Divorce and Remarriage in The NT
Divorce and Remarriage in The NT
Divorce and Remarriage in The NT
Introduction
Many have undertaken an examination of this topic with more expertise and much more
time than I have had (less than four days). My short perusal of the assignment suggests a
complexity to the Biblical material and its application that increases in exponential proportions to
the time that one wrestles with the key Biblical texts. I cannot, therefore, operate under the
illusion that anything presented here will fully and finally settle the issues facing the Seventh-day
Advenstist Church in regard to divorce and remarriage. I take comfort, however, in the Biblical
dictum, “in a multitude of counselors there is safety.” It is my prayer that the thoughts in this
paper will play a small role in the difficult task that a small “multitude” has been asked to address.
In this paper I will examine the best-known divorce and remarriage texts in the NT (Matt
5:27-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; and 1 Cor 7) in canonical order with special
attention to the nearer and larger contexts in their respective documents. I have sought to focus
particularly on exegetical insights that may have been overlooked in previous attempts to examine
these passages. There is no attempt at a perfectly balanced presentation. This is merely intended
as a stimulus to discussion.
I close the paper with a few, brief comments regarding the implications of what I see in
1
these texts for our application of Scripture in the contemporary setting. Due to the brevity of the
time that I have had available I will not be referencing secondary sources here, but will be
focusing directly on what I have observed in the Biblical texts themselves. In light of the
discussion to follow it may prove expedient at some point to flesh out this paper in a more
substantial and scholarly way, making appropriate corrections along the way.
Matthew 5:27-32
Matt 5:27-32 occurs as part of a larger body of material generally called Jesus’ Sermon on
the Mount (Matt 5-7). Jesus is portrayed in Matthew as the Messianic King who functions as a
New Israel and a New Moses. As the Messianic King, Jesus is frequently referred to in terms
such as Christ (Messiah— although He avoids applying the term to himself), and Son of David.
His birth is portrayed in Matthew in terms of a clash of royal claims between Jesus and Herod
(Matt 2:3-8,16-18). His genealogy is traced through the kings of ancient Israel (1:6-12). He
receives royal gifts from the Magi (2:11). Toward the end of the book He enters Jerusalem as
king (21:5,9), is crowned with thorns (27:27-29), and is entombed with a royal burial and guard
(27:57-66). The account of the Sermon on the Mount, in this context, functions as a king
As the New Moses Jesus is threatened at birth by a hostile king and is the sole survivor of
infanticide (2:1-18). He fasts for 40 days (4:1-2) and then delivers the law on a mountain (Matt
5:1ff.). He administers twelve disciples who are conscious counterparts of the twelve tribes (Matt
19:28). He is glorified on a mountaintop (Matt 17) and feeds a multitude in the desert (Matt 14).
2
His teachings are collected in the Gospel of Matthew into five large segments corresponding to
the five books of Moses (Matt 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25). The account of the Sermon on the Mount,
in this context, functions as the New Moses affirming (Matt 5:17-19) and clarifying the teachings
As the New Israel Jesus is Mary’s firstborn (Matt 1:18-25, cf. Exod 4:22-23), is brought
up out of Egypt (Matt 2:13-15,19-20, cf. Hos 11:1ff.), passes through the waters of baptism
(Matt 3), spending a period of 40 days being tested in the desert (Matt 4) and selects 12 disciples
who function in relation to the original sons of Jacob did (Matt 19:28). In His life and His death
in Matthew, Jesus suffers the curses of the covenant as spelled out in Deuteronomy 28:15-64
(poverty, being smitten before His enemies, darkness, mockery, hunger, nakedness [27:35] and a
trembling heart [26:37-38]). The account of the Sermon on the Mount functions, in this context,
as a new covenant, spelling out the obligations of a New Israel in Jesus’ Messianic Kingdom.
The more immediate context of Matt 5:27-32, within the Sermon on the Mount itself, is
the “greater righteousness” of Matt 5:20, “Unless your righteousness should abundantly exceed
that of the scribes and Pharisees you will certainly never enter into the kingdom of heaven (my
translation).” In Matt 5:21-48 Jesus clarifies what He means by “greater righteousness” with a
series of six contrasts between “it was said” (errethe) and “but I say to you” (ego de lego humin).
3
In each of these cases the citizens of Jesus’ kingdom are called to a higher standard of
righteousness than that taught by the scribes and the Pharisees (cf. 5:17-19). The New Moses
The Pharisees were generally very careful to avoid overt violations of the seventh
commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But in two areas Jesus calls into question their
commitment to the kind of righteousness that His kingdom requires. They permitted themselves
to consider the option of a better wife, “window shopping” with lustful intent. And they allowed
themselves to replace their wives with “better” or more attractive specimens at the cost of a mere
certificate of divorce. As is the case with Jesus’ teachings about retaliation and love for enemies
(Matt 5:38-48), I believe that these two issues are intentionally related to each other. The looking
with lust is the precursor and the pretext for adulterous divorce. The following exegetical insights
At first glance the “any man” (pas) who looks at a woman with lust would seem to be the
generic male, any man, single or married, who does this is committing adultery in his heart.
Without diminishing the general principle that men (and women) should guard what their eyes see
(I have frequently preached this passage in that way and plan to continue), the specific focus of
this passage is more narrow. For one thing, the term “adultery” in Scripture is consistently related
to sexual acts that affect a marriage negatively, it is not used for the wide range of sexual actions
that singles might get involved in. Also the “any man” is clarified by the parallel passage in 5:32
(“whoever (pas) should happen to divorce his wife. . .”), where the married man is clearly in view.
4
So the specific focus of 5:28 is on the married man who looks lustfully at a woman who is not his
wife.
What is this lustful look all about? The original language is much clearer than most
translations on this point. What is in view is looking “with the purpose of lusting” (pros to
epithumesai) in one’s heart. The articular infinitive with a leading preposition is one of the
clearest and most consistent ways to express intent and purpose in the Greek language. The focus
of this passage is not on just any looking, but specifically the looking of a married man who is
examining a particular woman with the purpose of lusting after her in his heart.
This is a very effective description of the fantasizing and flirtation process that precedes
acts of adultery for days, weeks, and even months and years. Except that in this case the
(generic) Pharisee that Jesus has in view does not contemplate that his lusting will result in an act
of adultery but rather the exchanging of a present wife for a more attractive one (or at least a
more novel one). Jesus thinks of this as “serial adultery” or perhaps, in extreme cases of repeated
divorce, “punctuated prostitution.” Jesus sees no difference between discarding a wife in order to
marry another and having sexual relations with one woman while married to another. If these
insights are correct, a critical component of interpretation here is to see the two parts of Matt
5:27-32 as related to the same overall topic, the deeper meaning of the adultery commandment.
There are three elements in Matt 5:32 that have proven to be rather problematic to
interpreters over the years. The most prominent of these is the so-called “exception clause.”
Whoever divorces his wife “except for the matter of fornication” (parektos logou porneias) causes
adultery to happen. The word “except for” (parektos) is a rare word (appears only three times in
5
the whole NT and perhaps a dozen more times in the ancient Greek world) whose meaning is
uncertain. It can be used as an improper preposition to mean “apart from” or “except for.” This
may be the case in Acts 26:29, although even there it is uncertain. But parektos can also be used
as an adverb expressing something along the lines of “notwithstanding” or “besides” which seems
to be the case in 2 Cor 11:28. This usage would not be an exception, rather it would heighten the
intensity of the prohibition against divorce. Anyone who divorces even where fornication is
The evidence is not clear enough to be dogmatic either way, and since the other two
occurrences have different meanings the understanding of parektos in Matt 5:32 is, at best,
debatable. If this were the only place in Matthew where an “exception clause” occurred, it would
make sense to deny the existence of an exception since Mark, Luke and Paul all note comparable
statements by Jesus that make no exceptions. But the presence of Matt 19:9 ensures that things
we accept the idea of an exception, what exactly is Jesus excepting? Which of the ancient
word for adultery? Is it all of the above? The meaning of the term is left unstated and is not
clarified by reference to Matt 5:28 where different Greek words are used.
The third problematic element in Matt 5:32 is the significance of the passive voice in
“causes her to commit adultery” (poiei auten moicheuthenai). The typical English translation of
the passage takes off from the word “causes” (poiei) to treat the passive as if it were an active.
6
At the time when he divorces her, he causes her “to commit adultery.” Since there is no mention
of remarriage here, and many cast-off wives never remarry in any case, such a translation is hard
to understand in any actual sense, even if one takes a spiritual view of the term along the lines of
the “adultery” in Matt 5:28. Is it, perhaps, better to take the passive seriously as an implication of
“stigma” or perception. If fornication is a widely accepted ground for divorcing a wife, then when
a man takes the initiative to divorce his wife it leaves the perception that the wife had broken her
vows. Her reputation is ruined. But even this interpretation falls short of certainty.
It is crystal clear from this passage that Jesus held a much higher standard in relation to
divorce than did the scribes and Pharisees of His day. In most cases, at least, divorce is not far
removed from adultery. Whether Jesus had exceptions in mind, what exactly those exceptions
were, and exactly what consequences were seen to result is less clear from this passage.
Matt 19:3-12
There are two ways to come at the context of Matt 19, neither mutually exclusive. One is
to see the incident at the beginning of the chapter as a follow-up to the teaching material in
chapter 18. In Matt 18 there is a section on the importance of being kind and tender to the “little
ones” in the church (1-14). This is followed by rules for confrontation (15-20) and a parable
about an unforgiving servant (21-35). While the middle passage may, at first glance, seem a bit
out of character with the first and last parts (which focus on gentleness and forgiveness), the
reaction of the disciples in 18:21 suggests that the gentleness and forgiveness theme is to be
7
applied there as well. The implication would be that if a “brother” sins against you, go to them
privately, but when you go, go bringing forgiveness. Only if they reject your advance does the
forgiveness fail to take effect. The approach of Matt 18:15 is governed by the parable of Matt
18:21-35 (note the prominence of the term “brother” once more in the conclusion to the chapter
(18:35).
If Matt 18 is the determining context for the incident in Matt 19:3-12 it would suggest a
subtext where forgiveness within the marriage becomes an alternative to divorce. A problem with
this connection is the language of a major break in Matt 19:1 (“When Jesus had finished saying
these things, he left Galilee. . .”). But such language is less likely to break up theological
development in the gospels than it might in other types of material (note, for example, the intimate
connection between the discourse in Matt 23 and that of Matt 24-25 in spite of the geographic
The passage in Matt 19:3-12 is also related to a larger context in Matthew. Matthew
contains a series of direct challenges to Jesus from the Pharisees. These begin with the incident in
the grain field on the Sabbath day (Matt 12:2) and continue (Matt 15:1; 16:1; 21:23; 22:15)
through a variety of situations, climaxing with the challenge regarding the greatest commandment
in Matt 22:34. These challenges are brought to a close by the comment in Matt 22:46, “From that
day on , no one dared ask Him anything anymore.” The challenge in 19:3 comes right in the
The motive behind the question of 19:3, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any
and every cause,” was to “test” Jesus. Crucial to the situation may be the location, in the region
8
of Judea beyond the Jordan. This was the territory of Herod Antipas, who killed John the Baptist.
Jesus’ adversaries may have hoped that they could entice Him to condemn Herod’s marriage the
way the Baptist had, thereby bringing His career to an untimely end also.
The question recorded in Matt 19:3 was intended to put Jesus in a bind. If He agreed with
Hillel’s position (any and every cause) they would accuse Him of being lax. If He agreed with
Shammai’s position (only for sexual indency) they would accuse Him of hypocrisy, since He
welcomed and ate with open sinners. If He agreed with neither position, they would accuse Him
Jesus turns the tables on them by expanding the discussion beyond Deut 24:1 to the intent
of God for the original creation. He quotes from Gen 1:27 (and its parallel in 5:2) and 2:24.
Since Moses also wrote the creation account, Jesus could not be accused of contradicting Moses
even as He disagreed with their interpretation of Moses. He concludes (verse 6) with the
comment that it is God that joins husband and wife together, humans are not to separate what
This created a contradiction in their minds between what Moses recorded in Genesis and
what he “commanded” in Deut 24 (verse 7). Jesus responds that Moses commanded nothing in
regard to divorce, he permitted it because they would have it no other way, but this was a
deviation from God’s original intent (verse 8). There is an interesting interplay between the
Matt 19:9 is the crucial text. “But I say to you that whoever should divorce his wife,
9
except for fornication (or “not upon fornication,” me epi porneia), and marry another woman
commits adultery (moichatai).” Here Matthew avoids the problematic term (parketos) but still
does not choose the clearest Greek expression for an exception (ean me-- “if not, except”) While
this is probably used to indicate an exception (epi with the dative can mean “on the basis of”
among other things), Matthew was not as clear as he could have been. Again, in the absence of
an exception clause in Mark, Luke and Paul, the presence of an exception here is less than certain.
And once again the exact nature of the exception (signaled by the ambiguous porneia again) is
unclear. What is clear is that whatever the exception it must have seemed too little for comfort,
since Jesus’ own disciples react with horror to Jesus’ pronouncement in verse 10! Any marriage
that is dissolved without proper grounds and is followed by a remarriage results in adultery. This
direct tie between the divorce and the remarriage is in contrast with Matt 5 where the “adultery”
Another area of difficulty, again, is the voice of the verb for “adultery” (moichatai) in
verse 9. Here the middle/passive is used without an object. Whoever divorces his wife and
marries another “is adulterified.” This is perhaps best translated as a reflexive, “causes himself to
commit adultery.” The combination of divorce and remarriage results in making the one who
There is an interesting further possibility in the grammar of 19:9. Jesus would, of course,
have been speaking Aramaic in the original situation. In the Hebrew and Aramaic of the OT the
waw (“and”) is used in a number of instances with purposive force: “He who divorces his wife in
order to (kai) marry another. . .” If Jesus used such a waw of purpose it would tie this passage
10
much closer to Matt 5:27-32. Anyone who divorces his wife “with the purpose of” marrying
another woman commits adultery. This translation underlines the tie between the divorce and the
remarriage and indicates that the guilt in divorce is not established so much by the outward
It is generally assumed that Jesus’ comment in verse 11, “not everyone can accept this
word,” applies to the disciples’ reaction and not to Jesus own comment in verse 9. The
elaboration regarding “eunuchs for the kingdom” and renouncing marriage in verse 12 would
Once again Jesus sets a much higher standard than was common in his day. In this text
the presence of an exception clause seems more likely, although the exact nature of the exception
remains unclear. It may be that the crucial aspect of Jesus’ comment is the intent of the one
initiating divorce. Seen in the light of Matt 18, forgiveness becomes the antidote to divorce when
a man is faced with “any and every reason.” The focus of Jesus is not on the penalty for breaking
Mark 10:2-12
The context of our passage in Mark 10 is surprisingly similar to that of Matt 19. Although
Mark has no collection of material quite like Matt 18 (neither the parable of the unforgiving
servant nor the rules about how to confront a brother occur in Mark at all), the previous pericope
is concerned with the treatment of “little ones” in the church (Mark 9:42), which would have
included wives in those days, since their rights were few and far between.
11
As with Matt 19 the episode occurs in the territories of Herod Antipas and involves a
confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees, a frequent event in Mark also (Mark 2:23-24; 7:5;
Mark 10 is clearly parallel to Matt 19, although the order of the material is different in
places. Pharisees ask Jesus, to test Him, whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus
asks them, “What did Moses command you?” They reply on the basis of Deut 24, “Moses
permitted men to write a certificate of divorce so they could go their separate ways.” Ironically,
the Greek of Mark 10 is the reverse of Matt 19. Jesus asks them what Moses commanded. They
reply in terms of what he permitted! Jesus then states that Moses’ “commandment” came into
existence because of the hardness of their hearts. He continues with the same quotations from
In Mark, however, the crucial divorce statement is not given to the Pharisees, it is given to
the disciples later on “in the house.” In verse 11 He tells them, “Whoever should divorce his wife
and marry another commits adultery against her.” Once again we must reckon with the possibility
of a kai of purpose. The interesting difference between this statement and the one in Matthew is
that the husband commits adultery “against her.” This addition makes sense in the light of the
context, where gentle treatment of the “little ones” is mandated. Notably absent from this verse is
Verse 12 introduces a new direction for our study. Jesus states, “If she, having divorced
her husband, should marry another, she commits adultery.” This statement implies the right of a
12
woman to divorce, something which was not done in the Jewish context but was a possibility in
the Greco-Roman world to which Mark was probably addressed. What is not clear, at least at my
current level of reading, is whether this implies a fresh situation, where the wife initiates the
divorce and is treated in similar terms to a man in the same situation, or whether the “she” of
verse 12 is the same woman who was divorced in verse 11. If so, this statement is by far the
strictest we have examined, allowing neither exception clause nor remarriage for the “innocent”
spouse. The problem with that reading is that the aorist participle in verse 12 (“having
divorced”— apolusasa) is active, which would suggest that she is the initiator of the divorce.
This passage introduces a number complexities to our quest when we compare it with the
two in Matthew. Jesus reverses the “commanded/permitted” dialogue with the Pharisees, He
leaves out the exception clause, He notes that the adultery of divorce is committed “against her,”
and women appear to be described as potential initiators of divorce and its consequences.
Luke 16:18
The larger context of Luke 16 is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, which involves a major
portion of the gospel, from chapters 9 to 19. The purpose of this section within the gospel is
similar to what takes place in the upper room before the crucifixion in the Gospel of John. Jesus
knows that He will die in Jerusalem, so He uses the journey there to prepare His disciples for a
future without His physical presence. This section contains many of the best-loved parables that
are unique to Luke; the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus, as well as
13
The more immediate context of Luke 16 is 15:1-2. The tax collectors and “sinners” were
all gathering around Jesus to hear what He had to say. The Pharisees and the scribes grumble
about this, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
Jesus responds to this comment with three parables, the parable of the lost sheep, the
parable of the lost coin, and the parable of the lost son. In essence He says, “Guilty as charged”
three times over. The three parables illustrate God’s concern for the lost. This concern is in stark
contrast with the disdain of the Pharisees toward the tax collectors and sinners.. Luke 16
continues focusing on the encounter of 15:1-2. The parable of the shrewd manager is difficult,
but it clearly has something to do with the Pharisees, who are said in 16:10-14 to be in love with
money. They therefore have the same spirit and attitude as the tax collectors. They use their
disdain for the tax collectors to cover up the misuse of their own stewardship. Then in 16:18
Jesus shows that the Pharisees’ willingness to practice “serial adultery” demonstrates that they
have the same spirit and attitude as the “sinners” they despise. So Luke 16:18 is part of Luke’s
larger design to contrast the spiritual kingdom ruled over by the Pharisees with the one introduced
by Jesus.
What is striking in Luke 16:18 is that verbs for “commit adultery” are unmistakably in the
active voice. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who
marries the one who was divorced from her husband, commits adultery.” Again there are no
exceptions. But here it is not the woman who is tagged with the adultery label, that is reserved
for the one who divorces her and the one who marries her afterward. The Pharisees who
14
grumbled about Jesus’ attitude toward sinners were male religious leaders. So Jesus directs His
ire toward the males who divorce and remarry freely, according to their whims.
As is usually the case with the materials in the Synoptic Gospels, there is a stunning
amount of both similarity and difference in these four texts on divorce. What is, perhaps, even
more striking is the fact that each of them is well suited to its context. None of these
prescriptions is stated in absolute terms. Each deals with a specific case and states God’s ideal for
marriage along with some reflection on the consequences of marriage breakdown. The
differences caution us against making hasty judgments about both the meaning and the application
of these statements.
1 Corinthians 7
The church at Corinth seems to qualify as a “problem church.” It is split into competing
groups, divided in part out of loyalty to various teachers who helped raise up the church (1 Cor
1:12-13; 3:3-4). There were differences in the church over such issues as the validity of Paul’s
apostleship, lawsuits among believers, the eating of food offered to idols, procedures for
celebrating the Lord’s Supper, the validity of the gift of tongues and the reality of the
resurrection. In such a setting it is not surprising that there might also be differences regarding
The sexual and marital issues are addressed in chapters 5-7 of 1 Corinthians. Paul
15
responds with horror that the church has not broken fellowship with a man practicing incest with
his father’s wife (presumably not his birth mother). (For the record, incest is described in 1 Cor
5:1 as a “kind of porneia” which illustrates the diversity of meaning the term can have.) This text
makes it clear the sexual and marital aberrations are not simply moral matters, between someone
and God, church fellowship needs to be at stake in at least some situations (1 Cor 5:2,9-13).
Having said that, however, please note Paul’s change of tone in 2 Cor 2:5-11 (“The punishment
inflicted on him is sufficient, now you ought to forgive and comfort him so that he is not
overwhelmed by excessive sorrow). When it comes to these issues the practice is even tougher
than the exegesis. The Corinthian church, like many churches, tended to oscillate between
extremes.
In chapter 6 Paul urges the members in Corinth to flee from porneia, this time defining it
in terms of consorting with prostitutes. Such behavior is clearly incompatible with a life that is in
tune with the Spirit of God (6:12-20). Then in chapter 7 Paul addresses issues closest to our
In the first six chapters of 1 Corinthians Paul writes on the basis of reports that he has
heard from members of the church that have paid a visit to him (1:11-12). Beginning with 7:1
Paul addresses issues that the church itself has presented in a letter. He writes, “Now concerning
the things you wrote about. . .” Part of this construction, “Now concerning” (peri de), is repeated
at intervals (7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1) to signal that Paul is returning to the letter for his next point.
Since the Corinthian church apparently reacts to 1 Corinthians by accusing Paul of being wishy-
washy and unreliable (2 Cor 1:12 - 2:4; 7:2-4,8-12), it is likely that some at least of the
16
“aberrations” in Corinthian theology and practice were based on honest misunderstandings of
It is possible that I am not seeing straight, but at this point I must confess that I am
puzzled that so little energy has been invested in a discussion of 1 Cor 7, outside of verses 10-16.
Many aspects of the chapter seem to speak to this issue, yet I find little comment about it in
papers, books and articles dealing with the issue of divorce and remarriage. Let me share what I
am seeing so far.
The issue that triggers the questions of the Corinthians and the discussion of Paul is Paul’s
own view that it is better not to be married during the time of “present distress” (1 Cor 7:1,25-
26). The most likely background for Paul’s view is that he was of the opinion, at that point in his
ministry, that he was part of the last generation of earth’s history (1 Cor 7:26,29-31, cf. 1 Thess
4:17), a conviction that makes his advice in this chapter of great interest to “adventists” in every
generation. But trying to carry out Paul’s view seemed to be compounding the “present distress”
in the church rather than helping to streamline the church as it prepared for the last days.
In this chapter, therefore, we see Paul holding to his ideals, but recognizing that those
ideals had to be nuanced in the real world. This tension between the ideal and the real is
expressed in two ways in this chapter. It is expressed, first, by a series of absolute assertions
tempered by statements which follow “but ifs” (ei de, ean de, and dia de in the Greek). Paul
states a series of ideals, then declares what kinds of things are permissible when the ideal is not
reached (sometimes, as in the case of verses 10-11 and 39, the real is expressed in terms of
17
another absolute that seems to function for Paul like a “Plan B”).
A second way the ideal and the real is expressed in the chapter is in direct statements such
as that in 7:6, “I say this by way of permission, not by command.” The unusual word translated
allowance for.” It expresses something that may be allowed or even required on account of
reality, but is not the best-case scenario. (Cf. 7:28,35, and especially 38-- “the one who marries
does right, the one who does not marry does even better.”) All other things being equal, Paul will
stick with his absolutes, but things in this world are not always equal (some would argue that they
are rarely so). Such a less than ideal reality can even be described as a “gift from God” (1 Cor
7:7). An absolute may be desirous in all cases, but it may not be achievable in all cases.
Before we examine this series of “but ifs” there are a couple of other exegetical issues in
the chapter that impinge on our discussion. In verses 10-12 there is an interesting interplay
between Paul and Jesus. The instruction that, “The wife must not separate from her husband,”
comes not from Paul but “the Lord” (verse 10-- ouk ego alla ho kurios), most likely based on the
tradition behind Mark 10:11-12 (since Mark was probably not yet written at this time).
Presumably this is also the case with the instruction in verse 11, “but if she leaves, let her remain
unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, and the husband should not divorce his wife.” Then in
verse 12 Paul goes on, “to the rest I say, not the Lord. . .” (Lego ego ouk ho kurios).
The relationship between a command from the earthly Christ and the counsel of an apostle
or prophet under the direction of the heavenly Christ is the subject of much debate and cannot be
settled in the course of a brief paper like this. One thing, however, seems clear to me from the
18
above verses. Paul does not consider the statements of Jesus to be a comprehensive guide to the
issue of marriage and divorce. Further revelation and a good dose of common sense are both
needed to flesh out both the will and the permission of God in a complex world.
Another crucial exegetical issue is the meaning of the term “unmarried” (agamos) in this
chapter. The term occurs four times (verses 8, 11. 32 and 34) and is associated with three other
term “unmarried” clearly refers to someone who was once married and is no longer, but whose
former spouse remains alive. This is in contrast with two other categories, virgin (one who has
never married) and widow (one who is no longer married, but the spouse is dead). The issue is
whether the term “unmarried” represents a specific category in the other three occurrences as well
or whether it is used in a broader, more generic sense, to include virgins and widows.
In verse 8 the “unmarried” are listed with the “widows” in the category of
believers for whom it is “good to remain as Paul” is. In verse 34 the “unmarried” are listed with
the “virgins” in contrast to the married. The crucial issue in these two verses is the force of the
Greek “and” (kai). The normal usage of kai is to separate two distinct categories. But in some
circumstances kai can mean “also,” “even” or “namely.” In the latter case Paul would be saying,
“the woman who is unmarried, namely (or “even”) the virgin, is concerned about the things of the
Lord” (verse 34) or “to the unmarried, namely to the widows. . .” (verse 8). But while such a
construction is grammatically possible, it strikes one as awkward and raises the question why Paul
would want to limit the statements in those verses to the virgins and the widows only. More
19
likely, the term “unmarried” is being used as a technical term for a category of individuals who
were once married but are now unmarried even though the spouse remains alive. In other words,
it is quite possible that what Paul meant by “unmarried” is the same as what we mean by
“divorced” today.
Although the term “unmarried” is not used in verses 27 and 28 Paul may be elaborating on
the category when he says, “Are you bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed, are you loosed
(opposite of “bound”-- “in an unbound state) from a wife, do not seek a wife, but if you should
marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.” Who are included in the
group that is in an “unbound state?” Virgins here are a separate category, so reference would
seem to be to the “unmarried” whose spouses are alive but unavailable. This seems a clear
statement that the remarriage of divorced persons is permissible under at least some
circumstances. The word “release” (lelusai, lusin) in this passage is different from the word “free”
(eleuthera), which Paul uses in verse 39 to describe the situation of a wife whose husband has
died, nor is the term used to describe the situation of the one whose husband has deserted her
I’d like to turn now to the series of “but ifs” in the chapter which consistently contrast the
ideal and the real. The first is found in 7:1-2 (this is the only occasion where one of the two “if”
words is missing in the formula, but all other elements are present and the “because of” [dia]
seems to function as the “if factor”). Paul’s ideal is that “it is good for a man not to touch a
woman BUT because of fornication let each man have his own wife and each woman her own
husband.” The ideal for Paul is not to marry, but in a sinful world marriage is a bulwark against
20
sexual temptation. Verse 6 underlines that the marriage option is a concession, it is not
In verse 8 the ideal is that the unmarried and the widows would remain as Paul is,
unmarried. BUT IF “they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to
burn” (verse 9). In the real world some do not have the “gift” (verse 7) of self-control, so
The Lord Himself stands behind an ideal for the married in verse 10, “the wife should not
leave her husband, BUT IF she leaves, she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to her
husband” (verse 11). Here the failure of the ideal seems to lead to a second ideal, a Plan B.
In verses 12 and 13 Paul goes beyond the teaching of Jesus to deal with a fresh situation.
Apparently the Corinthians had some concerns about being “unequally yoked with unbelievers.”
When a married person becomes a Christian and the spouse does not, is divorce a requirement of
Christian faith? Paul’s ideal is that if the unbeliever consents to remain, the Christian should not
seek a divorce, “BUT IF the unbeliever leaves, let him leave, the brother or sister is not bound in
such a case” (verse 15). The word for “bound” (dedoulotai) in this verse is used in verses 27 and
39 to describe the obligation to continue in marriage “til death do us part.” Does that mean the
deserted spouse is free to remarry? Has Paul added a new exception clause under the guidance of
the Spirit? The answer is not simple and clear to me at this point but verses 28 and 39 seem to
imply that the freeing of the bond (in those cases at least) includes the right to remarry in the
Lord.
The fifth ideal/real contrast in 1 Cor 7 begins with verse 26, after an extended elaboration
21
upon Paul’s fundamental principle that “each is to remain in the situation in which he was called.”
Paul seems to be arguing that coming to Christ is a radical enough change in and of itself, so
Christians are, as far as possible, to remain in the condition in which they became Christians,
whether married, unmarried, virgin, widow, slave, or free (cf. verses 17-24). He reiterates the
principle in verse 26, “it is good for a man to remain as he is.” He elaborates on the principle in
verse 27, “Are you bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed, are you loosed from a wife do not
seek a wife, BUT IF you should marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not
sinned.” As we have noted above, the remarriage of divorced persons is never the ideal, but in
Paul continues to elaborate on the principle of remaining as you are, arguing (in verses 29-
31) that the heightened tensions of the last days have made this principle all the more relevant.
Furthermore, marriage, even at its best, requires attention to secular matters that could be left
aside if a person remained in an unmarried state (verses 32-35). So at verse 35 Paul is still
arguing for the basic principle that Christians should remain in the condition in which they were
called. Then he states a second concession to that ideal, “BUT IF any man thinks he is casting
shame upon his virgin (daughter or girlfriend?), IF she is aging. . . let him do what he wishes, he
has not sinned, let them marry (verse 36).” The ideal of remaining in the condition in which one
became a Christian is not to be pressed in all circumstances. The real, in this case, is good, the
The last set of “but if” contrasts breaks no new ground, but demonstrates how
circumstances alter cases in Paul’s mind. “A wife is bound (to her husband) for the full time that
22
her husband is alive, BUT IF the husband should fall asleep (figurative of death), she is free to
marry whoever she wishes, only in the Lord” (verse 39). The ideal holds for Paul as long as
certain conditions pertain, when those conditions no longer exist, one moves from the ideal to the
The material on divorce and remarriage in 1 Cor 7 has proven to be as difficult and as
complex as the material in the gospels. But this much seems clear. It is not sufficient to total up
the absolutes of Scripture and apply them with unbending force to every situation. Circumstances
alter cases. The absolutes of Scripture are a necessary safeguard to the foolishness of the human
heart. But in today’s world, as in the time of Paul, a divorce and remarriage policy that works
will have to be based also on the realities of life at the end of the 20th century. Circumstances alter
cases, and a church policy on this matter must allow sufficient flexibility so that local churches can
apply the principles of Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit. In this matter we may wish to
consider the words of Ellen White that if mistakes are likely to be made it is better to “err on the
I am far from prepared to say exactly what such a principled and flexible policy should be
like, but I have a suggestion to make regarding the process by which that decision will be made.
Perhaps this is already planned, but I will mention it anyway here. As I went over the names of
the people on this committee I noticed that none of the people that I knew on the committee had
ever experienced a divorce and the resulting headaches of dealing with church policy in the midst
of one’s own pain. It may have been a point of wisdom to make sure that no one would vitiate
the study of inspiration by a desire to justify their own prior actions. But along with careful
23
attention to Scripture, I would appeal to the committee to bring in a variety of divorced SDAs
from a variety of places and circumstances (at least 4-6) and let them tell their stories including
the good, the bad, and the ugly about how our church currently deals with the issue of divorce
and remarriage. Only when knowledge of the ideal is combined with knowledge of the real will
we have any hope of being able to follow in the footsteps of the great apostle Paul.
Concluding Remarks
I realize that the above is far from mature enough to be a final word on the subject at
hand. The NT evidence must also be put together with that of the OT and the writings of Ellen
White on the subject. Attention must also be given to the realities of the present times that are
often far less than ideal. But I think the major conclusion of any such a study is not hard to see,
even at this preliminary point. We have at least three models to follow in our application of
inspiration, Moses, Paul, and Ellen White (Jesus’ pronouncements are of fundamental importance
to our task but seem to function more at the theoretical level). All three figures have two things
in common. They each state the ideal of lifelong fidelity in no uncertain terms. The absolutes are
stated as if there were no exceptions and no possibility of pardon for transgression. Yet when
confronted with less than ideal circumstances, each showed a remarkable flexibility in addressing
human need in the context of the real world (It may be instructive, however, to keep in mind that
Jesus often exhibited what was considered shockingly lenient behavior toward sinners such as the
woman taken in adultery [John 8:1-11] and the woman at the well, whose five marriages are
acknowledged as valid [John 4:18, cf.. Luke 15:1-2 and other places]).
Two principles that govern my concluding reflections need to be stated clearly and openly.
24
One is the sense that in Scripture the truth is often stated in terms of a tension between two poles.
The term “tension” is not used here to suggest contradictory assertions, rather it points a balance
between “logical” opposites, both of which are true. When infinite truth is poured into the finite
cup of human language and experience, the cup always shatters, for human logic cannot fully
survive the shock. Maintaining a balance between Biblical opposites is like holding two magnets
together north to north and south to south. They want to fly apart, but with considerable force
Many Biblical truths are like that. Although they are true, they defy human logic. For
example, Christians affirm on the basis of Scripture that Jesus is fully (100 %) human and fully
(100%) divine. But 100% and 100% make 200%, which is logically impossible (in human terms).
The God-man Jesus Christ is logically impossible, yet He existed. A truly Biblical theology will
affirm both poles of the Biblical teaching. Heresy, on the other hand, happens when people affirm
Jesus’ humanity at the expense of His divinity or vice versa. Heresy tends to affirm logic over
Scripture and is prepared to misread Scripture in order to defend the logic of a heretical reading
of Scripture. So in Scripture there are, among other things, tensions between faith and works,
justification and judgment, and the now and the not yet, each with its own contrasting heresies.
I believe that a full understanding of the NT position on divorce and remarriage will draw
out another example of Biblical tension, a tension between the ideal and the real, between
absolutes and exceptions. The Scriptures call us to wrestle with titanic tensions and apply them in
real-life situations with both utter faithfulness toward Scripture and the God It represents and
25
absolute tenderness toward the “little ones” who will have to bear the brunt of any exegetical
A second principle that governs my concluding reflections is the principle of the clear and
the unclear. When our goal is to apply the authority of Scripture to a world-wide body of
believers, it is absolutely mandatory that we operate from what is at least reasonably clear in the
Scriptures. In interpreting Scripture we must move from the clear to the unclear. That which is
clear must be taken with absolute humility. That which is not clear must not be pressed beyond
the limits of what is given. Our goal is complete faithfulness to the Word of God to the fullest
extent of our present understanding. The problem is that the human heart is unwilling to submit
to the Word of God and will often go to great lengths to avoid the implications of its teachings.
There is more than one way to undermine the Word of God. The liberal heresy is fairly
obvious. The liberal takes the clear things of Scripture and determines that he or she does not
wish to live by some or all of those teachings, so he or she goes about rationalizing,
demythologizing, criticizing, ignoring and undermining the clear teachings of Scripture until they
no longer seem so clear and, therefore, can be safely dispensed with in terms of authority for
everyday life. The conservative heresy is equal and opposite. The conservative takes the unclear
things of Scripture, is greatly frustrated by the lack of clarity, and, therefore, harmonizes,
elaborates, and extrapolates in order to “clarify” that which is unclear and then hit everyone else
over the head with it! (Given the shortness of preparation time, I fear that a careful examination of
Given the nature of human avoidance of unpleasant truths, the only safe course in dealing
26
with any subject is to ground our authority not on the vicissitudes of human reasoning, but on the
solid rock of the clear teachings of Scripture. Where the message of Scripture is clear and
undisputable, it must be applied with courage and conviction regardless of those who mock and
quibble. Where Scripture is unclear, care must be exercised lest well-meaning believers abuse the
“little ones” with “truths” that sound Scriptural but are ultimately the by-product of human
reasoning.
If the above analysis of Scripture texts should prove reasonably correct, what is clear and
what is unclear about the Scriptural teaching on divorce and remarriage? One thing seems
perfectly clear to me. The Bible never describes divorce in terms of the ideal. Divorce is never
the will of God, it is the result of human sinfulness. Even where the divorce occurs as the result
of adultery or desertion, it is not a blessing, only a concession. It is still an action contrary to the
ultimate will of God. It is, therefore, absolutely imperative that whatever policy the Church
Now in this paper I have explored some of the exegetical edges of this subject and sensed
the possibility that Scripture and the God of Scripture may be more tolerant of human frailty than
we are. I do not, however, want to be misunderstood. I want to make it absolutely clear that I
am deeply grateful to the SDA Church for providing a context in which I entered into marriage
without any consideration of divorce as an option. There have been many times in our twenty-
four years of marriage when the settled nature of our marriage covenant kept my wife and I
working on things that others would have considered sufficient grounds for divorce in today’s
world. The depth of relationship we have attained after 24 years and the security it gives our
27
family is a joy that would never have been ours in a serial divorce environment. Whatever the
Church does to ensure tenderness and mercy to the “little ones” who stumble into sin, let us not
diminish the call to lifelong faithfulness one iota. And let us be exceeding careful that any use of
While it has not been the overt subject of this paper, there is another relevant principle in
Scripture that is absolutely clear and that impinges heavily on our discussion here. Divorce may
often be adultery, but adultery is not the unpardonable sin. Sins that have been repented of and
confessed are forgiven and life can go on. There will, of course, be consequences to any divorce
and to subsequent remarriage, no matter how “grounded” in exceptions. And It may prove
advisable that some divorced persons not continue in certain church offices. But sins can be
forgiven and people should not have to live with a lifelong stigma for actions taken years before,
repented of, and dealt with psychologically and emotionally. God is severe to the high-handed
and willful sinner, in the hopes of saving them eventually (cf . 1 Cor 5:5), but He is a merciful and
caring God to all who sense their brokenness and need (cf. 2 Cor 5:5-8).
In practice, of course, these two great Biblical principles are in some tension with each
other. It will probably be impossible to set up clear and simple rules that will work in every
situation. The Biblical tension will call for a great deal of discernment at the local level as elders
and pastors wrestle with specific cases under the guidance of the Spirit. But whatever the Church
decides to do, it is critical that the gospel of full and free acceptance in Christ not be diminished.
A third thing that seems clear in both the Old and New Testaments in the fact that in a
sinful world the ideal and the real must co-exist. Absolutes in the Bible are stated with fixed and
seemingly unbending assertion. Yet the same Biblical writers who pass on God’s absolutes show
28
remarkable flexibility in the face of real-life situations. Moses can provide for certificates, Jesus
can refuse to condemn a flagrant adulteress, and Paul can say, “Always do this, but if in your
circumstances you can’t it’s OK.” We must somehow be unbending and flexible at the same time,
which may sound impossible, but with God all things are possible. To expect less of this
committee may be to concede to heresy (an important truth presented out of balance).
At this level of my exploration a number of things in Scripture seem less than clear. First,
there is the matter of exception clauses. In Matt 5 and 19, what seem to be exception clauses do
not make use of the clearest Greek language for exceptions. They may in fact be exceptions, but
Even if we allow for an exception clause, however, it is less than clear exactly what is
being excepted. The word that Jesus uses, porneia, can have a variety of meanings in different
settings, and Jesus does not provide sufficient context for linguistic certainty. But even if we
could determine the exact meaning of “fornication” in Jesus’ mind, such an exception would not
be of much practical value in most cases. Unless the violation of the marriage vow has been
flagrant and freely admitted (like leaving town with the secretary), the exception clause tends to
turn church boards into CIAs (Church Intelligence Agencies) that snoop around and pass gossip
In a sinful world you will rarely find a totally innocent party to a divorce. That means that
how a person responds to their divorce may be more important in terms of their relationship to the
Lord and the Church than the reasons why the divorce happened in the first place. It might be far
better to acknowledge that in each and every divorce a grievous violation of the will of God has
occurred, and if reconciliation is no longer an option, the issue becomes whether or not the person
29
is willing to confront their sin, to become an agent in upholding the sanctity of marriage in that
church, and to work diligently on the issues in their life that caused or contributed to the divorce.
If the person will not do so experience teaches us that any remarriage will simply replay the issues
that destroyed the previous marriage. But if the person will do so, the time should come in many
cases when they can receive the blessing of the local church for a new relationship founded on a
I believe that it is important to spell out at some length the kind of evaluations and
procedures that are necessary for local churches to operate in the footsteps of Paul. Paul’s
concessions and their implications for us are not entirely clear exegetically or practically. But if
we are to develop a policy that has a more positive impact on the Church than the policies of the
past, it will need to be very practical and thorough in the guidance that it gives local church
boards as they seek to take actions that would be both redemptive in experience as well as meet
30