Throughout history, the Christian Church has rightly recognized marriage as a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman in accordance with Scripture (Romans 7:2). Jesus Himself accordingly teaches that when a man and a woman are joined together in holy matrimony, the two become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:9).
Christ is also very clear on the fact that because the marriage union has been instituted and ordained by God, there is no human authority by which a marriage can be dissolved: “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Mark 10:9). Because marriage is a “holy institution” for the purpose of covenantally advancing Christ’s Kingdom through “godly offspring” (Malachi 2:11, 15), divorce is an abomination committed against God—a wicked attempt to overthrow His authority and destroy his Kingdom (Malachi 2:16).
Are you irritated by your spouse? Do you long to be with someone else? Are you longing for the privileges of being single again? God expects you not only to maintain and work on your marriage, but also to produce godly offspring. Under no circumstances may you abandon your spouse for your own sake.
Exceptions for Divorce?
However, it is universally recognized that Scripture does allow for divorce in those exceptional circumstances where sin has caused irreparable damage to the marriage union. Deuteronomy 24:1-3 officially recognizes a certificate of divorce as a legal document disbanding a marriage. Our infallible interpreter, Jesus Christ, however, tells us that this certificate of divorce is only recognized “because of the hardness of your heart” (Mark 10:5), thereby amplifying the divine intention behind marriage as being a lifelong commitment from both parties (Mark 10:6-9).
What is significant about Christ’s explanation of this law is the fact that it shows how even the Mosaic law made certain accommodations for the sake of our weaknesses and our sinfulness, evidently implying that the law of God is not merely some abstract standard of justice, but a very real and practical standard for our moral conduct as Christians. Furthermore, Christ Himself simultaneously confirms both the divine intention behind the institution of marriage as well as the law’s recognition of the permissibility of divorce in exceptional circumstances. Thus, while divorce in principle is forbidden by God, Jesus Himself recognizes sexual immorality as an exceptional circumstance in which divorce would be permissible (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).[1]
Restrictive Views on Remarriage After Divorce
Most Christian denominations and theologians recognize the reality that exceptional circumstances do exist in which divorce is permissible. However, a number of denominations completely oppose remarriage after divorce on the grounds of Jesus’ claims recorded in the three synoptic Gospels. In Matthew 19:9 (NKJV), we read the following words of Christ:
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.[2]
In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says:
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
In Luke 16:18, the words of Jesus is recorded as follows:
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Thus, while recognizing exceptional circumstances for divorce, the Roman Catholic Church, for example, does not recognize remarriage as permissible. The canon law of the Church of England also historically allowed only for separation of husband and wife in the case of adultery, but never for remarriage.[3] There are even some Reformed denominations that share this view, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches in America,[4] while most Presbyterian denominations, in an attempt to follow the Westminster Confession of Faith article 24.5 adhere to the principle that only the innocent party, in the case of adultery, may remarry.[5] The New Testament scholar from Capital Bible Seminary in Lanham, Maryland, Thomas R. Edgar, has also referred to this latter position as “the standard Protestant view.”[6] Some scholars have suggested that remarriage may also be permissible for the guilty party once they repent and ask forgiveness, as they then are then transformed by God’s grace into an innocent (or guilt-free) party.[7] However, in such cases there would be no need for remarriage, as repentance from the guilty party and forgiveness from the offended party should of course lead to reconciliation.
Seeing Jesus’ Words More Narrowly
However, it must be taken into consideration that neither the Westminster Confession nor Scripture claims adultery to be the sole legitimate grounds for divorce (see WCF 24.6 and 1 Corinthians 7:15). The reality is also that there are many divorcees who may have been guilty in causing their divorce, but did not commit adultery in the process leading up to the divorce, such as when the divorce was caused by abandonment. There may also be cases in which both parties are equally guilty in terms of causing the divorce, whether or not adultery had occurred. Would there be any circumstances in which remarriage would be biblically permissible in such cases? Another question the Westminster Confession leaves unanswered is whether an adulterer who has repented and come to faith may then marry again.
In addressing these questions, there are a number of Scriptural considerations to be taken into account:
Firstly, it is important to recognize that biblical law itself recognizes the possibility of a legitimate remarriage on the part of even the guilty party and even in cases of sexual immorality (Deuteronomy 24:1-2). If Christ’s commands in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 are taken as injunctions against all remarriage on the part of the guilty party, it would seem to be at odds with His own recognition of the law’s recognition of such marriages in Mark 10:5.
Secondly, biblical law itself, while requiring the death penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 11:20-25), legally distinguishes remarriage after divorce from adultery prior to divorce (Deuteronomy 24:2-4).
Third, the Scottish Presbyterian theologian and professor of Westminster Theological Seminary, John Murray (1898–1975) has convincingly shown how the Greek verb used in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18, μοιχεύει (moicheuei), modifies both preceding actions together, “divorcing” as well as “remarrying,” as opposed to these actions taken individually.[8] With regard to Matthew 19:19, Murray notes that it
is the thought of committing adultery by remarriage that is the ruling thought in this passage, and it is quite indefensible to suppress it… The subject dealt with, therefore, is putting away and remarriage in coordination, and this coordination must not be disturbed in any way. It is this coordination that leads up to and prepares the ground for the principal verb, namely, the committing of adultery on the part of the divorcing husband. It would be unwarranted, therefore, to relate the exceptive clause to anything else than the coordination.[9]
In other words, per the original Greek, the actions of divorce and remarriage together constitute adultery, and not the remarriage as such as in the case of the death of a spouse, for example.
Murray concludes that remarriage is therefore permissible for the innocent party,[10] but I believe that the implications of his syntactical observation extend beyond this. For if the actions of divorcing and remarrying are modified together, as Murray rightly shows, this should also impact our understanding of the of the Greek conjunction kai, which connects these actions in the text and is most commonly (and rightly) translated as “and.” The word kai can, after all, have both a copulative as well as a cumulative force.[11] In other words, taken as a cumulative particle, it can also be properly translated as “and also”—“whoever divorces his wife…and also marries another, commits adultery.” I believe that in light of the Analogia Scriptura,[12] such a translation would indeed convey the intended meaning of the verse, especially given that (1) Deuteronomy 24:1-3 does not equate all remarriage after divorce itself with adultery per se, and (2) Christ Himself recognizes Deuteronomy 24:1-3 as prescribing legitimate biblical marriage and divorce laws in Mark 10:5 where He refers to the law as a “precept.” Thus, Jesus Himself does not equate all remarriage after divorce with adultery per se.
Fifth, it must be remembered that Jesus was answering a specific question of the Pharisees when He addressed the issue of divorce and remarriage, namely whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason (Matthew 19:3, Mark 10:2). The issue in the text is therefore which lawful grounds there are for divorce. The context suggests that Jesus’ answer must relate to this very question regarding the grounds of divorce. Jesus is therefore primarily addressing the issue of divorce by referring to the act of divorce for the purpose of freeing oneself up to marry another as adultery, as opposed to all remarriage after a divorce without exception being adultery.
Jesus’ Central Point
Jesus’ central point thus was that to divorce your spouse so as to free yourself up to potentially marry another is not sufficient grounds for divorce, as these actions would effectively constitute adultery.[13] There are several reasons why I believe this to be the case.
First, as the professor of theology at Presbyterian Theological College in Melbourne Australia points out when discussing chapter 24.5 of the Westminster Confession, upon the remarriage of the innocent party, reconciliation becomes impossible just as if it were the case that the other party were dead, which frees up the formerly guilty party to the prospects of a fresh marriage—obviously upon the condition that they had earnestly sought forgiveness.[14] Such conditions—where reconciliation has become impossible—either through remarriage or death of the offended party, serve as practical examples where the law of Deuteronomy 24:1-3 would still be applicable today.
Second, Scripture knows nothing of marriage obligations after a marriage has been lawfully ended. Throughout Scripture, the implicit understanding is that one is either legally married or one is not. In light of this it should be noted that the remarriage can only be adultery if it infringes upon the legitimacy of the dissolved marriage, since adultery is, by definition, a crime of infidelity towards a spouse. Remarriage is therefore adultery inasmuch as that remarriage in itself makes reconciliation with a former spouse impossible.
Third, the Westminster Confession of Faith rightly only addresses the issue of remarriage within the context where adultery had taken place. In such cases, the innocent party is said to be free to remarry. However, the issue of divorces taking place independent of any adultery is not addressed. This is because in the passages addressing the issue of remarriage, Jesus is addressing a question with regard to the legitimate grounds for divorce, and as such His condemnation of remarriage must be understood as a form of adultery against the first marriage: either physically or in the heart as lust (Matthew 5:28). Thus, in such cases where divorces had been caused by desertion to the extent where the marriage union “can no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage” (WCF 24.6), remarriage should be permissible, since this would in practice be as if the other party to the marriage were dead. This would also include divorces where there is no desire for forgiveness and reconciliation on the part of the wronged party even when the formerly guilty party has shown clear signs of true repentance. In such a case the wronged party thereby forfeits their innocence, making reconciliation practically impossible. Furthermore, in cases where reconciliation has already become practically impossible by virtue of a second marriage, even the offending party, upon showing clear evidence of repentance, should be free to remarry since such a remarriage would not constitute an offence against the first marriage which in such a case cannot be remedied.
This interpretation is not only logical, but it is also in line with Christ’s claim in Matthew 5:28 where He equates sexual desire for a married woman as adultery committed in the heart, before pointing to how such unbecoming desires manifests in adultery through the remarriage of a divorced woman (Matthew 5:32). Thus, it is the remarriage of a divorcee when said remarriage was either a cause or result of the divorce which is prohibited by Scripture. Such an understanding on the prohibition of remarriage is also in line with the former Covenant Theological Seminary ethics professor, David Clyde Jones’ (1937–2017) interpretation of WCF 24.6 that Scripture “permits remarriage…where there is sufficient cause for dissolving the marriage bond,”[15] i.e. where the marriage “can [in] no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate” and remediation and reconciliation becomes impossible.
Remarriage is therefore morally equal to adultery inasmuch as that remarriage either caused or takes place as a result of the divorce, thereby making reconciliation and remediation impossible (WCF 24.6). The biblical commentator John Gill (1697–1771) hints at this understanding of the text when he notes in his commentary on Mark 10:10 that remarriage is adultery when it is done “to the injury of a former spouse.”[16] Furthermore, this interpretation is supported by the English theologian and textual critic Henry Alford (1810–1871), who notes that per the Greek text in Luke 16:18, it would be erroneous to suppose “that the dictum applies to the marrying ‘a woman divorced’… The proper English way of rendering the [Greek] word [ἀπολελυμένην, apolelumenen], would be, ‘a woman thus divorced’,”[17] in other words, a woman who has been divorced so as to marry another.
When it comes to the issue of divorce after remarriage, both the context of Jesus’ command, that is, as a response to Pharisees who were very liberal in their approach to divorce,[18] as well as the Greek text itself, points to the fact that Christ is teaching that whoever puts away their spouse so as to free themselves up to get with another is committing adultery through seemingly legal channels, and whoever marries a spouse put away for this purpose is therefore complicit in adultery. This is because such remarriages, in making remediation and reconciliation impossible, infringe upon the first marriage.
When it comes to remarrying divorcees, it must always be kept in mind that according to the Westminster Confession, the conditions which make reconciliation impossible is to be determined by ecclesiastical and civil governments, and not the spouses themselves either separately or even together, since this would of course lead to complete arbitrariness in the matter and certain violations against Christ’s prohibitions on remarriage.
Allowing for remarriage in exceptional cases where reconciliation is impossible and where the marriage union truly cannot be remedied by either the church or the civil magistrate—either because the former spouse has already died, already remarried, or perpetually refuses reconciliation even where clear evidence of genuine repentance is present—does not in itself necessarily imply that any divorce apart from exceptional cases such as adultery or desertion are legitimate divorces. And it most certainly does not imply that divorce, which is a form of covenant breaking, is permissible when, say, the husband and wife do not get along. The principle is only relevant to cases where the divorce has already taken place.
[1] The Greek word used by Jesus in Matthew 5:32 and 19:19 is πορνείᾳ “porneia,” which refers to sexual immorality in general, not merely adultery, and would, for example, include undisclosed acts of fornication (Deuteronomy 22:13-14).
[2] The final phrase of this passage: “and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery,” is included in the Textus Receptus, but not in the critical editions of Nestle-Aland.
[3] John Murray, “Divorce: Part III,” Westminster Theological Journal 10.1 (November 1947): 3.
[4] Protestant Reformed Evangelism Committee, “Until Death do Us Part” (2005), http://www.prca.org/current/Marriage/Pages%201-58.htm.
[5] Douglas Wilson, “Divorced Christians and Remarriage,” YouTube (September 4, 2012), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlr_USz1M1k.
[6] Thomas R. Edgar, “Divorce & Remarriage for Adultery and Desertion” in Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, ed. H. Wayne House (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 151.
[7] Craig S. Keener, Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 49.
[8] John Murray, Divorce, 7-8.
[9] Murray, 9-10.
[10] Ibid., 11
[11] Strong’s #2532: kai.
[12] The exegetical principle that Scripture is its own interpreter.
[13] Mark Bullen, What the Bible Really Teaches about Divorce and Remarriage (Brookfield, MI: Apprehending Truth Publishers, 2012), 69.
[14] Rowland S. Ward, The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Study Guide for the 21st Century (Lansville, Australia: Tulip 2021), 264-265.
[15] David Clyde Jones, “The Westminster Confession on Divorce and Remarriage,” Presbyterion: Covenant Seminary Review (1990), 36.
[16] John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible (Modernised and adapted for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. Wintebourne, Ontario: Larry Pierce), Mark 10:10.
[17] Henry Alford, “Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary: Matthew 19:9,” URL: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/hac/matthew-19.html.
[18] Bruce Barton et. al., Life Application New Testament Commentary (Carrol Stream, IL: Tyndale), 85.
Dr. Schlebusch is a historian, philosopher, and theologian from South Africa. He holds two BA degrees (theology and Latin) and a Master’s degree in philosophy from the University of the Free State. In 2018, he graduated with a PhD from the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.
