Divórcio e Recasamento

Divórcio e Recasamento na Igreja

Dear Dr. Moore,

My wife and I are at an impasse. There’s been no abandonment, no sexual immorality, and no abuse. We just don’t get along. We shouldn’t have married. We should have known we are incompatible. I know God hates divorce but I don’t have any other option. My pastor and some Christian counselors have told me that while God hates divorce, this is the lesser of two evils because God doesn’t want me to be miserable.  What do you think?

Married but Miserable

All of my adult life, until I was faced with the necessity of dealing with divorce and remarriage in the pastoral context, I held the prevailing Protestant view that remarriage after divorce was Biblically sanctioned in cases where divorce had resulted from desertion or persistent adultery.

When looking at the verses in the Bible that cover divorce and remarriage it seems to be a rather simplistic view to say that God hates divorce, except in the case of adultery or abandonment. We all too often focus on the exceptions while ignoring the full message of the Bible

First of all, the divine standard for marriage is lifelong commitment to one's spouse, and nothing else. Even though divorce was permitted in some cases under the Old Testament economy, Christ made it plain that this was not God's ideal. When He was asked this very question,

“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 shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4-6).

No married couple lives without experiencing friction of one kind or another in marriage. The cause of this is sin. Whether the problem is that the husband fails to live with his wife, giving himself to her; or whether the wife nags or rebels against her husband; or whether the problems are financial, sexual or child related - there are always problems. The common solution to the tough problems in marriage is that the husband or wife says, "We'll get a divorce and begin again." This is so common today that when someone, as we do here, would dare to raise a question about the propriety of divorce, the question is dismissed almost without a hearing.

Gênesis 2:23,24

O plano de Deus é o casamento ser indissolúvel. Quem se divorcia sofre como se dilacerasse seu próprio corpo.

Mal 2.14-16; God hates divorce!

Esta é a chave de toda a questão: Deus ODEIA o divórcio, a quebra do juramento “até que a morte nos separe”. Como o homem tem o coração duro e não perdoa como Deus nos perdoa, Deus com desgosto DISCIPLINOU o divórcio já praticado pelo homem, para limitar seu mal. Mas amar & perdoar são os ideais perfeitos de Deus para os nossos casamentos, mesmo se nossos cônjuges nos traírem: Deus ODEIA o divórcio! Há algo mais claro do que isto???

Marcos 10.11-12; E ele falou: “Qualquer homem que se divorcia da sua esposa e casa com outra comete adultério contra sua esposa. 12 E se uma mulher se divorcia do seu marido e casa com outro, ela comete adultério”.

Lucas 16.18; “Quem se divorciar de sua esposa e se casar com outra, comete adultério. E quem casar com a mulher divorciada também comete adultério".

Mateus 5.31-32; "Também foi dito: ‘Quem se divorciar de sua esposa deve dar a ela um documento comprovando o divórcio’. 32 Mas eu digo que um homem que se divorcia de sua esposa, a não ser pelo fato de ela ter sido infiel, faz ela cometer adultério. E quem casar com ela também comete adultério.

Rom 7.3

I Coríntios 7:10-15, 27, 39-40

Permanence view:

Holds that the bible does not allow for divorce or remarriage in any case. This view is least popular among evangelicals for obvious reasons. This is a divorce happy society, the once held high view of marriage has been replaced with a please me or leave me attitude. The objection to this view is that the bible allows divorce and remarriage under certain circumstances, opponents to this view turn to two main passages to prove their case (Matt.19:1-12) & (1 Cor.7:15). The exception clause stated in Matthew’s   Gospel and Paul’s advice concerning the abandonment of a non-believer. The advocates of this view maintain God’s original intent that marriage be a life long commitment of two individuals. The marriage covenant is a mirror to Christ’s relationship to the church, making it an unbreakable institution.

Permissive view:

This view acknowledges the sanctity of marriage, but gives ground for divorce when there is clear biblical support for such action. There are two forms of this view, one clause permissive advocates appeal to Jesus words in (Matt. 19:9) where the exception clause appears. They teach that Jesus allows divorce in the case of adultery, In the Old Testament adultery was punishable by death and the innocent party would thereby be free to marry after their spouse was deceased. The New Testament gives grace to the guilty, but that doesn’t bound the innocent party to a life of misery seeing that they would suffer due to no fault of their own. The two clause view adds Paul’s treatment of divorce, stating that the innocent party is free to remarry if abandonment by an unbelieving spouse is the cause of divorce. This is the popular view, and most frequently held among evangelical Christians.

I have recently come to the conclusion that the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is not intended to provide a loophole for divorce and remarriage when one of the partners commits adultery.

My Journey to This Conviction

I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11, 12 ("And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery against him'") and Luke 16:18 ("Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.") is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16. Would they 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.

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. Even though I am ready to admit that now and then porneia is used in a sense which can include adultery, the question nags at me why Matthew should not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant. Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication rather than adultery?

The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where the Jewish leaders indirectly 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. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew's record of Jesus' birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.

Unlocking a Key Text

In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to each other as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves "to divorce" Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was "just" in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication. Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19, in a difficult situation. He has before him the absolute sayings of Jesus that if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery, that is, he commits a grave injustice.

Nevertheless, the one divorce that Matthew has contemplated with his readers in chapter 1 has been described by him as a "just" possibility. Therefore, in order to avoid the jarring inconsistency between what he has said about Joseph and what Jesus says about divorce, Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication, is not included in what Jesus had said. This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages: 1) it does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke; 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) from a redaction-critical standpoint it is very astute edition which promotes the truth of Jesus' own absolute command and the rightness of Joseph's intention in resolving to divorce his betrothed, Mary.

by whatever form ... the Bible just says - well, whatever a way it was, now the issue isn't how you got into it but the issue is stay where you are. If you're married, look at it, "I command, yet it isn't really me doing this, the Lord has given us the word on this, Let not the wife depart from her husband."

And here he's simply saying - Jesus already had something to say Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11 and 12 all three about it ... Matthew 5:32, of those passages, our Lord Jesus Christ says stay married. Do not divorce. Notice, it says at the end of verse 10, "Let not the wife depart," the word depart is a technical term for divorce ... don't divorce your partner.

Forget it ... don't do that ... don't divorce. There is no divorce tolerated among Christians. God hates divorce, Malachi 2, "I hate putting away," God says, "I hate divorce." He condemned the Israelites, He says: "You have done treacherously against the wife of your youth," You're divorcing one another.

verse 11. "But if she does depart," now that assumes that somebody in Corinth had already done it, too late, it's already happened, what are the consequences? "Let her remain ... what? ... unmarried, single the rest of her life or be reconciled to her husband." Only two choices if Christians divorce. They either stay single all the rest of their life or they come together again ... to reconcile.

In cases of adultery, listen to me, divorce was allowed among Christians. Where one Christian commits an adulterous act, God allows for a breaking of that marriage bond. Matthew 5:32, "I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except for the cause of fornication,'' and that can be sexual sin of all kinds, "except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery." Except for fornication no divorce, but in the case of fornication, God says there is divorce.

Matthew 19:9, same thing. "And I say, Whosoever shall put away his wife except for fornication and marry another, commits adultery." The only ground that Jesus ever gave for the dissolution of a marriage was sexual immorality. And when that occurs, there is the right to divorce. That is very clear even in the case of Joseph. You remember that in...in Matthew 1, Joseph was shocked when he found out that Mary was pregnant. Remember that? Because he knew Mary and he knew that it was totally out of character for her to be pregnant. He knew he hadn't done it. They had had no relationships. Matthew 1:19, "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, not willing to make her a public example, was minded to divorce her privately." Listen, Joseph had every right to divorce Mary if she had become pregnant by another person. And the Bible says Joseph, her husband, being a ... what kind of man?... just man, a righteous man. Listen, he acted righteously in a desire to divorce a wife who had committed adultery. Now he found out she hadn't. The wonderful story was the Holy Spirit had conceived within her the Christ child.

But, you see, itis a just thing to put away a wife for the cause of adultery or for a wife to put away or divorce a husband for that cause...only that cause. But in this text, I Corinthians, that is not the issue. For any other reason than that, there is no tolerance of divorce. No, says Paul, apart from sexual sin, no divorce. If you've done it already, then you have to stay single the rest of your life because that union, that one union was never broken. Your stuck single all your life. Or, you can be reconciled to your husband.

And you can be sure, in the case of real obedience, that they would do that second thing .... if it was still possible. And then he reverses it in verse 11 and says: "Let not the husband put away his wife," as well as the wife not putting away her husband.

Group three, those married to an unbeliever who wants to stay, verses 12 to 14. Now what happens in this situation is...let's say you've got a lady, and she says - You know, I've become a Christian and my husband is an out-and-out pagan. What do I do? Can I divorce him and marry a nice Christian man? That's a fair question

What about a mixed marriage? What about it? Well, in the ... there's several things to think about in a mixed marriage. Number one, mixed marriages are forbidden when they ... when they can be prevented, right? Verse 39, at the end, says - If you're going to marry, marry only in the Lord. So, the idea of a Christian marrying a non-Christian is totally in disobedience to Scripture. But what happens if you're already married and one gets saved? What is he saying? Do I have to throw him out? What about it?

Well, look at verse 12, "To the rest," that is to those who are in mixed marriages, "speak I not the Lord." In other words, I'm not quoting Christ anymore, there is no previous instruction in the gospels, hot that it isn't revelation, it is. "To the rest speak I, not quoting the Lord, if any brother has a wife that believes not," not a Christian, "but she is pleased to dwell with him, let him not divorce her." If you have an unsaved wife and she wants to stay, let her stay... let her stay.

"And the woman," verse 13, "who has a husband that believes not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." God doesn't want everybody getting saved and saying - Well, good-bye, Charlie, that's it for us...go out and find myself a nice Christian fella. No, no, it was a bad thing in the early years of Christianity that the Christians were accused of destroying family relationships.

No one can say that they are free after a divorce because Jesus charges them with adultery AFTER they have obtained their divorce. 

Jesus said we can still commit adultery after a divorce--but the divorce papers say--"we are no longer married"—those divorce papers are lying to us. God does NOT recognize divorce as ending a first marriage. This is proven in Scripture. 

Jesus said you will be committing adultery while on a honeymoon with a “new person” after a divorce and a remarriage ceremony. If you are committing adultery AFTER a divorce and remarriage ceremony your divorce did NOT work (it did not end your marriage). Most people refuse to accept the TRUTH. 

If you can commit adultery on your spouse AFTER you divorced them--the divorce failed to do something...it failed to DISSOLVE YOUR MARRIAGE! 

A marriage covenant lasts until the death of one of the spouses according to God. People would never even go to the courthouse to obtain a divorce certificate if they knew the truth. Those divorce papers do not end their marriage. The papers say the “State of Colorado” has dissolved the marriage--NOT GOD! 

God says, “A wife is married to her husband as long as he lives.” 1 Corinthians 7:39

Jesus said if you get a divorce and then remarry you will be committing adultery with this new person AFTER you marry them. AFTER you marry them! 

Divorce papers do not dissolve the marriage in Gods sight if He is charging you with adultery AFTER you obtained your divorce. Those papers did not make you single again. Remarried people are committing adultery with each other...Jesus said that!

A REAL husband and wife cannot commit adultery with each other. That is why this is NOT your spouse. Jesus was saying you are not free AFTER a divorce. Divorced people are not eligible for remarriage because they are still married according to God. There is just no way around it. The church today is afraid to tell people what Jesus said.

Jesus calls remarried sex--ADULTERY. Why would anyone believe that new person is “their spouse in God’s eyes” if God says you are committing adultery with them? 

Jesus said they are committing adultery AFTER they had their remarriage ceremony so how could that person possibly be their spouse? They were remarried by “the state” not by God. 

No one reads their Bible--they listen to pastors tell them God forgives them and they do not have to give up their adultery partner, their so called “new spouse.” If Jesus says you are committing adultery with this “new spouse” how can you claim that this is your lawful spouse in the eyes of God? 

We need to stop listening to everyone around us and listen to Jesus. Divorced people have no right to remarriage. Their divorce did not make them single. 

The ONLY people in the Bible who commit adultery when they marry are divorced people, not single people, not widowed people, ONLY divorced people! 

Why is that? 

They are NOT FREE to marry. Their divorce did not make them FREE because they are committing adultery AFTER a divorce, like Jesus said. 

Most people won’t flee this kind of adultery because they have been deceived by many people to stay in it even though God’s Word is clear. They are living in Adultery. 

Remarriage is the greatest DECEPTION of our time.

1 co 7.39

marriage is a one flesh bond, and a covenant that is only broken by death - not adultery, not imprisonment, not drug use - nothing but death.

The New Testament text in which Jesus addresses divorce does not address a solution after the fact of remarriage. It doesn’t even prohibit remarriage but rather exposes it’s consequence. It revealed to the Pharisees and the nation of Israel that their obstinacy had always been sinful. That was Jesus’ point, for hundreds of years God’s people had been adulterating the covenant of marriage. The only solution He gives is, to stay married. He doesn’t compel those remarried to divorce yet again. It is imperative that the Church and for Christians in general not to offer solutions that add to God’s Word. We mustn’t impress upon the conscience of those who come to realizes their sin that they are to follow a new formula for forgiveness as some do in the permanence view.

He was also standing against the teaching that a man was required to dispense with his wife when he suspected unfaithfulness. (Consider Joseph's reaction when he learned of Mary's surprise pregnancy.) Jesus amends this, finding such behavior intolerable. Moses did not command his people to divorce wives, he permitted it. The springboard for right action should not be hard-heartedness, but charity. Jesus affirms once more that only if the woman has done something herself that irreparably ruptures the marriage can such a divorce be right. But it isn't a necessary response.

"...there is no text of Scripture that conclusively proves that God permits divorce in cases of adultery, while several passages prohibit divorce categorically. ... Matthew 19:9 is, at best, inconclusive on the subject of remarriage after divorce, and in Matthew 5:32 Jesus clearly prohibits remarriage after divorce, even for the innocent spouse, by specifying that though she was not guilty of adultery prior to the divorce, she commits adultery when she remarries."

• The one-flesh union created in marriage is permanent until death.
2.  Initiating a divorce is never lawful.
3.  Remarrying after divorce is an act of adultery if a former spouse is living.

I suspect many will disagree with their conclusions.  Those who do, however, must provide a more convincing interpretation of the Scriptural passages examined by this work.  Opinion, pragmitism, and philosophical arguments will not suffice.  The authors have based their conclusions on Scripture.  Those opposed must do likewise.

The permanence view solution is to advocate that there is no justifiable grounds for marital divorce and/or no grounds for remarriage except the death of a spouse.

Matt. 19:1-12

(v.3) Notice the emphasis at the end,”For any reason at all?”, hence the trap.They were pretty confident that they had him, and even though this is Jesus, remember, the pharisees are experts in the law.They had it memorized and could interpret it, so if he fumbles at one point, they will catch it!

(v.4-6) Jesus is the most brilliant man to ever live, even he knows that no answer he gives will get him out of this one. He knows full well the implications of either side he takes, so he turns it around on them by quoting (Gen.1:27) in essence he is saying, aren’t you the experts of the law?If so, then why do you miss the point?The issue is not how can I get out of a marriage,but what is God’s intention in marriage. God made man and woman to be ONE FLESH and what he is put together, we must not separate!So the answer to the question is NO! its not allowed under any circumstances.

(v.7-8) They are probably rubbing their heads at this point, but they don’t give up. The think about it and say,” well, Jesus you have a problem, how do you explain Moses commanding us to do it?”. Jesus informs them that it was not commanded, but assumed and allowed. The question is rather the passage of Deuteronomy 24 is prescriptive or descriptive?Moses was describing a situation in which divorce has occurred and giving laws on what to do if the wife tries to return.

(v.9) The exception clause, listen to the words of Christ without the exception clause, then put it back in to understand the flow. “I say to you whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery“, now “except for immorality“. What I believe he is saying is this, when a man divorces his wife for any reason and he marries another person, he commits adultery or if she marries another person it makes him the cause of her adultery. If she is the adulteress who causes the divorce, he is not responsible for the adultery she finds herself in when she remarries. The reason, The exception clause is found only in Matthew is because of Joseph and Mary, Matthew wrote to a primarily Jewish audience and the would read the account of Joseph in Matthew chapter 1 as dealing with the betrothal law. In the 1st chapter, Joseph and Mary are referred to a husband and wife even though they are only betrothed to one another, and due to what Joseph felt was “immorality” on the part of Mary, he resolved to “divorce” her (Matt.1:18-19). The text says that Joseph was “just” in his action, if Jesus condemns divorce here, how would he uphold Joseph? Betrothal was more serious than our engagement and was a legal agreement that had to be broken on legal grounds, so Jesus is not permitting divorce in (v.9).One further thought, the readers of Mark and Luke had no exception clause, rather an absolute statement forbidding divorce, if Matthew grants what they don’t you have a contradiction.

Like other portions of Scripture you may just throw it off to the side and say this can’t be.

“The Lord can’t truly want this to be our attitude about divorce and remarriage.”

“This is too hard. This is unfair.”

verse 10, Matthew 19, "His disciples say unto Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry."

But prayerfully consider the message in light of all of Scripture and not just a few selected verses on divorce and remarriage.

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia instead of the word moicheia, which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. Even though I am ready to admit that now and then porneia is used in a sense which can include adultery, the question nags at me why Matthew should not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant. Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew’s usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication rather than adultery?

The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where the Jewish leaders indirectly 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. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew’s record of Jesus’s birth in Matthew 1:18–20. This was extremely enlightening.

Unlocking a Key Text

In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to each other as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves "to divorce" Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication. Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19, in a difficult situation. He has before him the absolute sayings of Jesus that, if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery — that is, he commits a grave injustice.

Nevertheless, the one divorce that Matthew has contemplated with his readers in chapter 1 has been described by him as a “just” possibility. Therefore, in order to avoid the jarring inconsistency between what he has said about Joseph and what Jesus says about divorce, Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication is not included in what Jesus had said. This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages: 1) it does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke; 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) from a redaction-critical standpoint, it is a very astute addition which promotes the truth of Jesus’s own absolute command and the rightness of Joseph’s intention in resolving to divorce his betrothed, Mary.

John Piper

Eleven Reasons Why I Believe All Remarriage After Divorce Is Prohibited While Both Spouses Are Alive

1. Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.

Luke 16:18: Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

1.1 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.

1.2 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.

1.3 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.

2. Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who does the divorcing.

Mark 10:11-12: And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.'

2.1 This text repeats the first half of Luke 16:18 but goes farther and says that not only the man who divorces, but also a woman who divorces, and then remarries is committing adultery.

2.2 As in Luke 16:18, there are no exceptions mentioned to this rule.

3. Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teach that Jesus rejected the Pharisees' justification of divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted the purpose of God in creation that no human being separate what God has joined together.

Mark 10:2-9: And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. 3 And He answered and said to them, 'What did Moses command you?' 4 And they said, 'Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.' 5 But Jesus said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.'

Matthew 19:3-9: And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 Consequently they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery."

3.1 In both Matthew and Mark the Pharisees come to Jesus and test him by asking him whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They evidently have in mind the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1 which simply describes divorce as a fact rather than giving any legislation in favor of it. They wonder how Jesus will take a position with regard to this passage.

3.2 Jesus' answer is, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives" (Mt. 19:8).

3.3 But then Jesus criticizes the Pharisees' failure to recognize in the books of Moses God's deepest and original intention for marriage. So he quotes two passages from Genesis. "God made them male and female. ...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Genesis 1:27; 2:24).

3.4 From these passages in Genesis Jesus concludes, "So they are no longer two, but one." And then he makes his climaxing statement, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

3.5 The implication is that Jesus rejects the Pharisees' use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the standard of marriage for his disciples to God's original intention in creation. He says that none of us should try to undo the "one-flesh" relationship which God has united.

3.6 Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage. More on this below.

4. 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.

Matthew 5:32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

4.1 Jesus assumes that in most situations in that culture a wife who has been put away by a husband will be drawn into a second marriage. Nevertheless, in spite of these pressures, he calls this second marriage adultery.

4.2 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.

4.3 I will save my explanation of the exception clause ("Except on the ground of unchastity") for later in the paper, but for now, it may suffice to say that on the traditional interpretation of the clause, it may simply mean that a man makes his wife an adulteress except in the case where she has made herself one.

4.4 I would assume that since an innocent wife who is divorced commits adultery when she remarries, therefore a guilty wife who remarries after divorce is all the more guilty. If one argues that this guilty woman is free to remarry, while the innocent woman who has been put away is not, just because the guilty woman's adultery has broken the "one flesh" relationship, then one is put in the awkward position of saying to an innocent divorced woman, "If you now commit adultery it will be lawful for you to remarry." This seems wrong for at least two reasons.

4.41 It seems to elevate the physical act of sexual intercourse to be the decisive element in marital union and disunion.

4.42 If sexual union with another breaks the marriage bond and legitimizes remarriage, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can't remarry (as Jesus does say) assumes that her divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another. This is a very unlikely assumption. More likely is that Jesus does assume some of these divorcing husbands will have sexual relations with another woman, but still the wives they have divorced may not remarry. Therefore, adultery does not nullify the "one-flesh" relationship of marriage and both the innocent and guilty spouses are prohibited from remarriage in Matthew 5:32.

5. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who divorces should not remarry.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11: To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

5.1 When Paul says that this charge is not his but the Lord's, I think he means that he is aware of a specific saying from the historical Jesus which addressed this issue. As a matter of fact, these verses look very much like Mark 10:11-12, because both the wife and the husband are addressed. Also, remarriage seems to be excluded by verse ll the same way it is excluded in Mark 10:11-12.

5.2 Paul seems to be aware that separation will be inevitable in certain cases. Perhaps he has in mind a situation of unrepentant adultery, or desertion, or brutality. But in such a case he says that the person who feels constrained to separate should not seek remarriage but remain single. And he reinforces the authority of this statement by saying he has a word from the Lord. Thus Paul's interpretation of Jesus' sayings is that remarriage should not be pursued.

5.3 As in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 and Matthew 5:32, this text does not explicitly entertain the possibility of any exceptions to the prohibition of remarriage.

6. 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.

1 Corinthians 7:39: 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.

Romans 7:1-3, 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.

6.1 Both of these passages (1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2) say explicitly that a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. No exceptions are explicitly mentioned that would suggest she could be free from her husband to remarry on any other basis.

7. Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ's disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.

Matthew 19:10-12: The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.' 11 But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

7.1 Just preceding this passage in Matthew 19:9 Jesus prohibited all remarriage after divorce. (I will deal with the meaning of "except for immorality" below.) This seemed like an intolerable prohibition to Jesus' disciples: If you close off every possibility of remarriage, then you make marriage so risky that it would be better not to marry, since you might be "trapped" to live as a single person to the rest of your life or you may be "trapped" in a bad marriage.

7.2 Jesus does not deny the tremendous difficulty of his command. Instead, he says in verse ll, that the enablement to fulfill the command not to remarry is a divine gift to his disciples. Verse 12 is an argument that such a life is indeed possible because there are people who for the sake of the kingdom, as well as lower reasons, have dedicated themselves to live a life of singleness.

7.3 Jesus is not saying that some of his disciples have the ability to obey his command not to remarry and some don't. He is saying that the mark of a disciple is that they receive a gift of continence while non-disciples don't. The evidence for this is l) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 13:11, 12) the parallel between Matthew 19:12 and 13:9,43; 11:15, and 3) the parallel between Matthew 19:11 and 19:26.

8. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the "one-flesh" relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4: 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 indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against 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 to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since 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 gives you as an inheritance.

8.1 The remarkable thing about these four verses is that, while divorce is taken for granted, nevertheless the woman who is divorced becomes "defiled" by her remarriage (verse 4). It may well be that when the Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce was legitimate he based his negative answer not only on God's intention expressed in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, but also on the implication of Deuteronomy 24:4 that remarriage after divorce defiles a person. In other words, there were ample clues in the Mosaic law that the divorce concession was on the basis of the hardness of man's heart and really did not make divorce and remarriage legitimate.

8.2 The prohibition of a wife returning to her first husband even after her second husband dies (because it is an abomination) suggests very strongly that today no second marriage should be broken up in order to restore a first one (for Heth and Wenham's explanation of this see Jesus and Divorce, page 110).

9. 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.

1 Corinthians 7:15: 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.

9.1 There are several reasons why the phrase "is not bound" should not be construed to mean "is free to remarry."

9.11 Marriage is an ordinance of creation binding on all of God's human creatures, irrespective of their faith or lack of faith.

9.12 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; l Corinthians 7:39), or to one's betrothed (l Corinthians 7:27). But when he refers to a deserted spouse not being bound in l 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).

9.13 The last phrase of verse 15 ("God has called us to peace") supports verse 15 best if Paul is saying that a deserted partner is not "bound to make war" on the deserting unbeliever to get him or her to stay. It seems to me that the peace God has called us to is the peace of marital harmony. Therefore, if the unbelieving partner insists on departing, then the believing partner is not bound to live in perpetual conflict with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and innocent in letting him or her go.

9.14 This interpretation also preserves a closer harmony to the intention of verses 10-11, where an inevitable separation does not result in the right of remarriage.

9.15 Verse 16 (“For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?) is an argument that you can’t know, and so should not make the hope of saving them a ground for fighting to make them stay. This supports the understanding of verse 15 as a focus on not being enslaved to stay together, rather than not being enslaved to say single.

9.16 Paul did not see the single life as a life of slavery and so would not have called the necessity of staying single a state of being enslaved.

10. 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin.

10.1 Recently some people have argued that this passage deals with divorced people because in verse 27 Paul asks, "Are you free (literally: loosed) from a wife?" Some have assumed that he means, "Are you divorced?" Thus he would be saying in verse 28 that it is not sin when divorced people remarry. There are several reasons why this interpretation is most unlikely.

10.11 Verse 25 signals that Paul is beginning a new section and dealing with a new issue. He says, "Now concerning the virgins (ton parthenon) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." He has already dealt with the problem of divorced people in verses 10-16. Now he takes up a new issue about those who are not yet married, and he signals this by saying, "Now concerning the virgins." Therefore, it is very unlikely that the people referred to in verses 27 and 28 are divorced.

10.12 A flat statement that it is not sin for divorced people to be remarried (verse 28) would contradict verse ll, where he said that a woman who has separated from her husband should remain single.

10.13 Verse 36 is surely describing the same situation in view in verses 27 and 28, but clearly refers to a couple that is not yet married. "If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin." This is the same as verse 28 where Paul says, "But if you marry, you do not sin."

10.14 The reference in verse 27 to being bound to a "wife" may be misleading because it may suggest that the man is already married. But in Greek the word for wife is simply "woman" and may refer to a man's betrothed as well as his spouse. The context dictates that the reference is to a man's betrothed virgin, not to his spouse. So "being bound" and "being loosed" have reference to whether a person is betrothed or not.

10.15 It is significant that the verb Paul uses for "loosed" (luo) or "free" is not a word that he uses for divorce. Paul's words for divorce are chorizo (verses 10,11,15; cf. Matthew 19:6) and aphienai (verses 11,12,13).

11. The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.

Matthew 19:9: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

11.1 Several years ago I taught our congregation in two evening services concerning my understanding of this verse and argued that "except for immorality" did not refer to adultery but to premarital sexual fornication which a man or a woman discovers in the betrothed partner. Since that time I have discovered other people who hold this view and who have given it a much more scholarly exposition than I did. I have also discovered numerous other ways of understanding this verse which also exclude the legitimacy of remarriage. Several of these are summed up in William Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (Nelson: 1984).

11.2 Here I will simply give a brief summary of my own view of Matthew 19:9 and how I came to it.

I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

Would they 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.

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia ("except for immorality") instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context. The question nags at me why Matthew would not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant.

Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneiais in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery. Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication or incest (l Corinthians 5:1) rather than adultery?

A. Isaksson agrees with this view of porneia and sums up his research much like this on pages 134-5 of Marriage and Ministry:

Thus we cannot get away from the fact that the distinction between what was to be regarded as porneia and what was to be regarded as moicheia was very strictly maintained in pre-Christian Jewish literature and in the N.T. Porneia may, of course, denote different forms of forbidden sexual relations, but we can find no unequivocal examples of the use of this word to denote a wife's adultery. Under these circumstances we can hardly assume that this word means adultery in the clauses in Matthew. The logia on divorce are worded as a paragraph of the law, intended to be obeyed by the members of the Church. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that in a text of this nature the writer would not have maintained a clear distinction between what was unchastity and what was adultery: moicheia and not porneia was used to describe the wife's adultery. From the philological point of view there are accordingly very strong arguments against this interpretation of the clauses as permitting divorce in the case in which the wife was guilty of adultery.

The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where Jewish leaders indirectly 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. On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew's record of Jesus' birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.

In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph resolves "to divorce" Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was "just" in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.

Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19 needing to prohibit all remarriage after divorce (as taught by Jesus) and yet to allow for "divorces" like the one Joseph contemplated toward his betrothed whom he thought guilty of fornication (porneia). Therefore, Matthew includes the exception clause in particular to exonerate Joseph, but also in general to show that the kind of "divorce" that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication is not included in Jesus' absolute prohibition.

A common objection to this interpretation is that both in Matthew 19:3-8 and in Matthew 5:31-32 the issue Jesus is responding to is marriage not betrothal. The point is pressed that "except for fornication" is irrelevant to the context of marriage.

My answer is that this irrelevancy is just the point Matthew wants to make. We may take it for granted that the breakup of an engaged couple over fornication is not an evil "divorce" and does not prohibit remarriage. But we cannot assume that Matthew's readers would take this for granted.

Even in Matthew 5:32, where it seems pointless for us to exclude "the case of fornication" (since we can't see how a betrothed virgin could be "made an adulteress" in any case), it may not be pointless for Matthew's readers. For that matter, it may not be pointless for any readers: if Jesus had said, "Every man who divorces his woman makes her an adulteress," a reader could legitimately ask: "Then was Joseph about to make Mary an adulteress?" We may say this question is not reasonable since we think you can't make unmarried women adulteresses. But it certainly is not meaningless or, perhaps for some readers, pointless, for Matthew to make explicit the obvious exclusion of the case of fornication during betrothal.

This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages:

• 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 in sections 1-10, including Matthew's own absolute teaching in 19:3-8

• It provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew's exception clause instead of moicheia

• It squares with Matthew's own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19

• It fits the demands of Matthew's wider context concerning Joseph's contemplated divorce.

Since I first wrote this exposition of Matthew 19:9 I have discovered a chapter on this view in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce and a scholarly defense of it by A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (1965).

Conclusions and Applications

In the New Testament the question about remarriage after divorce is not determined by:

• The guilt or innocence of either spouse,

• Nor by whether either spouse is a believer or not,

• Nor by whether the divorce happened before or after either spouse's conversion,

• Nor by the ease or difficulty of living as a single parent for the rest of life on earth,

• Nor by whether there is adultery or desertion involved,

• Nor by the on-going reality of the hardness of the human heart,

• Nor by the cultural permissiveness of the surrounding society.

Rather it is determined by the fact that:

• 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),

• 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),

• 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),

• 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),

• 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).

Those who are already remarried:

• Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness

• Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above)

• Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God's eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. 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.

Christ and Divorce

When questioned by the major religious leaders of His day concerning the popular plan for divorce, the Lord Jesus Christ reaffirmed the Bible plan for marriage by citing Gen. 2:24 (Mt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:11, 12; Lk. 16:18). The Pharisees attempted to force Christ to choose between the two popular plans for divorce, the Hillel position which was very liberal (divorce for anything) and Shammai position which was very conservative (divorce for infidelity). Christ did not concede to either position, but rather He cited the teaching given to Adam and Eve and declared "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (literally this verse means "stop severing what God has permanently put together") in Mt. 19:16. Furthermore, the Lord said "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" (Mt. 19:9).

This verse has already been interpreted by Matthew in his first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 1:18-25). The Jews had the custom of betrothal for approximately one year before the wedding. This meant that the Jewish man and woman entered into a betrothal covenant (Mal. 2:14) which could only be broken by divorce for unfaithfulness. The classic example of this is Joseph and Mary; Joseph thought Mary had committed fornication and had become pregnant and consequently he was going to divorce her ("put her away privily") during the betrothal period and before Joseph and Mary had become married through physical consummation. Although Joseph and Mary knew by divine revelation that Jesus was the virgin born Son of God, the Lord Jesus lived with the stigma of being a child of fornication (Jn. 8:41).

Christ's answer to the Pharisees was two-fold: marriage was for life and divorce was only for the betrothal period (cf. Lk. 16:18). The Bible allows for divorce only before physical consummation and not after physical consummation (i.e., not after marriage).

Paul and Divorce and Remarriage

The Corinthian church wrote the Apostle Paul about some questions they had about the married state. Paul's answers include what Christ said about marriage and additional apostolic teaching as well (I Cor. 7:1-40). Paul's clearest statement is "but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife" (v. 11). In this context, the Apostle allows for temporary separation and no remarriage. Furthermore, the goal of all marital conflicts is reconciliation, and divorce is never an option for Christians. Paul makes it clear that remarriage is only possible when the marriage union is dissolved by death: "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" (v.40).

Some misunderstand Paul, thinking that he is allowing for divorce when he states "art thou loosed from a wife" (v. 28). The "loosed" is a perfect verb and refers to the permanent state of bachelorhood. All Paul is stating is that in a time of persecution ("present distress," v.26) bachelors should remain unmarried.

Conclusion

The Bible is God's guide for mankind in general and especially for Christians. The Bible teaches that marriage is permanent and monogamous. The Bible teaches that divorce is only for the betrothal period prior to physical consummation. The Bible teaches that reconciliation, not divorce is the solution to marital difficulties, and that remarriage is only allowable when the marriage union has been broken by death. May Christians and mankind follow the Bible's guidance for strong family units by realizing marriage is for life and that the Lord God of Israel hates divorce (Mal. 2:16).

In Matt. 5:31,32, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18, Rom. 7:1-3, and I Cor. 7:10, we have the New Testament Word of the Lord about divorce. That Word in these passages is: "NO DIVORCE." This is the same word Jehovah brought in the Old Testament: "For the LORD, the God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away," where putting away is divorce (Mal. 2:16).

The reason the Church must preach against divorce is that God hates it. However, God hates divorce because of His love for marriage. The Church must hate divorce, especially because She must love marriage.

God made marriage in the beginning as a bond between two parties. (Marriage is not a contract. That false notion is one reason for so many divorces these days.) Marriage is a bond made by God. Matthew 19:5,6 says that husband and wife become "one flesh" and that they are "joined together." This is Jesus' teaching.

In other words, the Bible says, "Since God made marriage, let not man break it"! It does not say, "Since divorce causes untold grief, don't divorce." It says, "What God joined together, let not man put asunder."

This seems to go against an Old Testament teaching about divorce in Deut. 24:1-4. This passage should be read carefully, because this was the passage the Pharisees used in Matt. 19 to criticize Jesus when He prohibited divorce. Three things ought to be said about Deut. 24: First, Moses was not approving divorce, but simply acknowledging that many divorces were occurring. A careful reading of the passage shows this (see NKJV where a better translation is given than in the KJV). That's why Jesus said that "Moses suffered it." He did not approve it, but "put up with" it. Second, this was the exception in the Old Testament, certainly not the rule. From the beginning the word was "No divorce" (read carefully Matt. 19:8 where Jesus said, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so"). Third, about Deut. 24, we need to see that this was not the final say about divorce. In light of Jesus' teaching in Matt. 19:9, how anyone can appeal to Deut. 24 to support divorce is amazing.

Obedience to God's command regarding marriage brings blessing and joy. This is not to say that obedience is not difficult! Every married person knows it is. Jesus never said that obedience to Him would be easy. Obedience does mean blessing and reward, in this life and in the future (see Mark 10:28-30).

To the young people, I say: be careful whom you marry. Marry only "in the Lord" (I Corinthians 7:39). When you marry, make a life-long commitment, "for richer for poorer. . .till death do us part." Nor may you forget Who stands as a witness when you make those vows. He doesn't forget.

To the married: when trouble comes, the way out is reconciliation. Pray for the grace and wisdom of God to reconcile. God brought you together. Perhaps you will say, "This was all a mistake." Remember, however, that God joined you together. What God joined together, we may not put assunder. Seek the elders or pastor for counsel

If divorce is a devastating problem for God's church, remarriage is as great. Divorce is an evil because of the sin it often leads to: remarriage, while one's original spouse still lives. With God's people of old, "with overwhelming grief I weep," because of this violation of God's law.

Has it come to such as pass, however, that divorce and remarriage are not considered evils? Is it so, that God's people have so wearied of the problem that they have given in? Has the church surrendered to the pressures to allow divorce for "every cause" and remarriage of any who have "confessed" their sin?

Here, more than ever, it is important not to allow our emotions guide us. There are very few who are not personally touched by these questions. For believers who have deep wounds and scars from the troubles of bad marriages, we pray that God's Word may heal, that Jesus Christ may be the Great Physician for them.

Study with me the Bible's teaching on remarriage.

The Bible teaches that there may be no remarriage unless one's spouse has died. This means physical death, as every person who has made the vows at marriage would admit is the meaning of the phrase, "till death do us part."