Introduction

Divorce is a contentious issue within the church. It is widely agreed that the
biblical ideal for marriage is a lifelong monogamous union between a man and
a woman. Jesus and Paul taught against divorce. However, did this mean that
remarriage was ever permitted?

Here, four views on divorce and remarriage are examined. The first is the no
remarriage view. Wenham (1986, 2006) argues that the church Fathers,
closer linguistically and culturally to the New Testament writers did not permit
remarriage. He identifies what he considers to be very explicit texts that forbid
remarriage (1 Cor 7:10-11), identifying remarriage as adultery (Mk 10:11). His
work on Mt 19:9 is meant to show that rather than concede anything to the
Pharisees, Jesus does not permit remarriage after a divorce caused by sexual
immorality. Powers (1987, 2008) argues that divorce is a sin in all cases,
arguing on linguistic grounds that the so-called exception clause (Mt 19:9)
does not provide an exception. However, Powers does see divorce as always
terminating a marriage and that some remarriages are not adulterous. He
finds that Paul in 1 Cor 7 explicitly permits remarriage.

A number of commentators claim that the exception clause does provide valid
reasons for divorce with remarriage, though none suggest Jesus insisted
upon divorce as did the Rabbis. Heth (2006b) identifies sexual fidelity as part
of a marriage covenant, and its breaking valid reasons for ending the
covenant. Heth and Instone-Brewer (2002) also point to abandonment as
being a valid circumstance for remarriage for the offended spouse. Some also
allow remarriage when divorce is for matters of neglect or abuse. Keener
(2006) identifies physical abuse as valid grounds, although he finds no explicit
biblical teaching. Instone-Brewer (2002) argues Paul argues for this in 1
Corinthians, echoing rabbinical understandings of Ex 21.

Given these disparate views, a careful reading of Scripture is necessary.

1
Evaluation

Old Testament background

Divorce was a common practice (McConville 2002:357), and the law (Dt 24:1-
4) provided limits to it (Merrill 1994a:316) and controls on remarriage (Powers
1987:156). The key Hebrew phrase in Dt 24 is erwat dābār. It cannot mean
adultery since the punishment was execution by stoning (Lev 20:10).
Christensen (2002:566) translates it as ‘a naked thing’ since the root of erwat
means ‘to be naked’ and is commonly associated with the uncovering of
female genitals (Merrill 1994a:317). McConville (2002:358) argues that the
expression refers to something indecent (c.f. Dt 23:13-14 on excrement) and
argues that the act itself is unspecified. Craigie (1976:305) suggests that it
might refer to a physical deficiency such as the inability to have children.

In the OT and surrounding cultures, marriage was a covenant, a mutually

binding agreement between two parties (Instone-Brewer 2002:3). The
documents involved laid down stipulations and sanctions in the event of the
covenant being broken. The payment of a bride price and dowry was to give
the marriage security and provide the legal seal on the marriage covenant. In
the event where the woman was the cause of the divorce, there was no
requirement to pay back the dowry (McConville 2002:358-9, Instone-Brewer
2002:6).

The writing of a divorce certificate was unique in the ancient Near East
(Instone-Brewer 2002:28) and was specifically written to enable the woman to
remarry (Dt 24:2, Powers 1987:157). Men did not need such a certificate
since polygamy was common (Instone-Brewer 2002:29). Given that the
ground was not adultery, Powers believes the husband could extend
forgiveness to his wife. The grounds for divorce from the second marriage (Dt
24:3) is because the husband hates her (Heth 2006a:64). McConville
(2002:358) notes the parallels with Dt 22:13f where a false charge is made
about the bride’s virginity. Whether the man divorced his wife or died, the
woman was not free to marry her original husband since she had been defiled

2
(v4). It appears that it is neither divorce that makes the woman defiled, but the
practice of swapping back and forth between men was functionally adultery
(Merrill 1994a:318, Craigie 1976:305). McConville (2002:359-60) disagrees
and focuses on how the first husband has shamed her and hence forfeited his
right to remarry her and perhaps gain the divorce money from the second
(wrongful) divorce or from the dead man’s assets.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 deals with foreign women taken against their will and
married (Brueggmann 2001:217). An Israelite may later let the woman go if
she does not please him. Christensen (2002:475) discusses the possibility
that spiritual incompatibility is in view and that the delay (vv12-13) is designed
to dissuade the man. More likely, the delay allows the woman time to mourn
(McConville 2002:329). She was to be well treated and not reduced to slavery
if she were released from the marriage (v14). Given Dt 21:15f, the whole
section is designed to limit the damage of polygamy. Marriage to foreign
women was discouraged and could be dissolved since it represented
unfaithfulness to God (Ez 10:2-3, 11). Williamson (1985:160) notes that the
separations were essential for the survival of Israel and Ezra did not force this
on an unwilling community. The main focus is on the divorce and not on any
provision that may have been made for the wives and children (Throntveit
1989:56).

Malachi 2:16 states that YHWH hates divorce, which is usually understood as
a blanket condemnation. What may have been in view is the divorce of an
Israelite wife for a foreign wife (Merrill 1994b:424), though Instone-Brewer
(2002:55) believes this is conjecture. Hill (1998:258) states that YHWH hates
divorce because it represents covenant breaking with both God and the wife.
Heth (2006:65) tries to argue that the better translation is ‘hates and divorces’,
though Wenham (2006b:86) finds this unconvincing. However, Instone-
Brewer (2002:56) argues this reading is more faithful because the Hebrew
reads ‘he hates divorce’ and the ‘I’ (God) is an emendation. Further, the
covering the garment with wrong (Mal 2:16b) also alludes to invalid divorce.
The key for the entire passage is unfaithfulness to covenants, and therefore
not necessarily against the one who instigates divorce.

3
Jesus and divorce
Powers (1987:162-3) argues against the ontological indissoluble nature of
marriage (also Keener 2006:107). This is clear in John 4 where Jesus
describes the Samaritan woman as having had (aorist) five husbands and is
now with a man who is not her husband (4:18). Each divorce has terminated
the previous marriage. Note also that he differentiates between an illicit
relationship and marriage, which Powers (1987:163) takes to mean that not all
remarriage is adulterous. This disagrees with Carson (1984:412) who argues
that marriage is indissoluble because it is grounded in creation. However,
Blomberg (1990) notes that it is the institution of marriage that is grounded in
creation.

The most extensive teaching on marriage and divorce by Jesus is in Matthew

19 (par Mk 10). Despite some textual confusion (Noland 245:76, Hagner
1995:542, France 2007:709), Matthew places Jesus in Judea (c.f. Mk 10:1)
where Herod was the Tetrach of Judea (Mt 14:1) who had divorced his wife so
he could marry the wife of his brother (Mt 14:3-4; Mk 6:17-18). The Pharisees
came to test Jesus (πειραζειν, Hagner 1995:547) on the debate between two
Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Hagner 1995:547, Keener
2009:463). The question was about the grounds of divorce, ‘for any reason’
(κατα πασαν αιταν), not divorce itself and Instone-Brewer (2002:134) argues
that the absence of this clause elsewhere is because the debate was well
known and the readers would mentally insert the relevant phrases. The
School of Shammai understood erwat dābār in Dt 24:1-4 to refer to a matter of
indecency, whereas the School of Hillel extended this to include issues like
spoiling a dish (Heth 2006a:69). Hence the ‘any reason’ was the Hillelite
understanding (Blomberg 1990). Both schools recognised infertility as
grounds for divorce (Instone-Brewer 2002:93). Rabbi Akiba (later than the NT
period but possibly represented) was laxer than Hillel and allowed a man to
divorce his wife to marry someone prettier (Powers 1987:161, Morris
1992:480).

4
Before dealing in anyway with the issued of remarriage, Jesus discussed
marriage in positive terms, taking his questioners back to the OT text with the
interrogative ‘have you not read’ (v4). Marriage is intended by God to be a life
long union between a man and a woman (Mt 19:4-5; Mk 10:6-9) which is
firmly rooted in the creation of humanity as differentiated into male and female
(Gen 1:26-27). This union is the basis of the creation mandate to multiply and
to benefit the creation (Wenham 2006:19). Jesus links Gen 1:26-27 and 2:24
with ‘for this reason’ (Mt 19:5; Mk 10:8) in the forming of one flesh, indicating
the relationship of close relatives (c.f. Gn 29:14). This one fleshing involves
leaving father and mother (not geographically but sociologically) and cleaving
(signifying a comprehensive union of lives) and not merely localised in the act
of copulation (Nolland 2005:772), although sexual union is certainly prominent
(Blomberg 1990). In going back to Genesis rather than Deuteronomy, Jesus is
not siding with any of the disputing schools (Morris 1992:480) but was going
back to the weightier text. The grounding of marriage in creation means that it
should not be put asunder (v6), using the imperative rather than the indicative
(χωριζετω, France 2007:718).

The Pharisees pushed Jesus further by asking why Moses gave them a
command to write a certificate of divorce and divorce their wives (v7 where
both the writing of the certificate and the divorce itself are the subject of
command, ενετειλατο). However, Jesus corrects them noting that divorce was
permitted, not commanded by Moses due to their hardness of heart (Mt 19:8).
What Moses did was regulate divorce (Morris 1992:482). Jesus’ ‘from the
beginning’ returns the argument once more to Genesis and away from the
concessions in Dt 24. As only permission, France (2007:719) argues that this
is easily set aside. The hardness of heart does not mean sinful but stubborn
(Instone-Brewer 2002:144). The OT background suggests this does not mean
the hardness of heart on behalf of the one divorcing but of the one
unrepentant in sexual sin (Instone-Brewer 2002:146). This lines up with
Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness. Blomberg (1990) does not think this clause
can be used as an out for divorce, as in the new age Jesus sets a higher
standard than the law. While certainly Jesus discourages divorce and

5
encourages forgiveness, unrepentant sin on the part of the one guilty of
porneia does not appear to forbid divorce or remarriage to the wronged party.

Matthew 19:9 is hotly debated in its meaning, known as the so-called

exception phrase. Porter and Buchannan (1991) claim the text has typically
had two interpretations: divorce and remarriage are permissible in the case of
sexual immorality, or no such allowance may be inferred since the text is
limited to divorces that do not involve immorality. In the first interpretation
except (µη) functions as a biconditional, and means ‘a person commits
adultery if and only if the divorce was not for immorality’. The second
interpretation denies this understanding of µη as the topic is not about
possible valid divorce and remarriage but about invalid divorce and hence
adulterous remarriage. In this instance µη is a simple conditional proposition.
Porter and Buchannan (1991) do not spell out how one decides between the
two interpretations.

Wenham (1986) addresses whether porneia makes only the divorce non-
adulterous or also the remarriage. Firstly, he argues that Mt 19:9 reaffirms
Jesus Sermon on the Mount teaching (Mt 5:32-33) that to divorce and remarry
is adulterous, being stricter that the Pharisees. Secondly, Wenham justifies
his reading based on comparison with other conditional verses in Matthew to
make porneia a redundant phrase with regards remarriage, i.e. he admits two
implications of 19:9:

(1) To divorce and remarry is to commit adultery

(2) To divorce for porneia is not adultery

Wenham’s list of comparable passages with the so-called redundant phrases

italicised includes:

5:19 Whoever relaxes one of these commandments and teaches men

so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of God

6
 7:24 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be
like a wise man
10:14 Whoever will not receive you and will not listen to your words,
shake off the dust from your feet.

Given the critique of the Pharisees in (5:20), the second phrase in v19 is not
redundant. The second example requires an assumption about a Hebraic
understanding of listening. The third example is probably the strongest.
However, Wenham himself notes that none of his examples are like 19:9
where two relative conditional causes have been amalgamated into a single
protasis. As Janzen (2000) notes, if Matthew had meant that remarriage was
not permissible under any circumstances, he would have said so (also
Blomberg 1990). The exception clause is precisely that!

Wenham (2006:31-2) also believes that Jesus attack on divorce implies he

would not agree that divorce should entail remarriage, which makes best
sense of the eunuch discussion in v10-12. This is based on the assumption
that eunuchs refer to celibate divorcees, whereas it more likely refers to those
who have the gift of staying single in the first place (Blomberg 1997:307).
There are also logical difficulties with how Jesus uses απολυση (divorce).
Wenham (2006:34) argues that Jesus uses it as meaning divorce without
remarriage, i.e. separate by Jesus but divorce with remarriage by the
Pharisees, and yet denies the possibility that Jesus uses it in a conditional
manner precisely because Jesus cannot be agreeing with either of the
Pharisaic schools. Heth (2006a:70) argues that Jesus is in fact disagreeing
with the lax Hillelite understanding, and supports the Shammaite
understanding with a redemptive focus on forgiveness. It is also possible
given they were in Judea, the Akiba understanding of divorcing for the
purpose of remarrying is in view (cf. Herod, Powers 1987:176). How does this
work? Given that a strict understanding of Dt 24:1-4 involves some kind of
sexual misconduct that severs (or could lead to severing) the marriage
relationship, to divorce for a reason other than this is not valid. It is simply
turning from one woman to another, which is adultery.

7
The exception clause is not found in the parallel passage in Mark 10,
apparently making the prohibition against divorce absolute (Blomberg
1997:306). However, given the Greco-Roman background of Mark’s readers
there was no need to spell out the exception rule (Instone-Brewer 2002:135,
Blomberg 1990). Powers (1987:174-5) argues that µη always means not and
never except. The sin of divorce is therefore not justified by the sin of porneia.
However in Mt 5:32, the word except (παρεκτος) is used which suggests that
the usual reading of µη likely, contra Powers.

In Matthew 5 Jesus discusses adultery, divorce and remarriage (par Lk 16:8).

Wenham (2006:28-9) argues that Mt 5 traces a progression from lust to
divorce and remarriage, strengthening the definition of adultery and forbidding
remarriage. He also argues that chapter 5 be read into chapter 19, and hence
the harshness of v32 renders remarriage views of 19:9 implausible. Instone-
Brewer (2002:160f) says a number of things in response. Firstly, he sees
Herod in view in three sayings in the Sermon on the Mount (21-26, 27-30, 31-
32; also Blomberg 1990). Secondly, abbreviations were common in rabbinical
debates. The details of the debates, including much of the exegesis would
have taken place in synagogue sermons. Likewise, Jesus did not cover all of
the background material. Given this, Mt 19 informs Mt 5 and not vice versa as
Wenham claims. Blomberg (1990) also notes that given the occasional nature
of Jesus addressing the issue, it is unlikely he would go on to articulate all
grounds for divorce, making arguments against him upholding divorce for
abuse or abandonment false. Given men were the only ones who could enact
divorce, such an issue was not typically raised by the Pharisees.

Wenham states that Mt 5 stresses a man’s responsibility to be loyal to his

wife. He argues that divorces forces a woman to commit adultery
(ποιει αυτην µοχαισθαι, v32), i.e. that the divorce itself is adulterous. This is a
leap of logic as was shown in his discussion on Mt 19:9. This view suggests
that the woman is forced into another marriage which is adulterous. However,
Powers (1987:167) shows this view makes no sense. How can divorce make

8
a woman who has not committed adultery to commit adultery? Apart from a
supposed adulterous remarriage (Turner 2008:171), given the only grounds
for divorce is some act of indecency, divorce therefore stigmatises the woman
as being an adulteress (Powers 1987:169). Far from being a separate clause
that marks out all marriage of men to divorced women, the man that then
marries that woman also is stigmatised as an adulterer. An alternate view for
the final clause is advanced by Nolland (2005:246) who suggests that
απολελυµενην means a woman who has gained a divorce rather than one
who has illegitimately been divorced. However, this seems out of context with
the previous discussion.

The thrust of the passage in Mt 5 is on a man’s responsibility and a woman’s

precarious position where a certificate of divorce could be issued for little to
no reason under the schools of Akiba or Hillel. The moral issue is not
remarriage but divorce (Keener 1999:190) and do not give an out for those in
a difficult marriage (Keener 1990:191) much suggest that sufferer encourage
their spouse to adultery (contra Wenham 2006:29!) but exonerate those who
are innocent (Keener 1990:192).

Excursis on porneia
Given that porneia is one of the legitimate reasons for divorce, it needs to be
defined. Hays (1996:354f) outlines three views he considers exegetically
defensible. The first is that porneia refers to adultery. Given its wide meaning
in the Greek it can also refer to a wide range of sexual impropriety that
includes adultery. It may be objected that if adultery was intended then the
Greek word µοιχεια would have been used. Janzen (2000) notes that
Matthew uses both words in 15:19. It is then argued that since the death
penalty was punishment for adultery, porneia refers to lesser offenses.
However Hays notes that there is evidence to show that in the first century
this had been changed to compulsory divorce.

The second view is that porneia refers to pre-marital unfaithfulness.

Deuteronomy 22 prescribes capital punishment for this, not dismissal (Hays

9
1996:354). Further, this view means that Jesus is more concerned with what
happens before marriage than during it (Blomberg 1990). The third view is
that porneia refers to incestuous marriages, i.e. those of close family
association as proscribed in Lev 18. It is used as such in 1 Cor 5:1 (Blomberg
1990) and fits well with Herod’s divorce and remarriage. Hays argues that if
the NT argues for an intensification of the commands in Lev 18, why would it
not also do so for adultery? Further, Blomberg (1990) notes that Paul remarks
that incestuous marriages were rare (1 Cor 5:1). Further, this interpretation
ignores the background Pharisaic debate. It is likely that Janzen (2000) is
correct, that porneia includes a variety of sexual impropriety, including
fornication during betrothal and adultery.

Paul’s pastoral applications in 1 Corinthians

The situation arose in Corinth where one partner in a marriage had come to
Christ while the other has not (7:12-17). This is not ideal as one should be
married in the Lord (v39). However, Paul makes it clear in (vv12b-13) that a
believer is not to renounce (αφιετω) an unbelieving spouse. Should the
unbeliever separate (χοριζω, v15a) it is not up to the believer to disturb the
peace by trying to hold onto the marriage. Fitzmeyer (2008:301) rightly sees a
parallel with the pagan divorces mandated in Ezra 10. Instead, the believer is
no longer bound (δουλω). Powers (2008:142) notes that usual meaning of the
Greek means that the believer is not bound in that they are free to act, and
this includes remarriage (Fitzmeyer 2008:302). Contra Laney (1982) this is
not going beyond the text, it is recognising that in this case the husband may
not issue a certificate of divorce allowing remarriage but the marriage is
ended and the woman is not bound, therefore free to remarry.

In chapter 7 Paul discusses the issues of remarriage (vv8-9), divorce (vv10-

11) and marriage (vv27-28). Verse 8 addresses the αγαµοις and the χηραις
(widows). Who are the αγαµοις? Thiselton (2006:104) suggests it includes the
widows, never married and the divorced. Yet as Powers (2008:129) notes, the
never married are virgins (παρθενος) and are discussed elsewhere. Fee
(1987:288) and Hays (1997:118) believe αγαµοις means ‘de-married’ and

10
must be widows. However, it is hard to understand vv27-28 in this case.
Hence, αγαµοις means the divorced since widows are already mentioned
(Powers 2008:129).

The concession of verse 6 points forwards, not backwards and refers to the
wish that those who are unmarried remain as Paul is (vv7-8). However, given
the dangers of burning with passion and the immoral behaviour that can follow
Paul permits both divorced and widowed people to remarry (v9). This does
not mean that Paul encouraged divorce, but simply that remarriage after a
valid divorce was possible.

The issue of remarriage reappears in the context of a discussion of some

unnamed present crisis and Paul’s suggestion that people stay in their
present situation (v26). Paul asks are they presently bound (present perfect,
v27a)? If so, do not seek a divorce (λυσιν). The divorced (λελυσαι, present
perfect) are not to seek a wife. The binding is used in v15 to describe
marriage, so the whole discussion is about marriage and divorce, and not as
Garland (2003:325) and Hays (1997:126-129) insists, engagement. The ‘you’
in v28 must mean the one freed from a wife in v27, which means that Paul
explicitly states that they are free to remarry and do not sin in doing so
(Powers 2008:165).

In verses 10-11, Paul forbids any kind of separation between marriage

partners. Powers (2008:135) claims χοριζω does not mean divorce but
separate or sunder, which is also what Jesus was referring to in Mk 10:9//Mt
19:6. Fee (1987:293-4) sees the evidence as ambiguous, maintaining that
divorce could be accompanied or not by a certificate. This makes sense of
v11a where the wife who has χωριζθη (aorist passive) is to remain αγαµος
(unmarried). Likewise, the husband is not to repudiate his wife. Powers
(2008:139) again claims that αφιεναι does not exclusively mean divorce
exactly so that the husband is not permitted to send his wife away including
without a divorce certificate. However, Instone-Brewer (2002:199) argues that
Paul is referring to Greco-Roman divorce by separation (also Fitzmeyer

11
1976). The home owner could dismiss the other spouse (αφιηµι) whereas the
non-owner could separate (χωριζω).

The key issue in the remarriage debate is how long must the wife remain
αγαµος? Verse 11b makes it clear it should be until she is reconciled to her
husband, or presumably until he dies (see Rm 7:2). This is in line with Dt
24:1-4 where remarriage and then divorce means the wife cannot remarry her
first husband. For Fee (1987:296) these are the only two options available to
the woman. What if the man does αφιεναι his wife? Is she then to remain
αγαµος her entire life? Laney (1982) argues that either Paul did not know the
exception clause or did not think it applied to Gentiles. However, it is clear
Paul permitted remarriage (v9). Nothing is said about how long to wait directly
in vv10-11 because the point of discussion is the prevention of the initiation of
divorce (Hays 1997:120). The point of remaining αγαµος is that reconciliation
should occur. Heth (2006a:78) stresses that extreme caution is required in
deciding how long is long enough, but it is clear that at some point hope of
reconciliation will disappear if it is not to be forthcoming.

The discussion to date has shown that divorce was valid for porneia. Were
there other grounds for divorce? Instone-Brewer (2002:195f) discusses other
grounds in 1 Corinthians 7, arguing Paul alludes to Ex 21:10-11. Moses
discusses the rights of slave women in polygamous marriages of food,
clothing and conjugal rights. A reduction in these meant she could be freed
from the marriage. This text was applied to general marriage rights in the first
century (Instone-Brewer 2002:99f). Verses 1-9 refer to sexual rights for both
partners and vv32-35 discusses material provisions, which the rabbis focused
on this a great deal (Instone-Brewer 2002:196). It is therefore possible that
Paul held the view that the removal of these could warrant divorce. For him to
have stated so plainly would have undercut his own argument. This makes
the case of Keener (2006:111) easier to apply, that continual and unrepentant
abuse would also be grounds for divorce with remarriage without having to
add anything to the text.

12
Early church understandings
One of Wenham’s arguments that remarriage was not permitted after divorce
is that this was the view of the early church fathers, and that since they were
closer to the apostles than us and understood the Greek much better, this is
the biblical view (Wenham 2006:23). However Heth (2006b:45) notes how
quickly the early church fathers adopted asceticism. Some disallowed second
marriages after the death of the first spouse; others even saw it as a veiled
form of adultery. Powers (1987:288) notes that some church fathers saw
marriage as a regrettable necessity for procreation, that marriage was for men
who got frightened being in bed alone at night, that the end of the world would
come sooner if all could live in abstinence, and that sex was just ok if you did
not enjoy it. These views suggest that the Fathers’ proximity to the apostolic
era does not give them clearer sight than the modern exegete. Blomberg
(1990) notes that virtually all the church Fathers used inferior forms of the text
of Mt 19:9. Furthermore, Wenham’s case is weakened in that the Fathers did
not speak with one voice on the issue (Instone-Brewer 2002:256), with some
such as Ambrosiaster who argued that Paul permitted remarriage after
divorce from an adulterous partner. Clement of Alexandria allowed remarriage
for the divorced and widows (Powers 2008:133).

Counsel
Divorce is a difficult issue for the church. The view developed here in light of
the full bible and cultural context is that remarriage is permitted after sexual
misconduct and forms of neglect. However, in general divorce is discouraged
and reconciliation and forgiveness is encouraged. As a lay leader I am not
directly involved in marriage counselling. I will restrict the comments here to
more general terms.

First and foremost the church is to ensure health marriages and proper sexual
relationships within the church. With divorce rates within the church as high as
wider society in many countries such as Australia, the church has little moral
foundation to point the finger. The biblical emphasis is on internal discipline
with regards sexuality, not judgement of the outside (1 Cor 5). Given this, I
found the proposal of Wenham (2006:42) to change laws to support marriage

13
wrong headed and moralistic. Laws do not promote or support marriage, this
is conservative legalism.

The church should act to support marriages. This begins with pre-marriage
counselling to ensure marriages are not entered into lightly or ill preparedly –
for both Christian and non-Christian couples. I have observed at least one
case of a marriage that may not have gone ahead due to pre-marriage
counselling. Marriage support includes groups and same sex friendships
where issues can be discussed frankly. Regular teaching on sex is important,
including the biblical teaching on regular sexual relations in marriage as an
act of self-giving and meeting the needs of both spouses (1 Cor 7:1-5), as well
as issues of adultery, pornography, etc. My own experience of teaching this
passage bought both ire and appreciation. Finally, churches with many
ministries should not target newly wedded couples, along the lines of Dt 24:5.
I have seen new couples thrust into bible study leading roles in their first year
of marriage, placing undue pressure on them.

Secondly, the church needs to accept that people who have been divorced
and those that have remarried are not second class citizens in the kingdom,
and that theirs is not the unforgivable sin (Mk 3:28-29). For too many years,
people who have divorced, particularly those for biblically valid reasons have
been ostracised. It is worth noting with Keener (2006:118) that 1 Tim 3:2, 5:9
has nothing to do with divorce but marital faithfulness, and so this grace
extends to those in ministry.

Having preached on divorce and remarriage, it was encouraging to see a

woman be able to discuss the hurt she had felt when she initiated a divorce
against an emotionally and physically abusive husband. There is need for
careful counselling of those who have divorced for non-valid reasons and
support for them in celibacy, but also freedom for those who have been
abandoned or initiated divorce for biblical reasons. Note that preaching and
counselling this is not cart blanche for encouraging divorce.

14
Thirdly, Heth (2006:79) notes how difficult it is to determine the “guilty” or
initiator of a valid divorce situation. Extreme care and caution needs
exercising. Needless to say, extensive counselling and mediation is required.
Being a matter that affects the whole church community, this burden should
be shared appropriately with the community, as close friends as well as the
pastoral team become involved. Confidentiality and appropriate choice of
confidants, as well as sensitivity in the whole congregation are designed to
avoid gossip and embarrassment. Separated couples should be given every
chance for reconciliation (1 Cor 7:10-11).

Conclusion
The bible permits but does not encourage divorce under certain valid
circumstance of sexual immorality or abuse. Under these conditions or those
of abandonment, remarriage is permissible. Apart from these circumstances,
divorce and remarriage is not permitted. It is time that the church stopped
moralising to the world and supported marriage, the divorced and the divorced
and remarried and be a community of grace. Practicing forgiveness and self-
giving as well as wisdom in choice of marriage partner will be a stronger
witness than being judgemental.

Bibliography
Blomberg CL 1990. Marriage, divorce, remarriage, and celibacy: An exegesis of Matthew

19:3-12. TrinJ, 11NS, 161-196.

Brueggmann W 2001. Deuteronomy. Nashville, USA: Abingdon Press.

Carson DA 1984. Matthew. In FE Gaebelein (ed), The expositor’s bible commentary, vol 8.

Grand Rapids, USA: Zondervan.

Christensen DL 2002. Word Biblical commentary Volume 33B. Deuteronomy 21:10-34:12.

Nashville, USA: Thomas Nelson.

Craigie PC 1976. The book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co.

Fee GD 1987. The first epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co.

15
Fitzmeyer JA 1976. The Matthean divorce texts and some new Palestinian evidence.

Theological Studies, 37, 213-223.

Fitzmeyer JA 2008. First Corinthians: A new translation with introduction and commentary.

New Have, USA: Yale University Press.

France RT 2007. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Co.

Garland D 2003. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, USA: Baker Books.

Hagner DA 1995. Word Biblical commentary Volume 33B. Matthew 14-28. Nashville, USA:

Thomas Nelson.

Hays RB 1996. The moral vision of the New Testament: A contemporary introduction to New

Testament Ethics. New York, USA: Harper Collins.

Heth WA 2006a. Remarriage for adultery or desertion. In GJ Wenham, WA Heth, and CS

Keener, Remarriage and divorce in today’s church: 3 views, Grand Rapids, USA:

Zondervan.

Heth WA 2006b. A response to Gordon J Wenham. In GJ Wenham, WA Heth, and CS

Keener, Remarriage and divorce in today’s church: 3 views, Grand Rapids, USA:

Zondervan.

Instone-Brewer D 2002. Divorce and remarriage in the bible: The social and literary context.

Grand Rapids, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Janzen D 2000. The meaning of porneia in Matthew 5.32 and 19.9: An approach from the

study of ancient near eastern culture. JSNT, 80, 66-80.

Keener CS 2006. Remarriage for adultery, desertion or abuse. In GJ Wenham, WA Heth, and

CS Keener, Remarriage and divorce in today’s church: 3 views, Grand Rapids, USA:

Zondervan.

Keener CS 2009. The Gospel of Matthew. A socio-rhetorical commentary. Grand Rapids,

USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Laney JC 1982. Paul and the permanence of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. JETS, 25/3, 283-

294.

McConville JG 2002. Deuteronomy. Leicester, England, Apollos.

16
Merrill EH 1994a. The new American commentary volume 4. Deuteronomy. USA: Broadman

and Holman Publishers. Merrill EH 1994b. An exegetical commentary. Haggai, Zechariah,

Malachi. Chicago, USA: Moody Press.

Nolland J 2005. The Gospel of Matthew. A Commentary on the Greek text. Grand Rapids,

USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Porter SE and Buchannan P 1991. On the logical structure of Matthew 19:9. JETS, 34/3, 335-

339.

Powers BW 1987. Marriage and divorce. The New Testament teaching. Petersham, Australia:

Impact Books.

Powers BW 2008. First Corinthians: An exegetical commentary. A somewhat traditional

interpretation plus contemporary application. Eugene, USA: Wipf and Stock.

Thiselton AC 2006. 1 Corinthians: A shorter exegetic and pastoral commentary. Grand

Rapids, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Throntveit MA 1989. Ezra-Nehemiah. Louisville, USA: John Knox Press.

Wenham GJ 1986. The syntax of Matthew 19:9. JSNT, 28, 17-23.

Wenham GJ 2006. No remarriage after divorce. In GJ Wenham, WA Heth, and CS Keener,

Remarriage and divorce in today’s church: 3 views, Grand Rapids, USA: Zondervan.

Wenham GJ 2006b. A response to William A Heth. In GJ Wenham, WA Heth, and CS

Keener, Remarriage and divorce in today’s church: 3 views, Grand Rapids, USA:

Zondervan.

Williamson HG 1985. Ezra, Nehemiah. Waco, USA: Word Books Publisher.

17