Divorce and remarriage – some biblical and historical

perspectives

Discussion paper

First Draft April 2009

Creation
Marriage is instituted by God at creation.
Marriage is leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh
Marriage is for sex
Marriage is a permanent life-long bond.
Marriage is heterosexual
Marriage is monogamous
Marriage is not compulsory
Marriage is regarded as a covenant Proverbs 2:17 Malachi 2:14
Marriage is a personal union
Marriage is not the central meaning of life.
Marriage is a pledge of troth
Marriage is ethically, not legally, qualified – its purpose is love
Marriage is based on fidelity
Marriage is an essential structure for the family
Marriage is a vocation: a gist and a calling
Marriage is a community – it is not hierarchical, there is mutual submission between
husband and wife (Eph 5:21)
Marriage is an image of the relationship of God with his church

Is marriage culturally bound?

What is the relationship to marriage of a wedding? Do weddings make a
marriage?
Does becoming one flesh constitute marriage? If so, then should only virgins be
married in church? – as to marry any other would be to condone adultery. If we
allow non-virgins to marry in church why the problem remarrying divorcees?

What about rape? Does that constitute becoming one flesh?

What about cohabitation? It involves a leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh.
Is that marriage?

Fall

Marriage, for some, becomes absolutised.

Marriage is under threat
Marriage is a struggle
Marriage has become based on passion and not love
Marriage has become a contract that can become broken at a whim

Divorce can even be done by text message

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/5132754/Saudi-
man-divorces-wife-by-text-message.html

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 1 of 11

Easy divorce may increase the number of foolish marriages.
Divorce carries many consequences – particularly for any children involved.

“Just as the concentration camp has marked the breakdown of the rule of law in
the life of the state, so the divorce court marks the breakdown of the rule of
fidelity in private life. More than all else, divorce is the logical and inevitable
outcome of unbelief and of a society which has turned its back on the moral and
religious values it once held sacred.” Hebden Taylor 1970, p. 31.

Redemption
Christian marriages should be a picture and preview of the coming kingdom.
Forgiveness a key characteristic

A campaign for more stringent divorce laws.

Marriage counselling and marriage enrichment programmes.

Divorce is permitted within certain circumstances to alleviate the effects of a fallen world,
because of the hardness of hearts.
Divorce is never considered an unforgivable sin.

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 2 of 11

A (too) brief historical background
Christians through the centuries have advocated a number of different positions
regarding divorce and remarriage.

It seems to be the consensus from Hermas to Augustine that remarriage was not possible
following a divorce; though Tertullian and Ambrosister were the notable exceptions who
according to Instone-Brewer ‘appeared to allow remarriage for “innocent” divorcees.’
Instone-Brewer (2001 p. 5). According to Snuth (1990): “Tertullian did, however, accept
remarriage if the dissolution of the first (either by death or divorce) had occurred prior to
one's conversion (for in Christ, one becomes a new creation).”

Several did not permit remarriage even after a spouse’s death; these included:
Athenagoras and Clement of Alexandria (Heth in Wenham et al. 2006, p. 45)

Augustine wrote:
The compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they
continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit
adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce.
(Commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount)

Aquinas looked to Aristotle and natural law for his views on marriage (and about
everything else!). Divorce is incompatible with the natural ordering of things: the
begetting and rearing of children. He thus argues for an indissoluble monogamous
marriage.

The Council of Trent (1564) made the indissolubility of marriage a matter of the faith.
The Catholic view is that marriage is a sacrament.

Erasmus permitted remarriage after divorce for grounds such as adultery, cruelty or
mutual hatred.

Luther allowed for divorce and remarriage in the cases of adultery and desertion.

Calvin permitted divorce on two grounds: adultery by one of the parties and where the
unbelieving partner may reject the believer. He was ahead of his time in that he granted a
woman the right to divorce. Remarriage was allowed in these circumstances. (B J an der
Walt 1987)

It is rather ironic that the CoE prior to 2002 doesn’t permit remarriage after divorce
when it was founded on the divorce and remarriage of Henry VIII. At General Synod in
2002 a vote on remarriage passed with 269 to 83 votes:

The Church of England teaches that marriage is for life. It also recognizes that some
marriages sadly do fail and, if this should happen, it seeks to be available for all
involved. The Church accepts that, in exceptional circumstances, a divorced
person may marry again in church during the lifetime of a former spouse.

The Church's suggested questions concentrate on the intentions of the couple and
whether allowing the remarriage would be harmful to anybody involved:

• Does the couple understand that divorce is a breach of God's will for
marriage?
• Do they have a determination for the new marriage to be a life-long
faithful partnership?

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 3 of 11

 • Do they seem willing to explore and grow in the Christian faith?
• Has enough time passed since the divorce for everyone to have recovered,
and are there complicating factors from previous marriages (court
proceedings or child support payments, for example)?
• Has either of the parties been divorced more than once?
• Was their relationship a direct cause of the breakdown of a previous
marriage?

Biblical material
Old Testament
Deut 24:1-4
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds
something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce,
gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she
becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and
writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or
if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her
again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD.
Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an
inheritance. (NIV)

This is not a command to divorce but it seems to have become understood as one
by Jesus’ time. It presupposes that remarriage after divorce was permissible.
This became the standard Jewish view. Its purpose was to limit the effects of
divorce on the woman.

Here we have two reasons fro divorce: ‘something indecent’ (this would not have
been adultery, as adultery was punishable by death) and ‘dislike’. Remarriage was
permitted after the first but not after the second.

Something indecent = erwat dabar, lit. nakedness of a thing. It is not specific, it

would seem to suggest that some sexual indecency or behaviour is meant, as
adultery would be punishable by death.

(Jer 3:1-4,8 and Is 50:1f use this theme to show the relationship of God with
recalcitrant Israel)

Jeremiah 3: 8
I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of
all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also
went out and committed adultery.

God gives Israel a certificate of divorce. God is a divorcee and yet he will take the
church to be his future bride.

Malachi 2:16

16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering
himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 4 of 11

 So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith. (NIV)

God singles out divorce and violence here. The issue of divorce is the lack of
faithfulness of Judah. God hates all sin.

Some (Westbrook in Heth (Wenham et al. 2006)) have argued that it should be
translated as in the ESV ‘For the man who hates and divorces…’ – looking back to
the second illegitimate reason for divorce in Deut 24:1ff.

The New Testament

The main texts in the Gospels are Mark 10:2-12|| Mt 19:3-12 and Lk 16:188 || Mt
5:31-32. In the following I will focus on the first two parallel passages.

Paul deals with the issue in 1 Cor 7.

Gospels
Background
In Jesus’ time there were two prevailing schools – the predominant Shammai and
the Hillel, who eventually held sway. The Shammai were the stricter of the two,
they permitted the man to divorce only on the grounds of adultery. They did not
consider remarriage after divorce on these grounds adulterous. The Hillel
permitted the man to divorce his wife, and subsequently remarry, for any cause,
this could even be if she spoiled the dinner.

All assumed that legitimate divorce implied that remarriage was possible. The
purpose of a certificate of divorce was to enable the divorcee to remarry.

Women could not divorce unilaterally, they were permitted a divorce only under
strict circumstances and even then had to have the help of a court.

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 5 of 11

 Mk 10:2-12
2 Some Pharisees came and tested
him by asking, "Is it lawful for a
man to divorce his wife?"
Mt 19:3-9
3 Some Pharisees came to him to
test him. They asked, "Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for any
and every reason?"

3 "What did Moses command you?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied,

he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a
man to write a certificate of divorce
and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts
were hard that Moses wrote you
this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at
the beginning of creation God
'made them male and female.' 7
'For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to
his wife, 8 and the two will become
one flesh.' So they are no longer
two, but one. 9 Therefore what God
[theos] has joined together, let no
one [anthropos] separate."
10 When they were in the house
again, the disciples asked Jesus
about this. 11 He answered,
"Anyone who divorces his wife and
marries another woman commits
adultery against her. 12 And if she
divorces her husband and marries
another man, she commits
adultery."
"that at the beginning the Creator
'made them male and female,'
5 and said, 'For this reason a man
will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and the
two will become one flesh' ? 6 So
they are no longer two, but one.
Therefore what God [theos] has
joined together, let no one
[anthropos] separate."
7 "Why then," they asked, "did
Moses command that a man give
his wife a certificate of divorce and
send her away?"
8 Jesus replied, "Moses
permitted you to divorce your
wives because your hearts were
hard. But it was not this way from
the beginning. 9 I tell you that
anyone who divorces his wife,
except for sexual immorality
[porneia], and marries another
woman commits adultery."

Lk 16:18
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man
who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mt 5: 31-32
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, causes her to
become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 6 of 11

It was this Shammai and Hillel debate that underlined the Pharisees’ questions to Jesus in
Matthew’s gospel. This is missing from Mark. Instone-Brewer suggests that Mathew added
this to make the context clear as Mathew was writing for Jewish readers. It would have been
something that concerned his Jewish readers. Though Keener suggests that Matthew’s
wording may have been closer to what Jesus said and Mark omitted it as it would not have
been much of an issue for his non-Jewish readers. His contention is that even if it is not
original in Matthew it is implied and he is correct to include it.

Stassen and Gushee point out that if we only look to the issue of what is permissible grounds
for divorce we are being legalistic. The questions to Jesus were asking him to takes sides in
an on-going debate – he refused to do so. ‘What ever Jesus was saying, his focus was not on
laws and rules and their exceptions. He wants us to ask a different question’ (p. 274):

How shall we participate alongside God in creating, nurturing and preserving

marriages that reflect God’s intent for this holy covenant and that last for a joyous
lifetime?

What are some of the attitudes and behaviours that destroy marriages? What
concrete practices must we develop as spouses and churches that can help deliver us
from marital discord and alienation and thus strengthen and preserve marriage? (p
277)

The issue for the Jews was not whether divorce was permissible, Moses allowed it, but what
were the grounds for divorce. To ask Jesus if he agreed with divorce was only to ask if he
agreed with Moses. Thus it is unlikely that this would have been a test for Jesus. The
question to Jesus assumes the occurrence of divorce as a cultural practice, it was universally
accepted. The only issue was the permissible grounds for divorce. It looks to Moses and
Deuteronomy 24:1 (see above).

Jesus refuses to answer the question as it was posed. Jesus reframes marriage as an aspect
of Christian discipleship (Hays p 352). Divorce was not in God’s original plan.

Jesus in his response goes back further than Moses to the creation. Moses permitted
divorce as a lesser of two evils. It may have been seen as a means of redeeming a bad
situation. The verb command [eneteilata] by the questioners is replaced with allowed
[epetrepsen] by Jesus. He thus denies that divorce is normative. It is permissible but not
normative contra Shammai, it is permissible but not encouraged. In Roman and Jewish law
the husband was compelled to divorce a wife if she was found in an adulterous relationship
(Keener 1991, p 31).

It is God who does the joining it is fallen humanity that does the separating. God is
concerned with restoration. What was innovative in Jesus’ response is the insistence on the
husband’s culpability, if committed divorce. (Field p28) Divorce seems to be very much a
last resort.

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 7 of 11

Porneia
Mathew’s exemption clause is the cause of much debate. The language seems to reflect that
of Deut 24:1. The phrase porneia has been translated as adultery, but it has a wide range of
meanings. It has been used to denote incest (1 Cor 5:1), sex with prostitutes (1 Cor 6:13),
homosexuality (1 Cor 6:9).

• Traditionally porneia has been taken to mean adultery (NIV = marital unfaithfulness).
This puts Jesus in the Shammai School. Many agree that it can’t be adultery, as penalty
for adultery was death (cf Jn 8).
• Some have narrowed its meaning and have equated it with premarital sexual intercourse
(as in Mt 1:18-25) (eg Piper, Geisler, Mark Geldard). This seems to be special pleading to
justify a divorce but no marriage position.
• Others have suggested that it refers to marriages forbidden by relationship eg those in
Lev 18.
• Porneia is used rather than moicheia the usual Greek word for adultery. Porneia is used
to denote other forms of sexual sin. These included premarital sex. It may be used to
describe any form of ‘sexual unchastity.

Some, with justification, argue that the use of this term broadens the legitimate grounds for
divorce. The question is, is this the only legitimate ground for divorce? And yet Paul (1 Cor
7:15) adds another reason: desertion by an unbeliever. Thus it is clear that Jesus is not being
exhaustive regarding the grounds for a legitimate divorce. Does a legitimate divorce permit
remarriage? Jesus doesn’t make it clear that it does not. At the time divorce meant that a
person could remarry, that was the purpose of having a divorce.

Paul
Paul deals with divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians. He is responding to a letter written
by the Corinthians and not writing a systematic theology on marriage and divorce. Corinth
is under Roman law.

Paul is again stressing the importance of marriages and Christians must not take the
initiative in breaking them up.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not
separate from her husband.
11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.
And a husband must not divorce his wife.

In Jewish society it was only the husband who could divorce, in Roman culture both could.
It seems here Paul is endorsing the Jewish approach. Here again Paul is stressing the
importance of marriage. Paul is addressing the growing asceticism in the early church that
valued celibacy and down played marriage.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a
believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with
her, she must not divorce him.

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 8 of 11

Here Paul addresses a specific situation. Many in Corinth would have converted after their
marriage and many of these marriages would have been arranged marriages.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not
bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

The issue here is what is the meaning of ‘not bound’? This is a reference to the Jewish
divorce documents which clearly stated ‘You are free to remarry any man’. The word
‘bound’ is a slave term. The woman is now free – free to remarry.

Paul is here adding another valid reason for divorce: desertion. Are these reasons porneia
and desertion the only reasons? There is no evidence to suggest that they are.

27 Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a
wife.

The NASB has ‘ do not seek to be released’ the NIV ‘ do not seek a divorce’. The first harks
back to the language in verse 15. Paul discourages remarriage in these circumstances but it
is permissible.

Are there other legitimate grounds for divorce?

Craig Keener and David Instone-Brewer both suggest that there are and that porneia and
desertion are not the only grounds.

Instone-Brewer looks to Ex 21:10ff as providing other grounds:

10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food,
clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she
is to go free, without any payment of money.

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 9 of 11

Appendix 1 the main options

Position Advocates For Against

No divorce and Majority of Roman Takes marriage Marriages are dissolved
no remarriage Catholics seriously
J Carl Laney (1981) Standards more rigorous than those
T A Lacey (1912) Position of the of Jesus
K E Kirk (1933) Roman
Feinberg and Catholics What about Matt’s exception clause?
Feinberg (1993)
Geoffrey W
Bromiley (1980)
Divorce but no Gordon Wenham Position of the Minority view
remarriage – (Wenham et al. early Church
unless partner 2006) Fathers (Greek What about Matt’s exemption clause?
dies William Heth pre and Latin) Narrow view of porneia as pre-marital
1997 (Heth and sex
Wenham 2002) 1 Cor 7:10-11
John Piper What are we to do with those who
Seems to agree have remarried? They are continuing
with all texts in adultery.
outside Mt. Cf
http://www.cadz.net/remarriage.html
Divorce and Bp F H Chase Concentrates on physical adultery but
remarriage for (1921) neglects other forms of
adultery only Erasmian view? unfaithfulness; raises the question as
G&S p 282? to what breaks the marriage bond.
D Martyn Lloyd (DA)
Jones
Narrow view of porneia = adultery
Divorce and John Calvin Majority view Concentrates on physical adultery but
remarriage for R H Charles (1921) neglects other forms of
adultery or J Stafford Wright unfaithfulness; raises the question as
desertion (1956) View of the to what breaks the marriage bond.
John Murray (1984) Reformers
J R W Stott ((1971)
William Heth post Narrow view of porneia = adultery
1997 (Wenham et
al. 2006)
Thomas R Edgar
J J Davis (1993)
Divorce and Root Report (1971) Sees divorce as How are we to determine the
remarriage for Majority view of the lesser of reasons?
a number of Litchfield Report two evils.
reasons (1978)
Sherwin Bailey Porneia seen as
(1952) sexual
Helen Oppenheimer immorality in
(1976) the broadest
David Instone- sense
Brewer
Craig Keener Position of the
Jews at the time
of Jesus

CoE view from

Cranmer to

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 10 of 11

 early C20.

Divorce and Larry Richards Emphasis on Does this include fancying someone
remarriage for Lewis Smedes forgiveness and else more?
any reason most inclusive
position

Norman Geisler: in S&G p. 282: divorce is not justifiable but remarriage possible after
appropriate repentance.

Select Bibliography

J J Davis Evangelical Ethics: Issues facing the Church Today (Presbyterian & Reformed, 2nd
edn, 1993)
David Field Talking points: the divorce debate – where are we now? Themelios 8 (3) 1983:
26-31.
R B Hays The Moral Vision of the New Testament (T&T Clark: Edinburgh, 1997)
E L Hebden-Taylor A Reformational Understanding of the Marriage and Family (Craig
Press)
William A. Heth, "Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed," The Southern Baptist
Journal of Theology 6.1 (Spring 2002): 4-29.
David Instone-Brewer Divorce and Remarriage in the 1st and 21st Century, (Grove, Cambridge,
2001)
Craig Keener … And Marries Another : Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the
New Testament (Hendrikson, 1991)
John Piper ‘Position paper on divorce and remarriage’
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1986/1488_Divorce_and_
Remarriage_A_Position_Paper/ [accessed 13 April 2009]
David L. Snuth ‘Marriage from the Early Church to John Wesley” Trinity Journal (Fall
1990): 131-142.
Glen H Stassen and David P Gushee Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary
Context (IVP: Downers Grove, 2003)
Alan Storkey Marriage and its Modern Crisis (Hodder and Stoughton, 1996)
B J van der Walt ‘Woman and marriage: in the Middle Ages, in Calvin and in our own time’
in John Calvin’s Institutes: his Opus Magnum (Potchefstroom: PU vir CHO F3 no 28,
1986) pp 184-238.
Gordon Wenham, "Does the New Testament Approve Remarriage after Divorce?," The
Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6.1 (Spring 2002): 30-45.
Gordon Wenhma, William Heth and Craig Keener Remarriage after divorce in Tody’s
church 3 Views (Zondervan 2006).

Steve Bishop April 2009 page 11 of 11