Position on Remarriage After Divorce

The issue of whether or not Scripture commends or condemns the marriage of either party after a divorce has taken place is something that I have struggled with for some time. It has had very personal effects upon my relationships, and I am certain that it will continue to affect me in the years to come. It will also be important on a personal level, should I be ordained into the ministry, because I myself will be responsible to perform wedding ceremonies as a part of my pastoral duty. Even if I should only be but a layman or a teacher, these questions are still important – if even only for the sake of gaining true knowledge of God and His commands.

My position on the matter of remarriage after a divorce is that Scripture does not permit any party to a divorce to remarry while their ex-spouse is still alive. I first was exposed to this position on divorce and remarriage through the teaching of James Montgomery Boice. When I first heard this interpretation of the “exception clauses,” I was amazed that I had never heard of anyone holding to such a view. In my own experience in the church, the “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9 was simply something that everyone assumed. Approximately a year ago, some very good and close friends of mine – both divorced – asked me to perform their wedding, and at first I was delighted to do so. Examining my conscience, however, I realized that I did not have certainty that they should be getting married, from a Scriptural perspective. In order to clear the matter for myself, I searched for (and found) a much more detailed and thoughtful exposition of the “No Remarriage” position through John Piper’s Desiring God Ministries.

Soon after reviewing the arguments of Piper, I was compelled by his scriptural arguments that this was indeed the Biblical view and that the common view I had previously asserted was mistaken and perhaps overly-generous. As such, I was forced by my conscience to withdraw my endorsement of their marriage, though I did still wish them the best of luck in their marriage, and I made it clear that if they did still choose to marry that I would support them in whatever ways I could, as I do still believe that God honors second marriages in a different way than he does with the original marriage. Though the common church view gives much latitude to those who have been through a divorce, I am convinced that God, through the Scriptures, presents humanity with a much more serious view of marriage that is not so easily dissolved, even if adultery is present in the marriage. Also, this view acknowledges that a marriage persists, even if a piece of paper saying “divorce” is signed by both parties. Following is an examination of Scripture, which has led me to hold this position. Though deeply inspired by Piper’s own position paper on the subject, this is also my own view, which I am delighted to make public through online format. Anyone who compares the two papers may argue that my position paper is really Piper’s (though not as in-depth for sake of brevity and simplicity).

In the Old Testament, God Hated, Yet Reluctantly Permitted, Divorce

The first thing that we should note before proceeding into this study is God’s hatred for divorce. This is most obviously stated in Malachi 2:16, where he says, “For the Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence.” The straightforwardness of the text should provide an excellent principle to keep in mind when we read the next text, wherein God offers a provision for divorce.

God does in the Pentateuch provide the Israelite community with an option of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4:[1]

(1) When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, (2) when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, (3) if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, and puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, (4) then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (My italics)

There are several things, which should be noted from this passage: 1) The Law does permit a divorce. 2) The Law recognizes that if the wife remarries, she is considered “defiled,” according to verse 4a. 3) Also it seems obvious from the text that after she has remarried, she may not return to her first husband. 4) The “uncleanness” in verse 1 should not be seen as meaning “adultery,” because Deuteronomy 22:22 makes adultery punishable by death. If the wife has committed adultery, she would be dead, not looking for another husband. 5) Finally, I would argue that the same standards in this verse that are held to the wife also apply to the husband. Thus, the Scripture would consider the husband who remarries just as defiled as the wife who remarries.

The New Testament says that Remarriage is Wrong, So Long As the Partner’s “ex” is Still Alive

Mark 10:5-9, 11

(5) And Jesus answered and said to them [Referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4], “Because of the hardness of your heart [Moses] wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ (7) ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, (8) and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. (9) Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”… (11) “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Jesus powerfully establishes several important points in this passage. 1) Divorce, with no exception given, is a violation of Jesus’ command (verse 9). 2) The Old Testament provision for divorce was not an endorsement of divorce, but was, rather, put in place to protect the wife. 3) Most importantly for this discussion, Christ very explicitly in this verse, condemns the husband or the wife who (after a divorce) decides to remarry. 4) It is also important to note that nowhere in these verses does Christ present the disciples or the Pharisees with an “exception clause.” Any early reader of this gospel would only have the impression that Jesus did not permit anyone to remarry. This same argument applies for the next verse from Luke. 5) The phrase “the two become one flesh” is an absolute statement which paints the picture of a permanent covenant which – though denied by some – exists until death. The perpetuity of the marriage will be made evident in an examination of Romans 7:1-3.

Luke 16:18

(18) “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

I would only encourage the reader to note that this verse is once again is Christ offering an explicit rejection of remarriage after divorce. There are (as noted for the above verse) no “exception clauses” offered to those listening to Jesus’ words or to the reader of Scripture. We should take very seriously these two verses from Luke and from Mark as we consider the question of remarriage.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

(10) Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. (11) But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

This section of scripture speaks for itself, I think. It simply says that divorce is wrong (a violation of a commandment of God), but it does say that if a divorce does occur that neither the husband nor his wife is permitted to remarry. There is no “exception clause” offered here.

(39) A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

(1) Do you not know, brethren – for I am speaking to those who know the law – that the law is binding on a person only during his life? (2) Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning her husband. (3) Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress.

Here, again, we have two examples of Scriptures where remarriage during the spouse’s lifetime is explicitly condemned. 1) As we have seen many times at this point, no exceptions are offered in the context of either of these two passages. 2) Perhaps most dramatically, if someone takes these verses seriously, they will be led to conclude that even if a couple divorces, they are still in covenant together, and it would appear that this covenant is not dissolved until death. This would appear to be the case, even if a legal divorce is obtained.

Is There a Such Thing as the “Exception Clause”?

The common conception within the Christian community today (Reformed as well as non-Reformed) is that though divorce is hateful to God, if adultery in the marriage occurs, the innocent party (and some would argue both parties) is permitted to remarry, provided that their new partner is a fellow Christian. I long held this view myself, primarily because the verses noted by many as “exception clauses” seemed, on a prima facie reading of the text to be very plain and straightforward. I will not venture to state the motives of those who hold this view, though I do think that this view desires to take seriously the “exception” texts. I would submit, however, that instead of taking the “exception” texts as our presupposition, we should instead take a dramatically serious view of the verses in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, asking ourselves whether the common “exception” view of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is not being mistakenly interpreted.

At the very least, one who holds the “exception” view on the two verses in Matthew should be always willing to ask whether or not there is more than one possible reading of the text. Though I thoroughly agree that the text only has one valid interpretation and that two contradictory teachings cannot arise from the same text (or any of Scripture), we should recognize that human beings are prone to reading Scripture incorrectly. Let’s look at these “exception” texts and ask ourselves whether the verses do or do not teach an exception to the no remarriage commands of Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18.

If the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

This verse should not be interpreted to mean that a Christian is free to remarry if their ex-spouse was an unbeliever. One reason for this is that the verse doesn’t say that a Christian is “free to remarry,” but only that they are “not bound.” Essentially, it seems that the word “bound” should be looked at in the original Greek. Referring to this verse, John Piper (whose Greek is much better than mine) says the following:

The word used for “bound” (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where Paul says, “A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as long as he lives.” Paul consistently uses deo when speaking of the legal aspect of being bound to one marriage partner (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39), or to one’s betrothed (1 Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not being bound in 1 Corinthians 7:15, he chooses a different word (douloo) which we would expect him to do if he were not giving a deserted spouse the same freedom to remarry that he gives to a spouse whose partner has died (verse 39).[2]

Piper also points out that verse 15’s statement that “God has called us to peace” seems to best support the interpretation of this verse that the Christian should not “make war” in order to keep the marriage together. Piper suggests that this verse should best be read to say that “the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.”[3] I would concur with Piper’s reading of this verse, especially when I consider that only five verses earlier, Paul says that a divorced person should not remarry. It also seems absurd to me to believe that it is universally true that remarriage is wrong, except when the innocent party is a Christian. The mere fact that the “victim” is a Christian should not change the universal truths of marriage. In fact, Scripture presents marriage as a binding institution upon both believers and non-believers.

Matthew 5:31-32

(31) “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ (31) But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

Once again, we must seriously consider that this verse should be understood in light of Jesus’ unqualified absolute statement that remarriage is always wrong (Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18). The correct interpretation of this verse is not a permission to remarry in some instances, but rather a blanket condemnation of all remarriage after a divorce. The verse says that if a husband divorces his wife, he is responsible for the adulterousness of her next marriage, unless she was already an adulteress before they divorced. As I stated above, this should be viewed as true for the husband as much as it is true for the wife. I will elaborate even further on the “exception” verses after the next verse is included.

Matthew 19:8-12

(8) “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” (10) His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (11) But he said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. (12) For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Again, verse nine should, in my view, be interpreted to say that the husband makes his wife an adulteress if he divorces her, unless she was an adulteress already. 1) Consider that this interpretation, which it would seem “all cannot accept” would make much more sense if Jesus were issuing a blanket rejection of remarriage. If Jesus was saying that there are some times when it is un-adulterous to remarry, would the disciples really have been so amazed? 2) This interpretation would also seem to best account for verses 11 and 12, which challenge some to go unmarried. The disciples in verse ten seem to recognize that Jesus’ teaching in verse nine means that they only have two options if they do marry: a) Being trapped in a bad marriage, or b) Divorcing but being forced to never again remarry.

There are several curious issues that arise when we begin to examine the idea of the “exception clause,” as well as the texts directly referring to it. I would like to note immense gratitude for Piper’s extensive dealings on this particular subject of the “exception clause” in his position paper, available through Desiring God Ministries.

First, Direct examination of verse nine is very important, it would seem. The word that is used for “sexual immorality” is really one word in the Greek: porneia. From this word, we moderns derive the root of the word “pornography.” In the original Greek, the word simply means a general uncleanness, sexually speaking. To me, it is curious that the Greek word for adultery, moicheia is not used. Though I am not a Greek scholar, I am able to deduce enough from the text that there must be a reason for why “uncleanness” and not “adultery” is used in this verse. This reason must be that the author of the text did not desire to deal specifically with adultery.

Secondly, as Piper points out, it would be troublesome to think that Matthew would record Jesus saying something contrary to what he says in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. In Mark and Luke, Jesus offers an absolute denunciation of remarriage, and in Matthew (if the “exception clause” is granted) Jesus offers a non-absolute view of remarriage. Piper asks, “Would [the originally intended readers of Matthew] really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew’s exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.”[4]

Thirdly, this “exception” text parallels the usage of porneia used elsewhere in the New Testament, where the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of being born of “porneia.” “In other words, since they don’t accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act.”[5] In this text, Mary is not said to have committed adultery, but instead is being accused of committing fornication and being sexually immoral prior to her marriage to Joseph. The importance of this is that Matthew (keep in mind, the same author of the “exception” text) says in verse 1:19, “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.” Joseph is not married to her, but betrothed to her, yet the text is very clear in saying that – should Joseph leave her – it will still be considered a divorce.

Could it be that Matthew is writing the “exception clause” partially to defend the honor of Joseph’s initial decision to “quietly divorce his wife”? It seems perfectly reasonable that this exact situation that Joseph is in is what Matthew refers to 18 chapters later, when he says that (to attempt an application) if Joseph had decided to quietly divorce his wife, he would not have been responsible for her adulterousness, because she would have (if Joseph’s intuition had been right) already been an adulteress prior to the “divorce,” due to unspecified porneia.

Piper suggests four reasons why this interpretation of the “exception clause” is advantageous. I directly quote Piper at this point:

1. It does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke and the whole range of New Testament teaching set forth above…including Matthew’s own absolute teaching in 19:3-8.

2. It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew’s exception clause instead of moicheia.

3. It squares with Matthew’s own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19.

4. It fits the demands of Matthew’s wider context concerning Joseph’s contemplated divorce.

In Piper’s own conclusion, he offers five points regarding God’s view of divorce, which could in essence be seen as a summary. With this summary, I am in absolute agreement.

1. Marriage is a “one-flesh” relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8).

2. Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9) – this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding (Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11).

3. God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39).

4. The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12, 26; 1 Corinthians 10:13).

5. Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30).

The thing that I would like to close with is a re-emphasis of the absolute permanence of marriage in the eyes of God, as well as a quick word regarding those who have already remarried. It is essential that those who have already remarried recognize the sinfulness of what they have done. I know of the parents of a friend of mine who both agree that their decision to leave their first spouses and marry one-another was sinful. This was not an easy conclusion to come to, since they didn’t deliberately disobey, but they still recognized that remarrying was wrong. Those who have remarried should remain with their new spouse, however, because divorcing for a second (or third or fourth time) would be an even greater sin. Besides that, it is important that a new union has been formed and that, “while not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God’s will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.”[6]

It is also important that those who are divorced and single depend upon the strength that God provides to remain single. In some situations, if they nor their spouse have remarried, there is still time for reconciliation, though this is often difficult and challenging for both parties to work through the hurt they have endured and inflicted upon one another.

To those who have yet to marry, I think that this position on divorce and remarriage gives a great opportunity for us to reflect upon the seriousness, the permanence, and the absoluteness of marriage. It is a challenge to the to-be-newlyweds that one must look before they leap, recognizing that their choice of a nuptial partner will be set in stone. “Til death do us part” seems to take on a much more literal meaning, given this view. Scripture does not give Christians a secret “back-door” out of a marriage, but even if that back-door is taken, the door only opens from one side, and

Christians today divorce just as often as their secular counterparts, and I believe that a loose view of marriage, which permits remarriage, is one of many contributors to this cultural malaise in the Christian community. This view of marriage should not be held to because of its usefulness (that is a utilitarian concept), but instead because it is indeed the Scriptural view.

[1] While reading this passage, remember Jesus’ words referring directly to this passage, where he says that this provision was made “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matt. 19:8).

[2] Piper, John. Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper. <http://www.desiringgod.org>.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.