage under the case law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 rather than specifically allowing it within his law? God’s moral law has not changed; it cannot because God has changed. To the contrary, he is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. How then, can the definition of adultery change so drastically with the inauguration of the New Covenant? Such a view does not, in my opinion, square with the biblical teaching that God does not change.
Piper writes on Matthew 5:
Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.…The remarkable thing about the first half of this verse is that it plainly says that the remarriage of a wife who has been innocently put away is nevertheless adultery: “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her (the innocent wife who has not been unchaste) an adulteress.” This is a clear statement, it seems to me, that remarriage is wrong not merely when a person is guilty in the process of divorce, but also when a person is innocent. In other words, Jesus’ opposition to remarriage seems to be based on the unbreakableness of the marriage bond by anything but death.[20]
But there is another way to interpret the phrase causeth her to commit adultery that does not set it odds with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Remember that Deuteronomy 24:1 only allowed divorce in the case of gross sexual sin. Therefore, what is being said by this verse is that remarriages are adulterous in cases of unbiblical divorce because in God’s eyes the remarriage is equivalent to bigamy. The divorce is null, void, and invalid. This is why a man who divorces his wife for some reason besides a gross sexual sin causes her to commit adultery. The problem with Piper’s view is that case law only allowed divorce for serious sexual sin as we have just said; therefore, a wife who was divorced under the case law could not have been in Piper’s words, an “innocent wife who has not been unchaste.” Another problem with Piper’s view is that it amounts to essentially punishing the wife for the sins of her husband. But this would seem to be contrary to Scripture. (Ezekiel 18:20)
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 the 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)
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (Luke 16:18)
Piper and Baucham make much of the fact that these verses contain no exception clauses, but is a fundamental principle of biblical hermeneutics that the implicit passages be interpreted in light of the explicit. The two passages where no exception clauses are given must be interpreted in light of the exception clauses given in the other two passages, not vice versa.
John Piper, advocate of the permanence view of marriage comments on this last verse that:
This verse shows that Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in God’s sight. The reason a second marriage is called adultery is because the first one is considered to still be valid. So Jesus is taking a stand against the Jewish culture in which all divorce was considered to carry with it the right of remarriage…The second half of the verse shows that not merely the divorcing man is guilty of adultery when he remarries, but also any man who marries a divorced woman…Since there are no exceptions mentioned in the verse, and since Jesus is clearly rejecting the common cultural conception of divorce as including the right of remarriage, the first readers of this gospel would have been hard-put to argue for any exceptions on the basis that Jesus shared the cultural assumption that divorce for unfaithfulness or desertion freed a spouse for remarriage.[21]
But Piper is wrong on several levels. He states that “the first readers of the gospel would have been hard put to argue for any exceptions…” But the first readers of the gospel had access to the Old Testament Scriptures, and would be able to interpret Luke 16:18 in light of Deuteronomy 24:1-5. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to see if what was taught to them by the apostles was really Scriptural. (Acts 17:11) Piper states that “Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in God’s sight. The reason a second marriage is called adultery is because the first one is considered to still be valid.” But if this were so, it would plainly contradict God’s law as revealed in Deuteronomy 24:1-5.
Advocates of the permanence view of marriage interpret the allowance for divorce in the case of sexual immorality given by Christ as only allowing divorce in the case of betrothal, not marriage. Baucham gives us an extended explanation of this view:
There is no exception clause on this one which again raises questions about the exception clause on the first one. Let’s look at the exception clause. 1. It’s found only in Matthew’s gospel, Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. Everywhere else, the statement about divorce and remarriage is unequivocal. There are no exceptions. Only here in Matthew 5 and in Matthew 19 do you have this clause, “except for the cause of sexual immorality.”… Matthew used the term sexual immorality or porneia instead of the word for adultery. This is very important. Those people who believe that divorce and remarriage is lawful, they argue that it’s lawful in the case of adultery but that’s not the word that Matthew uses. That’s why all the interpreters say sexual immorality, unchastity, fornication, because the word that he uses is not the word for adultery. It’s not the same term. Why doesn’t he use the same term? Anyone who divorces his wife unless it’s for the cause of adultery causes her to commit adultery. Does it make sense if adultery is the cause that would allow you to divorce and remarry that he would use the word for adultery and not the broader term porneia? Porneia is associated with Jewish betrothal law, not consummated marriage. The term that he uses there is a term used to refer to breaking a betrothal, not to breaking a consummated marriage. Now you and I know nothing of this because we know nothing of betrothal. We, even if we use the word betrothal, we use the word to refer to people who are actually engaged to be married but if they break off the engagement it’s no big deal. In Jewish culture, first century Jewish culture, the betrothal was actually a covenant. It was a legal binding document and in order for you to get out of the betrothal and not follow through with the marriage, you actually had to go before the authorities and demonstrate that there is proper reason for you not to follow through with your marriage contract. By the way, what would those reasons be? Those reasons would be things like we’re too closely related, we just found that out. She’s guilty of adultery. She’s guilty of, you know, fornication. It would be Leviticus 18 stuff. Sexual immorality. So, this word porneia that he chooses to use here is the word directly related to the issue of breaking a betrothal. Now here’s what’s interesting: Matthew is the only one who has the exception clause. He’s the only one who uses porneia as a reason that someone can put away a wife. He’s also the gospel writer who wrote to a Jewish audience who would have known about the porneia clause, and he’s the only one who mentions the fact that Joseph was going to put Mary away for what? Porneia. Joseph would have to have gotten a legal document in order to divorce Mary during their betrothal period because she was found to be with child. Matthew is the only one who mentions that speaking to his Jewish audience, and he’s the only one who mentions the exception clause. Nobody else mentions it. Nobody else mentions it. I mean, if it’s the crucial key to unlocking why a person could be allowed to divorce and remarry, don’t you think that Mark would have mentioned it? That Luke would have mentioned it? That Paul would have mentioned it either in 1 Corinthians 7 or in Romans 7? But there is no mention of it anywhere else in the New Testament where divorce and remarriage are spoken of. Not once. And even in the places where Matthew uses it, it’s only in the first half of the statement and not the second.[22]
But ervah and porneia as used here by Matthew have essentially the same meaning, being broader in their scope then merely adultery, defined narrowly as a woman who has sex with another man besides her husband. We saw in our examination of Deuteronomy 24:1 that the phrase some uncleanness referred to gross sexual sin; and that porneia has the same meaning.
Furthermore, Deuteronomy 24:1 is referring to actual marriage, not betrothal. Some advocates of the permanence view of marriage contest this point, arguing that if divorce was given for marital infidelity, this would run afoul of God’s law that adulterers would be put to death, and that in cases where husbands knew their wives were guilty but could not prove it due to a lack of more than two witnesses, they had recourse to the law concerning just this situation. (Numbers 5: 11-31) At first glance, it would appear that the Deuteronomy 24 passage then must refer to betrothal, but this cannot be the case. Jewish betrothal customs did not involve cohabitation by the betrothed couple prior to marriage. As one source puts it:
It was a common custom for the bride to join the groom’s father’s household, rather than the groom and the bride establishing their own household. So, if the bride and groom were of a marriageable age, the groom would return to his father’s house after the betrothal to prepare a bridal chamber. This process traditionally took a year or more (the length of time being dictated by the groom’s father). When the place was complete, the groom would return and fetch his bride. The bride would not know the day or hour of her husband-to-be’s return, so the groom’s arrival was usually announced with a trumpet call and a shout so the bride had some forewarning.[23]
Note that the groom left to prepare a bridal chamber before returning to the bride’s father’s house to fetch his betrothed and marry her. They were not cohabitating during the betrothal period. Yet the Deuteronomy 24 case law certainly addresses cohabitating persons, for it includes such phrases as “send her out of his house” and “when she is departed out of his house,” and “sendeth her out of his house,” leaving no doubt that the man and the woman were cohabitating. Why then, did God bother including Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in his law then, since adulterers were to be executed, and the case law of Numbers 5:11-31 dealt with cases where adultery had occurred or was suspected, but could not be proven?
In the first place, the procedure of the bitter water in Numbers 5:11-31 did not result in immediate execution for the woman if she was found guilty of having committed adultery against her husband. All that would result would be that the woman would become “a curse among her people.” This is because this “trial by ordeal” as Rushdoony called it, was a ceremonial one, and not a judicial one. Trial by ordeal in this manner did not remove the judicial requirement of two or more witnesses to a capital crime. Remember, that Numbers 5:11-31 states that this trial by ordeal was to implemented in cases where adultery “was hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close,” and “there was no witness against her.” Thus, if a husband’s suspicions of his wife’s infidelity were proved by this procedure of the bitter water, he would then have the option of divorcing her in accordance with the procedure this outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
There is another possible reason for the inclusion of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in the Mosaic Law, and that is that God meant the legislation for those times when Israel would be under foreign domination and thus unable to execute adulterers, or when Israel’s apostasy had reached such an extent that the biblical civil punishments were simply disregarded. Both of these scenarios certainly happened many times throughout Israel’s history, as the nation fell into idolatry and turned away from the Lord, and many times was subjugated by foreign powers for precisely this reason as a punishment from God. Answering the apparent discrepancy, Calvin writes:
But the exception which Christ states appears to be superfluous. For, if the adulteress deserves to be punished with death, what purpose does it serve to talk of divorces? But as it was the duty of the husband to prosecute his wife for adultery, in order to purge his house from infamy, whatever might be the result, the husband, who convicts his wife of uncleanness, is here freed by Christ from the bond. It is even possible that, among a corrupt and degenerate people, this crime remained to a great extent unpunished; as, in our own day, the wicked forbearance of magistrates makes it necessary for husbands to put away unchaste wives, because adulterers are not punished. It must also be observed, that the right belongs equally and mutually to both sides, as there is a mutual and equal obligation to fidelity. For, though in other matters the husband holds the superiority, as to the marriage bed, the wife has an equal right: for he is not the lord of his body; and therefore when, by committing adultery, he has dissolved the marriage, the wife is set at liberty.[24]
Thus, it is clear that Jesus was asked a question about the Deuteronomy 24 passage, which concerned marriage, and not betrothal. Why then would his exception clause concern betrothal, (not the subject of the question), and not marriage? Since the question Jesus was asked concerned the Deuteronomy 24 passage and therefore marriage, his exception clause must therefore have concerned marriage and not betrothal as well. Baucham makes much of the fact that the word porneia is used instead of the narrower word for adultery moichea. He says that the word porneia refers to “Leviticus 18 stuff.” This author does not disagree with him on that point. Baucham is absolutely correct. But all that proves is that Jesus was allowing divorce for violations of the laws of Leviticus 18, an interpretation that squares the Matthew passages with the Deuteronomy passage, and does not have Jesus fundamentally changing the meaning of adultery, or overturning a moral case law. Furthermore, the violations of Leviticus 18 are in fact adulterous. A married woman having sex with her father, mother, father’s wife, granddaughter, sister, sister-in law, or an animal would certainly count as adulterous, would it not? Can we honestly maintain that such extra-marital sex would not be? I think not.
The Pauline Texts on Marriage and Divorce
The teaching of Christ on divorce and remarriage, and the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 are not the only teachings of Scripture upon the subject. Paul addresses the subject again in 1 Corinthians 7:15.
But if the unbelieving depart, let them depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15)
The advocates of the permanence of marriage view do not believe that desertion justifies divorce and that all that is spoken of here is the lawfulness of separation. Others, holding to the one-clause exception view, hold that Scripture allows divorce for adultery alone, and not for desertion. However, there are strong reasons from the words used in this verse to reject such views. The word under bondage used in this verse is the Greek douloo. The word means “to enslave, to bring under subjection.” It is defined by Strong’s Concordance as “bring into bondage, become a servant, “to enslave, bring under bondage,” and Thayer defines it “to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter.” The meaning here is plain. Divorce of the unbeliever frees the Christian spouse from the requirement of covenantal faithfulness to their spouse; they are no longer held to the requirements of marriage. These, to which they were formerly bound, they are now loosed from. No longer are they bound by the marriage covenant which would formally constrain them. From this they are loosed.
John Piper writes:
“1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse, he or she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.”[25]
But such an interpretation does violence to the plain meaning of not under bondage. If the verse only gives allowance for separation and not marriage, the believer is still under bondage. Being restrained from initiating a divorce and remarrying certainly qualifies as remaining under bondage, and being still constrained by law and covenant. Additionally, our argument is strengthened by the meaning of the word depart used in this verse, chorizo. The word means “to separate” or to “divide,” and is defined by Strong’s Concordance as separate, depart, put asunder.” Note the last synonym. It should sound familiar, because chorizo is the very same word that Christ uses in Matthew 19:6, when he says “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. [Chorizo] The significance of this should not be overlooked. Paul the apostle tells us that when the unbeliever abandons a marriage to the believer, the believer is no longer bound to the covenantal marriage union; he or she is freed from this, and if the unbeliever divorces them against their will, the believer is not to hinder them but to “let them depart.” Hence, in this case, when an unbeliever sins by putting asunder what God has joined together, the believer is to accept that the unbeliever has sinfully broken the marriage bond and the marriage covenant is no longer binding upon the believer. That 1 Corinthians 7:15 teaches the freedom of a deserted Christian spouse to remarry, the previous marriage covenant being now void, is strengthened by the opinions of the following commentators upon this verse:
John Gill writes:
But if the unbelieving depart,…. If the unbelieving party, man or woman, separate themselves from the believing party on account of religion, and in hatred to it, and will not live with the believer unless Christ is denied, his Gospel abjured, and his ordinances and worship relinquished:
let him depart; he or she, though not without making use of all proper means to retain them; but if, after all, they will go, unless such things are complied with as are unreasonable and sinful, they are not to be held, but let go; and the deserted person may sit down contented, being not to be blamed, the fault entirely lying upon the deserter:
a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. The Ethiopic version reads it, “to such an one”; one that is called by grace a church member, and so a brother or sister in Christ, is not to be subject to an unbeliever in matters of conscience, in things appertaining to the worship of God, and the service and glory of Christ; nor, being in such circumstances, that either Christ must be forsaken, or the unbeliever will depart, are they obliged to yield to such an one, but rather suffer a departure; nor are they bound to remain unmarried, but are free to marry another person, after all proper methods have been tried for a reconciliation, and that appears to be impracticable; desertion in such a case, and attended with such circumstances, is a breach of the marriage contract, and a dissolution of the bond, and the deserted person may lawfully marry again; otherwise a brother, or a sister in such a case, would be in subjection and bondage to such a person.[26]
Matthew Poole comments:
If the unbelieving husband or the unbelieving wife will leave his or her correlate, that is, so leave them as to return no more to live as a husband or as a wife with her or him that is Christian,
let him depart. Such a person hath broken the bond of marriage, and in such cases Christians are
not under bondage, they are not tied by law to fetch them again, nor by the laws of God to keep themselves unmarried for their perverseness. But it may be objected, that nothing but adultery, by the Divine law, breaketh that bond.
Answer. That is denied. Nothing but adultery is a justifiable cause of divorce: no man may put away his wife, nor any wife put away her husband, but for adultery. But the husband’s voluntary leaving his wife, or the wife’s voluntary leaving her husband, with a resolution to return no more to them, breaks also the bond of marriage, frustrating it as to the ends for which God hath appointed it; and, after all due means used to bring again the party departing to their duty, doth certainly free the correlate. So that although nothing can justify repudiation, or putting away a wife or a husband, and marrying another, but the adultery of the person so divorced and repudiated; yet the departure either of husband or wife without the other’s consent for a long time, and refusal to return after all due means used, especially if the party so going away doth it out of a hatred and abomination of the other’s religion, will justify the persons so deserted, after due waiting and use of means to reduce him or her to their duty, wholly to cast off the person deserting; for no Christian in such a case, by God’s law, is under bondage.[27]
It has been objected that interpreting the verse this way does not comport with what Paul said just a few verses earlier in this chapter:
“And unto the married, I command, but not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) We cannot interpret this a manner inconsistent with Christ’s teaching on the subject in the Gospels, not with God’s teaching on the matter with the Old Testament. Hence, it is best, I believe, to understand to understand this to refer to biblically unlawful divorces, not ones for gross sexual sins, or for desertion, as Paul would state were allowable just a few verses later. Furthermore, while 1 Corinthians 7:15 was addressed to mixed marriages, this verse appears to be addressed to Christians. While the believer in a mixed marriage had no ability to force the unbeliever to remain faithful to their vows, and remain in the marriage, it was a different matter in a marriage between two believers. Here, Paul tells a believer who has deserted or unbiblically divorced their spouse that the marriage still binds them, and therefore they are to reunite with their husband, or if that is not possible, to remain unmarried.
Gill comments:
But and if she depart…. This is said, not as allowing of such a departure, which only in case of fornication is lawful; but supposing it a fact, that a woman cannot be prevailed upon to stay with her husband, but actually forsakes him upon some difference arising between them,
let her remain unmarried: she ought not to marry another man; her departure does not make the marriage void; nor is it to be made void by any difference between them, either on religious or civil accounts, only in case of adultery; and therefore, if upon such separation she marries, she is guilty of adultery:
or be reconciled to her husband; which is rather to be chosen, than to remain separate, though unmarried; if she has given the offence, and is the cause of the separation, she ought to acknowledge it, and ask forgiveness of her husband, and return to him and live in peace with him; and if the fault is on his side, she ought to make use of all proper methods to convince him of it, bring him into good temper, forgive any injury done her, and live peaceably and comfortably together:[28]
Advocates of the permanence of marriage view usually appeal to Romans 7:2-3:
For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress, but if her husband is dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Romans 7:2-3)
It is important to note first of all, that Paul is taking an analogy from marriage to illustrate becoming death to sin and new life in Christ. As a result, he only needed to mention those aspects of marriage corresponding to this to make his point. Paul was not giving us a systematic treatise on marriage in the same way as in 1 Corinthians 7 for instance. To use Romans 7:2-3 to overturn what he said in 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 is not sound hermeneutics. In addition, we cannot use Paul’s words as a sweeping statement that overturns everything else God has revealed on marriage and divorce elsewhere. We must interpret Scripture with Scripture.
The commentary of John Gill on 1 Corinthians 7:2 does exactly this:
For the woman which hath an husband, The former general rule is here illustrated by a particular instance and example in the law of marriage; a woman that is married to a man,
is bound by the law to her husband; to live with him, in subjection and obedience to him,
so long as he liveth; except in the cases of adultery, Matthew 19:9, and desertion, 1 Corinthians 7:15, by which the bond of marriage is loosed, and for which a divorce or separation may be made, which are equal to death:
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband; the bond of marriage is dissolved, the law of it is abolished, and she is at entire liberty to marry whom she will, 1 Corinthians 7:39.[29]
As does the commentary of Matthew Poole:
He here exemplifies and illustrates the foregoing assertion.
The woman is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth: see a parallel place, 1 Corinthians 7:39. This is the general rule, yet there is an exception in the case of fornication or desertion: see Matthew 5:32 1 Corinthians 7:15.
From the law of her husband; from the obligation of the law of marriage.[30]
More Teaching on Divorce from the Old Testament
Though often overlooked, there is another place in the Old Testament where the issue of divorce is explicitly touched upon and that is Exodus 21:10-11:
“And if he take him another wife, her food, her raiment and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go free without money.” (Exodus 21:10-11)
The context of this verse concerns the treatment of servants, in this case, one who has become betrothed to the son of her master. If the son takes another wife, he is still obligated to provide the first wife with food, clothing, and sex. If he does not, then she has the right to be released from the marital bond. At first glance, it seems hard to square this with the Scriptural teaching that gross sexual sin and desertion alone allow divorce, but further reflection resolves this. In the first place here the case law certainly refers to marriage, and not betrothal merely, as evidenced by the phrase duty of marriage, referring to the right of sexual intercourse. The Hebrew word translated as the English phrase duty of marriage is ownah, and refers to sexual cohabitation. Note that it is not cohabitation merely, as in the sense that a man’s father might dwell in the same house as his son, but includes a definite sexual denotation. We must remember that ervah and porneia meant gross sexual sin that was a bit broader than strict adultery. Defrauding ones’ spouse, in this case, a wife, of sex, certainly counts as a gross sexual sin, and it is perhaps to include the sexual sin of defrauding in addition adultery narrowly defined, that Jesus used the word porneia rather than a narrower term. Of course, to deprive one of food and clothing is not adultery, but it could certainly count as desertion of the marriage, and therefore it is best to place such deprivation, and maybe of sex as well, under the Apostle Paul’s heading of desertion which justifies divorce and remarriage.
Conclusion on Divorce and Remarriage
From our study of the matter of divorce and remarriage from the Scripture, we can arrive at the following conclusions:
First, Jesus in the Gospels, nor Paul in the Epistles, voids the Old Testament teaching on divorce.
Second, God’s teaching on divorce in the Old Testament is harmonious with his teaching on divorce in the New Testament.
Third, divorce and remarriage are permissible only in the case of adultery, (which would include such gross sexual sins as sodomy, bestiality, incest, sexual deprivation, etc.,) on the part of a husband or of his wife, or desertion, which could include failure to provide food, clothing, and sex.
Fourth, divorce should only be undertaken as a last resort, because the heart of the husband or wife is so hardened that they will not repent from their ongoing sexual sin, or stubbornly refuse to dwell with a believing spouse.
Fifth, in the case of divorces undertaken for other reasons, such divorces are invalid, null, and void, and the parties to such previous marriages remained bound and married to one another, so that if they marry another, they commit adultery against their previous spouse to whom they are still married.
Sixth, in biblically lawful divorces, the right of divorce terminates the marriage so that one is free to remarry.
Seventh, after biblically lawful divorce and remarriage, one is permanently barred from returning to their previous spouse should they be divorced lawfully from their current spouse, or should the current spouse die.
Eighth, the permanence view of marriage and the one-clause exception view are both contrary with the Bible’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.
[1] https://www.studylight.org/study-desk/interlinear.html?q1=Deuteronomy+24:1
[2] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022 https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-5-27.html
[3] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/24-1.htm
[4] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/24-1.htm
[5] (Retrieved January 5th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/matthew/5.html
[6] (Retrieved January 5th, 2022) https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/matthew-5.html
[7] (Retrieved January 5th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-5-20.html
[8] Retrieved January 5th, 2022) https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/5.htm
[9] Larry DeBruyn The Bible Beseiged: Scripture and the Emergent Church, Charismatic, Hebrew Roots, Evangelical Contemplative Movements (Dublin, California: First Love Publications 2015) p. 52
[10] Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics 2nd Edition. (Phillipsburg: New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1984) p. 99
[11] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-5-32.html
[12] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022) https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/matthew/5.htm
[13] Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics 2nd Edition (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1984) p. 106
[14] Divorce falls under these definitions as well, lest we make the Apostle Paul inconsistent with Christ. “Fornication which Jesus taught to be the sole ground for divorce, must be inclusive of desertion unless you (wrongly) assume that Jesus and Paul can contradict each other, for in 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul establishes desertion as a legitimate cause for divorce.” Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1984) p 108-109
[15] https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/tragically-widening-the-grounds-of-legitimate-divorce
[16] (Retrieved January 6th, 2022) https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/matthew-19-3.html
[17] https://media-cloud.sermonaudio.com/text/11309913170.pdf
[18] https://media-cloud.sermonaudio.com/text/11309913170.pdf
[19] https://media-cloud.sermonaudio.com/text/11309913170.pdf
[20] https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper
[21] https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper
[22] https://media-cloud.sermonaudio.com/text/11309913170.pdf
[23] https://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-customs.html
[24] https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/matthew-19.html
[25] https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper
[26] https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-7-15.html
[27] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/1_corinthians/7.htm
[28] https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-7-11.html
[29] https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/romans-7-2.html
[30] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/poole/1_corinthians/7.htm
