Position on Divorce and Remarriage

by Dr. Lawrence W. Carrino

Senior Pastor at Grace Gospel Church, Patchogue, NY

Our consideration of this difficult issue must primarily revolve around the principle texts involved and not an undue emphasis on theological speculation. Since the concern of each participant in this divorce and remarriage debate consists of their desire for a truly "Biblical view" regarding this issue, the texts, and not logical arguments, must stand at the center of any consideration of this issue. However, it should also be said that theologizing cannot be eliminated from the process of constructing a view of Divorce and Remarriage that can truly be said to be faithful to the Scriptures. Like other difficult (and foundational)doctrines, such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc., the presuppositions one approaches the text with can substantially affect the "spin" of their interpretation. Presuppositions are unavoidable, and should not be seen as necessitating a position which is slanted or incapable of producing canonical fidelity. Presuppositions should be conformed to a number of factors that present the finest in Evangelical (and distinctly Protestant) hermeneutic tradition: a combination of historio-grammatical as well as historical-critical principles.

In my opinion, the narrow, legalistic character of the No Divorce and No Remarriage view stems from a false dichotomy between textual and cultural considerations. They over work the first and ignore the second. It is not enough to simply ask what the divorce passages (in both testaments) mean, but what they would have meant to the original hearers. Considering the inherent difficulty of the language and context which has precipitated this debate, familiarity with the culture, mores, language and traditions (considering that this moral issue was firmly set in rabbinic tradition in Palestine by the time of Christ) is necessary if we assume that the words of Christ (and their disturbing lack of clarifying commentary) would have been readily understood by those who originally heard them. The context of such passages strongly indicate that they would have been, as we shall discuss in the pages to follow.

The principle passages related to this debate have been provided under separate cover. My approach, for the sake of brevity (as well as a general commitment to the overall continuity between the testaments in both ethical and eschatological categories) shall consist of a consideration of principle New Testament passages on the subject; primarily the teaching of Jesus on divorce, with significant and appropriate treatment of Old Testaments as well as ancillary New Testament texts through the course of our study of these principle NT passages.



Pastorally, I consider this issue peripheral to essential doctrine (orthodoxy), however, critical to our testimony both within the church of Jesus Christ and without (orthopraxy). No conclusion on this matter will please all parties observing the actions of our congregation toward the divorced and the potentially remarried (or those actually having been remarried prior to their entrance into our fellowship), however, God is judge and He is the Discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart -- whether individually or corporately (as a church).

The first passage under consideration shall be Matthew 5:31,32. The passage (as will all others unless otherwise noted) have been cited under separate cover [NASB] and should be consulted for easy reference.

Upon a close examination of the context of Matthew 5:32, it becomes evident that his statement is expressed in the midst of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and particularly in the midst of the so-called "Six Antitheses" whose function is equally in question. Let us first review the flow of thought in this section of the Sermon, then consider the function of these antitheses ("you have heard it said, but I say to you ...").

The Flow of Thought

(1) Antitheses One: Murder and Anger (5:21-26)

(2) Antitheses Two: Adultery and Lust (5:27-30)

(3) Antitheses Three: Divorce and Porneia (5:31,32)

(4) Antitheses Four: Vows and Swearing (5:33-37)

(5) Antitheses Five: Revenge and Committal to God (5:38-42)

(6) Antitheses Six: Enemies and Unconditional Love (5:44-47)

Nature/Function of the Antitheses

Defined by Matthew 5:17 - 19 -- Jesus is interpreting the Law, not abrogating or abolishing it!

Hence, this section is not truly "antithetical" as much as it is an expansion of the given Law (Mosaic) to the hearts and inner life of those to whom Jesus is speaking.


A consideration of Jesus’ use of hyperbole (rhetorical exaggeration) is necessary here, both within the textual as well as cultural context of the Sermon. Hyperbole was an integral part of teaching in the Jewish as well as Greco-Roman world. Its function was rhetorical effect, and was widely understood as not being interpreted in a "wooden" literalness, but as a wisdom saying (proverbial): a general spiritual principle with situation exceptions. Consider the nature of the book of Proverbs -- these inspired pithy sayings regarding a number of subjects never speak exhaustively on that given subject and involve heavy qualifications in relation to applicational considerations. Consider the fact that Proverbs often speaks of wealth as God’s blessing upon an individual, and just as often condemns it if acquired under certain (and numerous) evil means [exceptional situations!]

Consider Jesus’ use of hyperbole in the gospels --

In this context -- Matthew 5:29,30: Jesus speaks of tearing out appendages of the body which would cause someone to stumble. While the application of this principle is literal in a real sense; a wooden interpretation is not possible and contradicts not only common sense but other NT commands (see: Colossians 2:21-23).

In other passages -- Luke 18:25: Jesus speaks of the difficulty of the rich entering the kingdom of heaven; as difficult as a camel entering through the eye of a needle. Once again, literal interpretation is enjoined here, and yet, a certain semblance of latitude in terms of hyperbolic expression is consistent with the normal understanding of the passage.

In other passages -- Luke 16:17: Jesus claims that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the Law to in any detail. This is obvious use of hyperbole since the Scriptures uniformly state that BOTH the Scripture as well as the material (and immaterial) creation will endure.

Craig Keener notes in his work, And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (p. 24):

Calling something a hyperbole, of course, is not an excuse to ignore what it says; the exaggeration is used precisely to force us to grapple with the radicalness of what it says, to shake us into changing the way we think and live. But it does warn us not to read everything as literally as if we were reading a report by some scholar or journalist today.

Others have also suggested that Matthew 5:32 is hyperbolic, such as RH Stein (Is It Lawful for a Man to Divorce His Wife? JETS, June 1979 as well as Divorce and Remarriage: What The Bible Says, 1976. On page 57 Stein states that the purpose of the hyperbole is not the establishment of a new, legalistic rule, but to reinforce the sanctity of marriage); William Luck (Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View, 1987); to name a few.




Hence: the principle is stated in proverbial form; that of a wisdom saying, which the original hearers of Jesus would have undoubtedly possessed a familiarity with. A wisdom saying is a general principle stated in a succinct manner designer to gain the reader’s attention and to make a point.

Is there a legal application of Matthew 5:32, or is it merely a powerless general principle? On the contrary, if there is any antithesis in this section of six that would possess legal force it would have to be the third (although it is a misnomer to assume that divorces always required legal action in a court of law in Jesus’ day -- this was patently not the case). However, in Rabbinic Law, it was perfectly natural to suppose that any legal declaration would need to be (an customarily possess) qualifications.

What then is the meaning of the exception clause in both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9?

The clause "except for porneia (immorality) most likely and naturally reflects the language of Deuteronomy 24:1, which apparently permits divorce "for the matter of uncleanness". The Hebrew word for "matter" comes over into the Greek nicely in the form of "case".

It is critical for those who would wish to prohibit divorce (or remarriage) to neutralize the force of the exception clause in these two Matthean passages. There are a number of ways in which this is attempted. We have already considered one grammatical construction employed to turn this exception on its head (into an inclusion) in our Lexical Considerations. Let’s consider a few others:

(1) Some claim that this is not an exception at all. One scholar proposes that the clause means merely that a woman is not being caused to commit adultery by being remarried simply on the basis that she already has! In other words, a woman is caused to be an adulteress on the sole force of the divorce and not on the remarriage (here interpreted as porneia in light of Paul’s directives in Romans 7:2,3). Problem: this view is too "ingenious"; the original hearers would not have likely caught the pun; also -- there is no reason to state the clause if this view is correct.

(2) Some claim that this exception clause is a true exception but only applies to those not really (authentically) married. Problem: here, in this text the woman said to be "his wife" is exactly the same term as in used in the Mosaic text cited in Matthew 5:31, and the word "divorce" is the same term in both verses. This refers to those legitimately married.


(3) Still others refer to the Leviticus 18 prohibitions against "uncovering the nakedness" (having sex with) of relatives. This is called the "forbidden kinship view". The fatal weakness of this view revolves around the fact that there is NOTHING in the semantic range of the word "immorality" (porneia) used here that would limit the term particularly to incestuous unions, as well as a complete void of contextual support in Matthew 5 to suggest that Matthew imposes such a limitation. Some proponents of this view cite certain Rabbi’s (1st and 2nd century) who discuss the issue of divorce with regard to the Leviticus 18 prohibitions; however, this is a far cry from saying that the Midrashic writings restricted the meaning of "immorality" to incest, or even narrowed the meaning to include it. Still other proponents take the exegetical leap of comparing the Matthean exceptions with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:1, where he employs the word "immorality" (porneia) here in reference to an incestuous affair. They then connect Luke’s report of the Jerusalem Council’s deliberations in Acts 15:20 (porneia is used here as well and translated "fornication") as well as in 15:29 (same usage and translation) and in Acts 21:25 (Paul’s notification of the apostle’s position on Gentile converts: porneia is again used and translated "fornication"). The alleged connection derives from the presupposition that Gentile culture bred incestuous relationships, and that the usage of porneia by Paul in the 1 Corinthians 5:1 passage with reference to an incest warrants the imposition of such a restrictive definition on the other passages; including the Matthean accounts.

Problem: the evidence for this usage does not warrant such a restriction upon the word in other texts (which are not even parallel texts). It ignores the etymological realities of interpretation, particularly the wide semantic range of the word porneia as well as its contrasted usage with the more specific word for adultery (moicheia). This view also ignores the immediate context of the alleged root passage: Paul states here that such immorality (specifically: incest) does not exist in the manner in which this individual expresses it among the Gentiles! (1 Corinthians 5:1a) Luke (the author of Acts) was certainly familiar enough with Greco-Roman society that he would have been aware of such an epidemic (as would have been Paul; his traveling companion); however, this view of Greco-Roman society is a misconception. There is also a logical inconsistency here -- those who advocate this view claim that the "one flesh" nature of marriage (which Jesus Himself appeals to in His discussion of divorce -- cf: Matthew 19:5 and Genesis 2:24) creates not only an indissoluble union (which cannot be defended contextually or grammatically) as well as creates a kinship between the husband and wife equivalent to that of "blood relatives". This is the explanation offered for the prohibition against remarriage of these former mates following divorce and subsequent remarriage. The "defilement" in verse 4 refers to the woman’s initial marriage (not her remarriage!) which makes her ineligible to marry her first husband due to their "blood relation" created by their initial union. At this point, the discrepancy should be obvious -- if marriage creates this "blood relationship" such that to enter into conjugal union would amount to incest; one would have to consider all sexual activity among married couples incestuous, since the nature of the relationship occurs at the point of marital union (one flesh)! This is not only illogical, but it undermines the sanctity of marriage as well as its sexual union (said to be kept holy in Hebrews 13:4).

What about porneia? How are we to understand its meaning?

Greco-Roman society viewed adultery as a breach of covenant; in fact, BOTH Roman and Jewish law compelled the husband to divorce his wife if she was found to be in adultery. James Efird (Marriage & Divorce: What The Bible Says, 1985) states on p. 40 that it has often been noted that "uncleanness" should mean more than adultery since adulterers were stoned (see: Leviticus 20:10 and related passages) and thus, need not be divorced.

This was most likely the driving force behind Joseph’s intended actions as recorded by Matthew in 1:18,19 (note: that it was Joseph’s piety that led him to quietly divorce his wife, Mary, on suspicion of breach of betrothal vows!)


Why is the specific word for adultery (moicheia) not used in either Matthean passages?


The School of Shammai [one of the two most influential rabbis by the early 1st century along with Hillel; and generally the stricter of the two] took the Hebrew term erwat dabar (Deuteronomy 24:1) to translate: "some unseeming thing"and to mean literally: "some uncovered thing" -- thus, they extended this beyond the actual act of adultery (specifically in light of the Mosaic command to execute the adulterers!) To refer to ANYTHING that showed immodesty, or that directly led to a suspicion of adultery or indiscretion. This view was also held by Philo, a diaspora Jew in touch with Greek thought. The broad use of the term "immorality" (use of porneia) seems, then, to fit the context best as extending beyond the physical act of adultery (note: Jesus’ words on adultery and lust).





Which brings us to an important consideration in interpreting Matthew 5:32. So many who pompously advocate a "Biblical" application of this passage neglect the fact that this statement is found in the context of the other five antithesis. The hard literalness and narrow interpretive scheme they apply to this passage is inconsistently (and may I say, whether unwittingly or not: hypocritically) avoided when considering the application of related passages such as Matthew 5:28 as well as Matthew 5:30). Are we to exercise the same discipline and censure to the adulterer who has lusted or exact the literal penalty of verse 30 on those who find themselves "offended" by their flesh? The pathetically general and benign applications of these principles ("well, just do whatever you can to avoid temptation" in relation to verse 30 and "well, this sin is too common among men to really censure them as adulterers!" in regard to verse 28 falls far short of the rigid inquisition their view imposes upon the victim of divorce: not the perpetrator but the partner who has not either instigated the divorce action or caused the action to be necessary.

Our second New Testament text under consideration is Matthew 19:9, where Jesus once again repeats His teaching on divorce with a more extended discussion (in His debate with the Pharisees who had intended to trap Him once again) of the basis for understanding the nature of marriage as well as the Mosaic concession of divorce. Jesus follows the traditional Jewish principle pf interpretation (that the more original the weightier) which assumes a progressive nature to the revelation encoded within the Scriptures, and hence affords foundational status to earlier writings. Jesus quotation of Genesis 2:24 (as well as 1:27) functions as part of His exposition on the sanctity of marriage -- but nowhere in Scripture (including these passages from Genesis) does the LORD explicitly state that marriage is an indissoluble union. However, the “one flesh” nature of the marriage bond, according to the design by God is stated in unequivicably positive terms (see: Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, p. 47); no provision is made by God for the dissolution of marriage in His original provision of the union. Hence: this fact should function as a guiding principle in understanding Jesus’ view on divorce (since His deliberate appeal to these passages would warrant such a conclusion) -- divorce was NOT commanded, it was allowed, not ultimately by Moses but by God Himself; the very Creator who designed marriage to be permanent (but not indissoluble). Divorce is not only an exception but a concession due to the falleness of man (note that the commentary on Moses’ part in Genesis 2:24 is both pre-fall; and yet is also parenthetical. It speaks to man after the fall as the continuance of the divine desire and intent for marriage, however does not exclude, but it can be argued, almost anticipates further revelation in light of the ramifications of the fall). The concession is made, according to Jesus, because of the “hardness of heart”; our Lord recognizing that there are cases in which the sinfulness which can reign in a marriage relationship is so vile that divorce is morally and spiritually preferable to the continued sin or “indecency”. The Old Testament text at issue here is Deuteronomy 24:1-3. Moses permitted divorce for erwat dabar (used only one other time in the OT in reference to excrement -- see: Deuteronomy 23:14). The translation of this Hebrew term is “something indecent” or “uncovered”. The NASB translates it “indecency”.

In light of the concessional nature of the divorce exception, it has been noted (correctly in my opinion) that this passage (as well as Matthew 5:32 by inference) must be interpreted in light of the principle of mercy that Jesus repeatedly posited as necessary to a proper interpretation of the Law (interestingly enough in Matthew’s gospel as well as in the context of Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees). Consider the two passages in context:

But go and learn what this means: I desire compassion and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.

Matthew 9:13


But if you had known what this means, I desire compassion and not a sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.

Matthew 12:7

For the sake of brevity, we shall state simply that both instances find Jesus pitted against the Pharisees, and in both instances disputing with Him regarding the proper interpretation and application of the Law (eating with sinners, and hence associations in chapter nine, and picking grain on the Sabbath in chapter twelve). Time will permit only a consideration of chapter twelve (however, in both instances, our Lord appeals to the same OT passage: Hosea 6:6) and Jesus interpretation of the situation of David in regard to the consecrated bread as well as the situation of the Levitical priest’s ritualistic breaking of the Sabbath. In the disciples’ case, they also could claim an exception -- (v. 6) “someone greater than the temple is here.” A casual examination of the fifth and sixth chapters of Hosea will reveal that Jehovah is calling the people’s apostasy to task, and inviting them to move out of their empty ritual and into the healing relationship of restoration He has for them.

In understanding the words of Jesus in His interpretation of the Law; compassion and mercy (set within the context of the violations of God’s ideal which is so characteristic of sin) must become our guiding principle.


The absence of this exception clause in Mark 10:12 is closely related to the absence of the qualifier to the Pharisee’s question in Matthew 19:3 (for any reason at all?) The qualifier is missing in the question as well as the exception in the answer. While there is no explicit reason given for the variance in Matthew and Mark’s account, the culture and audience of each gospel should be considered. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience; a group of people bitterly divided over the details of the obtaining of a divorce -- the Romans (to whom Mark wrote) had no stigmatization attached to divorce (unlike the Jews). Marriage was understood to be a union of mutual consent; when either party no longer consented to the relationship, either could declare the relationship ended and obtain a divorce (unlike the right of initiation reserved solely for the man in Jewish culture). The presence of the exception to Matthew’s Jewish audience would have been all the more necessary in light of the question of the Pharisees and the stigmatization of the woman who is divorced. Although no position can be posited dogmatically, it is never a sound hermeneutic principle to play one passage in canonical Scripture against another. In no way, can Mark’s exclusion of the exception clause be brought to bear on the meaning of Matthew’s account of the same event. Specifically in the gospels, but throughout the Scriptures, the absence of a detail in one passage is never normatively set against the presence of a detail in another. The passages of Scripture need to harmonize into a coherent whole -- not cancel one another out as advocates of the No Divorce, No Remarriage view often resort to.

Finally, a brief consideration of Paul’s teaching on divorce in order. This section shall be briefer due to the conviction that Paul’s teaching is built upon Jesus’, not in contradiction to it. It is critical to consider Paul’s teaching on marriage and divorce within the context of the specific epistle (and hence: specific church which he is addressing) as well as the culture of that church, since the epistles of Paul are intensely situational. Paul’s consistent referral to issues of concern written to him by the Corinthians (we need to look no further than 7:1) indicate the nature of the epistle; it is heavily pastoral. What I mean by this is that the content of the book is dictated strongly by specific instances of concern which were occurring within the Corinthian Church. There are two historic factors that precipitate Paul’s discussion on marriage in general and then divorce in particular:

(v. 1) -- an imbalance toward asceticism required Paul to address the issue of marriage and the importance of the sexual relationship between husband and wife (vv. 1-9)


(v. 10) -- the issue of mixed marriages [unbelievers wanting to leave their believing mates] precipitated the discussion on “what do you do if your mate no longer wants to be married to you ...” (vv. 10 - 17)







Craig Keener comments;

The Corinthians who looked to spiritual incompatablity as an excuse for divorce may have built their case on arguments already available in their culture. In the Greek translation of the Jewish Bible, Ezra’s holy decree compelled Israelites who had married pagan wives to divorce them. The passage uses the same word Paul uses for breaking the marital union here and describes this breaking of the union as “God’s will”.

And Marries Another ... p. 57


There are a number of textual notations regarding this passage that warrant consideration:

(1) Paul’s comments on the sanctification of the children and the mate of the believer has to do with the status of the children in Roman society (which could have been significantly compromised upon the dissolution of a mixed marriage according to Roman law) as well as the benefits of that family’s exposure to the gospel and Christian witness on the part of the believing mate -- and NOT the spiritual status of the relatives (see: verse 16).

(2) Verse 15 states that the believer is “not bound” or “under bondage” to the unbeliever is he chooses to leave. The language here strongly points to the freedom from the relationship as well as a freedom to remarry. In light of the Deuteronomy 24 dictates, this was the normal course of action sought after a legal divorce. In fact, according to Rabbinical law, the essential phrase on the “bill of divorcement” referred to here by the Pharisees and affirmed by Jesus was, “Thou art free to any man.” In the Mishnah (Gittin 9:3) it reads;

The essential formula in the bill of divorce is, “Lo, thou art free to marry any man.” R Judah says; “Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoever man thou wilt.” The essential formula in a writ of emancipation is, “Lo, thou art a freedwoman: lo, thou belongest to thyself.”

If Paul intended to prohibit remarriage, (considering the significant Jewish population in the Church at Corinth) he stated the exact opposite of what he meant. The language was clear in the mind of the first century reader in this respect: the right to divorce naturally issued the right to remarry.

Perhaps the most important feature of this passage on divorce from Paul in 1 Corinthians is that he introduces a new apostolic reason for divorce not previously mentioned in the New Testament: desertion. Once again, “leaving” (verse 15) will likely be understood in the context of one’s presuppositions about the nature of marriage. And hence, we come to the Pastoral considerations regarding this issue.


Pastoral Considerations:


The issue of divorce and remarriage is a difficult one indeed. One’s position on this matter is more determined by the presuppositions one brings to this study as well as the approach one employs in the midst of it. While this position paper in no way expresses my view exhaustively (it would require a book-length manuscript to accomplish that) -- it does present representationally the salient points of my position. I have purposely stayed away from “theologizing” this issue or merely offering “proof texts” devoid of biblical or cultural context. The major issues determining our position on this matter involve the following points:

(1) The meaning and validity of the exception clause in Matthew’s accounts.

(2) The meaning of and Jesus’ usage of the Old Testament texts cited in these accounts.

(3) The question of the dissolubility of marriage: is it a conditional covenant or a permanent, unbreakable bond?

(4) The meaning of porneia in Jesus’ exception clause and the breadth of meaning and application.

(5) The relationship between the right to divorce and the right to remarry.

(6) The practical application of these determinations Pastorally.




While these elements do not tell the whole tale (there are more that I could cite), it is this final consideration that I would like to address before concluding this document. The questions arises in light of all that has been considered here: are there other exceptions that the Scripture affords in reference to the allowance of divorce or remarriage?

Consider the following factors: [reiteration of some main points]

(1) The teaching of Jesus is primarily hyperbolic and takes the form of a wisdom saying (principled statement with legal applications albeit with anticipated exceptions).

(2) The teaching of Paul builds upon the teaching of Jesus (as is typical with the epistles) and adds a second explicit exception: desertion.

(3) The word upon which Jesus’ exception clause hinges (porneia) is deliberately vague and historically broad in its meaning.

(4) The initial encounter in the New Testament canon with Jesus’ teaching on divorce takes place in the context of the “six antitheses” -- whose intention was to drive at the heart of the law; emphasizing the inner life. This context (Matthew 5) requires a broader and more “spirit of the law” approach to the divorce issue and its exception if our interpretation of the rest of the chapter is to remain consistent.

(5) The possibility exists (and would be likely if these factors are the case) that these exceptions are not a “complete list” of exceptions to divorce and hence remarriage. A caution needs to be issued here -- I do not see any warrant for adding new exceptions explicitly (the addition of the desertion exception in 1 Corinthians 7 required apostolic authority to do so!) but strongly infers the broadening of our understanding of the two mentioned. The apostolic addition on Paul’s part reveals more than “apostolic license” -- it must conform to already standard (and revealed) aspects of the spirit of the teaching of the Old Testament as well as Christ on this matter. Could it be that our application of these truths should also be considered in Pastoral deliberations? It is important to note that cultural issues such as abuse, (of any sort), child endangerment, etc. were not addressed in the relatively scant passages on this issue of divorce and remarriage; does this infer that such pastoral applications are prohibited?




(6) Is the nature of our interpretation of the law to be based upon the principle of mercy as Jesus commanded in similar context to the divorce passages (Matt. 9:13 and 12:7)? If not, what basis will our interpretation of the law (which ultimately becomes our final court of arbitration since Jesus appealed to Moses and Paul implicitly appeals to Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:10)? What implications does this have for Pastoral practice today?

(7) How does the issue of 2 Corinthians 5:17 relate to this issue of divorce and remarriage? Are the technical considerations of one’s marital history to determine the actions of the church in regard to believers, or is the current status of one’s discipleship to make that determination? Is the stigma of divorce so prevalent in Jesus day (specifically toward women) to remain in the Church of Christ?

(8) Considering the debatable nature of this issue and the fact that it must be viewed as non-essential to the faith (meaning non-salvific); how do Paul’s principles for the handling of debatable issue of conscience in Romans 14 and 15 relate to this topic? In my view, the believer has only two options in regard to the nature of his or her approach to this issue practically: passing judgement on the opinions of others (Romans 14:1) or being fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5). I am convinced that this section of Romans contributes more to the construction of a Biblical policy regarding this issue than even the so-called “divorce passages” reviewed in this section. They are, albeit inspired, circumstantial; this section is transcendent.

When Jesus was confronted by these same Pharisees with the case of the woman caught in the act of adultery, (John 8:3-11), the merciless interpreters of the Law reminded our Lord of the capital punishment demanded by the Law. Remembering that Jesus had not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, He issues a rebuke which, on face value would seem to contradict the severe penalty imposed by Moses in the Pentateuch. When Jesus then confronts the woman after her accusers were gone, He tells her that He would not accuse her either. On what legal basis could He make this claim?

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.

Isaiah 53:4,5

The directives of this merciful Savior to the woman caught in adultery was this:

I do not condemn you either. Go. From now on, sin no more.

John 8:11

Not ... marry no more.

I believe that the issues surrounding the tragedy of divorce are as unique as the individuals who suffer from its hurtful consequences. That it would be so easy to possess a “clean” and cut & dry formula for determining the fitness of any given individual for divorce or remarriage! This is, in my estimation, the attractiveness of the “graceless view” of No Divorce and No Remarriage. However, mercy is much messier. It involves the care and investigation of the circumstances of the divorce and takes into consideration the current status of the individual in reference to the heart issues that culminated in divorce. It is critical, in my estimation, to distinguish between imperfect mates and instigators of the death of a marriage. Many claim that there is no victim of divorce. Often, there is not. Often, there is. Being an “imperfect mate” that affords the other to claim their right to abuse, sexual immorality, neglect, and divorce is not the same as the breach of the covenant vows taken on the part of that individual which included and anticipated those imperfections.

The innocent party in a divorce is that individual whose heart was intent on the preservation of the marital vows, but was either deserted or given no option but to declare the death of a marriage through the action of a divorce proceeding. Is it the place of the church to impose the penalties so naturally associate with the pain and rejection of divorce, or is this in the hands of a sovereign God?

I conclude with the words quoted by Jesus during His confrontation with the Pharisees;

Come, let us return to the LORD, for He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us. He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before Him. For I delight in mercy rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Hosea 6:1,2,6

Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

Romans 2:4