ThMThesis Divorce

A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE
by
Brian Jones
Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

for the degree of Master of Theology in
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
May 2002
Title: A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND
REMARRIAGE
Author: Brian Jones
Date: May 2002
Advisers: William W. Combs and Rolland D. McCune
Divorce is one of the greatest threats to society because it destroys the most basic
societal institution: the family. The threat is even greater for believers, because a godly
Christian family is a key evidence of the grace of God in the life of people. The purpose of
this thesis was to survey the Bible’s teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in order
to develop a consistent, biblical theology of divorce and remarriage. Beginning with Genesis
2, a definition of marriage was developed. Marriage was defined as a solemn covenant (or
commitment) made before God and according to societal customs between a man and a
woman to form an exclusive relationship with each other.
Having defined marriage, this study looked at the various positions on divorce and
remarriage. One position makes no allowance for divorce or remarriage and holds that all
divorce and remarriage is sinful. A second position argues that divorce may be permissible
in some limited circumstances, but remarriage is never allowed. It is always a sin to remarry.
A third position allows for both divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances. One
variation of this position says that divorce and remarriage are allowable only if the divorce
was for adultery or desertion by an unbelieving spouse. Another variation allows many
grounds for divorce.
In chapter three, the Old Testament texts regarding divorce were examined. It was
noted that Deuteronomy 24 does not command or encourage divorce; rather, it simply
regulates divorce since it was already happening. This regulation required the man to give
his wife a certificate of divorce to protect her rights and it forbade a divorced couple from
remarrying if the wife married another man after their divorce. Malachi 2:6 was studied in
detail, and it was concluded that it says little about divorce and nothing about remarriage.
Chapter four examined the important New Testament texts on divorce and
remarriage. It began with a discussion of the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. A
straightforward reading of the texts leads one to believe that Jesus allowed divorce and
remarriage only for adultery. After a thorough exegesis of the passages and a survey of the
relevant interpretations, it is clear that Jesus forbade divorce for any reason except adultery.
For adultery, Jesus allowed the innocent spouse the right to divorce and remarry without
committing sin. In 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul allowed a second exception. If an unbelieving
spouse divorces his or her mate who is an unbeliever, the believer is free to remarry.
Chapter six looked at the important issue of remarriage and church leaders. An
investigation of current exegetical thought revealed diverse opinions about the meaning of
the phrase “husband of one wife” (mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra) in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12, and
Titus 1:6. This study concluded that pastors and deacons may be divorced and remarried if
their divorces was predicated on one of the two exceptions allowed in the NT.
Accepted by the Faculty of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree
Master of Theology
____________________________________
Adviser
____________________________________
Adviser
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Purpose of This Thesis...................................................................2

Statement of Thesis...................................................................................................2
II. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.......................................................................................4
Marriage ...................................................................................................................4
Background .....................................................................................................4
The Creation of Marriage.................................................................................5
A Working Definition of Marriage..................................................................7
Divorce and Remarriage: Three Views......................................................................9
Divorce Is Always Sinful and Remarriage Is Always Sinful..........................10
Divorce Is Sometimes Permissible but Remarriage Is Always Sinful ............13
Divorce Is Sometimes Permissible, and When It Is, Remarriage Is
Also Permissible............................................................................................13
III. THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE.................15
Genesis 2:24...........................................................................................................15
Exegesis of Genesis 2:24...............................................................................15
Survey of Interpretations................................................................................18
Is Marriage an Indissoluble Union?...............................................................20
Deuteronomy 22 and 24 .........................................................................................23
Deuteronomy 22............................................................................................23
Deuteronomy 24............................................................................................24
Malachi 2:10-16......................................................................................................30
Exegetical Survey...........................................................................................30
Proposed Meanings for Malachi 2:16............................................................36
Conclusion.....................................................................................................38
IV. THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE...............40
Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (The Exception Clauses)....................................................40

Various Interpretations...................................................................................45
Conclusion.....................................................................................................54
1 Corinthians 7:15 ..................................................................................................57
Various Interpretations...................................................................................60
Conclusion.....................................................................................................62
iv
V. DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, AND CHURCH LEADERSHIP..................................65
The New Testament’s Teaching on the Qualifications for Church Leaders ............65
An Evaluation of the Positions on Mia'" Gunaiko;" A [ ndra .................................66
Mia'" Gunaiko;" A [ ndra and the Various Positions on Divorce and Remarriage..69
Divorce Is Always Sinful and Remarriage Is Always Sinful..........................69
Divorce Is Sometimes Permissible, but Remarriage Is Always Sinful............71
Divorce and Remarriage Are Permissible for Many Reasons ........................71
Divorce and Remarriage Are Permissible for Two Reasons Only..................72
Conclusion..............................................................................................................73
VI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................77
Summary ................................................................................................................77
A Biblical Theology of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage....................................78
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED...............................................................79
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BAGD Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-

English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 2n d ed.
BKCNT Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament
BKCOT Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament
BSac Bibliotheca Sacra
DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
DLNTD Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments
EDBT Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
GTJ Grace Theological Journal
ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
NAC New American Commentary
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
TrinJ Trinity Journal
vi
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
One of the greatest challenges facing modern society is the breakup of the
traditional family. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States
recently stated that “43 percent of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15
years.”1 While some have disputed the accuracy of such statistics,2 there is no question that
divorce is on the rise in the United States and other countries of the world. This increase in
divorce has contributed to other societal problems such as teen pregnancy, suicide, increased
drug and alcohol abuse, and the reluctance of young people to marry. Divorce has extracted
a severe price from society.
Alarming as the divorce statistics in America are, there is another set of statistics that
are even more alarming. George Barna, a Christian pollster, notes: “Overall, 33% of all born
again individuals who have been married have gone through a divorce, which is statistically
identical to the 34% incidence among non-born again adults.”3 In another study, Barna
asserts that believers are more likely than unbelievers to be divorced.4 It is difficult to accept
1
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. News Release: “43 Percent of First
Marriages Break Up within 15 Years.” 24 May 2001; available from http://www.cdc.gov/
nchs/releases/01news/firstmarr.htm.
2
See http://patriot.net/~crouch/adr/50percent.html for one attempt to discredit a
similar statistic.
3
George Barna, “Divorce 2001;” available from http://www.barna.org/cgibin/
PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=20.
4
George Barna, “Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-
Christians;” available from http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?
PressReleaseID=39&Reference=C.
1
2
these findings, and it is certainly possible that Barna has overstated the case.5 Nevertheless,
divorce is certainly a problem in the church. Since Christianity teaches that permanent,
faithful marriages are part of God’s will for Christians, the number of broken Christian
homes demonstrates the difficulty the modern evangelical church is having with the issue of
divorce.
Given the rising frequency of divorce and the negative affects it has on society and
the Church, it is important for the church to have a coherent, consistent theology of
marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
Statement of the Purpose of This Thesis
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the biblical data on the issue of marriage,
divorce, and remarriage in order to establish a theology of divorce and remarriage. Despite
strong agreement on the rules of exegesis and general agreement on the proper procedure
for theology, there exists no generally accepted theology of divorce among evangelicals.
Instead, evangelical theologians are deeply divided on the issue and fall basically into one of
three camps. This thesis will examine both the biblical-theological data and the arguments
for each of the positions. Also, this study will examine the biblical qualifications for the
offices of pastor and deacon with a view toward answering whether or not it is permissible
for a divorced or divorced and remarried man to serve as a pastor or deacon.
Statement of Thesis
This thesis will prove from the Bible that God created marriage to be permanent and
that He allows only two exceptions under which a person may divorce his or her spouse.
This thesis will also demonstrate that if a person is divorced under one of these two
exceptions, he or she is free to remarry; however, if a person is divorced for any other
5
For instance, were these “born again” adults asked to state their understanding of
the term “born again?” Was any doctrinal control placed on those polled? It is impossible
to know, but this may have affected the results of the poll.
3
reason and chooses to remarry, he or she has sinned. Finally, this thesis will demonstrate
that the biblical qualifications for pastor and deacon allow for a divorced and remarried man
to hold either office, if his divorce was done on scriptural grounds.

CHAPTER II
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
The Christian family is an essential element of the Christian way of life. This is true
for many reasons, not the least of which is that Christ’s relationship to the church is
frequently compared to a man’s relationship to his wife (Eph 5:25-32). While there are
exceptions, the normal way of life for a believer is to marry and to live a life of faithfulness
to his or her mate until death separates the couple. The Bible teaches that God never
intended for a married couple to be separated by divorce; in fact, divorce is a human
innovation that destroys God’s plan for the family. Before the Bible’s teaching on divorce
and remarriage can be examined, it is necessary to understand God’s original design for
marriage.
Marriage
Although the Bible never explicitly defines marriage, it is always clear as to the
intent of marriage. God intended for marriage to form a life-long human relationship
between a man and woman. In order to understand this truth, it is necessary to turn to the
most explicit passage on the nature of marriage, Genesis 2. In this chapter, the origin of
marriage is explained. By examining the origin of marriage, it is possible to deduce what
marriage is, and thereby establish a workable definition of marriage.
Background
Genesis 1:1-2:3 describes God’s original creation of all material reality in six
consecutive twenty-four hour days. On day six of the creation week, God created human
beings in the form of man and woman. This creation of humanity is described briefly in
4
5
1:24-31. Verse 27 states only that humans were made in God’s image and that they were
created in male and female forms.
In chapter 2, beginning with verse 4, day six of creation is explained in much more
detail than in chapter 1. Specifically, God’s creation of man and woman is explained much
more thoroughly than in Genesis 1:27. This closer look at day six describes the earth in an
uncultivated, sin-free state in verses 5-6.6 Verse 7 describes the creation of man and the fact
that God created man in a unique way. For everything else He created, God created
immediately (He “said”—1:3, 6, 9, etc.). When he created man, however, God created
using a medium—the ground he had already made (2:7). Furthermore, in order to bring
man to life God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”7 According to Ross: “This
word for breath is used in the Bible for God and for the life imparted to man—never for
animals.”8 Man was created in a special way by God in order to emphasize his uniqueness
above everything else God created to inhabit the earth. The nature of man as “special” in
God’s created world is further emphasized in the special place God made for man to live
(vv. 8-14), and the special instructions he gave man (vv. 15-17, 19-20). Both the instructions
on eating (vv. 15-17) and naming the animals (vv. 19-20) require a thinking mind and a free
will, which set apart man from other earthly creatures.
The Creation of Marriage
In verse 18 God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper
suitable for him.” The order of events in this passage is telling. Although 1:27 mentions the
creation of humans as male and female (thus seeming to indicate that they were created
together), chapter two clarifies that although man and woman were created on the same day,
6
Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), p. 122.
7
Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural citations are from the Holy Bible: New
International Version, 1984.
8
Ross, Creation and Blessing, p. 122.
6
they were not in fact created at the same time. It is not the case that God created man and
woman, and then decreed for them to be married companions; instead, man was created first,
then God decreed to create man a companion. Thus, both the woman and the marriage
relationship were created by God to complete humanity.
It is also important to note that God stated his intention to make man a wife (2:18),
then told man to name the animals (vv. 19-20). The order here is significant because after
naming the animals the author concludes, “But for Adam, no suitable helper was found”
(2:20b). While naming the animals was a useful exercise for asserting man’s authority as
the ruler over God’s earthly created beings (cf. 1:28), the main point was to awaken in
Adam the desire for a companion, one who corresponded to him in every way. As Sailhamer
put it,
There was no helper who corresponded to the man among the animals. A special act
of creation of the woman was necessary…. The clear implication is that the author
saw in man’s naming the animals also his search for a suitable partner. In
recounting that no suitable partner had been found, the author has assured the reader
that man was not like the other creatures. In contrast to this, the author recorded in
graphic detail the words of the man when he discovered the woman who was one
like himself: “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (v. 23). The
man recognized his own likeness in the woman.”9
Therefore verses 22-23 describe the creation of Eve by God from Adam’s body.
Moses, the author of Genesis, points to this creative event on day six of the creation week as
the basis for the institution called marriage. “For this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (2:24). Although this
verse does not purport to be a technical definition of marriage, it does describe the origin of
marriage and the key elements of marriage. Thus this verse serves as an important
foundation stone to building a theology of marriage. A through understanding of Genesis
2:24 is necessary for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage, divorce, and
remarriage.
9
John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in vol. 2 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p. 47.
7
A Working Definition of Marriage
The origin of marriage and its importance to a definition of marriage
Genesis 2 describes the order of events on day six of the creation week. This order
of events is essential to building a biblical definition of marriage. When God initially
created the human species, he created a male human being only. Later on the same day, he
added a female to the species. When God created the female, he did so to meet a pressing
need in the male’s life. The man needed a human companion (“it is not good for the man to
be alone”) who could assist him in fulfilling the function for which God created him (“I
will make a helper suitable for him”). Thus, man and woman were created for marriage.
Marriage is not simply a human convention cooked up by people who found themselves as
male and female and decided to become partners. Instead, marriage is an institution created
by a direct act of God. God created marriage just as certainly and intentionally as he created
man and woman. By creating man first, then showing him his need of a helper, then creating
woman to fill the helper need, God demonstrated that marriage is an essential organizing
principle in the human race. When Moses wrote, “For this cause a man will… be united to
his wife,” he was pointing back to day six of the creation week as the origin of marriage.
Thus, any definition of marriage must include the fact that marriage was created by God, not
invented by people.
One clear implication of Genesis 2 is that the marriage commitment is made before
God regardless of whether or not the persons involved in the marriage acknowledge God.
Marriage as a covenant before God is an aspect of the Creator-creature relationship that
transcends the fall. This is implied in the Genesis 2 account where God created Eve to be
Adam’s helper, but it is explicitly stated in Matthew 19:26. In that text, Jesus states that
marriage is that which “God has joined together” (Matt 19:26), referring to the marriage
institution itself as instituted by God as well as God’s sovereign work of providence by
which he brings into reality that which he has decreed. In other words, the husband and wife
8
are “joined by God” in the sense that he providentially brings them into the marriage
commitment that he created for them. It is an act of God’s sovereign will.
Other essential elements to a definition of marriage
In addition to teaching that marriage was established by God, Genesis 2:24 also
states two other essential elements to marriage.
First, marriage is made between a man and a woman
This is seen from the phrase “a man will… be united to his wife.” This excludes
homosexual relationships, which are also specifically forbidden by many other passages in
the Bible. This also brings up the issue of incest. Although the human race began with
marriage among close relatives, this was a simple necessity that was an exception in God’s
plan. As the human race grew and diversified, God clarified his will about marriage by
forbidding blood relatives to marry (Lev 18:9, 20:17). Thus homosexuality and incest are
simply perversions of the marriage covenant, not valid marriages. The issues of divorce or
annulment were not intended to apply in these instances because the command to civil
authorities was to forbid these perverse unions and to sever them by the death of both
persons involved. Those who attempt to enter such unions are criminal offenders, not
marriage partners.
Second, marriage involves a formal commitment or covenant
This is the essence of marriage, and this covenant was designed by God to last until
at least one of the spouses dies (Rom 7:2). This formal commitment is what separates
couples who live together from those who are genuinely married. Despite the recognition of
cohabitants as married couples (“common-law” marriages) in some societies, only those
who formalize their commitment according to accepted societal customs can be considered
married. This is so for two reasons. First, the “leaving…cleaving” expressed in Genesis
9
2:24 recognizes a formal, public commitment of some sort between the husband and wife.
These are covenantal terms.10 The expression of this covenant may change among human
cultures. In the United States, for instance, God’s command to obey government leaders
(Rom 13:1ff) requires a valid marriage license, blood tests, and whatever else human
governments may require before marriage. Second, when Christ met the Samaritan woman,
and asked about her husband, he affirmed the truthfulness of her reply when she said she
was unmarried. John 4:17b-18 states: “Jesus said to her, ‘You are right when you say you
have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not
your husband. What you have just said is quite true.’” Thus, he did not recognize her
cohabitation as a valid marriage.11
Stated simply, then, marriage is a solemn covenant (or commitment) made before
God and according to societal customs between a man and a woman to form an exclusive
relationship with each other. Although God intended marriage to end with the death of one
spouse, it can also be severed by divorce. The conditions under which divorce is permissible
or not will be covered in ensuing chapters.
Divorce and Remarriage: Three Views
Having established a definition of marriage, it is necessary to understand the various
positions in the divorce and remarriage controversy. While all evangelicals (and many non-
evangelicals) would likely agree that divorce is tragic and its consequences painful, there is
no agreement on what grounds (if any) remarriage is allowable. In fact, one author has
distinguished eleven separate views on the divorce and remarriage question.12 For the
10
EDBT, s.v. “Marriage,” by Ralph H. Alexander, p. 512; William F. Luck,
Divorce and Remarriage (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), p. 11.
11
David J. MacLeod, “The Problem of Divorce (Part 1): A Survey of Opinions.”
Emmaus Journal 1 (Summer 1992): 140.
12
B. Ward Powers, Marriage and Divorce: The New Testament Teaching
(Concord NSW, Australia: Family Life Movement of Australia, 1987), pp. 294-323.
10
purposes of this study, the various positions can be organized under one of three categories.
Either divorce is always sinful and remarriage is always sinful, or divorce is sometimes
permissible but remarriage is always sinful, or divorce is sometimes permissible and
remarriage is sometimes permissible. The differing views will be discussed under these
headings and the differences noted where appropriate.
Divorce Is Always Sinful and Remarriage Is Always Sinful
This position is sometimes called the “no divorce, no remarriage” view. Although
most evangelicals would affirm that most cases of divorce and remarriage are sinful, many
evangelicals see exceptions built into the NT discussions about divorce. These exceptions
allow a believer to divorce (at least) without having committed a sin. Advocates of the
“divorce and remarriage always sinful” position, however, do not allow for such
exceptions. In their eyes, divorce is a sin regardless of the circumstances involved. Leading
advocates of this view are J. Carl Laney and Charles Ryrie. The “always sinful” view sees
marriage as a permanent, indissoluble union.13 They interpret the “exception clause” in
Matthew to refer to an incestuous marriage.14 In a rare case such as this, Jesus’
“exception” was not really addressing divorce, since based on OT law close family
members were not to marry. The “always sinful” view, then, sees an incestuous marriage as
an illegitimate marriage that must be annulled.15 The support for their argumentation is
based on the fact that the exception is only mentioned in Matthew, which was written to a
Jewish audience.16 The parallel texts on Mark and Luke do not mention the exception;
13
Cyril J. Barber, “Marriage, Divorce or Remarriage: A Review of the Relevant
Religious Literature, 1973–1983.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 12 (Fall 1984):
171.
14
J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1981), p. 72.
15
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. “Divorce,” by R. H. Stein, p. 194.
16
Laney, Divorce Myth, p. 64.
11
therefore (they argue), it must be an exception that is applicable only to Jews. Further
support for this view is garnered from the fact that porneiva (NIV’s “marital
unfaithfulness”) in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 can be used to refer to incest.17 Interestingly,
the “always sinful” view forbids the partners in a severed incestuous marriage to be
remarried.18 It would seem that, since the first marriage was illegitimate, the partners are not
now getting “remarried” but married for the first time. The advocates of the “always sin”
view, however, argue that the placement of the word porneiva governs only the divorce or
annulment. In other words, the man and woman who were involved in the incestuous
marriage are allowed to sever the marriage, but they cannot marry again. Among advocates
of the “always sinful” view, this interpretation of the exception clause seems to be the most
prominent in the recent discussions of divorce and remarriage views.
Concerning Paul’s instruction about an unbelieving spouse who “departs,” Ryrie
states, “it may only be a separation which would in no case leave the other party free to
remarry.”19 If, however, the unbelieving spouse does officially divorce the believer and even
if the departing spouse remarries, Ryrie and Laney forbid the forsaken believer to
remarry.20 They do so because they understand marriage to be indissoluble. Thus, the
departed unbeliever is still married to the forsaken believer in the eyes of God.
Another variety of the “always sin” view sees the situation addressed by Jesus in
Matthew 5 and 19 as referring to the betrothal period in which a Jewish man and woman
were considered husband and wife for one year before the marriage was consummated.21
17
Ibid., pp. 71-8.
18
Paul E. Steele and Charles C. Ryrie, “Are Divorce and Remarriage Ever
Permissible? No.” Fundamentalist Journal 3 (June 1984): 20.
19
Charles C. Ryrie, “Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage,” GTJ 3 (Fall
1982): 190.
20
Ryrie, “Divorce and Remarriage,” p. 190; Laney, Divorce Myth, p. 87.
21
Ryrie, “Divorce and Remarriage,” p. 187.
12
This view is difficult to defend exegetically; indeed, advocates of the “always sinful” view
such as Ryrie and Laney have demonstrated that it cannot stand under close exegetical
scrutiny.22 As Ryrie notes, “porneia is nowhere else used in the restricted sense of
‘unchastity during the betrothal period.’”23 Although Isaksson24 and Pentecost25
advocated this view, it seemed to fall into disfavor until recently, when John Piper began
advocating it.26
A third variety of the “always sin” view reads the exception clauses in Matthew 5
and 19 as a refusal to discuss the issue of porneiva. This was the view of Augustine and is
sometimes called the “preteritive” or “no comment view.” This interpretation has been
summarized well by the Feinbergs in the following paraphrase of Matthew 19:9: “If anyone
divorces his wife—except in the case of porneia about which I shall make no
comment—and remarries, he commits adultery.”27
There are other minor variations of the “always sin” view. They differ from the
above views on their interpretation of the exception clause in Matthew 5 and 19. These
variations are views such as “the mixed marriage view,” the “inclusivist view,” and others,
which have been exegetically discredited and thus are seldom argued in modern times.28
22
23
24
Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, trans. Neil Tomkinson
and Jean Gray (Copenhagen: Lund, 1965), p. 116-152.
25
J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1981), pp. 357-8.
26
John Piper, “On Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery,” <http://www.
desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/Subjects/DivorceRemarriage/DivRemAdulte
ry.htm.>, par. 5.
27
John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave World (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 1993), p. 306. They merely discuss this view; they do not hold it.
28
Feinberg and Feinberg, Ethics, p. 306.
13
Divorce Is Sometimes Permissible but Remarriage Is Always Sinful
This view has certain similarities with the “always sinful” view, but is less strict. It
recognizes that in certain cases a husband or a wife may be victimized by his or her spouse.
In this situation, the believer who is divorced has not sinned; however, the now single
believer is obligated to remain single and to seek reconciliation with his or her spouse. If the
divorced person remarries, he or she has committed a sin. This is the view of William
Heth29 and most of the church fathers. This position is argued mainly on the placement of
the exception clause after divorce but before remarriage. That is, Jesus seems to have
granted an exception that allows for divorce, but not remarriage. Heth sums up this view
well by saying, “Even though marital separation or legal divorce may be advisable under
some circumstances…Jesus calls remarriage after any divorce adultery”30
Divorce Is Sometimes Permissible, and When It Is, Remarriage Is Also Permissible
This category of views allows divorce for two or more exceptions. There is a
consensus that the standard evangelical view is divorce for two exceptions—adultery (Matt
5 and 19) and desertion (1 Cor 7). If a marriage is severed for at least one of these reasons,
the divorced person is free to remarry without sinning.31 There are some variations in this
view, depending again on how one defines porneiva in Matthew’s gospel. However, the
various “two exceptions” views are unified in that they see a non-sinful divorce and
29
As this thesis was taking its final form, Heth published an article retreating from
his “no remarriage” view and embracing the “two exception” view, which is the view
advocated in this thesis. William A. Heth, “Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has
Changed,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6 (Spring 2002): 4-29.
30
William A. Heth, “Remarriage: Two Views: Why Remarriage Is Wrong,”
Christianity Today, 14 December 1992, p. 34.
31
Thomas R. Edgar, “Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery and Desertion,” in
Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, ed. H. Wayne House (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), pp. 151-95.
14
remarriage if a person has been wronged sexually or if the believing spouse has been
abandoned by the unbelieving spouse.
Another variation of this view sees the exception clauses in Matthew and 1
Corinthians as merely examples of divorceable offenses. This is the view of William Luck,
who writes that “the celebrated exception clauses are merely an application of the principle
stated in the Old Testament Prophets that divorce is a tragic means of discipline.”32 Based
on Jesus’ statement that divorce was given “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matt
19:8), he interprets Deuteronomy 24 as given to protect a spouse (usually, the wife) against
a hardhearted spouse who is abusive.33 Luck also defines porneiva very broadly so that
even matters that are not technically sex acts (e.g., lust [Matt 5], abandonment [1 Cor 7]) can
qualify. This allows the innocent spouse to remarry without committing adultery; however,
the guilty spouse has committed adultery already and thus is guilty of sin.
Having established a Biblical understanding of what marriage is, and having
surveyed the various positions regarding divorce and remarriage, the next step is to survey
the Bible’s teaching about divorce and remarriage. The next chapter will survey the Old
Testament’s teaching on this subject. Chapter four will look at the New Testament’s
teaching on the divorce and remarriage question.
32
Luck, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 158. See Feinberg and Feinberg, Ethics, pp.
309-10, for a concise explanation of Luck’s complex position on the divorce and remarriage
issue.
33
Luck, Divorce and Remarriage, p.66.
CHAPTER III
THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
Genesis 2:24
Although the previous chapter treated Genesis 2 in some detail, the purpose there
was to establish a definition of marriage. Before moving on to the OT texts about divorce
and remarriage it is necessary to treat the issue of the indissolubility of marriage as it relates
to Genesis 2:24. This is necessary because a key tenet in both the “divorce is always sin
and remarriage is always sin” and “divorce is sometimes permissible, but remarriage is
always sinful” positions is that marriages are absolutely permanent. That is, they cannot be
dissolved. Support for this idea is taken from a combination of OT texts—Genesis 2:24,
Deuteronomy 24:4, and others. Thus, the idea of the indissolubility of marriage must be
treated from Genesis 2:24.
Genesis 2:24 says: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Those who claim that marriage forms
an indissoluble union point to the words “leave,” “be united to,” and “one flesh,” to
support their position. A full exegesis of these terms is necessary to evaluate this claim.
Exegesis of Genesis 2:24
The word “leave” (bz"[); is used in some contexts to refer to religious apostasy
(Deut 28:20; 31:16, and others). Thus, it refers to “breaking the covenant” Israel had with
God (Deut 29:24). In Hosea 4:10, the word is used to refer to adultery—the breaking of the
15
16
marriage covenant.34 While in this context it is a family relationship between parent and
child that is broken rather than a covenant, the fact that it is joined to the word “cleaves”
demonstrates the serious nature of the marriage covenant. The God-created institution of
marriage drives a couple from their biological family into a relationship equally as strong.
The word qb'D; translated “cleave” or “be united to” (NIV) is sometimes used of
inanimate objects being stuck together as though one, but in interpersonal relationships it
denotes the idea of commitment. “The verb is also commonly used metaphorically to
express a state of loyalty, affection, or close proximity.”35 This same wordbook goes on to
make an unwarranted assumption. The author writes, “Intimacy (perhaps even sexual
intimacy) is implied in a man leaving his parents ‘to cleave’ or ‘to be united” to his
wife.”36 This seems to miss the force of the verb, which is to the commitment of the parties
to each other, not their sexual union. Such commitment is evidenced in the attitude of Ruth,
of whom the same verb is used. In Ruth 1:14 the Scripture says, “Orpah kissed her mother-
in-law good-bye, but Ruth clung to her.” It is not intimacy that is implied here (certainly not
sexual intimacy), but commitment. “Dabhaq does not connote sexual union because it can
also describe the relationship between members of the same sex or human relationships in
general.”37 This is further seen in several uses in Deuteronomy where Israel is urged to
“hold fast” to God (Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; etc.). To summarize, Genesis 2:24 describes
the origin of the social custom of marriage. Men and women sever ties with their parents in
order to enter a relationship of deep commitment with one another because God created it to
be that way, as demonstrated in the lives of Adam and Eve.
34
TWOT, s.v. “bz"[;,” 2:658-59.
35
NIDOTTE, s.v. “qb'D;,” 1:911.
36
Ibid.
37
TDOT, “qb'D;,” 3:81.
17
The crucial point of interpretation in this text centers on the meaning of the word
“rc;B;.” The word, which is translated “flesh,” is used in verse 23 when man says, “This is
flesh of my flesh.” His words express the joy of having found a companion that is suitable
for him. Because she was made from his body, there was an ontological connection between
them. No animal in the animal kingdom would have been suitable because it was made of
another substance. “Here the main emphasis is placed on the relationship itself. Thus
‘adham…, after he has been made aware that his nature is different from that of the animals,
states as— vyai ish (man) the concrete and predominant unity with the ishshah (woman) that
God took from him, a unity based on basar, and their common nature.”38 As Moses draws
his conclusion about the origin of marriage in verse 24, he states that married couples will
become “one flesh.” Does “flesh” in verse 24 refer to some kind of mystical or physical
relation or is it used euphemistically for the sexual relationship in marriage? There is some
evidence for seeing the “one flesh” of verse 24 in terms of family relationships. In Genesis
37:27, for instance, Joseph’s brothers say, “Come let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites and not
lay our hands on him; after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood” (emphasis
added). Thus, Chisholm writes,
The expression “one flesh,” used of the relationship between the first man and
woman (Gen 2:24), draws attention to the inseparable bond inherent in the marriage
relationship. The phrase must be interpreted in light of the man’s statement in 2:23:
“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” the meaning of which is
informed by the idiomatic expression “flesh and bone,” a phrase referring to
kinship relationships within clan and tribal contexts…. The language of Gen 2:23-
24 suggests that the first marriage was regarded as a kinship (“flesh and blood”)
relationship which, because of its temporal priority, supercedes all such blood
relationships, even that of parent-child…. On this basis, Jesus viewed the marriage
relationship as indissoluble (Matt 19:4-6).39
While Chisholm’s interpretation of rc;B; is common, it is by no means the only
interpretation of “rc;B.; ” Others understand this word to be a reference to the

38
TDOT, “rc;B;,” 2:328.
39
NIDOTTE, “rc;B;,” 1:778.
18
consummation of the marriage.40 One author expressed it this way: “‘One flesh’ echoes
the language of v. 23, which speaks of the woman’s source in the man; here it depicts the
consequence of their bonding, which results in a new person. Our human sexuality
expresses both our individuality as gender and our oneness with another person through
physical union. Sexual union implies community and requires responsible love within that
union.”41
Other exegetes prefer a more ambiguous treatment of rc;B.; Westermann writes, “It
has been asked whether ‘they became one flesh’ refers to sexual intercourse or to the child
in which man and woman become one flesh. Neither is correct…. Delitzsch…understood
the phrase ‘one flesh’ as ‘spiritual unity, the most complete personal community.’”42 This
interpretation seems to tilt toward an indissoluble union, but it is not entirely clear.
Survey of Interpretations
As was noted previously, understanding rc;B; as some type of indissoluble union is a
critical element in both the “divorce is always sinful and remarriage is always sinful” and
the “divorce is sometimes permissible, but remarriage is always sinful” views. Wenham,
who argues for the later, is a key exegete on this point. In his commentary on Genesis he
writes,
This [the expression “one flesh”] does not denote merely the sexual union that
follows marriage…. Rather, it affirms that just as blood relations are one’s flesh and
bone, so marriage creates a similar kinship relation between man and wife. They
become related to each other as brother and sister are. The laws in Lev 18 and 20,
and possibly Deut 24:1-4, illustrate the application of this kinship-of-spouses
principle to the situation following divorce or death of one of the parties…. The
kinships established by marriage are therefore not terminated by death or divorce.43
40
TDOT, “rc;B;,” 2:328.
41
Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1-11:26, NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1996), p.
223.
42
Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1990), p. 233.
43
Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), p. 71.
19
This is also the argument of Heth.44 Likewise, it is the argument of Laney, who holds that
divorce is always sinful and remarriage is always sinful.45 Laney borrows from Wenham’s
exegesis, but finds the “one flesh” bond to transcend the physical union. He writes, “This
phrase [“one flesh”] refers to the physical or sexual aspect of the marriage…. Although
they remain two persons, the married couple becomes one in mystical, spiritual unity.”46
So, for at least one advocate of the “divorce is always sinful and remarriage is always
sinful” view, “one flesh” refers to married sex, but to him that consummation creates some
sort of mystical spiritual bond.
Because of their belief in the indissolubility of marriage, advocates sometimes call
this view the “no divorce” view. This study has chosen the designation “divorce is always
sin,” instead, because everyone acknowledges that people get divorced, at least on the
human level. But those who believe in the indissolubility of marriage argue that divorce is a
human-only fact. In God’s eyes (they argue), the divorced couple is still married. To them,
there really is “no divorce” if we look at marriage from God’s perspective. Since those of
the “remarriage is always sinful” view share the belief that marriage is indissoluble, they
also see a divorced couple as still married. Thus, they forbid remarriage since the marriage
union cannot be dissolved. They see the divorce as simply a human separation.47
44
Heth, “Divorce, but No Remarriage,” pp. 76-77.
45
J. Carl Laney, “No Divorce and No Remarriage,” in Divorce and Remarriage:
Four Christian Views, ed. H. Wayne House (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1990), p. 24.
46
Ibid., p. 19.
47
Actually, since the marriage is indissoluble based on the fact that sex forms a close
family relationship between a husband and wife, there is a sense in which it is incorrect to
say that the divorce dissolves a marriage only from the human point of view. Perhaps it
would be better to say that, according to the “no divorce” and “divorce but no remarriage”
perspectives, divorce ends a marriage only in a legal sense. The physical union lives on. One
cannot truly be separated from his or her mate actually any more than he or she can be
separated from his or her siblings.
20
For those who allow for divorce and remarriage for some reason(s), the “one flesh”
union in Genesis 2:24 is not an indissoluble one. To Edgar, who argues that divorce and
remarriage are permissible for adultery and desertion, Genesis 2:24 is irrelevant. He writes,
“Genesis 2:24 says nothing explicit regarding divorce or remarriage.”48 Luck, who has the
most open view of divorce and remarriage, has more to say than Edgar does on Genesis
2:24. To Luck, the use of “flesh” in Genesis 2:23 (“bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh”)
is instructive about the meaning in verse 24. That is, Adam “cleaves” to Eve because she
was made from the same substance as he was—indeed, she was made directly from his
substance. Thus, their sexual union in a sense reunites their “flesh” as closely as possible.
The same principle holds true for all marriage. “The sexual intimacy, a relation to be
entertained only by those who have ‘cleaved’ to each other, reunites the once-sundered flesh
as closely as it will ever be reunited.”49 Luck continues by refuting the idea that “one
flesh” connotes an indissoluble union. “It would seem that Isaksson and Heth and
Wenham wish to distinguish ‘one flesh’ from sexuality so as to preclude the inference that
sexual misconduct dissolves the ‘one-flesh’ relationship…. A ‘one-flesh’ relationship
seems to be primarily an organic one, which in the case of human beings would be
sexual.”50 Therefore, those who attempt to define “one flesh” as an indissoluble family
relationship do so in order to buttress their view of divorce and remarriage, not because it is
the plain meaning of Genesis 2:24.
Is Marriage an Indissoluble Union?
It is impossible to prove that “one flesh” means something like, “they become
blood relatives” or “they form an indissoluble union.” The expression “one flesh” is too
48
Edgar, “Divorce and Remarriage,” p. 153.
49
Luck, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 17.
50
Ibid., p. 18.
21
elastic and it is not defined further in the immediate context of Genesis 2. Further, Genesis
2:23 seems to agree with Luck’s understanding. That is, Adam and Eve were in the same
family in the sense that they were of the same “family or species…. Adam takes note of
Eve because she is his kind of creature. We might say that she is akin to him or ‘of his
family,’ as opposed to the animals he has been observing.”51 Thus, the “one flesh”
relationship refers primarily to the consummation of the marriage in which the husband and
wife are physically joined together as closely as they could possibly be. This understanding
is supported by Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:16, “Do you not know that he who unites
himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one
flesh.’” Paul understands Genesis 2:24 to be a reference to sexual union, to the point that
sexual union outside of marriage makes the fornicators “one flesh.” This does not make
them married, however, for they lack the covenant (“leave…cleave”) that marriage requires.
Although the “one flesh” relationship refers primarily to a bond formed by sexual
relations, it is possible that sex also creates a metaphysical bond between people. That is,
there may be emotional and psychological consequences to sex that transcend the sex act
itself. Since 1 Corinthians 16:6 teaches that any sexual relationship makes a couple “one
flesh,” this seems to point to a union that is more than physical. Taken together, Genesis
2:24 and 1 Corinthians 16:6 may suggest that when two people have sex, they become so
closely joined emotionally and psychologically that they become united, almost as if they
were one person. If this is the implication we are to draw, it helps to explain why
extramarital sex is such an egregious sin. It is a sin that attaches two people together
psychologically who do not have any real commitment to each other. Furthermore, it
cheapens one’s relationship to his or her mate by forming the same type of bond with
another person. This also explains why a promiscuous person will often state that he or she
51
Ibid., p. 17.
22
remembers every sexual partner he or she has had. He or she cannot help it; he or she has
become united to that person in a strong metaphysical way.
If it is true that sexual relations form a metaphysical bond, then it is clear that such a
bond is not an indissoluble one. The Scriptures teach that death certainly dissolves a
marriage. Romans 7:2 says, “For example, by law a married woman is bound to her
husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of
marriage.” If marriage were truly indissoluble, then it should transcend death since the dead
person lives on in eternity. Wenham argued this when we wrote, “The kinships established
by marriage are therefore not terminated by death or divorce.”52 This statement is a direct
contradiction of what the Scriptures teach, for the Scriptures repeatedly affirm that death
dissolves every marriage. It is therefore incorrect to say that marriage is an indissoluble
union. As the other OT and NT texts regarding divorce are studied, it will become clear that
marriage is not an indissoluble union.
At this point, it is also helpful to ask, “Does adultery automatically sever a
marriage?” The answer is no. Sexual contact does not make or break a marriage covenant.
It is the consummation of a marriage contract (as I understand Genesis 2:24), or an act of
betrayal to the marriage contract, but not a termination of the marriage itself. Since marriage
is essentially a contract (or covenant), it can be dissolved when one or both of the parties
chooses to dissolve it, or if one of them dies. However, since the marriage covenant is made
before God, only He can say under what circumstances a marriage covenant may be
dissolved. Thus, the conditions the NT allows for divorce sever the marriage contract
without causing the innocent party to be guilty of sin, as the next chapter will demonstrate.
Also, while divorce is always tragic, it is probably a necessary condition in order to protect
the sanctity of marriage, for without the possibility of divorce, a married man or woman
could commit all kinds of sin without the threat of losing his or her spouse.
52
Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 71.
23
Deuteronomy 22 and 24
The Bible first discusses the issue of divorce in Deuteronomy 24. In order to fully
understand what Deuteronomy 24 says about divorce, it is necessary to understand
Deuteronomy 22, particularly verses 13-30. In that text, the Law spells out clearly the
grounds on which a marriage can be dissolved. The dissolution, however, does not come by
divorce; it comes by execution. In other words, there are certain sins that a marriage partner
commits against his or her mate that are so serious that the proper penalty is to sever the
marriage by death. A proper understanding of Deuteronomy 22:13-30 shows us what
Deuteronomy 24 cannot mean.
Deuteronomy 22
In Deuteronomy 22:13-30, the Law prescribes death upon a man and/or a woman
for extramarital sexual sins. In verses 13-21, a young wife’s virginity is discussed. The
situation arises if her husband accuses her of premarital promiscuity. In order to defend her
honor, her parents were commanded to produce a bloodstained cloth.53 This bloodstained
cloth was the result of the consummation of the marriage and was to be kept as proof of a
woman’s virginity.54 If her parents could produce the cloth, the woman’s honor was
protected and the husband was forbidden to divorce her (v. 19b), and he was to pay a
substantial fine to her father (v.19a). However, Moses commands her to be put to death in
verses 20-21 if no proof of virginity can be produced. Thus Mosaic law established that
premarital sexual relations were an evil worthy of death in order to guard the sanctity of the
marriage relationship (v. 21).
This position is reinforced in verses 23 and 24 where a young woman who is
pledged to be married to one man has premarital sex with another man. The consequence
53
Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1976), pp. 292-3.
54
Ibid.
24
again is death for both, again to guard the sanctity of the marriage relationship (v. 24b). The
situation changes however if the incident happens in the country (vv. 25-27). If it happens
there, the presumption of innocence guards the life of the girl. The law protects her from
death because it is assumed that she had been raped and though she screamed for help, there
was no one available to help her (v. 27).
In verse 22, adulterous sex is punished with death and called an “evil” that must be
purged from Israel. The only place in Deuteronomy 22 where unmarried sexual contact
does not result in death occurs if a man has sex with a woman who is not pledged to be
married (vv. 28-29). In that case, instead of the man being put to death (as in v. 24), he pays
a fine to the girl’s father and the couple is required to be married without the possibility of
divorce (v. 29).
The point of Deuteronomy 22 is to underscore the sanctity of marriage by making
violations of it a capital offense. Divorce is not discussed in this text, except to be expressly
forbidden in two cases (vv. 19 & 29).
Deuteronomy 24
In Deuteronomy 24, one specific situation regarding divorce is discussed. The
Feinbergs note that “most commentators see verses 1-4a as one continuous sentence.
Verses 1-3 contain a series of ‘if’ clauses, which, if all true, lead to the conclusion in verse
4 . ”55 Thus the situation in view is a very narrow one, it involves (1) a married woman (2)
whose husband is displeased with her and therefore (3) divorces her (4) who subsequently
marries another man (5) who dies or divorces her. If all five conditions are met, then the
prohibition of verse 4 comes into effect: “then her first husband, who divorced her, is not
allowed to marry her again.” Although this seems like a very narrow, specific situation,
55
Feinberg and Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World, p. 310.
25
some Jews took this as an almost open ended invitation to divorce, while others took a
stricter view.
The differences in the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 stem from the word twÆr[“ ,≤
which the NIV translates “indecent.” Whatever this indecency is, it is the grounds on which
the Jews felt freedom to divorce. Eventually two schools of thought developed on this verse.
The Hillel group took this word to refer to “a variety of items a husband might find
objectionable such as barrenness…or some birth defect.”56 It became so elastic that nearly
anything a husband found displeasing constituted just grounds for divorce. By contrast, the
Shammai group “interpreted the phrase narrowly to refer to some sexual impurity (usually
adultery).”57 Modern interpretations are equally divided on what twÆr[“ ≤ means. Some feel
that the Shammai were correct and that the term has “sexual overtones—some lewd or
immoral behavior including any sexual perversion, even adultery;”58 however, this
interpretation can certainly be ruled out because Deuteronomy 22:22, as noted above,
demands execution for adultery. A similar interpretation notes that “it cannot refer to
adultery, for that was punishable by death….[But] the word twÆr[“ ≤ (‘erwah, “nakedness”)
by itself is used elsewhere of the shameful exposure of the human body…therefore, it
probably indicates some immodest exposure or shameful conduct connected with sex
life.”59 Although this is difficult to rule out absolutely, it seems unlikely. Such behavior
would probably be considered adulterous even if no actual sex act had resulted.
Alternatively, Craigie believes that the phrase probably implies “a physical deficiency such
56
Ibid., p. 312.
57
Ibid.
58
EDBT, s.v. “Divorce,” by Ralph H. Alexander, p. 183.
59
David J. McLeod, “The Problem of Divorce (Part 2): The Teaching of Scripture:
The Old Testament Texts,” Emmaus Journal 2 (Summer 1993): 30-31.
26
as the inability to bear children.”60 The Feinbergs postulate that barrenness would fit, but
that it alone does not go far enough. Instead, they feel the Hillel school was correct in their
interpretation of this phrase and that a variety of items might make a man displeased enough
to divorce his wife.61 When the Pharisees asked Jesus “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his
wife for any and every reason?” (Matthew 19:3), they were asking him about the Hillel
school’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 24. Jesus’ answer that “Moses permitted you to
divorce your wives because your hearts were hard” (v. 8) refocuses the issue instead of
directly answering it. To Christ, Moses was not commanding divorce but acknowledging
that it was taking place. The requirement to give the wife a certificate of divorce was a legal
provision to protect her,62 but it was not God’s intention for anyone to get divorced (Matt
19:6). Thus, the key issue in modern interpretation focuses not as much on the grounds of
divorce in this section, but on the meaning of ha{M; f; h' U rv,a} yr´ja} "{ (“after she has been defiled”
[Deut 24:4]). What caused her to be defiled and why does this defilement forbid her from
remarriage to her first husband? Furthermore, is she allowed to marry a third man or not?
Those who hold to a “divorce is always sinful” or “divorce is sometimes
permissible, but remarriage is always sinful” position define the defilement described in
Deuteronomy 24 in terms of their perspective on the indissolubility of marriage. Wenham,
based on Genesis 2:24, argues that it is the one flesh relationship formed by the first
marriage that forbids the woman from remarrying her first husband after the death or
divorce of her second husband.63 His strange view of the “one flesh” relationship
described in Genesis 2:24 is that sex creates a blood relationship between the couple. This,
60
Craigie, Deuteronomy, p. 305.
61
62
63
Wenham, Genesis, p. 71; Gordon J. Wenham, “The Restoration of Marriage
Reconsidered” Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (Spring 1979): 39.
27
in his view, “makes man and wife as closely related as parents and children.”64 The
prohibition against remarrying a man’s formerly remarried ex-wife, then, is given to protect
the first husband and wife from incest. This interpretation, while strange (and, one might
add, utterly lacking in explicit Biblical support), is central to the “divorce is always sinful”
and the “divorce may be permissible but remarriage is always sinful” positions. Based on
their view of the indissolubility of marriage, Wenham, Heth, Laney and others see the
defilement in Deuteronomy 24:4 as referring to adultery.65 Their position, simply put, is that
marriage is an indissoluble bond. If a couple divorces and remarries, the remarriage is
actually an adulterous relationship. If, however, that adulterous relationship is severed (either
by death or divorce), the permanent bond from the first marriage precludes a reunion of that
first marriage because the first wife has been defiled by her adulterous second marriage and
the blood relationship formed by the first marriage would make them like brother and sister,
therefore a second marriage would be an act of adultery. Laney concludes that since this
passage was not abrogated or changed in the NT, it is still valid today.66 He makes a larger
point, however, that although divorce was tolerated in the OT, any remarriage of any sort
was an act of adultery; thus, Christ’s treatment of this text in Matthew 19 forbids divorce
and remarriage under any circumstances.67
John and Paul Feinberg have a much different interpretation of Deuteronomy 24.
Although they acknowledge that ha{;M;f'hU rv,a} yr´j}a{" (“after she has been defiled”) is a
defilement of adultery, their position is more carefully constructed than that of Wenham,
Heth, Laney, and others. They understand the defilement in Deuteronomy 24:4 to be a
64
Wenham, “Restoration,” p. 39.
65
J. Carl Laney, “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Issue of Divorce,” BSac 149
(January–March 1992): 8.
66
Ibid., p. 15.
67
Laney, “Deuteronomy 24,” p. 14.
28
defilement caused by an adulterous remarriage. The remarriage is adulterous because the
divorce was made on “flimsy, non-sexual grounds.”68 In other words, the exception Jesus
gave for divorce in Matthew 19 was an exception consistent with OT law.69 In the OT, an
adulterous husband or wife was to be put to death (Deut 22), which resulted in the cessation
of the marriage and allowed for remarriage by the innocent spouse. Since adultery was no
longer being treated as a capital crime, Jesus acknowledged that the adultery violated the
marriage covenant and thus allowed the innocent spouse to get divorced and remarried
without sinning. But Christ affirmed that any other ground for divorce caused the divorced
spouses to become adulterers when they remarried (Matt 19:9). Moses forbade the divorced
and remarried couple from marrying one another a second time because their second
marriage was an adulterous one caused by a divorce on inadequate grounds. Therefore the
twÆr[“ ≤ (“indecency”) that prompted the first divorce refers to any kind of ground that was
not based on sexual impropriety. “When someone divorces a spouse for any cause at all
(i.e., divorces for ’erwat dabar) rather than for some sexual impropriety, in God’s eyes
they are still married. Consequently, if either mate remarries (and men and women in that
society were quite likely to do so), sexual relations with the new spouse are adultery, since
the marital bond with the first mate is not severed.”70
There are two problems with the Feinbergs’ view. First, if the second marriage was
an adulterous one, should not the new couple be executed? The Feinbergs respond that
“she was forced into that situation by the actions of her first husband (and thus presumably
against her will)”71 Thus, although in God’s eyes the remarriage was adulterous, it was an
68
69
Andrew Warren, “Did Moses Permit Divorce? Modal wéqatal as Key to New
Testament Readings of Deuteronomy 22:1–4” TynBul 49 (May 1998): 56.
70
71
Ibid.
29
adultery that was unintentional, in a sense. This fits with Jesus’ saying that divorce was the
result of “the hardness of your hearts” (Matt 19:8). God graciously permitted the
remarried couple to live because they were in that position partially because of a third
person’s (the original husband’s) hardheartedness. The second problem with the
Feinbergs’ view has to do with the fact that remarriage of the original couple was forbidden,
even if the second spouse has died. Since death certainly severs a marriage, why could not
the original husband and wife remarry, especially since the original marriage bond is still
considered binding? Furthermore, why does Deuteronomy 24 imply that the widowed first
wife could remarry a third man, just not her first husband? The Feinbergs respond to these
questions by denying that the widow could remarry anyone. They note that “Moses says
nothing about marrying a third man…. Some will still wonder why Moses did not make this
explicit. That is, why prohibit remarriage to the first husband rather than forbid all
remarriage to someone in her situation? This is a legitimate question and we think that the
answer is that Moses is arguing from lesser to greater. If the woman is made an adulteress
(defiled) by the second marriage, then would not marriage to a third man defile her
more?”72
After surveying all the available data, the Feinbergs’ understanding seems to be best,
especially because it fits with the words of Jesus in Matthew 19. “Moses says implicitly
what Jesus makes very explicit in the Gospels when asked to comment on this passage.”73
One must admit, however, that their reason for forbidding the remarriage of the original
couple is not wholly persuasive. It would seem that the implication of Deuteronomy 24 is
that remarriage to a third man would be permissible. However, it must be admitted that
Moses did not directly address that point, but Jesus’ more explicit statement would apply to
twice-divorced woman and forbid her from remarrying again. It appears that Deuteronomy
72
Ibid., p. 315.
73
Ibid., p. 313.
30
24 was not given to discourage hasty divorces (so Brewer),74 but that it was given to
regulate but not approve of divorce and remarriage. For the Christian, such hardhearted
activity is inappropriate since God has regenerated him or her. Thus, the exceptions allowed
by Jesus and Paul would be consistent with OT revelation and would form the only basis on
which a believer may divorce and remarry without sinning.
Malachi 2:10-16
When one looks at Malachi 2:10-16 in the popular English versions, it seems clear
that God is vehemently opposed to divorce. Verse 16 seems especially strong, for it says
clearly, “‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD God of Israel.” Some have taken this text as
strong support for the view that divorce and remarriage are absolutely forbidden.75 Others,
who maintain that divorce and remarriage are permissible, spend little if any time on this
text. In order to assess its value on the subject of divorce, it is necessary to take a complete
look at Malachi 2:10-16.
Exegetical Survey
Scholars are generally agreed that Malachi was a post-exilic prophet who ministered
somewhere around the time of Nehemiah’s and Ezra’s reforms.76 The book is very
straightforward, consisting of a series of six disputations and a summary challenge.77 The
theme of the book could be stated as follows: “Covenant blessing requires covenant
74
Brewer, David I. “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Origin of the Jewish Divorce
Certificate.” JJS 49 (Autumn 1998): 230.
75
76
Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT, ed. R. K. Harrison
and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 160.
77
Douglas Stuart, “Malachi,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and
Expository Commentary, 3 vols., ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1998), 3:1248-1249.
31
faithfulness.”78 Each disputation addresses some area of covenant disobedience and the
book culminates with “a call to fulfill the obligations of the covenant as expressed in the
law.”79 Beginning in chapter 2:10, Malachi addresses the problems of “disloyalty to the
spiritual unity of the national family (2:10), disloyalty to the family of faith (2:11-12), and
disloyalty to the marriage partner to whom one pledges covenant loyalty before God (2:13-
16).”80
Disloyalty to the National Family (2:10)
Verse 10 seems to describe a general situation of unfaithfulness.81 That is, because
they have one father (v. 10a), they should feel compelled to deal faithfully with one another.
Instead, Malachi accuses the Jews of profaning “the covenant…by breaking faith with one
another.” There is some dispute as to whether or not the “one father” of verse 10a is a
reference to God,82 or the patriarch Abraham or perhaps Jacob (Israel).83 Either is
acceptable theologically and historically; however, the parallelism of “one father” with the
following phrase “one God” seems to argue for God as the father.84 Therefore the sense
of verse 10 is that the covenant between God and Israel creates a family relationship. When
the Jews act “treacherously” (so NASB) toward one another, they are “violating their
78
Craig A. Blaising, “Malachi,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, ed. John F.
Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), p. 1574.
79
Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and
Commentary, TOTC, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Downers’ Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1972), p. 216.
80
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “Divorce in Malachi 2:10–16,” Criswell Theological
Review 2 (Fall 1987): 73.
81
Baldwin, Malachi, p. 237.
82
Wolf, Herbert M. Haggai and Malachi: Rededication and Renewal, Everyman’s
Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1976), p. 86.
83
84
Wolf, Malachi, p. 86.
32
covenant with God.”85 The remaining verses in this section seem to make this general
statement specific. According to Kaiser, “The two examples of faithlessness in this passage
are 1) ‘marrying the daughter of a foreign god’ (v. 11) and 2) ‘breaking faith with…your
partner, the wife of your marriage covenant’ (v. 14).
Disloyalty to the faith of Israel (2:11-12)
Having laid a charge of faithlessness on the Jews, Malachi now specifies how they
have acted faithlessly. First, they indicated their disloyalty to the covenant by marrying
foreign women. The sin of verse 11 is taken as a national sin against God himself since it
“desecrates the sanctuary the LORD loves.” This desecration is not described in terms of
inappropriate sacrifice; instead, the Jews desecrated their faith “by marrying the daughter of
a foreign god.” Some have interpreted this last phrase figuratively to signify idolatry or an
unauthorized political alliance with a foreign nation through intermarrying; however, most
modern commentators see this section describing a marriage contracted outside the covenant
community of Israel.86 This is a serious breach of Israel’s covenant with God. Stuart
summarizes the problem well:
Citing most often the Canaanites as a synecdoche for foreign idolatrous nations, the
law forbids intermarriage with foreigners in a variety of contexts (Exod 34:16; Lev
21:14; Num 36:6; Deut 7:3; 13:6-9; see also Gen 24:37-40; 27:46; 28:1, 6). If there
had been more willingness to take the law seriously in Malachi’s day, the practice of
intermarriage would have been curtailed. But…the Mosaic covenant was by
Malachi’s time understood as a quaint, archaic document too restrictive to be taken
seriously and inapplicable to a “modern age.”87
Like Solomon, whose foreign wives turned his heart from the Lord (1 Kings 11:4), these
foreign wives were likely to lead the Jews into idolatry.
85
Ibid.
86
Verhoef, “Malachi,” p. 269.
87
Stuart, “Malachi,” p. 1332.
33
Before moving on to the next section, it should be noted that there is some dispute
as to how closely the marriage of foreign women should be joined to the divorce of the
covenant bride (vv. 13ff). Some have speculated that the Jews were divorcing their Jewish
covenant wives in order to marry these foreign women.88 Advocates of this view anticipate
the objection that polygamy was legal in Israel. They respond that the difficult economic
situation they found themselves in (having only recently returned to Israel) would preclude
them from supporting more than one wife. Some go even further to state that the mixed
marriages were undertaken in order to gain the prosperity of the surrounding pagans.89
They speculate that the fathers of these foreign women wanted their daughters to be the
exclusive wife, since a man’s first wife was given the position of prominence.90 This last
view seems to speculate too much; however, it does seem likely that the divorce condemned
in vv. 13-16 was tied to the remarriage to foreign women in verses 11-12, since divorce is
usually practiced in order to get remarried. This contextual consideration becomes important
for interpreting the scope of YHWH’s hatred (v. 16) for divorce, as will be demonstrated
shortly.
Disloyalty to One’s Covenantal Wife (vv. 13-16)
The final portion of this section focuses on the treacherous activity of divorcing
one’s covenantal wife. In 2:13, YHWH refuses to accept the sacrifices of the people,
causing them to weep. The reason for this separation from God is given in verse 14 and
consists of “breaking faith” with “the wife of your youth.” Clearly, divorce is the issue in
this section; however, it is important to decide if it is divorce in general or a specific type of
divorce that is in view in vv. 13-16. The phrase “wife of your youth” (vv. 14-15), certainly
88
Verhoef, Malachi, p. 275.
89
Stuart, “Malachi,” p. 1332; MacLeod, “The Problem of Divorce (Part 2),” p. 40.
90
MacLeod, “The Problem of Divorce (Part 2),” p. 40.
34
points to a man’s first wife; however, it suggests more than that. Since marriages were
typically arranged91 and obedience to the law demanded marriage only among Jews, it is
certain that the “wife of a man’s youth” was a fellow Jew. This is supported by the
language of verse 10 (since this is one example of covenant unfaithfulness). It is
furthermore supported by verse 15. The language in verse 15a recalls Genesis 2:24. God
has joined the (Jewish) man and (Jewish) woman together and as a result, they become
“one flesh.” But verse 15 gives the purpose for this union, namely “because he was
seeking godly offspring.” Thus, the marriage that is broken in this section is a covenant
marriage made between a Jewish couple and God. The purpose of this marriage was to
perpetuate the covenant community by producing children who would be faithful to the
covenant. Again, this seems to suggest that the divorce in this section is correlated to the
pagan marriages in the previous section; after all, if a Jewish man divorced his Jewish wife
to marry another Jewish girl, the new marriage would produce Jewish children who could
still potentially be “godly offspring.”
The difficult interpretive choice in this section comes with verse 16. The English
versions choose to translate the first part of this verse as, “I hate divorce, says the Lord God
of Israel.” However, this is not the reading of the MT. The Hebrew text, as it exists today,
consists of a Qal perfect third masculine singular and should be translated, “He hated…
says YHWH.”92 This reading is difficult for scholars to accept. Baldwin asserts that the
text was emended in order to remove the prohibition against divorce. She writes, “Evidently,
the text suffered early at the hands of some who wanted to bring Malachi’s teaching in line
with that of Deuteronomy 24:1, which permitted divorce. Such a reading undermines all that
the prophet is seeking to convey.”93 Stuart cites nine different interpretive proposals for
91
92
Verhoef, Malachi, p. 278.
93
35
this verse that fall into four categories.94 “(1) Malachi 2:16 says nothing about divorce, but
rather concerns pagan worship. (2) Malachi 2:16 requires, or at least permits, divorce (3)
Malachi 2:16 prohibits all divorce, or whatever kind. (4) Malachi 2:16 prohibits aversion-
based divorce but is not concerned with divorce for other reasons.”95 The first option is
very unlikely since it spiritualizes what seems obviously literal in the text. If option 1 is
correct, what is the meaning of “godly offspring” in 2:15? The reading of the MT supports
the second option; however, as Baldwin notes, “Such a reading undermines all that the
prophet is seeking to convey.”96 The third option, which is the position of at least one “No
Divorce” proponent (treated below), is inconsistent with Ezra 9, where Jews were
commanded (v. 11) to divorce their pagan wives.97 The fourth option then seems best.
However, does this not require a conjectured emendation of the text? Several proposals have
attempted to solve this. David Jones, for instance, has proposed an emendation based on the
Septuagint, which is a useful source for OT text critical decisions.98 Jones’ proposal would
make the text read, “But if thou shouldest hate thy wife and put her away, saith the Lord
God of Israel, Then ungodliness shall cover thy thoughts, saith the Lord Almighty”99
Sprinkle has proposed a reading for this position that does not require an emendation.
If we keep the MT I would render it something like, “When he hates so as to

divorce, says the Lord God of Israel, then he covers himself with lawlessness as with
a garment.” The expression “he hates” may relate to the divorce formula. In a
fifth-century Jewish divorce certificate…the divorce formula is “I hate my wife” or
“I hate my husband.” There is no need to emend Mal 2:16.100
94
95
Ibid.
96
97
Stuart, Malachi, p. 1342.
98
David C. Jones, “Malachi on Divorce,” Presbyterion 15 (Spring 1989): 22.
99
Ibid.
100
Joe M. Sprinkle, “Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage”
JETS 40 (December 1997): 539.
36
Stuart independently proposes the same solution as Sprinkle.101 Both Sprinkle and Stuart
note an important and thorough exegetical treatment by Hugenberger,102 whose conclusions
will be noted below.
The important point to take away from the exegetical survey is that whether the MT
is corrupt or not is actually beside the point. The context and one possible reading of the
MT clearly state that divorce is unacceptable to God. Verse 16 may not explicitly state that
God hates divorce, but the fact that divorcing one’s Jewish spouse is called “treacherous”
(v. 14) and that this type of divorce is clearly prohibited both in verses 15 and 16 clearly
indicates that God is opposed to divorce. Whether or not this is a blanket opposition to all
divorces is yet to be seen.
Proposed Meanings for Malachi 2:16
Among the various divorce and remarriage positions, verse 16 is the verse that is
used from Malachi 2. Ryrie (divorce is always sin, remarriage is always sin) has written that
divorce is “a sin Malachi severely denounced. ‘God hates divorce,’ he declared, and no
exception was made for so-called legitimate divorces.”103 In a footnote, Ryrie chides
Adams for attempting “to play down the absolute nature of this prohibition.”104 However,
as we have seen, the reading Ryrie assumes is far from clear. Thus the “prohibition” may
not be as “absolute” as he thinks. The context suggests that it is a certain kind of divorce
that is treacherous, not divorce in general. Laney is more cautious than Ryrie, but likewise
101
Stuart, Malachi, p. 1342.
102
Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and
Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi, VTSup 52,
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994, p. 83.
103
104
Ibid.
37
concludes, “Divorce is treachery against life’s most intimate companion and is a grievous
sin which God hates.105 Heth (divorce is sometimes permissible, but remarriage is always
sin) is even milder, merely mentioning Malachi 2:16 in a quotation and offering no
comment on it.106
For those who hold the position that divorce and remarriage are permissible in some
cases, Malachi 2:16 is basically irrelevant. This text is ignored in Edgar’s essay “Divorce
and Remarriage for Adultery and Desertion,”107 and in the Feinbergs’ chapters on divorce
and remarriage.108 John Murray merely mentions it in passing.109 As noted by Ryrie, Jay
Adams does treat this passage; however, he ignores the exegetical difficulties of the text and
concedes the basic point of Ryrie and others (including the English versions), “It is
altogether true that God hates divorce.”110 Then Adams qualifies this assertion by saying,
“But he neither hates all divorces in the same way nor hates every aspect of divorce.”111
Kaiser (who holds to the standard two exception view, and who holds to the reading “I hate
divorce” in 2:16) agrees. He writes, “This statement of Mal. 2:16, however, must not be
taken to mean that there is nothing that could provide grounds for any divorce.”112 To
support this statement, Kaiser quotes Adams who cites Jeremiah 3:8, “If God Himself
became involved in divorce proceedings with Israel [Jer 3:8], it is surely wrong to condemn
105
Laney, “No Divorce, No Remarriage,” p. 31.
106
Heth, “Divorce, but No Remarriage,” p. 91.
107
Edgar, “Divorce and Remarriage.”
108
Feinberg and Feinberg, “Divorce and Remarriage.”
109
John Murray, Divorce (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975), p. 16.
110
Jay Adams, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), p. 23.
111
Ibid.
112
Kaiser, “Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16,” p. 80.
38
any and all divorce out of hand.”113 Thus, for those who believe the Bible gives grounds for
divorce and remarriage, the words of Malachi 2:16 are not inherently troublesome. They
affirm that God does indeed hate divorce, but that statement is not a blanket condemnation
of all divorce and remarriage. They appeal to God’s further revelation to fill in one’s
understanding of God’s view on divorce and remarriage. Kaiser notes, “The whole counsel
of God must be consulted on any topic even when we are tempted to make any single
statement or context the definitive teaching on that subject.”114
Conclusion
Malachi 2:16 does not give essential information about God’s view of divorce and
remarriage. Even if God is speaking and saying, “I hate divorce,” this can be inferred from
Jesus’ statements on the subject where he forbids men to sever what God has joined (Matt
19:6). Most of the discussion of Malachi 2:16 takes it out of its context. The most
egregious example is that of Ryrie who takes this verse as absolute. But even Adams, who is
generally correct in his conclusion, treats this passage outside its context and in a simplistic
way. The solution to Malachi 2:16 is not simply to qualify it with other passages (although
that is acceptable). The keys to interpreting it are right in its context. In other words, the
divorce God hates (granting that grammatically debatable point) is not any and every divorce
but a divorce of one’s covenant Jewish wife in order to marry a pagan. As noted earlier,
Hugenberger has answered the interpretation that sees Malachi 2:16 as an absolute
prohibition against divorce. He solves the exegetical riddle by affirming the MT’s reading.
“We prefer to maintain the MT and to interpret Mal. 2:16 as condemning only unjustified
113
Adams, Marriage, p. 23 quoted in Kaiser, “Divorce,” p. 80.
114
Kaiser, “Divorce in Malachi 2:10-16,” p. 83.
39
divorce, that is, divorce based on aversion.”115 Hugenberger’s interpretation not only
qualifies Malachi 2:16, it also harmonizes it with Deuteronomy 24.
Far from contradicting Deut. 24:1-4, on the present view Mal. 2:16 shares the same
assessment of divorced based on aversion as seems to be presupposed for the
second divorce in Deut. 24:3, with its adverse financial consequences for the
offending husband…. While Malachi says nothing to imply that such divorces were
illegal, he condemns divorced based on aversion as ethically reprehensible and as an
instance of infidelity [dgb], or covenant breaking (cf. 2:14), susceptible to divine
judgment.116
Similarly Sprinkle writes, “However one renders v. 15, what is condemned in context is not
necessarily every divorce under every condition—as if the text is opposed to the actions of
Ezra and Nehemiah—but specifically the divorce of innocent Jewish wives simply because
their husbands prefer foreign wives to their Jewish ones.”117 Thus the relevance this text
could have today is to forbid a believer from divorcing his believing wife in order to marry
an unbeliever; yet, all scholars would condemn such a divorce as treacherous. Therefore,
Malachi 2:16 does not invalidate the view of those who see two (or more) exceptions to the
divorce and remarriage prohibitions of Scripture.
115
Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant, p. 83.
116
Ibid.
117
Sprinkle, “Old Testament Perspectives,” p. 539.
CHAPTER IV
THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (The Exception Clauses)
Christians who hold that the Bible allows some legitimate grounds for divorce do so
based (in part) on two passages from the Gospel of Matthew. These passages are Matthew
5:32 and Matthew 19:9. In these texts, Jesus condemns the practice of divorce and
remarriage, saying that the remarriage of a divorced person is tantamount to committing the
sin of adultery. These texts from Matthew are parallel to Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18,
except that in both passages from Matthew, an exception clause is added. The exception
clause is interpreted by many believers as giving biblical grounds for divorce in some
instances. This study will attempt to establish whether or not Matthew 5:32 and Matthew
19:9 do in fact provide a legitimate exception to excuse divorce from being sinful.
Exegetical Survey
Matthew 5:31-22118
In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus said, “It has been said, and ‘Anyone who divorces his
wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife,
except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who
marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” This statement of Jesus was uttered during
118
My treatment of these texts assumes that Jesus did in fact utter the statements
Matthew recorded and that efforts to remove the “synoptic problem” in these texts by
appealing to Matthean redaction are inappropriate. My main reason for doing this is a
commitment to inerrancy of the inspired text. While a vigorous refutation of redaction
criticism on this point would be appropriate in another context, most evangelicals would not
use that approach to remove the exception clause, thus a full treatment of redaction is
outside the scope of this essay.
40
41
his so-called “Sermon on the Mount” which begins in Matthew 5 and extends through
Matthew 7, and this divorce saying occurs in the section of the sermon known as the “six
antitheses.”119 The six antitheses are six teachings of Jesus that have some form of the
pattern “You have heard it said…but I say unto you.”120 Scholars are divided as to whether
or not Jesus’ six antitheses abrogate the law, intensify the law, or simply correct rabbinic
misstatements of the law.121 Carson argues for the final interpretation by writing: “In every
case, Jesus contrasts the people’s misunderstanding of the law with the true direction in
which the law points, according to his own authority as the law’s fulfiller”122 This explains
Matthew 5:31 quite well, for there Jesus said, “It has been said, ‘anyone who divorces his
wife must give her a certificate of divorce” (emphasis added). This is clearly a comment on
Deuteronomy 24:1, but not on what the text itself says; rather, Jesus is confronting a
common misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 24. The previous chapter demonstrated that the
point of Deuteronomy 24 is that divorced couples who remarry cannot return to their former
spouses. Thus, the certificate of divorce is not commanded but merely mentioned as part of
the process of regulating divorce and remarriage. Although God intended Deuteronomy 24
to regulate divorce, the Jews presumed it to be a statement of a man’s right to divorce if the
wife did something the husband found unpleasant (the rb…D… twÆr[“ )≤ . The command to provide
his ex-wife with the divorce certificate was to protect her by allowing her to remarry so that
she would not be forced into poverty or prostitution. It is likely that the Jews understood the
divorce certificate to be legal protection for the woman, thus they could feel a strange sense
119
D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed.
Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:147.
120
Ibid.
121
Ibid.
122
Ibid., 8:148.
42
of honor in divorce that they did the right thing by protecting their former wives through the
divorce certificate.123
Jesus, however, confronts this misinterpretation of the law head-on. The Jews were
not honoring their wives in divorce at all; instead they were forcing them into adultery. That
is why Jesus said: “Anyone who divorces his wife…causes her to become an adulteress,
and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” The point is that although
the certificate of divorce provides a measure of legal protection for the woman, it does
nothing to protect her from the displeasure of God.124 Jesus upholds the sanctity of
marriage by saying that any termination of it, which would ordinarily result in a remarriage,
forces the wife into adultery by virtue of the remarriage. Instead of protecting their former
wives and thereby acting righteously before God, the Jews were violating God’s moral will
by forcing their wives into breaking one of the Ten Commandments.
Jesus’ teaching about divorce, then, is strict. Divorce, which would nearly always
result in a subsequent remarriage, is a serious sin against one’s wife. Jesus’ words,
however, admit one exception. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus exempts the man who divorces his
wife on the grounds of porneiva". As the exception clause is worded in Matthew 5, the clear
implication is that whoever divorces on the grounds of porneiva" is not guilty of causing
his wife to commit adultery. The interpretive issues involved in understanding this exception
will be treated shortly.
Matthew 19:1-9
Unlike Matthew 5, where Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage rises from his
own homiletical designs, here in Matthew 19 the issue comes through the voice of Jesus’
opponents. In verse 3, the Pharisees come to Jesus with a question: “Is it lawful for a man
123
Feinberg and Feinberg, “Divorce and Remarriage II,” p. 338.
124
Ibid.
43
to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” Although we are not told what the Pharisees’
motivation in asking is, it is consistent with their nature to see this as a trap.125 The basis for
divorce was theologically divisive in their day. As was seen in the previous chapter, two
schools of thought had developed on this subject in Judaism. The more conservative school
of Shammai interpreted the rb…D… twÆr[“ ≤ of Deuteronomy 24 to be some sort of sexual
misconduct which was the only permissible basis for divorce and remarriage.126 In contrast,
the more open view of Hillel was that a man could divorce his wife and marry a different
woman for almost any reason at all. When the Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful…to
divorce…for any and every reason?” They were asking him to weigh in on the Shammai vs.
Hillel debate. By doing so, they probably believed it would be impossible for Jesus not to
alienate people holding the opinion Jesus opposed. Some have speculated that the Pharisees
knew Jesus’ position from the Sermon on the Mount, but it is impossible to prove this.
Whether they knew or did not know what he would say, they probably felt safe knowing
that whatever he said would be controversial.
Instead of first laying out the grounds for valid divorce, Jesus used the occasion to
affirm the sanctity of marriage. His response to the Pharisees was that regardless of why
people divorce, it was not God’s plan originally. By quoting Genesis 2:24, Jesus maintains
that marriage was intended originally to be lifelong. He concludes in Matthew 19:6,
“Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” Instead of looking for
valid ways to divorce, God’s plan was for married people to remain together for the entirety
of their lives.
The Pharisees have a follow-up question for Jesus. If, as he said, divorce was
outside God’s plan, “‘why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his
125
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1992), p. 479.
126
Ibid., p. 480.
44
wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’” Again, the reference is to Deuteronomy
24, but their exegesis of it is incorrect. Moses did not command divorce or a certificate of it
at all. Instead, as Jesus indicates in verse 8, Moses permitted divorce. Divorce in the law was
a matter of concession, not of command. According to Jesus, the basis for this concession
was, “because your hearts were hard” (v. 8). Thus, God knew that depraved men would
seek to remove themselves from their marriage covenants. In order to protect the woman’s
life and dignity, God tolerated a means for marriages to be ended. The implication is that,
although divorce is sometimes necessary, it is opposed to God’s original design for
marriage. Jesus makes this implication explicit when he said, “But it was not this way from
the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife…and marries another woman
commits adultery.” Divorce is normally not allowable; in fact, it is a serious sin.
Although Jesus’ words are stern and direct and seem to be absolute, verse 9 (as in
Matt 5:32) admits one exception to this rule. Again, the exception involves porneiva. This
time however, the focus is not on the consequence for the wife, but for the husband. That is,
the husband who divorces and remarries is said to commit adultery, rather than forcing his
wife into adultery (as in 5:32).
In summary, Jesus is quite intolerant of divorce. To him, the marriage covenant is
one made before God and cannot be broken without both husband and wife committing the
sin of adultery, regardless of who the “innocent party” in the divorce is. The only
exception to this that Jesus allows is if a man breaks the marriage covenant because of
porneiva. There are at least two interpretive issues in these two texts. First, what exactly is
porneiva? Second, does the porneiva exception allow one simply to divorce or may that
person remarry?
Before turning to the various answers proposed for these questions, one more
important element must be noted. In Mark’s parallel passage (10:11-12), although the
exception is not mentioned (presumably because it was extraneous to Mark’s reason for
45
writing), Jesus states that the sin of adultery is committed regardless of whether the husband
divorces his wife or the wife divorces her husband. Thus, it follows that whatever our
position on the exception clause, Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage applies equally
both to men and women, although men are the focus in Matthew.
Various Interpretations
Because Matthew 5 and 19 set forth the most direct teaching about the nature of
divorce and remarriage, these passages have spawned an enormous amount of literature and
a large variety of proposals. It is impossible to cover every proposal and every nuance;
therefore, the most significant proposals will be treated.
Divorce is always sin, and remarriage is always sin
Those who hold that divorce is always sin and remarriage is always sin have the
most difficulty with these texts, since a straightforward reading of the exception clauses
seems to absolve the person of sin who divorces due to porneiva. Those who hold that
divorce and remarriage are absolutely forbidden attempt to blunt the force of the exception
clauses by defining porneiva very narrowly. One attempt to do this is the “betrothal view.”
This view notes that it was customary for Jews to make a marriage contract in which the
man and woman were called husband and wife, but the marriage was not consummated until
at least one year later. This one-year period was called the “betrothal” period. Pentecost
states that this “gave sufficient time to reveal whether the woman was pregnant when the
contract was drawn up. The interval also allowed time to see if she would become pregnant
by an unfaithful act after being joined by contract to her husband. If the wife proved to be
immoral, the marriage need not be completed; the contact could be broken by divorce.”127
Pentecost maintains: “It was in light of his context that Christ granted the exception
127
Pentecost, The Words and Works, p. 357.
46
(19:9)…. Thus the only possibility of divorce allowed by Christ was as a cancellation of a
marriage contract during the Jewish betrothal period before the marriage had been
completed.”128 It is strange that Pentecost will not extend this betrothal view until after the
wedding is consummated. That is, it is possible that a bride might not be a virgin and yet not
be pregnant. If her husband’s first sexual contact with her was after the marriage, he would
not know of her immorality until after the consummation. The OT law allowed for such a
marriage to be terminated (by killing the bride) as was seen in Deuteronomy 22. Thus, it
seems that Christ could have allowed for legitimate divorce in the case of a woman who was
not a virgin on her wedding night. This is the position argued by Isaksson, who writes that,
“when a husband wanted to divorce a wife who was not a virgin, although he had married
her on the understanding that she was, it is not really a question of divorce, although this
term is used. It is rather a question of marriage being annulled.”129 He concludes, “If we
interpret porneiva in the clause in Matthew as referring to premarital unchastity and
consider this clause in terms of the historical background, it does not appear to be a strange
and hardly comprehensible exception from the rule about the absolute indissolubility of
marriage.”130
The betrothal view is not tenable exegetically. The context is against it, for, as the
Feinbergs note, “in Matthew 19, Deuteronomy 24 is under discussion, but Deuteronomy
24 does not address sex during the betrothal period. Nor need it do so, since that topic was
addressed two chapters earlier in Deuteronomy 22.”131 Word usage also cannot support it.
The betrothal view depends on a very narrow meaning for porneiva. Mark Geldad argues
128
Ibid., p. 358.
129
Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 137.
130
Ibid., p. 140.
131
47
this when he confidently asserts that “on simple and straightforward linguistic grounds
porneia cannot be taken here to mean adultery.”132 At the end of his article he concludes
that “the great weight of the evidence militates against the ‘wider meaning’ of porneia in
the excepting clause and tells for the narrower meaning.”133 Not only do wordbooks
disagree134 with Geldard’s self-confident conclusion, but a survey of the relevant passages
demonstrates the absurdity of the claim. Besides the two exception clause passages, the
word porneiva is used only one other time in Matthew (15:19) where it appears in a sin
list.135 When all the NT uses of porneiva are examined, it is clear that the wordbooks are
correct in seeing this term as a general term that may reflect many kinds of illicit sexual
activity. One example is 1 Corinthians 5:1, which says, “It is actually reported that there is
sexual immorality [porneiva] among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among
pagans: A man has his father’s wife.” Clearly, this is not a reference to premarital sexual
contact or betrothal sexual contact since at least one of the parties was specifically stated to
be married. After surveying all the NT uses of porneiva, the Feinbergs conclude that
“neither biblical use generally nor Matthean use in particular suggest that premarital sex is
the only or even the most natural meaning for porneia.”136 Finally, even Ryrie and Laney,
both strongly against divorce and remarriage for any reason, acknowledge the exegetical
dubiousness of the betrothal view.137
132
Mark Geldard, “Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce: Thoughts on the Meaning of
Porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9,” Churchman 92 (1978): 134.
133
Ibid., p. 143.
134
BAGD, p. 693, is only one example of many.
135
It is true that “adultery” (moicheiva) precedes “sexual immorality” (porneiva)
in Matthew 15:19, but the use of both terms does not preclude any semantic overlap
between them.
136
Feinberg and Feinberg, “Divorce and Remarriage (II),” p. 328.
137
48
Until recently, the betrothal view seemed to have fallen into disfavor among
advocates of the “always sin” view. Recently, however, John Piper has championed the
betrothal view and attempted to support it in a most disturbing way. He notes that Joseph
was called a “righteous man” (Matt 1:19) in the same verse that says he was going to
divorce Mary. Piper concludes, “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.”138 This seems problematic for one holding to the inspiration and inerrancy of
Scripture. To have Matthew fabricating an exception and claiming that Christ himself said it
might solve the “jarring inconsistency” Piper sees. However, this view is inconsistent with
the doctrine of inerrancy; therefore, it creates new, more serious theological problems. Thus
the betrothal view is not a satisfactory option in dealing with the exception clause.
Rather than argue the betrothal view, Laney argues that the word porneiva can be
used of incest and since Leviticus 18:6-18 forbids incestuous marriage, the porneiva
exception does not really deal with divorce as we know it today. Rather, it gives allowance
for a couple involved in an incestuous marriage to separate.139 Since their marriage is illegal,
it must be terminated; therefore the exception clause preserves the right of termination for
this type of illegal marriage by not giving any impression that such a marriage must remain
together.
Laney sees a number of advantages to his interpretation. First, to him it fits well with
the Jewish audience of Matthew’s gospel. This works out in a number of ways. In terms of
the OT canon, the Jewish character of Matthew’s gospel is important because of the
138
Piper, “On Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery,” par. 3.
139
Laney, “No Divorce, No Remarriage,” pp. 35-37.
49
prohibition against incestuous marriage in Leviticus 18. That is, his readers (who knew the
Torah) would naturally see a problem if divorce were absolutely forbidden. They would
object that incestuous marriages were illegal, therefore, should they not be terminated by
divorce? To Laney, Jesus carefully avoided this legal quandary by allowing an exception for
incestuous marriage. Mark and Luke, however, did not include this exception because their
readers were not Jews and were therefore ignorant of the law; thus, they would see no
conflict between Jesus forbidding divorce and Moses’ command against incestuous
marriage. Another way the Jewish character of Matthew’s gospel enters in is that Herod
Antipas was involved in a form of incest and John the Baptist was killed for confronting
Herod about it.140 Since Jesus was in Herod’s territory at the time, Laney sees the exception
clause as a way for Jesus to tip toe around the issue of Herod. The final advantage to
Laney’s view is that it accounts for the fact that Jesus did not overtly endorse the position of
Shammai. Since the view that allows for divorce based on adultery agrees with Shammai’s
exegesis of Deuteronomy 18, it would follow that Jesus would have no problem siding with
the Shammai interpretation. However, the disciples’ apparent surprise (Matt 19:10) tells
Laney that Jesus did not side with the Shammai at all but instead laid down a stricter rule
than even their one exception interpretation.
Despite these arguments, the “divorce and remarriage always sin” view cannot
stand under close examination. First, the word porneiva may include incest, but that is not
the normal meaning of the term. Again, 1 Corinthians 5:1 provides a good example. Laney
cites this as an example of where porneiva is used in conjunction with incest. “In 1
Corinthians 5:1 Paul uses porneia to refer to the incestuous marriage of a man to his
father’s widow.”141 It is true that the word porneiva is used in 1 Corinthians 5:1; however,
140
Ibid.
141
Ibid., p. 36.
50
it is not used to refer strictly to incest. Notice the words of the NIV: “It is actually reported
that there is sexual immorality [porneiva] among you, and of a kind that does not occur
even among pagans: A man has his father's wife.” Porneiva in this verse must be broader
than simply incest because Paul had to clarify what kind of porneiva was going on—an
incestuous kind. Thus, the word porneiva can refer to incest, but it can refer to many other
kinds of immoral sexual conduct as well.142 The context must clarify whether or not
porneiva means incest, and no contextual qualifiers suggest incest in Matthew 5 or 19. As
for the Herod’s relationship, it is not mentioned in the immediate context either; therefore,
Laney’s inclusion of that as a contextual factor is simply a case of clever conjecture. Finally,
it is possible to see Jesus’ position as giving a real exception to the “divorce plus
remarriage equals the sin of adultery” statement without making Jesus agree with Shammai.
This is done by noting that Shammai found their exception in the idea of rb…D… twÆr[“ .≤ They
saw this “nakedness of a thing” as referring to inappropriate sexual conduct, including
adultery. The problem is that the penalty for adultery was death, according to Deuteronomy
22:22. Thus, although Jesus held to a similar position as the Shammai, he could not endorse
their position since they arrived at it through incorrect exegesis. Jesus’ statement on divorce
and remarriage thus can allow for a real exception without endorsing the exegetically
difficult interpretation of Shammai.143 These and other factors make the “divorce and
remarriage always sin” view untenable.
Divorce is sometimes permissible, but remarriage is always sin.
For those who hold this view, the key interpretive problem with the Matthew
passages relates to what the exception clause itself governs. In other words, do the words
142
BAGD, p. 693.
143
Carson, “Matthew,” p. 413; Feinberg, “Divorce II,” p. 336.
51
“except for porneiva” provide an exception for divorce only or for both divorce and
remarriage? The divorce but no remarriage view sees the placement of the exception clause
as allowing for divorce only. Along this line Heth has argued, “Matthew 19:9 contains two
conditional relative clauses, one that is qualified and one that is unqualified or absolute: 1) A
man may not put away his wife unless she his guilty of unchastity. 2) Whoever marries
after putting away his wife commits adultery. Or, to word it another way: Putting away for
reasons other than immorality is forbidden; and remarriage after divorce is forbidden.”144
Based on this reading of the text, extramarital sex may irreparably damage a marriage, but
since that marriage is indissoluble, the couple cannot divorce and marry someone else. They
may only terminate their living arrangement as a couple. This argumentation is very old; in
fact, one of the comforts Heth and Wenham find in this position is that it was nearly the
unanimous position of the church fathers.145 However, a long line of very capable exegetes
from Murray, Carson, Adams, Edgar, Paul and John Feinberg, and others have disputed this
interpretation as forced. Untangling this logical knot takes some doing. An extended quote
from the Feinbergs demonstrates the logical problem with this view.
They [Heth and Wenham] overlook two very important facts. First, the apodosis
(the “then” clause), “commits adultery,” qualifies the whole “if” clause. Their
interpretation seems to relate “commits adultery” only to the phrase “marries
another.” Second, they note that the “if” clause is compound (“divorces and
remarries”), but they do not take that seriously enough. To say that Jesus some-
times allows divorce but never remarriage because it involves one in adultery is to
ignore that “commits adultery” completes the thought of the whole “if” clause.
That is, adultery results from both divorcing and remarrying, not just from one or
the other. This seems the only way to take seriously the compound “if” clause and
the fact that the “then” clause qualifies the whole “if” clause. Those facts of
grammar fatally damage the Heth and Wenham proposal.146
144
William A. Heth, “The Meaning of Divorce in Matthew 19:3–9,” Churchman
98 (1984): p. 142.
145
Heth, “Divorce, but No Remarriage,” p. 96.
146
52
Divorce and remarriage are permissible under two biblical exceptions
The view that divorce and remarriage are permissible for adultery or desertion (also
called “the Erasmian view” or “the two exception view”) finds exegetical warrant for the
adultery exception in these Matthew texts. They define porneiva as extramarital sexual
conduct in general. Furthermore, they see the exception clause in both Matthew 5 and 19 as
governing the entire sentence. Matthew 19:9, which says, “I tell you that anyone who
divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits
adultery,” means that the man who divorces his wife because she has been unfaithful is not
guilty of adultery. If a person’s spouse is unfaithful, the faithful spouse has the right to
divorce the unfaithful spouse and remarry without having committed the sin of adultery.
This view reflects the correct understanding of the Matthew exception clauses and support
for it will be treated below.
Divorce and remarriage for a variety of circumstances
Advocates of this view argue in a way similar to the Erasmian view; however, they
believe Jesus is not giving only one exception. Instead, this view sees Jesus giving an
example of a kind of wrong one spouse can do to another that provides adequate grounds
for divorce. William F. Luck was one of the original proponents of this view; however, his
view suffers from several untenable problems (e.g., “polygamy was acceptable”).147
Recently, however, a more able champion for this view has emerged. Craig
Blomberg has followed and contributed to the argumentation used in the Erasmian view. He
writes, “After a somewhat tortuous consideration of all the alternatives, the traditional
Protestant view remains the most persuasive. Jesus forbade divorce and remarriage, except
147
See Feinberg and Feinberg, “Divorce and Remarriage II,” pp. 331-33 for an able
refutation.
53
when sexual sin intruded. Then both divorce and remarriage are permitted.”148 However, he
is dissatisfied that any of the views on divorce and remarriage can adequately address real
life case studies.149 Thus, he has sought a more workable solution. His proposal is that
since marriage is a covenant that is described in Genesis 2:24 as “leaving and cleaving”
and “becoming one flesh,” therefore any violation of these two sides of marriage is
grounds for divorce.150 The Erasmian view successfully shows how desertion by an
unbelieving spouse violates the “cleaving” aspect of marriage. This view also shows how
unfaithfulness by a spouse violates the “one flesh” aspect of marriage. Having concluded
that the exceptions explicitly allowed in Scripture are based on fundamental covenant
breaches, Blomberg speculates that other equally serious breaches of the covenant may also
constitute divorceable offenses. He writes, “Why is divorce and remarriage permissible,
though not mandatory, in these two instances? Apparently because the very constituent
elements of marriage have been so ruptured that divorce does not necessarily produce a
greater evil.”151 Although he cautions against the subjectivity of allowing more than one
exception, Blomberg seeks to mitigate this subjectivity by appealing to the wisdom of one’s
church. “Perhaps the best way of describing when divorce and remarriage are permitted,
then, is to say simply that it is when an individual, in agreement with a supportive Christian
community of which that individual has been an intimate part, believes that he or she has no
other choice or option in trying to avoid some greater evil.”152
148
Craig L. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis
of Matthew 19:3–12” TrinJ 11 (Fall 1990): 181.
149
Ibid., p. 161, note 2.
150
Ibid., p. 192.
151
Ibid.
152
Ibid., p. 193.
54
The “more than two exceptions” view, as stated and supported by Blomberg
becomes very attractive in real life. Who would not want to offer the opportunity to divorce
and remarry to a woman whose husband was faithful but violently abusive? What pastor can
in good conscience recommend remaining in a marriage when a woman’s life may be in
danger? Since we allow for divorce in two instances, the tendency is to look for other
reasons to allow divorce when a difficult case arises. As tempting as this is, it is difficult to
establish a theological case for more than two exceptions, and it is impossible to do so
exegetically. As Blomberg concedes it is difficult to improve “on the strict Erasmian
position without falling into a morass of subjectivity.”153 Therefore, despite real tensions
with modern life, the two-exception view continues to be the best view for those committed
to biblical authority.
Conclusion
The proper understanding of Matthew’s exception clause is that the exception is
based on extramarital infidelity of some type and that one who divorces an unfaithful
spouse also has the right to remarry without committing any sin. This understanding is
based on two exegetical considerations. First, the word porneiva is a general term that refers
to all kinds of illicit sexual contact. It can refer to premarital sex, incestuous sex, and
extramarital (adulterous) sex.154 The context of the passage determines what use is in view.
In both Matthew 5 and 19, the context is clearly Genesis 2:24 and Deuteronomy 24, which
refers to married (not betrothed) people. Married people are the ones God has joined
together and who therefore should not be separated. Thus when Jesus says that porneiva is
a legitimate basis for dissolving a marriage, he is referring to an inappropriate sexual
relationship of some type, which would usually mean adultery.

153
Ibid., p. 190.
154
NIDNTT 1:500; EDNT 3:137; TDNT 6:592, BAGD, p. 693.
55
Some object that the normal word for adultery is moicheiva and that porneiva and
moicheia are used to refer to different sins in Matthew 15:19.155 The question is, if
Matthew meant adultery in 5 and 19, why did he use porneiva instead of moicheiva? The
answer is quite simple. In Matthew 5 and 19, the person seeking divorce is the man. The
basis for the exception clause is the woman’s porneiva. It has been pointed out that when
women commit adultery, the word usually used to describe such adultery is porneiva rather
than moicheiva.156 Furthermore, in order to avoid a semantically confusing sentence
(Whoever divorces, except for adultery, commits adultery), the word porneiva was used.157
Thus porneiva is the correct word to use in this context to refer to an adulterous
relationship that causes the marriage to be dissolved.
A second reason for following the two-exception view has to do with the placement
of the exception clause. Although it is true that the reading of Heth and Wenham is
possible, it is highly unlikely. Instead of the exception referring only to the divorce, the plain
sense of the passage is that it gives an exception for both divorce and remarriage. As Carson
wrote,
Locating the except clause anywhere else would breed even more ambiguity. For
instance, if it is placed before the verb moichatai (“commits adultery”), the verse
might be paraphrased as follows: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,
if it is not for fornication that he divorces one and marries another, commits
adultery.” But this wording suggests that fornication is being advanced as the actual
reason for marrying another, and not only for the divorce—an interpretation that
borders on the ridiculous. Moreover, if the remarriage clause is excluded, the
thought becomes nonsensical: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia,
commits adultery”—surely untrue unless he remarries. The “except” clause must
therefore be understood to govern the entire protasis. We may paraphrase as fol-
155
John Piper, “On Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery.” No Pages.
Cited 21 August, 2000. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/
Subjects/DivorceRemarriage/DivRemAdultery.htm, par. 3.
156
Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage,” p. 178.
157
Ibid.
56
lows: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery
—though this principle does not hold in the case of porneia.158
Finally, the “two exception” view is the most faithful to the OT teaching on
marriage. Deuteronomy 22 teaches clearly that sexual violations of the marriage covenant
are so serious that the offending spouse must be put to death. Since death terminates a
marriage, the innocent spouse would be free to remarry without sin. In the NT era,
government does not punish adultery with death. In fact, there is seldom any legal
consequence for a husband or wife who commits adultery. But there are serious
consequences to the marriage when one of the spouses is unfaithful. If the OT taught that
the marriage could (in fact, must) be terminated by the execution of the guilty spouse, it is
logically consistent to allow the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry when his or her
mate commits adultery. Adultery is a serious blow to the trust necessary for a marriage
relationship. Furthermore, adultery forms a “one flesh” relationship (1 Cor 6:16) between
two people who do not have a marriage covenant to one another. This damages the “one
flesh” relationship between the husband and wife. Since obedience to the OT law would
ordinarily have dissolved the marriage by execution, Jesus allowed divorce to give the same
result to the innocent party when civil government would not put the adulterous spouse to
death. This does not mean that an unfaithful spouse cannot be forgiven and the marriage
restored; instead, it means that the innocent spouse has the option to find a faithful mate
without bearing any guilt of sin from his or her divorce and remarriage.
Matthew 5 and 19 provide one legitimate exception to the general rule that divorce is
sin and remarriage is sin. This exception allows a faithful spouse to divorce his or her
unfaithful spouse and marry another without committing any sin.
158
Carson, “Matthew,” p. 416.
57
1 Corinthians 7:15
Having decided that the exception in Matthew 6 and 19 does allow one victimized by
an adulterous spouse both to divorce and remarry without sinning, the question remains
whether or not a believer may remarry if an unbelieving spouse chooses to divorce him or
her. 1 Corinthians 7:15 has often been cited as allowing at least divorce in this instance and
many argue that remarriage is allowed in this text as well. This study will consider 1
Corinthians 7 with regard to the issue of remarriage after desertion by an unbeliever.
Exegetical Survey
1 Corinthians was written by the Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth, which he
founded around A.D. 49-51.159 Apparently, the epistle was written in response to a letter the
Corinthians wrote to Paul (1 Cor 7:1). Their letter was preceded by a letter from Paul (1 Cor
5:9)160 , which concerned at the very least some of the sins of sexual immorality in the
church (5:9). Fee suggests that the Corinthians had at least ignored Paul’s first letter and
had probably disregarded it altogether.161 Canonical 1 Corinthians, then, was Paul’s effort
to address some ongoing problems in the church and to reestablish his authority as an
apostle (roughly, chapters 1-6), then address the matters the Corinthians had raised in their
letter.162
Chapter 7 is where Paul finally turns to the matters they had raised in their letter to
him (7:1). These matters concerned first of all the issue of marriage and other matters
related to it.163 A recurring theme in these instructions is “remain as you are” (vv. 8, 17, 20,
159
Gordon D. Fee, 1 Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987), p. 6.
160
Ibid., pp. 6-7.
161
Ibid.
162
Ibid., pp. 46-47.
163
Ibid., pp. 266-67.
58
24). In verses 1-7, Paul addresses people who are married. His command to them is not to
abstain from sex with their spouses. In verses 8-9, Paul makes a brief aside to the
unmarried. His advice to them is to remain unmarried, but in verse 9 he allows them to
remarry if “they cannot control themselves.”
In verse 10, Paul turns to instructions concerning Christians who are currently
married. He prefaces his comments by saying that his command comes from “the Lord.”
A consensus of commentators connects this to Christ’s teaching on divorce as recorded in
the Gospels; however, many note that the exception clause from Matthew 5 & 19 is omitted.
According to Ryrie, “this reinforces the view that ‘except for porneiva"’ means something
uncommon and more peculiar to a Jewish audience.”164 Others, however, simply state that
Paul’s intention was to teach the general truths about marriage and divorce, not to address
every exception. Paul affirms, then, Jesus’ teaching that marriage was intended by God to
be permanent and that divorce is therefore unacceptable (v. 10). If one does divorce (in the
words of Jesus “because of hardness of heart”), he or she must remain single or be
reconciled. Remarriage is not an option.
In verse 12, Paul turns to addressing men and women who were involved in
marriages where one partner is a believer and the other is not, presumably because the
believer was saved after the marriage had begun. When Paul says in v. 12 that what he says
to them is “not [from] the Lord,” his point is not to give lesser authority to it, but simply to
say that he is not directly drawing from the teachings of Jesus on this point. As was argued
previously in this chapter, this is because the situation was different when Jesus taught.
When Jesus spoke his words on divorce, the gospel had not transcended the Jewish
boundary in any significant way; therefore, Jesus’ audience was comprised of Jews who
were expected to be faithful to the covenant. In other words, Paul is addressing a new
164
Ryrie, “Divorce,” p. 189.
59
situation not addressed explicitly by Christ himself. His instruction to the believer, though,
is that if the unbeliever is willing to continue the marriage, the believer must not end it (vv.
12-13). The reason, stated in verse 14, is that the marriage exposes the unbeliever to God’s
grace in a unique way. As Fee puts it, “from Paul’s perspective, as long as the marriage is
maintained the potential for their realizing salvation remains. To that degree they are
‘sanctified’ by the believing spouse.”165 In verse 15, however, Paul states that if the
unbeliever “leaves” the believer should allow him or her to go. Clearly the word translated
“leaves” in verse 15 means some kind of separation in the marriage. Does it mean divorce,
or simply non-legal separation? The term translated “leaves” in the NIV is cwrivzetai.
BAGD says that the root word cwrivzw means to “separate (oneself), be separated of
divorce”166 Thiselton concurs. “In most contexts cwrivzw means to separate, while
ajfivhmi, to send away, comes to mean to divorce in a legal context…. But the difference
may partly be explained in terms of the respective gender of each agent.”167 He concludes
that in this context the term cwrivzw means divorce for “the very use of the phrase ‘you are
to leave’ constituted in Roman law all that was necessary for a husband to divorce his
wife.”168 Blomberg makes a similar argument at some length.
The words translated “separate,” “divorce,” and “leave” throughout verses 10-16
are used interchangeably. This is demonstrated by the close synonymous
parallelism between verses 10a (“A wife must not separate from her husband”) and
11b (“A husband must not divorce his wife”) and the antithetical parallelism
between verses 12-13 (unbelievers willing to stay must not be divorced) and 15
(unbelievers wishing to leave may do so). Many spouses in antiquity left marriage
without legal divorce proceedings, but the end result was the same. If there is any
difference between the wife “separating” in verse 10 and the husband “divorcing”
165
Fee, 1 Corinthians, p. 300.
166
BAGD, p. 890.
167
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 520.
168
Ibid.
60
in verse 11, it may be that the man was legally entitled to divorce his wife, whereas
the woman often had no recourse but to move out.169
Presumably, in most cases the unbeliever would leave in order to find a new mate or
sexual partner who would not exert a Christian influence. So, 1 Corinthians 7 seems clearly
to allow a believer to be divorced, if that divorce happened because the unbelieving spouse
insisted on it. Even those who argue for a “no divorce” position concede this, as will be
demonstrated shortly.
Although divorce is allowable in this situation, not all agree that the believer can be
remarried. Ryrie, for instance, states “Paul says nothing about a second marriage for the
believer.”170 This is not altogether clear, however. At this point, it is helpful to examine the
major views concerning the remarriage issue in this text.
Various Interpretations
Divorce Is Always Sin and Remarriage Is Always Sin
Speaking for this position, Ryrie sees Paul “allowing” for divorce, since the
believer can really do nothing about it, but no remarriage is allowed. “Paul says nothing
about a second marriage…. Like the Lord, Paul disallowed divorce. He did recognize that
the unbelieving partner in a mixed marriage might leave (and subsequently divorce) in which
case the believer could not prevent it. But in no case was the believer to remarry…. The one
flesh relationship and vows made to God do not become non-existent until the death of one
of the spouses.”171 Laney argues similarly.172
169
Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 134.
170
171
Ibid.
172
Laney, “No Divorce, No Remarriage,” pp. 43-44.
61
Divorce Is Sometimes Permissible, But Remarriage Is Always Sin
For those who understand Paul to be allowing divorce but not remarriage, the
common objection to remarriage is that it is not mentioned at all in this text. Olender, who
argues for this view, offers some reasons for it. The first is a lexical one, and it comprises
the majority of Olender’s argumentation. To him, the word dedouvlwtai is neither a
synonym of, nor a semantic equivalent to, the word devw. The word devw is used in 7:39,
which says, “A woman is bound (devw) to her husband as long as he lives. But if her
husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.”
Olender argues that the word devw, as it is used in 7:39, means “bound by mutual consent”
where as doulevuw which is used in 7:15 (the exact form in 7:15 is dedouvlwtai) means an
enslaving act that “was being perpetrated by a dominant outside force.”173 Thus he
concludes that in 7:15 when Paul says that the believer is not “bound” if his or her
unbelieving spouse leaves, the issue is not remarriage, but a responsibility to maintain the
marriage that one’s partner has abandoned. Olender’s other reasons are inferences based
on his understanding of Paul’s word choice. Thus, for him, the fact that Paul used different
words in 7:15 and 39 to describe this “bondage” means that remarriage is not allowed by
this text. He concludes, “If there is a Pauline privilege promoting remarriage, it is certainly
not based on these words of Paul.”174 This is also the conclusion of Fee.175
Divorce and Remarriage Are Both Allowed
Those who argue that divorce and remarriage are allowed in this text are not agreed
as to precisely why it is allowed. The Feinbergs, for instance, see the bondage in verse 15 as
173
Robert G. Olender, “The Pauline Privilege: Inference or Exegesis?” Faith &
Mission 16 (Fall 1998): 99.
174
Ibid., p. 109.
175
62
meaning “bondage to try to keep the marriage together at all costs.”176 This statement
echoes the conclusion of Fee who wrote, “One is simply not under bondage to maintain the
marriage, which the other person wishes to dissolve.”177 This differs a bit from the
understanding of Edgar and McLeod. Edgar sees the term dedouvlwtai (“bound”) in verse
15 as semantically equivalent to devdetai in verse 39, where the widow is “not bound” and
“free to marry anyone.” He writes: “This verb means approximately the same thing and
may even be stronger than the verb devo. In any case, there is no reason to assume that only
one verb can be used of the marriage tie.”178 Likewise, McLeod writes that “the brother or
sister is ‘not under bondage’…. The same point can be made from 1 Corinthians 7:39….
Thus freedom from bondage is freedom to remarry.”179 Regardless of their understanding
dedouvlwtai in verse 15, these and others see the logical conclusion of Paul’s teaching
about abandonment as the freedom to remarry. “Even though Paul does not explicitly allow
remarriage in such cases, he does not explicitly forbid it as he does in the case mentioned in
verses 10-11…. Paul says let the unbeliever depart. We conclude that whenever divorce is
morally acceptable, remarriage is permissible, and we think that rule covers this case”180
Conclusion
One thing is clear: if an unbeliever chooses to divorce his or her believing spouse,
Paul does not hold the believer guilty. Even Ryrie and Laney grudgingly admit that nothing
can be done to prevent this. What is not clear, however, is whether or not remarriage is
allowed. Even those who argue for remarriage do so on different grounds. Like many of the
176
177
178
Edgar, “Divorce and Remarriage,” p. 189.
179
McLeod, “The Problem Part 4,” p. 130.
180
63
interpretational differences on this issue, for the “divorce is always sin” and “divorce is
sometimes permissible, but remarriage is always sin” positions, the alleged indissolubility
of marriage reigns supreme. It is foundational to all the argumentation of these strict views.
Since marriage is supposedly indissoluble, Paul cannot mean that remarriage is allowed.
However, this study has demonstrated repeatedly that the Scriptures do not teach that
marriage is indissoluble. When married people consummate their marriage, they do not
become the equivalent of brother and sister. Although the “one flesh” relationship does
form a close bond—one that may be psychologically very powerful—this does not mean
that the bond cannot be broken. Thus, divorce is not sin due to the indissolubility of
marriage, but because God intended marriage to last for a lifetime. If He chooses to allow
exceptions for adultery and desertion, the nature of marriage should not be invoked to
prevent it.
The correct understanding of this passage allows divorce if it is impossible for the
believer to avoid it. Paul’s reference to not “being bound” (v. 15) is a semantic (though not
a verbal) equivalent to his statement in 7:39 that widows are not bound to their late
husbands; therefore, “if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he
must belong to the Lord.” If not being “bound” in verse 15 means the same thing as not
being “bound” in v. 39, the conclusion is clear: An believer who has been abandoned by
his unbelieving spouse is free to remarry, as long as he or she marries a believer.
Also, since Paul begins by addressing the married in vv. 1-7 and resumes in vv. 10-
16, it is interesting that in Paul’s brief aside to those who are unmarried (vv. 8-9), he does
not exclude those who are unmarried due to divorce. This is especially significant since vv.
10-16 command people who are married not to get divorced, unless they are believers who
have been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse. Those who argue for no remarriage (like
Ryrie, quoted above) protest that 1 Corinthians 7 does not address the issue of remarriage.
However, if it is so clear that divorced people are never to remarry (regardless of the
grounds for their divorce), why did not Paul specifically exclude those who were unmarried
64
due to divorce? Verse 9 seems to allow marriage for people who have never been married,
and for those whose marriages have been dissolved by divorce or death. Fee has suggested
that the word ajgavmoi" should be understood as “widower.”181 “To the widowers and
widows I say….” This reading is possible, and does seem to fit well with the context,
however, the word ajgavmoi" is simply a general word for anyone who is unmarried,
including those who became unmarried by divorce.182 Therefore, Morris concludes
“Unmarried (ajgavmoi") is a broad term; it includes all not bound by the married state.”183
Furthermore, the same term is used in verse 11 clearly of a divorced woman. That suggests,
as McLeod notes, that “in this passage it denotes not the unmarried in general, but ‘the
demarried.’”184 If divorced people are in Paul’s mind in verses 8-9, then the oft-repeated
refrain that “Paul does not address the issue of remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7” is simply
not true. Thus, verses 8-9 may speak to this situation, but that cannot be stated dogmatically.
Finally, when an unbeliever leaves a believing spouse, most of the time the
unbeliever would find a new spouse or at least become sexually active. This, then, would
allow for the Christian to remarry inasmuch as the porneiva exception would be fulfilled
and (if the unbeliever remarried) reconciliation would be impossible.
181
Fee, 1 Corinthians, pp. 287-288.
182
BAGD, p. 4.
183
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 105.
184
David J. McLeod, “The Problem of Divorce (Part 4): The Teaching of Paul.”
Emmaus Journal 3 (Winter 1994): 125, n. 61.
CHAPTER V
DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE, AND CHURCH LEADERSHIP
As the previous chapters in this study have demonstrated, the Bible allows divorce
and remarriage for two reasons only. A person may divorce his or her spouse and remarry
if the spouse has committed adultery. Also, a believer may remarry if his or her unbelieving
spouse divorces him or her because of the faith. If a person is divorced for one of these two
reasons, he or she has committed no sin; additionally, he or she may marry another person
without committing any sin. Divorce and remarriage for any other reason is also a sin
equivalent to adultery.
Having proved that divorce is permissible in two cases, the question remains whether
or not a pastor or a deacon may be divorced or divorced and remarried. Given the rise of
divorce in human society in general, it is not surprising that divorce and remarriage has
become an increasingly important issue for the church. Since believers struggle with
depravity and live in the same society as unbelievers, the church will always struggle with
deviations from Biblical obedience. But most believers expect their leaders to have reached a
greater degree of maturity; indeed, the Scriptures themselves indicate that church leaders
have a higher degree of accountability (Jas 3:1; Heb 13:17). The question must be asked,
then, is a divorced believer automatically excluded from the leadership of the church?
The New Testament’s Teaching on the Qualifications for Church Leaders
Not surprisingly, the NT is not silent on the issue of divorce and church leadership.
Given the fact that the early church grew mostly in a pagan society, the problem of divorce
and remarriage was no doubt confronted early on as the Apostle Paul began to organize
local churches among the Gentiles. As he prepared to pass the torch of leadership to his
65
66
protégé Timothy, Paul wrote down for him and for the church beyond him, what the Biblical
qualifications for church ministry are.
These qualifications for the pastor are recorded in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. In 1
Timothy 3:12, the qualifications for deacon are also discussed. Each of these texts contains
precisely the same language185 with regard to the pastor and deacon’s marital state. They all
say that he (the pastor or deacon) must be mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra. This phrase can be
rendered in English as “husband of one wife,” or “a one-woman man.”186 Despite the
simplicity of this phrase, it is anything but simple to interpret. Fee calls this phrase, “one of
the truly difficult phrases in the PE [Pastoral Epistles].”187 Historically, this phrase has
been understood in one of five ways. Either this phrase means (1) the pastor must be
married, (2) he must be married to only one woman at a time (not a polygamist), (3) he must
be faithful to his wife (no extramarital affairs), (4) he must not be remarried after a divorce,
(5) he must not remarry after his wife’s death.188
An Evaluation of the Positions on Mia'" Gunaiko;" “Andra
Position number (1) above is almost unheard of today. Kent remarked, “I was
unable to find anyone holding this view, but some commentators mention it.”189 The
185
The words in the Greek text are identical in all three places, except for the fact that
the plural is used in 1 Timothy 3:12 for semantic agreement with “deacons.”
186
William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000),
p. 170.
187
Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), p. 80.
188
Many commentaries list from three to five of these interpretations, depending on
space. See Ralph Earle, “1, 2 Timothy” in vol. 11 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), p. 366; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy,
Titus, pp. 80-81; Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles 2n d ed. (Winona Lake, IN:
BMH Books, 1982), pp. 122-24.
189
Kent, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 124.
67
experience of this author matches Kent’s. While many believers and churches may require
a married minister, they cannot appeal to this text for grounds.190 The sins mentioned in
positions (2) and (3) above are universally condemned by commentators, but few believe
they are what Paul had in mind when he required church leaders to be “one-woman men.”
As Litfin wrote, “Virtually all commentators agree that his phrase prohibits both polygamy
and promiscuity, which are unthinkable for spiritual leaders in the church.”191 Of course it
is clear that the pastor should not be a polygamist192 or an unfaithful husband; however, was
Paul attempting to forbid more than that? Position (5), which forbids remarriage of a
widower, is certainly stricter than the “no polygamy” and “no adultery” positions;
however, it too is rarely advocated today.
The consensus among modern commentators is that the phrase mia'" gunaiko;"
a[ndra speaks to the issue of divorce and remarriage. What commentators do not agree on
is whether or not this phrase allows for any kind of divorce and remarriage among church
leaders.
Some commentators see mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra as an absolute prohibition against
a remarried minister. According to Fee, “the overseer is required to live an exemplary
married life (marriage is assumed), faithful to his one wife in a culture in which marital
infidelity was common, and at times assumed. It would, of course, also rule out polygamy
and divorce and remarriage, but it would not necessarily rule out the remarriage of a
190
See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, p. 80 for an adequate refutation.
191
Duane Litfin, “1 Timothy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New
Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983), p. 736.
192
While there is dispute about how widely polygamy was practiced in the first
century Roman and Jewish worlds, the language of 1 Timothy does not seem to suggest
polygamy, for the same phrase (reversed for gender agreement) occurs regarding widows in
1 Timothy 5:9, but there is no evidence of women in that era having more than one husband
at a time. See Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, p. 171.
68
widower.”193 Mounce goes further and appears to argue against remarriage, even for
widowers.
The final interpretation, which does give full emphasis to the word miva, “one,” is
that an overseer can only have been married once. This was the position of the early
church… (a) Although there are clearer ways to specify a single marriage, this is the
easiest reading. (b) There is ample evidence that both society and the early church
viewed celibacy after the death of a spouse to be a meritorious choice… (c) This
interpretation is in accord with Paul’s instructions about the married and the single
(1 Cor 7:9, 39), which allows remarriage but prefers celibacy. (d) It may be that Paul
distinguishes between the leaders in the church and the laity, assigning a stricter
code to the former.” The leader must be completely and totally above reproach (as
long as this does not imply that remarriage has any necessary reproach since Paul
elsewhere recommends it.194
Other commentators interpret mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra in light of the Bible’s entire
teaching on divorce and remarriage. In a very terse statement, Hiebert seems to advocate this
view when he writes “that he must not have more than one wife living at a time. He must
not be a bigamist or polygamist, or have been divorced on insufficient grounds.”195 The
phrase “insufficient grounds” implies that there are “sufficient” grounds for divorce (e.g.,
the two exception view), and when a man has been divorced on sufficient grounds, he is still
qualified to serve as a pastor or deacon. George Knight is more explicit:
It would be strange for the apostle of liberty, who considered widows and widowers
‘free to be married…, only in the Lord’ (1 Cor. 7:39) and who used this principle of
freedom to illustrate his teaching on the law (Rom. 7:1-3), to deny this freedom to a
potential church officer whose spouse has died. Likewise, the freedom to remarry
granted the ‘innocent’ party when a marriage has been terminated as a result of
sexual unfaithfulness (as I believe Mt. 19:9 should be understood) or when an
unbelieving spouse has abandoned a believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:15) does not seem
to be restricted so that they could not apply to a potential officer.196
193
Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, pp. 80-81.
194
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, p. 172. It is difficult to tell whether or not Mounce is
actually advocating this position. He treats the problems with it later, but his arguments and
the general tenor of his comments seem to favor this point of view.
195
D. Edmond Hiebert, First Timothy (Chicago: Moody, 1957), p. 65, emphasis his.
196
Knight, Pastoral Epistles, pp. 157-58.
69
Clearly Knight does not exclude from church leadership a remarried widower or a man who
remarried under one of the two exceptions. Since the Bible teaches that death and divorce
because of adultery or abandonment by an unbeliever both end a marriage, a person can still
be mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra even though he is remarried.
Mia'" Gunaiko;" “Andra and the Various Positions on Divorce and Remarriage
Interestingly, the major books and articles on the divorce and remarriage questions
tend to ignore 1 Timothy 3:2, 3:12, and Titus 1:6. Certainly, these texts do not address
divorce and remarriage per se, but they do provide a framework for applying one’s theology
of divorce and remarriage. Two authors on the divorce and remarriage question do address
these texts. They are J. Carl Laney197 (divorce and remarriage always sinful) and Craig
Keener198 (two exception view).
Divorce Is Always Sinful and Remarriage Is Always Sinful
It is easy to predict where those who hold the “divorce is always sinful” view come
down on the meaning of mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra. Since they believe that marriage is
indissoluble, they would have nothing of a divorced minister or deacon. Laney argues both
from the OT priesthood and the language of 1 Timothy and Titus. His conclusion is
predictable: “One who is divorced and remarried would be disqualified.”199 Surprisingly,
he goes further in the same sentence to say, “…and possibly also the remarried widower.
The requirement would also disqualify one who is not totally devoted to his wife and in the
habit of lusting after other women.”200 Earlier in the chapter, Laney explains what he means
197
Laney, Divorce Myth, pp. 91-101.
198
Craig S. Keener, And Marries Another (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp.
81-103.
199
Laney, Divorce Myth, p. 99.
200
Ibid.
70
by “not totally devoted to his wife.”201 Put simply, he means “no infidelity.”202 This is
not at all objectionable. An unfaithful man is hardly a “one woman man” in any
meaningful sense. But to say that “it would also mean a man who was not lusting after
other women (Matt 5:28)—no wandering eyeballs,”203 surely goes too far. While lust is a
serious sin that believers (church leaders especially) must deal with, it is a major exegetical
leap to say that mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra refers to lust.
Laney clearly forbids a divorced man from church leadership, regardless of whether
or not he remarries. He writes,
Some might argue that the qualification “husband of one wife” means that it is not
the divorce per se, but remarriage which would disqualify one from the office of
elder or deacon…. There are at least three major objections to such a view. First, the
elder and deacon must be above reproach (1 Tim 3:2, 10)—blameless! Although the
circumstances vary, it generally takes two to make a divorce. A divorced man, though
remaining single, would probably not be “above reproach.” Second, the elder and
deacon must be men who manage their household well (1 Tim 3:4-5, 12). Divorce
would certainly be an evidence of one’s mismanagement of his household. Third,
with reference to the deacons, Paul says, “Women must likewise be dignified, not
malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things” (1 Tim 3:11)…. This verse
seems to indicate that the wives of the spiritual leaders of the church must be
exemplary in their conduct and faithful in all things. Thus a wife who is unfaithful to
her marriage vow would disqualify her husband from a position in church
leadership.204
Without reacting point by point to his argument, it is clear that he believes divorce by itself
disqualifies a man from ministry. He does not attempt to tie that to the phrase mia'"
gunaiko;" a[ndra, however. Given his belief that divorce alone is always sin, it is not
surprising that he rules any divorced person out of church leadership, regardless of why he
was divorced or if he remained unmarried.
201
Ibid.
202
Ibid., p. 97.
203
Ibid.
204
Ibid., pp. 98-99.
71
Divorce Is Sometimes Permissible, but Remarriage Is Always Sinful
It is difficult to find a stated interpretation of mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra among the
advocates of the “divorce, but no remarriage” view. This is somewhat surprising since the
ambiguous phrase mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra seems as if it may allow a divorced, but not
remarried man to serve as a pastor. Since advocates of this view also believe in the
indissolubility of marriage, one could speculate that they would forbid a divorced but not
remarried man from the pastorate or deaconate. This is merely speculation, however. In the
opinion of this author, the “divorce, but no remarriage” view is incomplete without a
position on the meaning of mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra.
Divorce and Remarriage Are Permissible for Many Reasons
Writing for this position, Luck denies altogether that the phrase mia'" gunaiko;"
a[ndra, refers to divorce and remarriage. “I do not believe that this passage of Scripture
deals with the divorced/remarried person at all with regard to the divorce/remarriage per
se.205 Instead, he feels that “Paul’s primary concern is the prohibition of known fornicators
(sexually immoral men) from leadership in the church.”206 To apply this passage to a
divorced man, then, is fundamentally off track for advocates of the “divorce and remarriage
for many reasons” view. Instead, this text was given to focus on the character of a man
seeking spiritual leadership. “The net result of this structure is to stress the singleness of
devotion rather than the number of wives. This is a one woman type of man, a man who is
not looking at every toga that passes…. Thus we are to understand that it is directed against
205
206
Ibid., p. 217.
72
fornication, not previous legal marriages.”207 Presumably, then, Luck would allow a
remarried man to hold the office of pastor or deacon, as long as the remarried man has been
faithful to his wives during the duration of their marriage.
This also seems to be the position of Larry Richards, another advocate of this view.
Richards’ position is basically that all divorce and all remarriage is wrong, but God is
forgiving, therefore divorce and remarriage is permissible for many reasons.208 Although he
does not address the qualifications of the pastor or deacon, he does bemoan the fact that
churches exclude divorcees from serving in the church.209 It seems reasonable, then, to
assume that this position may allow for some divorced or divorced and remarried men to
serve either as pastor or as deacon.
Divorce and Remarriage Are Permissible for Two Reasons Only
Those who hold that a believer may be divorced and remarried if the divorce was for
adultery or desertion by an unbelieving spouse are divided on the issue of remarried pastors
and deacons. On one hand is Knight who writes, “the freedom to remarry granted the
‘innocent’ party when a marriage has been terminated as a result of sexual unfaithfulness
(as I believe Mt. 19:9 should be understood) or when an unbelieving spouse has abandoned
a believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:15) does not seem to be restricted so that they could not apply
to a potential officer.”210 Therefore, a man can be the husband of one wife even if he is
divorced, provided his divorce was due to the fact that he was the innocent party in one of
207
Ibid. Glassock argues similarly, though it is unclear what his position on the
whole divorce and remarriage question is. Ed Glassock, “‘The Husband of One Wife’
Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2,” BSac 140 (July-September 1983): 244-58.
208
Richards, “Divorce and Remarriage Under a Variety of Circumstances,” pp. 233,
236.
209
Ibid.
210
Knight, Pastoral Epistles, p. 158.
73
the two exceptions allowed by the NT. He can be the mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra because his
first marriage was properly dissolved with a scriptural reason.
On the other hand, not all who hold to the “two exception” view believe that a
divorced man may be a minister or deacon. John Stott, for instance, argues strongly that a
pastor or deacon must not be divorced for any reason.
Paul is thought by many to be excluding from the pastorate those who have
divorced and remarried. This seems a more probable explanation…. Do divorce
and remarriage constitute an absolute ban on ordination, although they seem to have
allowed by Jesus to the innocent party when the other has been guilty of serious
sexual sin, and by Paul in the case of a newly converted person whose spouse
remained unconverted and was unwilling to continue the marriage? Do these
concessions not apply to clergy and prospective clergy then? If not, does this not
erect a double standard? Yes it does, but is it not reasonable and right that a higher
standard should be expected of pastors who are called to teach by example as well
as by words?211
Stott’s position is very strict. Apparently, he sees the divorce as somehow
disqualifying without regard to the circumstances involved in the divorce.
Conclusion
In order to decide what Paul meant when he said that church leaders must be “the
husband of one wife,” it is necessary to examine the phrase itself and the theology of
Scripture as a whole on the question of divorce.
Beginning with the phrase itself, mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra, it should be noted that the
phrase is unusual and ambiguous. As Mounce writes, “Paul could have said clearly, (1)
“Must be married,” (2) “Not polygamous,” (3) “Faithful to his wife,” or (4) “Not
remarried/divorced.”212 If Paul could have said any or all of these clearly, why didn’t he?
Why did he not choose the language that unambiguously stated what the leader’s
relationship to his wife must be? Mounce puts little stock in such a question. “It is also
211
John Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus (Downers
Grove: IL, 1996), pp. 93-94.
212
Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, p. 170.
74
often said that the awkwardness of the expression argues against a specific interpretation,
but that argument can be applied to all interpretations.”213 In other words, no interpretation
can find support in the wording, because the ambiguity could be used to argue for all of
them. This may be true; however, it still seems useful to ask why Paul did not use the most
unambiguous language for such an important requirement?
One answer might be that Paul was drawing on Timothy’s knowledge of the NT
theology of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Having been Paul’s traveling companion for
so many years, Timothy no doubt had been taught the exception Jesus allowed for and the
exception Paul himself made in 1 Corinthians. Since this phrase mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra
comes in a series or list of requirements, it was necessary for Paul to use the most concise
language possible. By using this highly ambiguous phrase, Paul could avoid having to state
all the exceptions, which would have made for a very cumbersome list of requirements.
Since Paul and Timothy understood that death, divorce for adultery, and divorce by an
unbeliever’s abandonment all sever a marriage, they both knew that one who remarried after
one of these three events could be accurately called the “husband of one wife.”
This study has demonstrated repeatedly that God considers marriage binding. Any
dissolution of the marriage contract is tantamount to the sin of adultery, unless the divorce
came because of one of the two exceptions Scripture allows. Therefore, anyone who gets a
divorce for any non-scriptural reason is technically still married to his or her first mate in
the eyes of God. If such a man remarried, he would be “the husband of two wives,” one of
them being illegitimate. However, if a man was divorced because of his wife’s
unfaithfulness or because she did not share his faith and therefore left him, the Bible allows
such a man to remarry without being guilty of sin. In this case, there is no adultery and the
remarried man is “the husband of one wife” because his first marriage was properly,
213
Ibid.
75
scripturally dissolved. Therefore, it is clear that a man who is divorced, or divorced and
remarried is excluded from the office of pastor or deacon, unless his first marriage was
terminated on biblical grounds. In that case, the believer is free to become a pastor or a
deacon.
Before leaving this discussion, it is important to address the fact that both Laney and
Kent forbid a divorcee from becoming pastor or deacon, even if the divorce happened before
the man’s conversion to Christ. Laney writes, “I would suggest that divorce and remarriage
or marital infidelity, whether before or after conversion, would disqualify one from the
office of elder or deacon.”214 Kent concurs:
Consequently, when men were to be considered for this high office, there must be
no record of divorce or other marital infidelity in the candidate, even before his
conversion…. When divorced and remarried persons are saved, they should rejoice
in their salvation, and should serve the Lord faithfully in every way they can. But
they should not aspire to be overseers.215
This certainly cannot be correct. How could one be expected to meet the
requirements of spiritual leadership before the Spirit of God has regenerated him? If one
wishes to disqualify a man who was divorced or unfaithful before his salvation from church
leadership, he should also (for the sake of consistency) insist on disqualifying the Apostle
Paul. For he said of himself in 1 Timothy 1:12-14:
I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me
faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a
persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and
unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the
faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
What Paul was before his conversion clearly violates several of the qualifications listed in 1
Timothy 3 and Titus 1. For instance, 1 Timothy 3:3 says that the pastor must be “not
violent but gentle,” yet Paul calls himself “a violent man” before his conversion (1 Tim
214
Ibid.
215
Ibid., p. 125-26.
76
1:13). The fact that he was shown mercy for his sins means that, like all believers, his post-
conversion record was clean from the beginning. As 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, “Therefore, if
anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” Therefore, it
is clear that regardless of what a man was before his conversion, he is free to hold the office
of pastor or deacon if he has met the qualifications since his conversion to Christ.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Summary
The purpose of this study was to survey the Bible’s teaching on marriage, divorce,
and remarriage in order to develop a consistent, biblical theology of divorce and remarriage.
Beginning with Genesis 2, a definition of marriage was developed. Marriage was defined as
a solemn covenant (or commitment) made before God and according to societal customs
between a man and a woman to form an exclusive relationship with each other.
Having defined marriage, this study looked at the various positions on divorce and
remarriage. One position makes no allowance for divorce or remarriage and holds that all
divorce and remarriage is sinful. A second position argues that divorce may be permissible
in some limited circumstances, but remarriage is never allowed. It is always a sin to remarry.
A third position allows for both divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances. One
variation of this position says that divorce and remarriage are allowable only if the divorce
was for adultery or desertion by an unbelieving spouse. Another variation allows many
grounds for divorce.
In chapter three, the Old Testament texts regarding divorce were examined. It was
noted that Deuteronomy 24 does not command or encourage divorce; rather, it simply
regulates divorce since it was already happening. This regulation required the man to give
his wife a certificate of divorce to protect her rights and it forbade a divorced couple from
remarrying if the wife married another man after their divorce. Malachi 2:6 was studied in
detail, and it was concluded that it says little about divorce and nothing about remarriage.
Chapter four examined the important New Testament texts on divorce and
remarriage. It began with a discussion of the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. A
77
78
straightforward reading of the texts leads one to believe that Jesus allowed divorce and
remarriage only for adultery. After a thorough exegesis of the passages and a survey of the
relevant interpretations, it is clear that Jesus forbade divorce for any reason except adultery.
For adultery, Jesus allowed the innocent spouse the right to divorce and remarry without
committing sin. In 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul allowed a second exception. If an unbelieving
spouse divorces his or her mate who is an unbeliever, the believer is free to remarry.
Chapter six looked at the important issue of remarriage and church leaders. An
investigation of current exegetical thought revealed diverse opinions about the meaning of
the phrase “husband of one wife” (mia'" gunaiko;" a[ndra) in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12, and
Titus 1:6. This study concluded that a pastor or deacon may be divorced and remarried if
his divorce was predicated on one of the two exceptions allowed in the NT.
A Biblical Theology of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage
The Bible teaches that marriage is an institution designed by God to form a lifelong
relationship between one man and one woman. Divorce is a human innovation that destroys
God’s plan for marriage. Although human law allows couples to divorce, in God’s eyes a
couple remains married even if they legally divorce. Although it is normal for divorced
couples marry other people, God says that such remarriage is tantamount to adultery. There
are two exceptions allowed. God allows a husband or wife to divorce and remarry if his or
her mate was sexually unfaithful. Furthermore, if a believer is married to an unbeliever, and
the unbeliever chooses to divorce rather than continue in the marriage, the Bible allows the
believer to remarry. In both of these cases, the innocent spouse has not committed adultery,
nor sinned in any way. Since the Bible requires a pastor or deacon to be a “one woman
man” and a man divorced and remarried under one of the exceptions has not committed
adultery, it is permissible for a man divorced and remarried under one of the two exceptions
to serve God either as a pastor or as a deacon.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED
Adams, Jay E. “Are Divorce and Remarriage Ever Permissible? Yes.” Fundamentalist
Journal 3 (June 1984): 16, 18, 20.
_____. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1980.
Allison, Dale C., Jr. “Divorce, Celibacy and Joseph (Matthew 1:18–25 and 19:1–12).”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 49 (March 1993): 3–10.
Atkinson, David. To Have and to Hold. London: William Collins Sons, 1979.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary.

Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Downers Grove,
IL: Inter-varsity, 1972.
Barber, Cyril J. “Marriage, Divorce or Remarriage: A Review of the Relevant Religious

Literature, 1973–1983.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 12 (Fall 1984):
170–77.
_____. “What is Marriage?” Journal of Psychology and Theology 2 (Winter 1974):

48–60.
Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentary.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.
Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2n d ed. Revised and
augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Fredrick W. Danker. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979.
Benson, Jeffrey R. “Divorce and Remarriage in Matthew 19:3–9.” Th.M. thesis, Central
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1981.
Blaising, Craig A. “Malachi.” Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament. Edited by

John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Victor, 1985.
Blomberg, Craig L. 1 Corinthians. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1994.
_____.“Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3–12.”

Trinity Journal 11 (Fall 1990): 161–196.
Bockmuehl, Markus, “Matthew 5:32; 19:9 in the Light of Pre-Rabbinic Halakah.” New
Testament Studies 35 (April 1989): 291–95.
Boettner, Loraine. Divorce. N.p.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976.
79
80
Bontrager, G. Edwin. Divorce and the Faithful Church. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1978.
Borchert, Gerald L. “1 Corinthians 7:15 and the Church’s Historic Misunderstanding of

Divorce and Remarriage.” Review & Expositor 96 (Winter 1999): 125–29.
Boyer, Vernon P. Divorce and Remarriage. Stow, OH: Cre-Com Publishers, 1976.
Brewer, David I. “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate.”
Journal of Jewish Studies 49 (Autumn 1998): 230–43.
_____. “Jewish Women Divorcing Their Husbands in Early Judaism: The Background to
Papyrus Se’elim 13” Harvard Theological Review 92 (July 1999): 349–57.
Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” In vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by

Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Catchpole, David R. “The Synoptic Divorce Material as a Traditio-Historical Problem.”

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 57 (Autumn 1974): 92–127.
Cianca, James. “Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage New Testament Exception Clause.” Th.M.

thesis, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 1986.
Collins, C. John. “The (Intelligible) Masoretic Text of Malachi 2:16.” Presbyterion 20

(Spring 1994): 36–40.
Collins, John J. “Marriage, Divorce, and Family in Second Temple Judaism.” In Families
in Ancient Israel. By Leo G. Perdue et al. Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
1997.
Collins, Raymond F. Divorce in the New Testament. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1992.
Cornes, Andrew. Divorce and Remarriage. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Davis, John J. Evangelical Ethics. 2nd ed. Phillipburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1993.
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. S.v. “rc;B;.”
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. S.v. “qb'D;.”
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. S.v. “Divorce,” by R. H. Stein.
Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. S.v. “Marriage, Divorce,
and Adultery” by C. S. Keener.
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. S.v. “Marriage and Divorce, Adultery, and Incest,” by
G. F. Hawthorne.
81
Down, M. J. “The Sayings of Jesus About Marriage and Divorce.” Expository Times 95
(August 1984): 332–34.
Durst, David F. “Malachi 2:10–16 and the Issue of Divorce.” Th.M. thesis, Detroit Baptist
Theological Seminary, 1994.
Duty, Guy. Divorce and Remarriage. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1967.
Earle, Ralph. “1, 2 Timothy.” In vol. 11 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by
Edgar, Thomas R. “Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery and Desertion.” In Divorce and
Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Edited by H. Wayne House. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
Efird, James M. Marriage and Divorce: What the Bible Says. Nashville: Abingdon, 1985.
Ehrlich, Rudolf. “The Indissolubility of Marriage as a Theological Problem.” Scottish

Journal of Theology 23 (August 1970): 291–311.
Elliott, J. K. “Paul’s Teaching on Marriage in 1 Corinthians: Some Problems

Considered.” New Testament Studies 19 (January 1973): 219–25.
Ellisen, Stanley A. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1977.
Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. S.v. “Divorce,” by Ralph H. Alexander.
Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. S.v. “Marriage,” by Ralph H. Alexander.
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. S.v. “pornevia,” by G. Fitzer.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. S.v. “Divorce,” by D. J. Atkinson.
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. S.v. “Marriage, Theology of,” by L. I Granberg.
Epp, Theodore H. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible,
1979.
Fee, Gordon D. 1 Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987.
Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1988.
Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg. Ethics for a Brave World. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 1993.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence.”
Theological Studies 37 (July 1976): 197–226.
82
Gangel, Kenneth O. “Toward a Biblical Theology of Marriage and Family; Part One:
Pentateuch and Historical Books.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 5 (Winter
& Spring 1977): 55–69.
_____. “Toward a Biblical Theology of Marriage and Family; Part Two: Poetical and
Prophetical Books.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 5 (Winter & Spring
1977): 150–62.
_____. “Toward a Biblical Theology of Marriage and Family; Part Three: Gospels and
Acts.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 5 (Summer 1977): 247–59.
_____. “Toward a Biblical Theology of Marriage and Family; Part Four: Epistles and
Revelation.” Journal of Psychology and Theology 5 (Fall 1977): 318–31.
Garland, David E. “A Biblical View of Divorce.” Review and Expositor 84 (Summer

1987): 419–32.
Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
Geldard, Mark. “Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce: Thoughts on the Meaning of Porneia in

Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.” Churchman 92 (1978): 134–43.
Glassock, Ed. “‘The Husband of One Wife’ Requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 140 (July-September 1983): 244-58.
Glazier-McDonald, Beth. “Intermarriage, Divorce, and the bat-’el-nekår: Insights into Mal
2:10–16.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (December 1987): 603–11.
Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under
Persecution. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Haight, Bruce M. “Ethical Consideration on Divorce and Remarriage.” Covenant

Quarterly 47 (May 1989): 18–35.
Hamilton, Victor P. Genesis 1-17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Harrell, Pat E. Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church. Austin: R. B Sweet Co.,
1967.
Harvey, A. E. “Genesis Versus Deuteronomy? Jesus on Marriage and Divorce.” In The

Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and W. Richard
Stegner. JSNTSup 104. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. First Timothy. Chicago: Moody, 1957.
Heth, William A. “Another Look at the Erasmian View of Divorce and Remarriage.”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (September 1982): 263–72.
_____. “Divorce, but No Remarriage.” In Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian

Views. Edited by H. Wayne House. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
83
_____. “The Changing Basis for Permitting Remarriage After Divorce for Adultery: The
Influence of R. H. Charles.” Trinity Journal 11 (Fall 1990): 143–59.
_____. “A Critique of the Evangelical Protestant View of Divorce and Remarriage.” Studia
Theologica et Apologia 1 (1981): 11–39.
_____. “Divorce and Remarriage: The Search for an Evangelical Hermeneutic.” Trinity
Journal 16 (Spring 1995): 63–100.
_____. “Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed.” Southern Baptist Journal of
Theology 6 (Spring 2002): 4-29.
_____. “The Meaning of Divorce in Matthew 19:3–9.” Churchman 98 (1984): 136–52.
_____. “Remarriage: Two Views: Why Remarriage Is Wrong.” Christianity Today, 14

December 1992, p. 34.
Heth, William A. and Gordon J. Wenham. Jesus and Divorce. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1984.
Holmes, Michael W. “The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the
Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions.” Journal of Biblical Literature
(Winter 1990): 651–64.
Holwerda, David E. “Jesus on Divorce: An Assessment of a New Proposal.” Calvin

Theological Journal 22 (April 1987): 114–20.
House, H. Wayne. “Can One Become Two.” Christianity Today, 14 December 1992, p.
33.
_____, ed. Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1990.
Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics

Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. VTSup 52.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994.
Hurley, James B. Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1981.
Ilan, Tal. “Notes and Observations on a Newly Published Divorced Bill from the Judaean
Desert.” Harvard Theological Review 89 (April 1996): 195–202.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. S.v. “Divorce,” by A. D. Verhey and G. W.

Bromiley.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. S.v. “Marriage; Marry,” by R. K. Bower and

G. L. Knapp.
Isaksson, Abel. Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple. Translated by Neil Tomkinson
and Jean Gray. Copenhagen: Lund, 1965.
Jensen, Joseph. “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina.” Novum
Testamentum 20 (July 1978): 161–84.
84
Jones, David C. “Malachi on Divorce.” Presbyterion 15 (Spring 1989): 16–22.
_____. “The Westminster Confession on Divorce and Remarriage.” Presbyterion 16

(Spring 1990): 17–40.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. “Divorce in Malachi 2:10–16.” Criswell Theological Review 2
(Fall1987): 73–84.
Keener, Craig. …And Marries Another. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.
_____. “Remarriage: Two Views: Free to Remarry.” Christianity Today, 14 December

1992, p. 34.
Kent, Homer A., Jr. The Pastoral Epistles. 2n d ed. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1982.
Khoo, Jeffrey. “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage.” Burning Bush 4 (July 1998): 65–74.
Kilgallen, John J. “To What Are the Matthean Exception-Texts (5:32 and 19:9) an
Exception?” Biblica 61 (1980): 102–5.
Kirk, Kenneth E. Marriage and Divorce. 2nd ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1948.
Knight, George W. III. The Pastoral Epistles. New International Greek Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Kubo, Sakae. “1 Corinthians 7:16: Optimistic or Pessimistic? New Testament Studies (July
1978): 539–44.
Kysar, Myrna and Robert Kysar. The Assundered: Biblical Teaching on Divorce and
Remarriage. Atlanta: John Knox, 1978.
Laney, J. Carl. “No Divorce and No Remarriage.” In Divorce and Remarriage: Four
Christian Views. Edited by H. Wayne House. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1990.
_____. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1981.
_____. “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Issue of Divorce.” Bibliotheca Sacra 149
(January–March 1992): 3–15.
Litfin, Duane. “1 Timothy.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament.

Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Victor, 1983.
Luck, William F. Divorce and Remarriage. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987.
_____. Review of The Divorce Myth, by J. Carl Laney. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 26 (December 1983): 469–72.
MacArthur, John, Jr. On Divorce. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.
MacLeod, David J. “The Problem of Divorce (Part 1): A Survey of Opinions.” Emmaus
Journal 1 (Summer 1992): 139–57.
85
_____. “The Problem of Divorce (Part 2): The Teaching of Scripture: The Old Testament
Texts.” Emmaus Journal 2 (Summer 1993): 23–43.
_____. “The Problem of Divorce (Part 3): The Teaching of Jesus.” Emmaus Journal 3
(Summer 1994): 3–47.
_____. “The Problem of Divorce (Part 4): The Teaching of Paul.” Emmaus Journal 3
(Winter 1994): 111–41.
Macquarrie, John. “The Nature of the Marriage Bond.” Theology 78 (May 1975): 230–36.
Mahoney, Aidan. “A New Look at the Divorce Clauses in Mt 5:32 and 19:9.” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 30 (January 1968): 29–38.
Malina, Bruce. “Does Porneia Mean Fornication? Novum Testamentum 14 (1972): 10–17.
Matthews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary. Nashville:

Broadman, 1996.
Marrow, Stanley B. “Marriage and Divorce in the New Testament.” Anglican Theological
Review 70 (January 1988): 3–15.
Moiser, Jeremy. “A Reassessment of Paul’s View of Marriage with Reference to 1 Cor 7.”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 18 (1983): 103–22.
Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians. Reprint edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Thomas

Nelson, 2000.
Mueller, James R. “The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts.” Revue de Qumran
10 (1980): 247–56.
Murphy-O’Connor, J. “The Divorced Woman and 1 Corinthians 7:10–11.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 100 (December 1981): 601–6.
Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975.
Nemer, Joseph. “Christ’s Logia on Divorce in Matthew’s Gospel.” Th.M. thesis, Detroit
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1980.
Neufeld, Edmund. “Marriage and Divorce in Early Judaism.” Didaskalia 1 (November

1989: 26–33.
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. S.v. “Discipline,” by H.

Reisser.
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. S.v. “rc;B,; ” by
Robert B. Chisholm.
86
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. S.v. “qb'D;,” by
George J. Brooke.
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. S.v. “bz"[;,” by
Robert L. Alden.
Nichols, Charles. “Some Musing on the Divorce Question.” Didaskalia 1 (November

1989: 18–25.
Nolland, John. “The Gospel Prohibition of Divorce: Tradition History and Meaning.”
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (June 1995): 19–35.
Olender, Robert G. “The Pauline Privilege: Inference or Exegesis?” Faith & Mission 16
(Fall 1998): 94–117.
Olsen, V. Norskov. The New Testament Logia on Divorce: A Study of Their Interpretation
from Erasmus to Milton. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1971.
Osburn, Carroll D. “The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9.” Restoration Quarterly 24

(1981): 193–203.
Palmer, Paul F. “Needed: A Theology of Marriage.” Communico 1 (Fall 1974): 243–60.
Parker, David. “The Early Traditions of Jesus’ Sayings on Divorce.” Theology 96

(October–December 1993): 372–83.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1981.
Piper, John. “Divorce and Remarriage.” No Pages. Cited 15 March 2002. Online:
http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/Subjects/
DivorceRemarriage/DivRemPositionPaper.htm.
_____. “On Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery.” No Pages. Cited 15 March
2002. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/OnlineArticles/Subjects/
DivorceRemarriage/DivRemAdultery.htm.
_____. “A Statement on Divorce and Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist

Church.” No Pages. Cited 15 March 2002. Online:
http://www.desiringgod.org/Online_Library/
OnlineArticles/Subjects/DivorceRemarriage/DivRemBBC.htm.
Porter, Stanley E. and Paul Buchanan. “On the Logical Structure of Matt 19:9.” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society (September 1991): 335–39.
Powers, B. Ward. Marriage and Divorce: The New Testament Teaching. Concord NSW,
Australia: Family Life Movement of Australia, 1987.
Richards, Larry. “Divorce and Remarriage Under a Variety of Circumstances.” In Divorce

and Remarriage: Four Christian Views. Edited by H. Wayne House. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
Roop, Eugene F. “Two Become One Become Two.” Brethren Life and Thought 21
(Summer 1976): 133–37.
87
Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
Ryrie, Charles C. “Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage.” Grace Theological

Journal 3 (Fall 1982): 177–92.
Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis.” In vol. 2 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by

Schremer, Adiel. “Divorce in Papyrus Se’elim 13 Once Again: A Reply to Tal Ilan.”
Harvard Theological Review 91 (April 1998): 193–202.
Shaner, Donald W. A Christian View of Divorce: According to the Teaching of the New
Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill 1969.
Small, Dwight H. The Right to Remarry. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1975.
Smith, David. “Divorce and Remarriage in Church History.” Didadkalia 11 (Spring

2000): 59–75.
Smith, David L. “Divorce and Remarriage from the Early Church to John Wesley.” Trinity
Journal 11 (Fall 1990): 131–42.
Smith, Don T. “The Matthean Exception Clauses in Light of Matthew’s Theology and
Community.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 17 (1989): 55–82.
Sprinkle, Joe M. “Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 40 (December 1997): 529–50.
Steele, Paul E. and Charles C. Ryrie. “Are Divorce and Remarriage Ever Permissible?
No.” Fundamentalist Journal 3 (June 1984): 17, 19, 20, 43.
_____. Meant to Last: A Christian View of Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. Wheaton:
IL: Victor Books, 1984.
Stein, Robert H. “Is It Lawful for a Man to Divorce His Wife?” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 22 (June 1979): 115–21.
Stott, John R. W. Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus. Downers Grove,
IL: 1996.
Stuart, Douglas. “Malachi.” In The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository

Commentary. 3 vols. Edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1998.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S.v. “povrnh,” by Hauck/Schultz.
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. S.v. “rc;B;,” by N. P. Bratsiotis.
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. S.v. “qb'D;,” by Fabry.
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. S.v. “bz"[;,” by Gerstenberger.

88
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. S.v. “rc;B;,” by John N. Oswalt.
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. S.v. “qb'D;,” by Earl S. Kalland.
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. S.v. “bz"[;,” by Carl Schultz.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek
Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Vawter, Bruce. “Divorce and the New Testament.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39
(October 1977): 528–42.
Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. The New International Commentary
on the Old Testament. Edited by R. K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Warden, Duane. “The Words of Jesus on Divorce.” Restoration Quarterly 39 (Third

Quarter 1997): 141–53.
Warren, Andrew. “Did Moses Permit Divorce? Modal wéqatal as Key to New Testament
Readings of Deuteronomy 2:1–4.” Tyndale Bulletin 49 (May 1998): 39–56.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
_____. “Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited.” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 22 (October 1984): 95–107.
_____. “Marriage and Divorce in the Old Testament.” Didaskalia 1 (November 1989:
6–17.
_____. “May Divorced Christians Remarry?” Churchman 95 (1981): 150–61.
_____. “The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered.” Journal of Jewish Studies 30

(Spring 1979): 36–42.
_____. “The Syntax of Matthew 19:9.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28
(October 1986): 17–23.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg,

1990.
Wiebe, Phillip H. “Jesus’ Divorce Exception.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society 32 (September 1989): 327–33.
Witherington, Ben. “Matthew 5:32 and 19:9—Exception or Exceptional Situation?” New

Testament Studies 31 (October 1985): 571–76.
Wolf, Herbert M. Haggai and Malachi: Rededication and Renewal. Everyman’s Bible
Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1976.
Yarbrough, O. Larry. Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul. SBLDS
80. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
Yaron, R. “The Restoration of Marriage.” Journal of Jewish Studies 17 (1966): 1–11.

ThMThesis Divorce

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ThMThesis Divorce

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................vi

Statement of the Purpose of This Thesis...................................................................2

II. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.......................................................................................4

III. THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXTS ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE.................15

IV. THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE...............40

Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 (The Exception Clauses)....................................................40

VI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................77

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED...............................................................79

BAGD Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-

BKCNT Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament

BKCOT Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

DLNTD Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments

EDBT Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament

GTJ Grace Theological Journal

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

NAC New American Commentary

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TrinJ Trinity Journal

a severe price from society.

marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

Statement of the Purpose of This Thesis

for a divorced or divorced and remarried man to serve as a pastor or deacon.

to hold either office, if his divorce was done on scriptural grounds.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

intended for a married couple to be separated by divorce; in fact, divorce is a human

marriage is explained. By examining the origin of marriage, it is possible to deduce what

marriage is, and thereby establish a workable definition of marriage.

created in male and female forms.

will, which set apart man from other earthly creatures.

The Creation of Marriage

relationship were created by God to complete humanity.

foundation stone to building a theology of marriage. A through understanding of Genesis

A Working Definition of Marriage

The origin of marriage and its importance to a definition of marriage

of events is essential to building a biblical definition of marriage. When God initially

Marriage as a covenant before God is an aspect of the Creator-creature relationship that

institution itself as instituted by God as well as God’s sovereign work of providence by

commitment that he created for them. It is an act of God’s sovereign will.

Other essential elements to a definition of marriage

states two other essential elements to marriage.

First, marriage is made between a man and a woman

Second, marriage involves a formal commitment or covenant

cohabitants as married couples (“common-law” marriages) in some societies, only those

cohabitation as a valid marriage.11

or not will be covered in ensuing chapters.

Divorce and Remarriage: Three Views

Having established a definition of marriage, it is necessary to understand the various

permissible but remarriage is always sinful, or divorce is sometimes permissible and