Watch the Study
The Permanence of Marriage in 18 Minutes
What Jesus, Paul, the prophets, and the early Church taught about divorce and remarriage.
"So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."Matthew 19:6 (NKJV)
Introduction
Can a Christian who has divorced marry someone else? Ask in most churches today and you will probably hear yes, at least in some circumstances. For most of the Church's history, you would have heard no.
The words of Scripture haven't changed. Jesus called remarriage after divorce adultery. Paul taught that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. The early Church writers were nearly unanimous on this, and the Western Church held to it for some 1,500 years.
What changed was the church. Much of it has relaxed this commandment, often without realizing it, which is the very thing Jesus warned against (Matthew 5:19).
So how did that happen?
This study follows the trail: from the words of Jesus and the letters of Paul, through the Old Testament and the early Church, to the turning points in history that reshaped what most Christians believe. Along the way, the strongest objections get a fair hearing, so you can weigh the case for yourself.
Key passages Matthew 5:32; 19:9 · Mark 10:11–12 · Luke 16:18 · Romans 7:2–3 · 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, 39
Watch the Study
Part One
Jesus grounded His teaching on marriage in the creation account, pointing back to God's original design.
In brief
When the Pharisees tested Jesus about divorce, He didn't answer with a new rule. Instead, He pointed back beyond Moses to creation itself:
The Pharisees asked about divorce, and Jesus answered by describing what marriage is. Two things stand out. First, God is the one who joins a couple together, so marriage is His work, not only theirs. Second, He warns, "let not man separate." If a certificate of divorce could simply end a marriage, the warning would make little sense. It assumes the bond God makes is not one that people have the authority to dissolve.
The disciples' reaction tells us how they understood Him. After hearing Jesus' teaching, they said:
Why would they say this? In first-century Judaism, two schools debated divorce: Rabbi Hillel allowed divorce for almost any reason, while Rabbi Shammai restricted it to sexual immorality (Mishnah, Gittin 9:10). Yet both schools permitted remarriage after divorce. Neither questioned it.
So if Jesus was merely saying "you can divorce for adultery and remarry," that would have been Shammai's position, something the disciples were already familiar with. Why would that make them say "it's better not to marry"? Their shocked reaction only makes sense if Jesus was teaching something far more radical: that even when divorce happens, remarriage is not an option.
Jesus does not correct them or tell them they are overreacting:
Jesus does not soften what He said. He acknowledges that for some it will mean a single life, and He honors those who accept it "for the kingdom of heaven's sake."
This is the verse most often cited to justify remarriage after divorce:
At first glance, it seems straightforward: if your spouse commits sexual immorality, you can divorce and remarry. But look more carefully at the sentence structure. The exception clause, "except for sexual immorality," is positioned between two actions: "divorces his wife" and "marries another." Which action does the exception apply to?
Consider an everyday example: "Whoever leaves work early, except for a family emergency, and skips the evening meeting, will be written up." Does the exception for a family emergency also excuse skipping the meeting? Most people would read it as only applying to leaving early. You might leave work for an emergency, but you would still be expected at the meeting.
After sexual immorality, both divorce and remarriage are permitted.
Separation is permitted, but remarriage is still adultery, as in Mark 10 and Luke 16.
Phrases follow the word order of the Greek text.
In the Greek sentence, the exception clause sits between "divorces his wife" and "marries another," so it can be read as qualifying the divorce alone. Scholars disagree about how much the grammar settles, but this reading has serious defenders. William Heth and Gordon Wenham, for example, argued in Jesus and Divorce (1984) that Matthew permits separation for sexual immorality while the marriage bond remains, so remarriage is still ruled out. (Heth later revised his view; Wenham has continued to defend it.)
On this reading, Jesus allows a husband to separate from a wife who commits sexual immorality, but the bond itself, what God joined, remains. It is also the reading that fits the rest of the New Testament, where no other passage clearly permits remarriage after divorce.
Matthew 19 and Mark 10 both record this encounter, and they are often treated as two tellings of the same words. But they capture two distinct moments, one public and one private, and together they clarify each other.
Publicly, the Pharisees came to test Jesus:
Jesus did answer the Pharisees' question: He pointed to creation (vv. 4-6), then acknowledged an exception for divorce in cases of sexual immorality (v. 9). But His statement, "whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery," could have left the disciples unsure whether the exception applied to divorce alone, to remarriage as well, or to both. As discussed above, that distinction is central to how this passage has been interpreted.
Privately, the disciples asked Him again in the house:
When the disciples asked again in private, Jesus gave the saying with no exception at all: whoever divorces and remarries commits adultery. Mark's account answers the question Matthew's leaves open. The exception in Matthew allows divorce for sexual immorality; it does not allow remarriage. One passage addresses when divorce may be allowed, and the other makes clear that remarriage is not.
Luke records the same prohibition and, like Mark, gives no exception. The verse just before it matters:
The very next thing He says:
Even marrying a divorced person is called adultery, because in God's sight the first marriage still exists. Jesus gave this command right after His words about the permanence of the law, yet it has been set aside more often than almost any other, as Part Six shows.
The second half of Luke 16:18 has no exception at all: "whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery." Jesus does not ask why she was divorced, or whether she was the one wronged. Even in Matthew 5:32, the one Gospel with an exception, the exception belongs to the husband who divorces; the next clause stands without one: "whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery." Marrying her can only be adultery if, in God's sight, she is still bound to her husband: "if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress" (Romans 7:3).
Luke 16:18; Matthew 5:32; Romans 7:2–3
Another interpretation of the exception clause is that it refers to sexual immorality discovered during the Jewish betrothal period, not adultery within marriage.
In Jewish culture, betrothal was a legally binding pre-marriage phase. If unfaithfulness was discovered during this period, the betrothed man could "divorce" his betrothed. This is what Joseph considered doing when he discovered Mary was pregnant (Matthew 1:18-19).
Jerome made the same point about betrothal in the fourth century. Writing against Helvidius, he noted that Scripture calls a betrothed woman a "wife" (Deuteronomy 22:23–24), which is why Matthew can call Joseph Mary's "husband" while they were only betrothed, and speak of him putting her away (Matthew 1:19). Jerome himself read Matthew 19:9 as permitting separation but not remarriage (see Part Five). [Jerome, Against Helvidius 3–4]
This could explain why Mark and Luke, writing to Gentile audiences unfamiliar with Jewish betrothal customs, omit the exception entirely: it may not have been relevant to their readers.
John Piper holds this view; his position paper, listed under Resources, sets out the case in detail.
Most scholars agree that Mark was the first Gospel written. This study follows a chronology that also places Luke before Matthew (the dating is discussed below). Arranged in that order, Jesus' teaching on divorce shows a pattern:
Paul writes 1 Corinthians and Romans, teaching that a spouse is bound while the other lives.
Mark 10:11–12: divorce and remarriage are called adultery, with no exception clause.
Luke 16:18: the same prohibition, again without an exception clause.
Tradition places Paul's death under Nero, before Matthew's commonly assigned date.
Matthew includes the exception clause, the focus of the interpretive question.
A later date for Matthew, commonly c. 80–90, leaves a long gap between Paul's letters and the Gospel with the exception clause. If that clause introduced a new permission to remarry, churches would have gone decades without meeting it in any written Gospel. By then Paul had likely died, and his letters, Mark, and Luke all give the prohibition without an exception.
Three considerations are often offered for this later dating: Matthew appears to use Mark; Matthew 22:7 is widely read as reflecting Jerusalem's destruction in AD 70; and likely echoes of Matthew in Ignatius of Antioch provide a terminus before the early second century. Together, these considerations commonly lead scholars to place Matthew in the 80s. [Oxford Bibliographies]
This timeline uses early dates for Mark and Luke alongside a later date for Matthew. Gospel dates and order remain estimates, and Matthew's relationship to Luke is debated. The timeline concerns surviving written texts only; early Christians also received apostolic teaching orally. Its point is narrower: the exception clause was not present in Paul's extant letters or in the written accounts of Mark and Luke.
For a time, then, the early Church had Mark and Luke, and both forbid remarriage without exception. If Jesus had clearly allowed remarriage after adultery, it is hard to see why both would leave out something so important.
A common interpretive principle is to read less clear passages in light of clearer ones. When five passages (Mark, Luke, Romans 7, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 1 Corinthians 7:39) all say the same thing without exception, and one passage (Matthew 19:9) appears to add a qualification, it makes sense to interpret the one in light of the five, not the other way around.
Part Two
If we had only Jesus' words, the case would rest on the Gospels alone. But Paul addresses marriage in several letters, and his language does not change. In Romans and 1 Corinthians he describes a wife as "bound" to her husband and names only one thing that releases the bond: death. In Ephesians he ties marriage to Christ and the Church.
Rembrandt, Saint Paul in Prison (1627)
In brief
"Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another, to Him who was raised from the dead."
Paul is using marriage to illustrate our relationship to the Law. The illustration only works if his readers already accept that marriage lasts until death. If divorce could dissolve the bond, the comparison would fall apart. More on this below.
"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife."
Paul says this command comes from the Lord Himself, so he is passing on Jesus' teaching, not his own opinion. If a separation happens, he gives two options: remain unmarried, or be reconciled. Marrying someone else is not one of them, though this would have been the natural place to say so. And even after she leaves, Paul still calls him "her husband." The separation has not ended the marriage.
"A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."
When does the bond end? When her husband dies. When is she free to marry? When her husband dies. Paul does not say "bound until divorce" or "bound unless there is adultery." He says "as long as he lives," the same words he uses in Romans 7.
"'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church."
Paul sees in marriage a picture of Christ and His Church. Christ will never divorce His bride, and a marriage is meant to show that same faithfulness.
1 Corinthians 7:10–11. No third option is given.
1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2–3
Go back to Romans 7. Paul uses marriage there to explain how we were released from the Law of Moses: "you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another" (Romans 7:4).
Paul is explaining how believers were released from the old covenant to belong to Christ. What released us? Not Israel's unfaithfulness. Israel was unfaithful for centuries, and the covenant stood. What ended it was a death, the death of Christ. We died to the Law "through the body of Christ" so that we could be "married to another."
Jeremiah 3 shows the same thing. God says He "put her away and gave her a certificate of divorce" because of Israel's adultery (Jer. 3:8). Six verses later He says, "I am married to you" (Jer. 3:14). Even after the divorce, God still called Himself her husband. The certificate did not end the covenant; it took the death of Christ to bring in the new one. Unfaithfulness did not end the covenant. Death did.
Paul's analogy in Romans 7 depends on this principle. If divorce could dissolve a marriage, then his argument would not work, because there would be another way out of the old covenant besides death. The fact that he builds his teaching on marriage being permanent until death tells us what he believed about marriage itself.
1 Corinthians 7:15 addresses the situation of abandonment by an unbelieving spouse:
Many read "not enslaved" as permission to remarry. Paul's choice of words points the other way.
Paul uses "dedoulōtai" (not enslaved) in verse 15. But when he does permit a widow to marry in verse 39, he uses entirely different language: "bound" (δέω, deo) and "free" (ἐλευθέρα, eleuthera). The change of words looks deliberate. If Paul meant to permit remarriage in verse 15, why not use the "bound … free" language he uses 24 verses later?
| Compared | 1 Corinthians 7:15An unbelieving spouse leaves | 1 Corinthians 7:39A husband dies | Romans 7:2–3A husband dies (Paul's illustration of the law) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paul's words | οὐ δεδούλωταιou dedoulōtai"is not enslaved" | δέδεται … ἐλευθέραdedetai … eleuthera"is bound … is free" | δέδεται … ἐλευθέραdedetai … eleuthera"is bound … is free" |
| Root words | δουλόω (douloō), "to enslave," from δοῦλος, "slave" | δέω (deō), "to bind," and ἐλεύθερος (eleutheros), "free" | The same: δέω (deō) and ἐλεύθερος (eleutheros) |
| Picture | Slavery | A binding tie, released by death | Bound by law while the husband lives, released by his death |
| Free to marry another? | Not mentioned | Yes"free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord" | Yes"no adulteress, though she has married another man" (after his death) |
Romans 7:2 also says that when the husband dies, she "is released" (κατήργηται, katērgētai) from the law of her husband.
Paul does not mention remarriage anywhere in verses 12–16. The question is whether a believer married to an unbeliever should seek a divorce. Paul says no, but if the unbeliever leaves, the believer is "not enslaved" and need not try to prevent the separation. Nothing in the passage frees them to marry someone else.
This interpretation aligns with Paul's instruction in verses 10-11: if separation happens, the options are to "remain unmarried or be reconciled." No third option of remarriage to another is given. [A. Andrew Das, Elmhurst University]
Part Three
Some point to the Old Testament to justify divorce and remarriage. Read in context, these passages point toward permanence.
In brief
Deuteronomy 24 addresses divorce practices that existed in ancient Israel:
Moses wasn't commanding or endorsing divorce. He was regulating a practice that already existed because of hardness of heart. Jesus makes this clear in Matthew 19:8: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."
Notably, the passage describes the divorced woman as becoming "defiled" through remarriage. This language suggests it was a concession rather than God's ideal.
Jeremiah 3:1 alludes to this law: a man may not take back a wife who has married another. Israel had done far worse, yet a few verses later God pleads, "Return, backsliding Israel… for I am married to you" (Jeremiah 3:12, 14). His faithfulness goes beyond the Mosaic concession.
God commanded Hosea to marry an unfaithful woman as a living picture of His own faithful love:
Hosea didn't divorce Gomer and marry another. He remained faithful to an unfaithful wife. This is the pattern God sets for His people.
Malachi 2:11–16 shows what was happening. The Amplified Bible Classic Edition (AMPC) spells out the situation in its bracketed notes:
The men of Israel had divorced the wives of their youth to marry foreign women, and the altar was covered with the tears of the wives they sent away. Yet God still speaks of the first wife this way:
Even after the men had divorced and moved on, God still calls the first wife "your companion and the wife of your covenant." This does not depend on the Amplified Bible's brackets; other translations read the same, as in the ESV: "she is your companion and your wife by covenant." God does not treat the divorce as ending the marriage. In His eyes, the covenant still stands.
God's purpose for making husband and wife "one" echoes the creation account in Genesis 2:24. And the passage concludes with one of the strongest statements in Scripture against divorce:
Bracketed words are the Amplified Bible's explanatory additions. Translations differ on Malachi 2:16; the ESV reads, "For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence."
In biblical usage, a covenant differs from a contract. Contracts can be broken by either party, but God's covenants with His people are marked by faithfulness and permanence. Marriage reflects this same covenantal character. It is not simply a legal arrangement that a certificate of divorce can undo.
"For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her." (Mark 6:17, NKJV)
Even though Herodias had divorced Philip and married Herod, Scripture still calls her "his brother Philip's wife." Her remarriage had not changed who she was before God; she was still Philip's wife. John the Baptist rebuked Herod for the union (Mark 6:18) and expected him to end it. The divorce and remarriage had not ended the first marriage.
The Law John appealed to points the same way. It forbade a man to take his brother's wife (Leviticus 18:16; 20:21), yet if the brother died, marrying his widow was permitted and could even be required (Deuteronomy 25:5). The prohibition applied only because Philip was still alive. Herodias had divorced him [Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4], but only death would have released her.
Scripture treats covenants as binding even when keeping them is costly. Israel made its covenant with the Gibeonites only because the Gibeonites deceived them (Joshua 9). Some 400 years later, when Saul broke it, God sent a three-year famine until restitution was made (2 Samuel 21:1–14). A covenant made before God does not lapse because it became hard to keep.
Part Four
The permanence of marriage reflects the unbreakable covenant between Christ and His Church.
In brief
Jesus stated that He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. In the Sermon on the Mount, He repeatedly said, "You have heard that it was said... but I say to you..." presenting a deeper understanding of God's intentions.
Jesus explained that the Law permitted divorce "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Matthew 19:8), but pointed back to God's original design at creation.
| Topic | Old Testament Law | Jesus' Teaching |
|---|---|---|
| Murder | "You shall not murder" Exodus 20:13 | "Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" Matthew 5:21-22 |
| Adultery | "You shall not commit adultery" Exodus 20:14 | "Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" Matthew 5:27-28 |
| Divorce | Certificate of divorce permitted Deuteronomy 24:1 | "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery" Luke 16:18 |
| Oaths | "You shall not swear falsely" Leviticus 19:12 | "Do not swear at all... let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'" Matthew 5:33-37 |
| Retaliation | "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth" Exodus 21:24 | "Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" Matthew 5:38-39 |
| Love | "Love your neighbor" Leviticus 19:18 | "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you" Matthew 5:43-44 |
In each case Jesus goes beneath the outward act to the heart, and asks more than the Law required. His teaching on divorce follows the same pattern. Moses regulated divorce; Jesus called His followers back to God's design from the beginning.
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers... shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8:38-39 (NKJV). Just as nothing can separate us from Christ's love, marriage is meant to reflect this unbreakable bond.
"Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready."
Revelation 19:7 (NKJV). Human marriage points to the ultimate wedding: the eternal union of Christ and His people.
"For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?"
Isaiah 14:27 (NKJV). Isaiah is speaking of God's purposes for the nations, but the principle holds for marriage: what God has joined, no human act can undo.
If marriage is meant to be a picture of Christ and the Church, then what does divorce and remarriage say about that picture? Christ promised His Church, "I will never leave you nor forsake you" (Hebrews 13:5). He doesn't abandon His bride when she fails. Marriage is meant to tell that same story.
Part Five
The early Church writers consistently understood that Matthew's exception clause permitted divorce for sexual immorality, but not remarriage. They taught that the marriage bond remained intact until death, making remarriage adultery even when separation was justified. [A. Andrew Das, Elmhurst University]
In brief
In Jesus and Divorce, William A. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham report that 25 individual writers and two early councils forbade remarriage after divorce while a former spouse was living. [pp. 37–38]
"The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery."
"All who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners."
"Whosoever puts away his wife, says He, and marries another, commits adultery; not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again."
"Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union… it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive."
"As a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her."
"The woman who has been abandoned by her husband ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is… by calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse with another man."
"A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite… yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another."
"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."
Several of these statements were written for outsiders. Justin addressed his Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, and Athenagoras his Plea to Marcus Aurelius. Others held up single marriage as a mark of Christians in debate with pagans. In Minucius Felix's Octavius (c. 210), the Christian tells his pagan opponent, "We gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage… we know either one wife, or none at all" (ch. 31). Tertullian contrasted Christians with Roman society: "to us, even if we do divorce them, even marriage will not be lawful" (On Monogamy 9). Christians would not have claimed this before their critics if their churches freely remarried the divorced. [Daniel Jennings]
These writers lived in Rome, Athens, Alexandria, Palestine, and North Africa, in churches planted by different apostles, with no central authority to impose one view. Where the apostles' teaching was unclear, they argued openly, and both sides often claimed to follow the apostles.
Agreement this early and this widespread is best explained by a common source: the apostles themselves. If they had allowed remarriage after adultery or desertion, we would expect some churches to have kept that permission, just as they kept different customs for Easter. Instead, the first clear exception, Ambrosiaster, does not appear until the late fourth century. The Fathers were not infallible, and Scripture remains the final authority, but on this question their unity is strong evidence of what the apostles taught.
Part Six
For the first three centuries, the Church overwhelmingly taught marriage permanence. After Constantine, the Eastern church gradually accommodated imperial divorce law, and in the sixteenth century Erasmus argued for a similar position in the West.
That history explains why churches today disagree, and why the disagreement is newer than many assume. [See Daniel Jennings' detailed study]
In brief
In 331 AD, Emperor Constantine restricted divorce under Roman law to a short list of serious grounds (Theodosian Code 3.16.1), but divorce and remarriage remained legal. As the Eastern Roman Empire developed, civil law increasingly influenced church practice.
While Augustine and the Western church maintained that the marriage bond could not be dissolved even by adultery, the Eastern church gradually accommodated the imperial divorce laws. By the medieval period, the Eastern Orthodox tradition permitted remarriage after divorce, departing from the earlier patristic consensus.
The two traditions remained divided on this question for the next thousand years.
After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Byzantine scholars brought Greek manuscripts and learning to Western Europe, fueling a revival of Greek study. Desiderius Erasmus (1466–1536) became its most famous New Testament scholar.
Erasmus published the first printed Greek New Testament to reach the public in 1516. In his annotations on 1 Corinthians 7, he argued that divorce with the freedom to remarry should be allowed for adultery and other grave causes, a position closer to Eastern church practice than to the Western tradition of Augustine.
Erasmus's argument had precedent: the Eastern churches had long tolerated remarriage after divorce, while the Western church held to permanence. His annotations gave later reformers a scholarly case to build on.
Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers, working in the wake of Erasmus's scholarship, took a different position from the historic Western church teaching. Luther rejected the Catholic view of marriage as a sacrament and permitted divorce for adultery, desertion, and other causes.
Luther's own words show how unsettled the question was for him. Yet the reformers came to accept remarriage after divorce, a clear break from 1,500 years of Western church teaching.
Paul instructs the churches to "stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The early church understood itself to be preserving apostolic teaching on matters of faith and practice.
From Hermas (c. 150 AD) through Justin, Clement, Origen, and Jerome, the Church Fathers overwhelmingly taught that remarriage during a spouse's lifetime is adultery. The one notable exception, the fourth-century writer known as Ambrosiaster, allowed a husband, but not a wife, to remarry after divorcing an adulterous wife.
Constantine limited divorce to a few serious grounds, but Roman law still allowed divorce and remarriage. Over time the Eastern church came to follow imperial law.
Augustine wrote extensively on marriage, teaching that divorce does not dissolve the marriage bond, even after adultery (On the Good of Marriage; On Adulterous Marriages). His teaching became foundational for Western Christianity, which maintained the permanence position.
The Eastern churches had come to permit remarriage after divorce.
Following Augustine, the Western church held that the marriage bond could not be dissolved, even by adultery.
Byzantine scholars carry Greek manuscripts and learning to Western Europe, fueling the Renaissance study of the Greek New Testament.
Desiderius Erasmus, editor of the first published Greek New Testament, argued in his annotations for allowing remarriage after divorce, a view closer to Eastern church practice than to Western tradition.
Protestant reformers accepted divorce and remarriage for adultery and desertion, departing from 1,500 years of Western church teaching on marriage permanence.
While many Protestant churches now permit remarriage, others maintain the historic position. The question continues to be studied and debated today.
The arrow marks the flow of Greek learning to the West that made Erasmus's work possible.
Part Seven
The strongest objections to the permanence view, stated as fairly as we can, each with a short response.
In brief
The objectionRead on its own, the verse can sound that way: "whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." Many faithful Christians read it as permitting both divorce and remarriage when a spouse has been unfaithful.
A responseThe exception sits beside "divorces," and it can just as naturally excuse the divorce alone (see the diagram in Part One). Mark 10:11–12 and Luke 16:18 give the same saying with no exception, Paul allows only two options after a separation (1 Corinthians 7:10–11), and the early Church read Matthew this way for centuries. One debated clause is best read in harmony with these clear passages.
The objectionYes. Deuteronomy 24:1–4 anticipates a divorced woman marrying again, and the Jewish certificate of divorce declared, "You are free to marry any man" (Mishnah, Gittin 9:3).
A responseThat is exactly the background Jesus confronted. He called the Mosaic provision a concession to hard hearts and said, "from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). Both Hillel and Shammai assumed remarriage, which is why the disciples were stunned by His answer (Matthew 19:10).
The objectionMany read "not enslaved" as release from the marriage itself, leaving the deserted spouse free to marry again.
A responsePaul does not mention remarriage in verses 12–16, and he uses slavery language (dedoulōtai) rather than the "bound … free" language he uses when a spouse dies (verse 39; Romans 7:2–3). The believer is freed from the duty to prevent the separation, while verses 10–11 still apply: remain unmarried or be reconciled. Reading verse 15 as permission to remarry would set Paul against the command he had just given from the Lord.
The objectionScripture allows divorce for sexual immorality (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and lets a believer accept an unbeliever's departure (1 Corinthians 7:15). Once the covenant is broken, the marriage is over, and she is free to marry again.
A responseThe exceptions permit the divorce or separation, but Scripture never says they make her unmarried. After the separation, Paul still calls him "her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:11); after the divorce, so does Jesus (Luke 16:18); and Romans 7:3 calls her an adulteress if she marries another "while her husband lives." That is why Jesus says, with no exception, that "whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18). It can only be adultery if she is still married. Even the wife wrongly sent away is one whom her husband "causes to commit adultery" (Matthew 5:32): being wronged does not end her marriage.
The objectionIn John 4:18 Jesus says, "You have had five husbands." If He recognized each as a real marriage, then each divorce must have ended the one before, leaving her free to marry again.
A responseScripture uses the language of marriage even for unions it calls adultery. A man who divorces "and marries another commits adultery" (Mark 10:11), and Herod "had married" Herodias, yet John told him, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife" (Mark 6:17–18). Calling a union a marriage describes it; it does not say the earlier bond was dissolved. John 4 also never says how her marriages ended, and some may have ended in death. Jesus did not set out His teaching on remarriage at the well. He gave it plainly elsewhere: "whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18).
The objectionVerse 27 speaks of someone "loosed from a wife," and verse 28 says that if such a person marries, he has not sinned. Some take "loosed" to include the divorced.
A responsePaul introduces this section as concerning virgins (verse 25), and verse 28 continues, "if a virgin marries, she has not sinned." In context, "loosed" most naturally describes the unmarried, not the divorced, whom Paul has already addressed in verses 10–11.
The objectionGod Himself gave Israel "a certificate of divorce," so divorce seems able to end a covenant.
A responseSix verses later God says, "I am married to you" (Jeremiah 3:14), and He keeps pursuing His people. As Part Two explains, the old covenant gave way through a death, Christ's, not through Israel's unfaithfulness (Romans 7:4).
The objectionSome early writers forbade widows to remarry or saw marital intimacy as only for procreation, and some taught errors like adoptionism. Their opinions are not Scripture.
A responseAgreed: Scripture is the final authority, and the case here rests on the words of Jesus and Paul. But on those other questions the early Church was divided, or the view was rejected: Hermas allowed widows to remarry, and adoptionism was condemned as heresy (Theodotus was excommunicated around 190). On remarriage after divorce there was no such division before Nicaea. Where the earliest churches disagreed, the apostles' teaching may have been unclear; where they agreed across every region, it most likely came from the apostles (see Part Five).
The objectionIt can seem to punish the innocent party for another's sin, and to ask something many people cannot bear.
A responseThe cost is real, and Jesus acknowledged it: "All cannot accept this saying" (Matthew 19:11). He also honored those who remain single for the kingdom (Matthew 19:12). The answer to that cost is not a different standard but a church that carries it together, with friendship, practical help, and a real place in the family of God (Mark 10:29–30).
The objectionEvery Christian still sins in anger, careless words, or gossip. If staying in a second marriage means living in unrepented sin, then so would every sin a believer has not yet overcome, and no one could have assurance.
A responseSalvation is by grace through faith, not by a sinless record (Ephesians 2:8–9; 1 John 1:8–9). But repentance means turning from a sin, not settling into it. No one thinks repenting of gossip means continuing to gossip. A second marriage while the first spouse lives is not a single failure but an ongoing union that Jesus calls adultery (Luke 16:18). That is why John did not tell Herod to regret the marriage and keep Herodias: "It is not lawful for you to have her" (Matthew 14:4). Paul likewise did not allow the Corinthian man to keep his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1–5). Leaving such a union does not earn forgiveness. It is the fruit of repentance (Luke 3:8), and the church should carry its cost together with those who obey.
Part Eight
Respected theologians and scholars who hold to the permanence view of marriage.
In brief
Pastor & Author
"What God has joined together let no man separate. One man, one woman, by grace, till death."Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper (1989)
Note: Piper counsels those already remarried to repent but stay in the second marriage. This study holds that they should leave it.
Bible Teacher
"Only death dissolves a marriage. Therefore remarriage while a partner is alive is adultery in God's sight."Remarriage Is Adultery Unless...
Pastor & Martyr (1906-1945)
"God makes your marriage indissoluble. It is a blessed thing to know that no power on earth, no temptation, no human frailty can dissolve what God holds together."Wedding Sermon from a Prison Cell (1943)
Author & Apologist (1874-1936)
"It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word."The Superstition of Divorce (1920)
Further Study
Books, videos, and articles for going further.
Jesus said, "What God has joined together, let not man separate." For 1,500 years His Church took Him at His word. Now the question comes to each of us: will we trust His word when it is hard? The One who asks this is faithful, and He does not leave those who follow Him to walk alone.
"If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself."2 Timothy 2:13 (NKJV)
A Deeper Question
This study rests on one conviction: that the words of Jesus carry the authority of God. If you, or someone you love, are still asking whether he really rose from the dead, The Evidence for Jesus walks through the case in short video lessons, from the birth of the universe to the empty tomb, with every source a click away.
The Evidence for Jesus · Free · Kids' lessons too
