What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?

The two are then recognized before God as being "one flesh." It is God Himself who has joined the two together. Therefore man has no authority to divorce them. Governments today of course ignore God's decree in this matter, but the word of God will not change to accommodate men's preferences. Marriage was from the beginning intended to be a binding agreement so long as both individuals remain alive.

Yet we know that throughout the Old Testament these things were ignored. Many (even believers) had more then one wife. The Pharisees too thought they could prove the Lord wrong by referring to Deut.24:1, which speaks of Moses, the lawgiver, instructing that if a man had found some uncleanness in his wife, he could give her a bill of divorcement and send her away. This bill of divorce was to guard against a man's cruel treatment of a wife by discarding her while not leaving her free to be married to any other.

However, the Lord's answer to this is most penetrating. Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the manifestation of God's heart! In this case law was more permissive than is the grace of God! For grace enables one to surmount difficulties in a way that law could never do.

Therefore, confirming what was implicit in creation, the Lord adds, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." The one exception allowed here is because the marriage bond has been so violated as to be virtually broken already. If the one party is guilty of fornication, then it would not be adultery for the other party to divorce the first and marry another. But the one who married the party put away for fornication would be guilty of adultery.

So far we have left out of our consideration the fact that the Lord Jesus here gives room for one exception, which clearly excludes any other exception: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication..." Yet this one and only exception is missing in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 does not mention it either. We only find it again in Matthew 19:9, albeit in a slightly different wording ("except it be for fornication"). The Lord does not say that divorce is unavoidable in the case of one partner committing fornication, but only that in such a case the remarriage of the other partner after a divorce is not adultery.

p130 [To the same.] R T Grant, My meaning in saying the tie was broken was this, that God never allowed the Christian to break the tie; but when adultery was committed the one doing so had broken the tie, and the Lord allowed the other party to hold it to be broken and act on it by formal divorce - did not require it, but allowed it. The legalisation of it is submission to the powers that be, for common order, just as the divorce was in Jewish law. Things are so loose in many parts of the States as in Illinois, that Christians should be very particular. A person having left and being a long time away is not sufficient, as they may come back, and the tie had not been broken - only that, as to criminality, after some seven years, in England the courts would not hold a person guilty of bigamy.

On the other hand, according to 1 Corinthians 7, I cannot doubt that the Christian, deliberately deserted by the unchristian partner, was in every way free, free that is to marry; but it assumes deliberate forsaking by the one who went away. The Christian was never to do it, and if obliged to leave, to remain unmarried or return. Romans 7:3 has nothing, I think, to do with it; the case supposed is of being (not "married") to another man while the tie subsists; then she is guilty of adultery - not, if the husband be dead. Divorce is not in question, but acts of sin while the marriage subsists. This is evident. Mark 10 does not annul Matthew 19: a man putting away his wife is looked at as his act or will. If he puts away, he has broken a tie God formed, by his own will; then marrying another is adultery. By act of sin the tie was broken already, and judicial divorce allowed.

If all had passed before conversion, I should take it as I found it; but when a person has merely gone off now, when a person is a Christian, I should be very slow to accept a marriage as in the Lord. Have they sought them out, or proof of the unfaithfulness? If so, let them obtain a divorce, and then they are free to marry. But if not, I could not accept their doing their own will, any more than the unfaithful one doing his. The marriage is not in the Lord, and it says even of widows - "only in the Lord." Matthew 5 is to me equally clear with chapter 19, but I think the person should obtain a divorce otherwise they remain legally married, and the new connection is concubinage. In any case forgiveness is allowed.

The Lord answers that because of the hardness of their hearts Moses had written this. The second giving of the law (on Mt.Horeb -- Ex.34:1-7) included such concessions, and was not therefore absolute law, but law tempered with mercy. It recognized the hardness in man that it had no power to correct. But He refers back to the original creation of man and his wife, reminding them of God's declaration, "for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife." Adam was absolutely confined to having one wife, and Eve to having one husband. They were God's gift to each other. He had joined them together: man has no right therefore to separate them. Governments may publicly do this as a concession to the hardness of men's hearts also, but they do not have God as their authority.

The Lord has spoken this to Pharisees, but inside the house His disciples questioned Him further, to whom He answers that a man putting away his wife and marrying another has committed adultery against his first wife. A wife doing the same would be guilty of adultery against her husband. The Lord does not here mention the exception noted in Matthew 19:9, "except for fornication," because it is, practically' speaking, not even an exception.

Fornication would virtually itself be a breaking of the marriage bond, which is only confirmed by a divorce in this case. The partner who was not guilty would not therefore be committing adultery in marrying another after divorce, though generally there may have been fault on both sides, and before another marriage, one should be broken before God, seeking only His will. 1Corinthians 7:15 shows also that desertion is considered a breaking of the marriage bond, so that the one who was deserted would be left no longer under that bond.

(Vv. 12-17). The Apostle then takes up the difficult position of a brother with an unbelieving wife, or the woman with an unbelieving husband. Here he gives his advice. This does not contemplate for a moment the case of a believer marrying an unbeliever, which is clearly contrary to the mind of the Lord (2 Cor. 6:14). Here it is the case of mixed marriages, where one of the parties has been converted after the marriage. In this case the believer is not defiled by union with the unbeliever. On the contrary the unbeliever is sanctified and the children holy. Here the sanctification and the holiness do not signify a spiritual condition that puts them in relationship with God, but rather that through the believer the relationship is clean and owned of God, so that the believer can continue in it. If, however, the unbeliever departs, the believer is released from the bondage of being tied to an unbeliever and is not to raise any dispute with the one that has departed, for we are called to peace. This does not give the believer any licence to break the tie by departing from the unbeliever, nor does it grant the abandoned believer permission to remarry. So far from the believer separating from the unbeliever, the brother or sister is to remain at all cost in the relationship, counting upon God for the salvation of the unbeliever. There will thus be submission to what the Lord has allowed, and a walk in accord with His will. This, too, we are reminded, is the order for all the assemblies; thus ecclesiastical independency is shut out. The assemblies are not independent companies, each left free to adopt its own practices. The word of God is still our only guide, and assemblies walking in the light of the word will be united in submitting to its instructions.

Matthew 19 carries on the subject of the spirit that is suited to the kingdom of heaven, and goes deep into the principles which govern human nature, and of what was now divinely introduced. A question asked by the Pharisees — for the Lord had drawn nigh to Judea — gives rise to the exposition of His doctrine on marriage; and turning away from the law, given on account of the hardness of their hearts, He goes back to God's institution, according to which one man and one woman were to unite together, and to be one in the sight of God. He establishes, or rather re-establishes, the true character of the indissoluble bond of marriage. I call it indissoluble, for the exception of the case of unfaithfulness, is not one; the guilty person had already broken the bond. It was no longer man and woman one flesh. At the same time, if God gave spiritual power for it, it was still better to remain unmarried.

The Lord added verse 18 because the Pharisees took advantage of what the law had said, to allow divorce for virtually any cause. Deuteronomy 24:1 had required a man, if putting away his wife, to give her a bill of divorcement (Mt.19:3-9). But the Lord calls divorce and remarriage adultery (though Matthew 19:9 gives the one exception); and if one were to marry a woman divorced from her husband, he committed adultery. This is evidently a case where the first husband had not remarried, for adultery is the violation of the marriage bond. The world shows no regard for God's thoughts as to marriage and divorce, but a believer should be most careful to honor God in marriage, with the firm intention of proving consistently faithful. Then the only permission he can find for divorce in Scripture is if his spouse is guilty of fornication. If one is divorced by his spouse, then let him make sure from Scripture that his circumstances allow him to marry again.

(2) They have their objection from the law ready: "Why then did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement and to put her away?" But they did not apprehend aright either Moses or themselves; and their argument is turned against them in the simplest manner: "Moses, for the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so." It was Moses himself who was furnishing the evidence, and what an evidence, of their own condition! The law, which was "weak through the flesh," could not perfect anything because of the resistance to it of a carnal people. That which they objected proved but at the same time their own evil and the hopelessness of it under law. And He turns upon them with one of those imperial sayings which put aside all power of resistance as with the lightning-flash of truth: "And I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife except for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery."

One cause alone is permitted for divorce; and that where the bond of marriage has already been broken through. Where not so justified, another marriage on the side of husband or of wife is but adultery. Courts of law may legalize adultery of this sort, if they will, but they cannot sanctify it, or take away the brand which the Lord here puts upon it. How evident that the grace of Christianity is as far as possible from laxity! ― that law is more tolerant here than grace can be. But the palliatives of law were only the proof that it could not heal; grace will not palliate, because it heals.

According to the creatorial order of God every marriage, not only that of Christians, is for life. Divorce is in every case a result of sin and a departure from the divine standard. In our times, when between a quarter and a third of marriages end in divorce, the godlessness of the world becomes apparent in this area as well. Divorce among Christians is therefore an especially sad evidence of conformity to the world.

This chapter, then, surveys the relationships of nature in the light of the kingdom. The first and most fundamental is that of marriage. "The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (ver. 3). There you have the conduct of such as are on legal ground. There is really no respect for God, no genuine regard for His law. The Lord at once vindicates from Scripture the institution and the sanctity of marriage: "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?" (ver. 4). That is, He shows it is not a mere question of what came in by the law, but He goes to the sources. God had first established it; and, far from dissolving the tie as men list, He made a single pair, and therefore only to be the one for the other. All other relationships were light in comparison of this closest tie — even union. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and the twain shall be one flesh." Next to the relationship of marriage is the tie of a child to its parents. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of marriage as a natural institution. Who would talk of a child leaving his father and mother for any cause? The Pharisees even would not think of such a thing. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." They were ready with an answer: "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" (ver. 7). There was really no such command: a divorce was simply allowed.

Our Lord draws the distinction perfectly. Moses suffered certain things not according to the original archetypal intention of God. Nor should this be matter of wonder, for the law made nothing perfect. It was good in itself, but it could not impart goodness. The law might be perfect for its own object, but it perfected nothing, nor was it ever the intention of God that it should. But more than this: there were certain concessions contained in the law which did not at all express the divine mind; for God therein was dealing with a people after the flesh. The law does not contemplate a man as born of God; Christianity does. Men of faith during the law were of course born of God. But the law itself drew no line between regenerate and unregenerate; it addressed all Israel, and not believers only; hence suffered certain things in view of the hardness of their hearts. So that our Lord, while intimating a certain consideration of Israel's condition in the flesh, at the same time vindicated God's law from the corrupt deductions of these selfish Pharisees. "From the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. And whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (vers. 8, 9). Our Lord adds here what was not in the law, and brings out the full mind of God touching this relationship. There is but one just cause for which it may be dissolved; or rather, marriage must be dissolved morally in order to terminate as a matter of fact. In case of fornication, the tie is all gone before God; and the putting away merely proclaims before man what has already taken place in God's sight. All is made perfectly clear. The righteousness of the law is established as far as it went, but it stops short of perfection by admitting in certain cases a less evil to avoid a greater. Our Lord supplies the needed truth — going up to the very beginning, and on to the end also.