DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

A Review of Some NT Texts

by Jon Paulien
GC Divorce and Remarriage Committee
Montemorelos, Mexico
Jan 26, 1998

Introduction

Many have undertaken an examination of this topic with more expertise and much more

time than I have had (less than four days). My short perusal of the assignment suggests a

complexity to the Biblical material and its application that increases in exponential proportions to

the time that one wrestles with the key Biblical texts. I cannot, therefore, operate under the

illusion that anything presented here will fully and finally settle the issues facing the Seventh-day

Advenstist Church in regard to divorce and remarriage. I take comfort, however, in the Biblical

dictum, “in a multitude of counselors there is safety.” It is my prayer that the thoughts in this

paper will play a small role in the difficult task that a small “multitude” has been asked to address.

In this paper I will examine the best-known divorce and remarriage texts in the NT (Matt

5:27-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; and 1 Cor 7) in canonical order with special

attention to the nearer and larger contexts in their respective documents. I have sought to focus

particularly on exegetical insights that may have been overlooked in previous attempts to examine

these passages. There is no attempt at a perfectly balanced presentation. This is merely intended

as a stimulus to discussion.

I close the paper with a few, brief comments regarding the implications of what I see in

1
these texts for our application of Scripture in the contemporary setting. Due to the brevity of the

time that I have had available I will not be referencing secondary sources here, but will be

focusing directly on what I have observed in the Biblical texts themselves. In light of the

discussion to follow it may prove expedient at some point to flesh out this paper in a more

substantial and scholarly way, making appropriate corrections along the way.

Matthew 5:27-32

The Context of Matt 5

Matt 5:27-32 occurs as part of a larger body of material generally called Jesus’ Sermon on

the Mount (Matt 5-7). Jesus is portrayed in Matthew as the Messianic King who functions as a

New Israel and a New Moses. As the Messianic King, Jesus is frequently referred to in terms

such as Christ (Messiah— although He avoids applying the term to himself), and Son of David.

His birth is portrayed in Matthew in terms of a clash of royal claims between Jesus and Herod

(Matt 2:3-8,16-18). His genealogy is traced through the kings of ancient Israel (1:6-12). He

receives royal gifts from the Magi (2:11). Toward the end of the book He enters Jerusalem as

king (21:5,9), is crowned with thorns (27:27-29), and is entombed with a royal burial and guard

(27:57-66). The account of the Sermon on the Mount, in this context, functions as a king

delivering the laws of His kingdom.

As the New Moses Jesus is threatened at birth by a hostile king and is the sole survivor of

infanticide (2:1-18). He fasts for 40 days (4:1-2) and then delivers the law on a mountain (Matt

5:1ff.). He administers twelve disciples who are conscious counterparts of the twelve tribes (Matt

19:28). He is glorified on a mountaintop (Matt 17) and feeds a multitude in the desert (Matt 14).

2
His teachings are collected in the Gospel of Matthew into five large segments corresponding to

the five books of Moses (Matt 5-7, 10, 13, 18, 23-25). The account of the Sermon on the Mount,

in this context, functions as the New Moses affirming (Matt 5:17-19) and clarifying the teachings

of the original Moses.

As the New Israel Jesus is Mary’s firstborn (Matt 1:18-25, cf. Exod 4:22-23), is brought

up out of Egypt (Matt 2:13-15,19-20, cf. Hos 11:1ff.), passes through the waters of baptism

(Matt 3), spending a period of 40 days being tested in the desert (Matt 4) and selects 12 disciples

who function in relation to the original sons of Jacob did (Matt 19:28). In His life and His death

in Matthew, Jesus suffers the curses of the covenant as spelled out in Deuteronomy 28:15-64

(poverty, being smitten before His enemies, darkness, mockery, hunger, nakedness [27:35] and a

trembling heart [26:37-38]). The account of the Sermon on the Mount functions, in this context,

as a new covenant, spelling out the obligations of a New Israel in Jesus’ Messianic Kingdom.

The more immediate context of Matt 5:27-32, within the Sermon on the Mount itself, is

the “greater righteousness” of Matt 5:20, “Unless your righteousness should abundantly exceed

that of the scribes and Pharisees you will certainly never enter into the kingdom of heaven (my

translation).” In Matt 5:21-48 Jesus clarifies what He means by “greater righteousness” with a

series of six contrasts between “it was said” (errethe) and “but I say to you” (ego de lego humin).

Passage “It was said” “But I say to you”

Matt 5:21-26 Do not murder Do not hate
Matt 5:27-30 Do not commit adultery Do not look lustfully
Matt 5:31-32 Give a certificate Don’t divorce
Matt 5:33-37 Keep your oaths Don’t swear at all
Matt 5:38-43 Judicious retaliation No retaliation
Matt 5:43-48 Love your neighbor Love your enemies

3
 In each of these cases the citizens of Jesus’ kingdom are called to a higher standard of

righteousness than that taught by the scribes and the Pharisees (cf. 5:17-19). The New Moses

expands and clarifies the teachings of the original Moses.

Exegesis of Matt 5:27-32

The Pharisees were generally very careful to avoid overt violations of the seventh

commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But in two areas Jesus calls into question their

commitment to the kind of righteousness that His kingdom requires. They permitted themselves

to consider the option of a better wife, “window shopping” with lustful intent. And they allowed

themselves to replace their wives with “better” or more attractive specimens at the cost of a mere

certificate of divorce. As is the case with Jesus’ teachings about retaliation and love for enemies

(Matt 5:38-48), I believe that these two issues are intentionally related to each other. The looking

with lust is the precursor and the pretext for adulterous divorce. The following exegetical insights

seem to support this connection.

At first glance the “any man” (pas) who looks at a woman with lust would seem to be the

generic male, any man, single or married, who does this is committing adultery in his heart.

Without diminishing the general principle that men (and women) should guard what their eyes see

(I have frequently preached this passage in that way and plan to continue), the specific focus of

this passage is more narrow. For one thing, the term “adultery” in Scripture is consistently related

to sexual acts that affect a marriage negatively, it is not used for the wide range of sexual actions

that singles might get involved in. Also the “any man” is clarified by the parallel passage in 5:32

(“whoever (pas) should happen to divorce his wife. . .”), where the married man is clearly in view.

4
So the specific focus of 5:28 is on the married man who looks lustfully at a woman who is not his

wife.

What is this lustful look all about? The original language is much clearer than most

translations on this point. What is in view is looking “with the purpose of lusting” (pros to

epithumesai) in one’s heart. The articular infinitive with a leading preposition is one of the

clearest and most consistent ways to express intent and purpose in the Greek language. The focus

of this passage is not on just any looking, but specifically the looking of a married man who is

examining a particular woman with the purpose of lusting after her in his heart.

This is a very effective description of the fantasizing and flirtation process that precedes

acts of adultery for days, weeks, and even months and years. Except that in this case the

(generic) Pharisee that Jesus has in view does not contemplate that his lusting will result in an act

of adultery but rather the exchanging of a present wife for a more attractive one (or at least a

more novel one). Jesus thinks of this as “serial adultery” or perhaps, in extreme cases of repeated

divorce, “punctuated prostitution.” Jesus sees no difference between discarding a wife in order to

marry another and having sexual relations with one woman while married to another. If these

insights are correct, a critical component of interpretation here is to see the two parts of Matt

5:27-32 as related to the same overall topic, the deeper meaning of the adultery commandment.

There are three elements in Matt 5:32 that have proven to be rather problematic to

interpreters over the years. The most prominent of these is the so-called “exception clause.”

Whoever divorces his wife “except for the matter of fornication” (parektos logou porneias) causes

adultery to happen. The word “except for” (parektos) is a rare word (appears only three times in

5
the whole NT and perhaps a dozen more times in the ancient Greek world) whose meaning is

uncertain. It can be used as an improper preposition to mean “apart from” or “except for.” This

may be the case in Acts 26:29, although even there it is uncertain. But parektos can also be used

as an adverb expressing something along the lines of “notwithstanding” or “besides” which seems

to be the case in 2 Cor 11:28. This usage would not be an exception, rather it would heighten the

intensity of the prohibition against divorce. Anyone who divorces even where fornication is

present causes adultery.

The evidence is not clear enough to be dogmatic either way, and since the other two

occurrences have different meanings the understanding of parektos in Matt 5:32 is, at best,

debatable. If this were the only place in Matthew where an “exception clause” occurred, it would

make sense to deny the existence of an exception since Mark, Luke and Paul all note comparable

statements by Jesus that make no exceptions. But the presence of Matt 19:9 ensures that things

will not be that simple.

A second problematic element in Matt 5:32 is the meaning of “fornication” (porneia). If

we accept the idea of an exception, what exactly is Jesus excepting? Which of the ancient

definitions is in view? Is it pre-marital sex? Is it incest? Is it homosexuality? Is it just another

word for adultery? Is it all of the above? The meaning of the term is left unstated and is not

clarified by reference to Matt 5:28 where different Greek words are used.

The third problematic element in Matt 5:32 is the significance of the passive voice in

“causes her to commit adultery” (poiei auten moicheuthenai). The typical English translation of

the passage takes off from the word “causes” (poiei) to treat the passive as if it were an active.

6
At the time when he divorces her, he causes her “to commit adultery.” Since there is no mention

of remarriage here, and many cast-off wives never remarry in any case, such a translation is hard

to understand in any actual sense, even if one takes a spiritual view of the term along the lines of

the “adultery” in Matt 5:28. Is it, perhaps, better to take the passive seriously as an implication of

“stigma” or perception. If fornication is a widely accepted ground for divorcing a wife, then when

a man takes the initiative to divorce his wife it leaves the perception that the wife had broken her

vows. Her reputation is ruined. But even this interpretation falls short of certainty.

It is crystal clear from this passage that Jesus held a much higher standard in relation to

divorce than did the scribes and Pharisees of His day. In most cases, at least, divorce is not far

removed from adultery. Whether Jesus had exceptions in mind, what exactly those exceptions

were, and exactly what consequences were seen to result is less clear from this passage.

Matt 19:3-12

The Context of Matt 19

There are two ways to come at the context of Matt 19, neither mutually exclusive. One is

to see the incident at the beginning of the chapter as a follow-up to the teaching material in

chapter 18. In Matt 18 there is a section on the importance of being kind and tender to the “little

ones” in the church (1-14). This is followed by rules for confrontation (15-20) and a parable

about an unforgiving servant (21-35). While the middle passage may, at first glance, seem a bit

out of character with the first and last parts (which focus on gentleness and forgiveness), the

reaction of the disciples in 18:21 suggests that the gentleness and forgiveness theme is to be

7
applied there as well. The implication would be that if a “brother” sins against you, go to them

privately, but when you go, go bringing forgiveness. Only if they reject your advance does the

forgiveness fail to take effect. The approach of Matt 18:15 is governed by the parable of Matt

18:21-35 (note the prominence of the term “brother” once more in the conclusion to the chapter

(18:35).

If Matt 18 is the determining context for the incident in Matt 19:3-12 it would suggest a

subtext where forgiveness within the marriage becomes an alternative to divorce. A problem with

this connection is the language of a major break in Matt 19:1 (“When Jesus had finished saying

these things, he left Galilee. . .”). But such language is less likely to break up theological

development in the gospels than it might in other types of material (note, for example, the intimate

connection between the discourse in Matt 23 and that of Matt 24-25 in spite of the geographic

and chronological moves recorded in 24:1,3.

The passage in Matt 19:3-12 is also related to a larger context in Matthew. Matthew

contains a series of direct challenges to Jesus from the Pharisees. These begin with the incident in

the grain field on the Sabbath day (Matt 12:2) and continue (Matt 15:1; 16:1; 21:23; 22:15)

through a variety of situations, climaxing with the challenge regarding the greatest commandment

in Matt 22:34. These challenges are brought to a close by the comment in Matt 22:46, “From that

day on , no one dared ask Him anything anymore.” The challenge in 19:3 comes right in the

middle of this series.

The motive behind the question of 19:3, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any

and every cause,” was to “test” Jesus. Crucial to the situation may be the location, in the region

8
of Judea beyond the Jordan. This was the territory of Herod Antipas, who killed John the Baptist.

Jesus’ adversaries may have hoped that they could entice Him to condemn Herod’s marriage the

way the Baptist had, thereby bringing His career to an untimely end also.

Exegesis of Matt 19:3-12

The question recorded in Matt 19:3 was intended to put Jesus in a bind. If He agreed with

Hillel’s position (any and every cause) they would accuse Him of being lax. If He agreed with

Shammai’s position (only for sexual indency) they would accuse Him of hypocrisy, since He

welcomed and ate with open sinners. If He agreed with neither position, they would accuse Him

of contradicting Moses, who allowed for “grounds.”

Jesus turns the tables on them by expanding the discussion beyond Deut 24:1 to the intent

of God for the original creation. He quotes from Gen 1:27 (and its parallel in 5:2) and 2:24.

Since Moses also wrote the creation account, Jesus could not be accused of contradicting Moses

even as He disagreed with their interpretation of Moses. He concludes (verse 6) with the

comment that it is God that joins husband and wife together, humans are not to separate what

God has joined together.

This created a contradiction in their minds between what Moses recorded in Genesis and

what he “commanded” in Deut 24 (verse 7). Jesus responds that Moses commanded nothing in

regard to divorce, he permitted it because they would have it no other way, but this was a

deviation from God’s original intent (verse 8). There is an interesting interplay between the

words for command and permit.

Matt 19:9 is the crucial text. “But I say to you that whoever should divorce his wife,

9
except for fornication (or “not upon fornication,” me epi porneia), and marry another woman

commits adultery (moichatai).” Here Matthew avoids the problematic term (parketos) but still

does not choose the clearest Greek expression for an exception (ean me-- “if not, except”) While

this is probably used to indicate an exception (epi with the dative can mean “on the basis of”

among other things), Matthew was not as clear as he could have been. Again, in the absence of

an exception clause in Mark, Luke and Paul, the presence of an exception here is less than certain.

And once again the exact nature of the exception (signaled by the ambiguous porneia again) is

unclear. What is clear is that whatever the exception it must have seemed too little for comfort,

since Jesus’ own disciples react with horror to Jesus’ pronouncement in verse 10! Any marriage

that is dissolved without proper grounds and is followed by a remarriage results in adultery. This

direct tie between the divorce and the remarriage is in contrast with Matt 5 where the “adultery”

is the result already of the divorce itself.

Another area of difficulty, again, is the voice of the verb for “adultery” (moichatai) in

verse 9. Here the middle/passive is used without an object. Whoever divorces his wife and

marries another “is adulterified.” This is perhaps best translated as a reflexive, “causes himself to

commit adultery.” The combination of divorce and remarriage results in making the one who

initiates the divorce an adulterer.

There is an interesting further possibility in the grammar of 19:9. Jesus would, of course,

have been speaking Aramaic in the original situation. In the Hebrew and Aramaic of the OT the

waw (“and”) is used in a number of instances with purposive force: “He who divorces his wife in

order to (kai) marry another. . .” If Jesus used such a waw of purpose it would tie this passage

10
much closer to Matt 5:27-32. Anyone who divorces his wife “with the purpose of” marrying

another woman commits adultery. This translation underlines the tie between the divorce and the

remarriage and indicates that the guilt in divorce is not established so much by the outward

behavior as it is by the inward motives that lie behind the action.

It is generally assumed that Jesus’ comment in verse 11, “not everyone can accept this

word,” applies to the disciples’ reaction and not to Jesus own comment in verse 9. The

elaboration regarding “eunuchs for the kingdom” and renouncing marriage in verse 12 would

seem to support this position.

Once again Jesus sets a much higher standard than was common in his day. In this text

the presence of an exception clause seems more likely, although the exact nature of the exception

remains unclear. It may be that the crucial aspect of Jesus’ comment is the intent of the one

initiating divorce. Seen in the light of Matt 18, forgiveness becomes the antidote to divorce when

a man is faced with “any and every reason.” The focus of Jesus is not on the penalty for breaking

the law, but on preventing such a break from happening.

Mark 10:2-12

The Context of Mark 10

The context of our passage in Mark 10 is surprisingly similar to that of Matt 19. Although

Mark has no collection of material quite like Matt 18 (neither the parable of the unforgiving

servant nor the rules about how to confront a brother occur in Mark at all), the previous pericope

is concerned with the treatment of “little ones” in the church (Mark 9:42), which would have

included wives in those days, since their rights were few and far between.

11
 As with Matt 19 the episode occurs in the territories of Herod Antipas and involves a

confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees, a frequent event in Mark also (Mark 2:23-24; 7:5;

8:11; 11:27-28; 12:13-15, 28).

Exegesis of Mark 10:2-12

Mark 10 is clearly parallel to Matt 19, although the order of the material is different in

places. Pharisees ask Jesus, to test Him, whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus

asks them, “What did Moses command you?” They reply on the basis of Deut 24, “Moses

permitted men to write a certificate of divorce so they could go their separate ways.” Ironically,

the Greek of Mark 10 is the reverse of Matt 19. Jesus asks them what Moses commanded. They

reply in terms of what he permitted! Jesus then states that Moses’ “commandment” came into

existence because of the hardness of their hearts. He continues with the same quotations from

Genesis and the same summary that we find in Matt 19.

In Mark, however, the crucial divorce statement is not given to the Pharisees, it is given to

the disciples later on “in the house.” In verse 11 He tells them, “Whoever should divorce his wife

and marry another commits adultery against her.” Once again we must reckon with the possibility

of a kai of purpose. The interesting difference between this statement and the one in Matthew is

that the husband commits adultery “against her.” This addition makes sense in the light of the

context, where gentle treatment of the “little ones” is mandated. Notably absent from this verse is

any mention of an exception clause.

Verse 12 introduces a new direction for our study. Jesus states, “If she, having divorced

her husband, should marry another, she commits adultery.” This statement implies the right of a

12
woman to divorce, something which was not done in the Jewish context but was a possibility in

the Greco-Roman world to which Mark was probably addressed. What is not clear, at least at my

current level of reading, is whether this implies a fresh situation, where the wife initiates the

divorce and is treated in similar terms to a man in the same situation, or whether the “she” of

verse 12 is the same woman who was divorced in verse 11. If so, this statement is by far the

strictest we have examined, allowing neither exception clause nor remarriage for the “innocent”

spouse. The problem with that reading is that the aorist participle in verse 12 (“having

divorced”— apolusasa) is active, which would suggest that she is the initiator of the divorce.

This passage introduces a number complexities to our quest when we compare it with the

two in Matthew. Jesus reverses the “commanded/permitted” dialogue with the Pharisees, He

leaves out the exception clause, He notes that the adultery of divorce is committed “against her,”

and women appear to be described as potential initiators of divorce and its consequences.

Luke 16:18

The Context of Luke 16

The larger context of Luke 16 is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, which involves a major

portion of the gospel, from chapters 9 to 19. The purpose of this section within the gospel is

similar to what takes place in the upper room before the crucifixion in the Gospel of John. Jesus

knows that He will die in Jerusalem, so He uses the journey there to prepare His disciples for a

future without His physical presence. This section contains many of the best-loved parables that

are unique to Luke; the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Rich Man and Lazarus, as well as

the story of Zacchaeus.

13
 The more immediate context of Luke 16 is 15:1-2. The tax collectors and “sinners” were

all gathering around Jesus to hear what He had to say. The Pharisees and the scribes grumble

about this, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

Jesus responds to this comment with three parables, the parable of the lost sheep, the

parable of the lost coin, and the parable of the lost son. In essence He says, “Guilty as charged”

three times over. The three parables illustrate God’s concern for the lost. This concern is in stark

contrast with the disdain of the Pharisees toward the tax collectors and sinners.. Luke 16

continues focusing on the encounter of 15:1-2. The parable of the shrewd manager is difficult,

but it clearly has something to do with the Pharisees, who are said in 16:10-14 to be in love with

money. They therefore have the same spirit and attitude as the tax collectors. They use their

disdain for the tax collectors to cover up the misuse of their own stewardship. Then in 16:18

Jesus shows that the Pharisees’ willingness to practice “serial adultery” demonstrates that they

have the same spirit and attitude as the “sinners” they despise. So Luke 16:18 is part of Luke’s

larger design to contrast the spiritual kingdom ruled over by the Pharisees with the one introduced

by Jesus.

Exegesis of Luke 16:18

What is striking in Luke 16:18 is that verbs for “commit adultery” are unmistakably in the

active voice. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who

marries the one who was divorced from her husband, commits adultery.” Again there are no

exceptions. But here it is not the woman who is tagged with the adultery label, that is reserved

for the one who divorces her and the one who marries her afterward. The Pharisees who

14
grumbled about Jesus’ attitude toward sinners were male religious leaders. So Jesus directs His

ire toward the males who divorce and remarry freely, according to their whims.

Preliminary Perspective on the Gospels

As is usually the case with the materials in the Synoptic Gospels, there is a stunning

amount of both similarity and difference in these four texts on divorce. What is, perhaps, even

more striking is the fact that each of them is well suited to its context. None of these

prescriptions is stated in absolute terms. Each deals with a specific case and states God’s ideal for

marriage along with some reflection on the consequences of marriage breakdown. The

differences caution us against making hasty judgments about both the meaning and the application

of these statements.

1 Corinthians 7

The Context of 1 Cor 7

The church at Corinth seems to qualify as a “problem church.” It is split into competing

groups, divided in part out of loyalty to various teachers who helped raise up the church (1 Cor

1:12-13; 3:3-4). There were differences in the church over such issues as the validity of Paul’s

apostleship, lawsuits among believers, the eating of food offered to idols, procedures for

celebrating the Lord’s Supper, the validity of the gift of tongues and the reality of the

resurrection. In such a setting it is not surprising that there might also be differences regarding

sexual and marital issues.

The sexual and marital issues are addressed in chapters 5-7 of 1 Corinthians. Paul

15
responds with horror that the church has not broken fellowship with a man practicing incest with

his father’s wife (presumably not his birth mother). (For the record, incest is described in 1 Cor

5:1 as a “kind of porneia” which illustrates the diversity of meaning the term can have.) This text

makes it clear the sexual and marital aberrations are not simply moral matters, between someone

and God, church fellowship needs to be at stake in at least some situations (1 Cor 5:2,9-13).

Having said that, however, please note Paul’s change of tone in 2 Cor 2:5-11 (“The punishment

inflicted on him is sufficient, now you ought to forgive and comfort him so that he is not

overwhelmed by excessive sorrow). When it comes to these issues the practice is even tougher

than the exegesis. The Corinthian church, like many churches, tended to oscillate between

extremes.

In chapter 6 Paul urges the members in Corinth to flee from porneia, this time defining it

in terms of consorting with prostitutes. Such behavior is clearly incompatible with a life that is in

tune with the Spirit of God (6:12-20). Then in chapter 7 Paul addresses issues closest to our

concern in this paper.

In the first six chapters of 1 Corinthians Paul writes on the basis of reports that he has

heard from members of the church that have paid a visit to him (1:11-12). Beginning with 7:1

Paul addresses issues that the church itself has presented in a letter. He writes, “Now concerning

the things you wrote about. . .” Part of this construction, “Now concerning” (peri de), is repeated

at intervals (7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1) to signal that Paul is returning to the letter for his next point.

Since the Corinthian church apparently reacts to 1 Corinthians by accusing Paul of being wishy-

washy and unreliable (2 Cor 1:12 - 2:4; 7:2-4,8-12), it is likely that some at least of the

16
“aberrations” in Corinthian theology and practice were based on honest misunderstandings of

Paul’s own teachings.

Selected Insights from an Exegesis of 1 Cor 7

It is possible that I am not seeing straight, but at this point I must confess that I am

puzzled that so little energy has been invested in a discussion of 1 Cor 7, outside of verses 10-16.

Many aspects of the chapter seem to speak to this issue, yet I find little comment about it in

papers, books and articles dealing with the issue of divorce and remarriage. Let me share what I

am seeing so far.

The issue that triggers the questions of the Corinthians and the discussion of Paul is Paul’s

own view that it is better not to be married during the time of “present distress” (1 Cor 7:1,25-

26). The most likely background for Paul’s view is that he was of the opinion, at that point in his

ministry, that he was part of the last generation of earth’s history (1 Cor 7:26,29-31, cf. 1 Thess

4:17), a conviction that makes his advice in this chapter of great interest to “adventists” in every

generation. But trying to carry out Paul’s view seemed to be compounding the “present distress”

in the church rather than helping to streamline the church as it prepared for the last days.

In this chapter, therefore, we see Paul holding to his ideals, but recognizing that those

ideals had to be nuanced in the real world. This tension between the ideal and the real is

expressed in two ways in this chapter. It is expressed, first, by a series of absolute assertions

tempered by statements which follow “but ifs” (ei de, ean de, and dia de in the Greek). Paul

states a series of ideals, then declares what kinds of things are permissible when the ideal is not

reached (sometimes, as in the case of verses 10-11 and 39, the real is expressed in terms of

17
another absolute that seems to function for Paul like a “Plan B”).

A second way the ideal and the real is expressed in the chapter is in direct statements such

as that in 7:6, “I say this by way of permission, not by command.” The unusual word translated

“permission” in this verse means “pardon,” “concession,” “indulging someone,” “making

allowance for.” It expresses something that may be allowed or even required on account of

reality, but is not the best-case scenario. (Cf. 7:28,35, and especially 38-- “the one who marries

does right, the one who does not marry does even better.”) All other things being equal, Paul will

stick with his absolutes, but things in this world are not always equal (some would argue that they

are rarely so). Such a less than ideal reality can even be described as a “gift from God” (1 Cor

7:7). An absolute may be desirous in all cases, but it may not be achievable in all cases.

Before we examine this series of “but ifs” there are a couple of other exegetical issues in

the chapter that impinge on our discussion. In verses 10-12 there is an interesting interplay

between Paul and Jesus. The instruction that, “The wife must not separate from her husband,”

comes not from Paul but “the Lord” (verse 10-- ouk ego alla ho kurios), most likely based on the

tradition behind Mark 10:11-12 (since Mark was probably not yet written at this time).

Presumably this is also the case with the instruction in verse 11, “but if she leaves, let her remain

unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, and the husband should not divorce his wife.” Then in

verse 12 Paul goes on, “to the rest I say, not the Lord. . .” (Lego ego ouk ho kurios).

The relationship between a command from the earthly Christ and the counsel of an apostle

or prophet under the direction of the heavenly Christ is the subject of much debate and cannot be

settled in the course of a brief paper like this. One thing, however, seems clear to me from the

18
above verses. Paul does not consider the statements of Jesus to be a comprehensive guide to the

issue of marriage and divorce. Further revelation and a good dose of common sense are both

needed to flesh out both the will and the permission of God in a complex world.

Another crucial exegetical issue is the meaning of the term “unmarried” (agamos) in this

chapter. The term occurs four times (verses 8, 11. 32 and 34) and is associated with three other

words that express categories of relationship to marriage, “married” (10,33,34-- gamesas,

gegamekosin), “virgin” (25,28,34,36-38-- parthenos), and “widow” (8--cherais). In verse 11 the

term “unmarried” clearly refers to someone who was once married and is no longer, but whose

former spouse remains alive. This is in contrast with two other categories, virgin (one who has

never married) and widow (one who is no longer married, but the spouse is dead). The issue is

whether the term “unmarried” represents a specific category in the other three occurrences as well

or whether it is used in a broader, more generic sense, to include virgins and widows.

In verse 8 the “unmarried” are listed with the “widows” in the category of

believers for whom it is “good to remain as Paul” is. In verse 34 the “unmarried” are listed with

the “virgins” in contrast to the married. The crucial issue in these two verses is the force of the

Greek “and” (kai). The normal usage of kai is to separate two distinct categories. But in some

circumstances kai can mean “also,” “even” or “namely.” In the latter case Paul would be saying,

“the woman who is unmarried, namely (or “even”) the virgin, is concerned about the things of the

Lord” (verse 34) or “to the unmarried, namely to the widows. . .” (verse 8). But while such a

construction is grammatically possible, it strikes one as awkward and raises the question why Paul

would want to limit the statements in those verses to the virgins and the widows only. More

19
likely, the term “unmarried” is being used as a technical term for a category of individuals who

were once married but are now unmarried even though the spouse remains alive. In other words,

it is quite possible that what Paul meant by “unmarried” is the same as what we mean by

“divorced” today.

Although the term “unmarried” is not used in verses 27 and 28 Paul may be elaborating on

the category when he says, “Are you bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed, are you loosed

(opposite of “bound”-- “in an unbound state) from a wife, do not seek a wife, but if you should

marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.” Who are included in the

group that is in an “unbound state?” Virgins here are a separate category, so reference would

seem to be to the “unmarried” whose spouses are alive but unavailable. This seems a clear

statement that the remarriage of divorced persons is permissible under at least some

circumstances. The word “release” (lelusai, lusin) in this passage is different from the word “free”

(eleuthera), which Paul uses in verse 39 to describe the situation of a wife whose husband has

died, nor is the term used to describe the situation of the one whose husband has deserted her

because of religious differences (10-16).

I’d like to turn now to the series of “but ifs” in the chapter which consistently contrast the

ideal and the real. The first is found in 7:1-2 (this is the only occasion where one of the two “if”

words is missing in the formula, but all other elements are present and the “because of” [dia]

seems to function as the “if factor”). Paul’s ideal is that “it is good for a man not to touch a

woman BUT because of fornication let each man have his own wife and each woman her own

husband.” The ideal for Paul is not to marry, but in a sinful world marriage is a bulwark against

20
sexual temptation. Verse 6 underlines that the marriage option is a concession, it is not

commanded as an ideal here.

In verse 8 the ideal is that the unmarried and the widows would remain as Paul is,

unmarried. BUT IF “they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to

burn” (verse 9). In the real world some do not have the “gift” (verse 7) of self-control, so

marriage is a safeguard against immorality.

The Lord Himself stands behind an ideal for the married in verse 10, “the wife should not

leave her husband, BUT IF she leaves, she should remain unmarried or be reconciled to her

husband” (verse 11). Here the failure of the ideal seems to lead to a second ideal, a Plan B.

In verses 12 and 13 Paul goes beyond the teaching of Jesus to deal with a fresh situation.

Apparently the Corinthians had some concerns about being “unequally yoked with unbelievers.”

When a married person becomes a Christian and the spouse does not, is divorce a requirement of

Christian faith? Paul’s ideal is that if the unbeliever consents to remain, the Christian should not

seek a divorce, “BUT IF the unbeliever leaves, let him leave, the brother or sister is not bound in

such a case” (verse 15). The word for “bound” (dedoulotai) in this verse is used in verses 27 and

39 to describe the obligation to continue in marriage “til death do us part.” Does that mean the

deserted spouse is free to remarry? Has Paul added a new exception clause under the guidance of

the Spirit? The answer is not simple and clear to me at this point but verses 28 and 39 seem to

imply that the freeing of the bond (in those cases at least) includes the right to remarry in the

Lord.

The fifth ideal/real contrast in 1 Cor 7 begins with verse 26, after an extended elaboration

21
upon Paul’s fundamental principle that “each is to remain in the situation in which he was called.”

Paul seems to be arguing that coming to Christ is a radical enough change in and of itself, so

Christians are, as far as possible, to remain in the condition in which they became Christians,

whether married, unmarried, virgin, widow, slave, or free (cf. verses 17-24). He reiterates the

principle in verse 26, “it is good for a man to remain as he is.” He elaborates on the principle in

verse 27, “Are you bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed, are you loosed from a wife do not

seek a wife, BUT IF you should marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not

sinned.” As we have noted above, the remarriage of divorced persons is never the ideal, but in

some circumstances, at least, may be permissible.

Paul continues to elaborate on the principle of remaining as you are, arguing (in verses 29-

31) that the heightened tensions of the last days have made this principle all the more relevant.

Furthermore, marriage, even at its best, requires attention to secular matters that could be left

aside if a person remained in an unmarried state (verses 32-35). So at verse 35 Paul is still

arguing for the basic principle that Christians should remain in the condition in which they were

called. Then he states a second concession to that ideal, “BUT IF any man thinks he is casting

shame upon his virgin (daughter or girlfriend?), IF she is aging. . . let him do what he wishes, he

has not sinned, let them marry (verse 36).” The ideal of remaining in the condition in which one

became a Christian is not to be pressed in all circumstances. The real, in this case, is good, the

ideal is even better (verse 38).

The last set of “but if” contrasts breaks no new ground, but demonstrates how

circumstances alter cases in Paul’s mind. “A wife is bound (to her husband) for the full time that

22
her husband is alive, BUT IF the husband should fall asleep (figurative of death), she is free to

marry whoever she wishes, only in the Lord” (verse 39). The ideal holds for Paul as long as

certain conditions pertain, when those conditions no longer exist, one moves from the ideal to the

real or sometimes to a “Plan B” ideal.

The material on divorce and remarriage in 1 Cor 7 has proven to be as difficult and as

complex as the material in the gospels. But this much seems clear. It is not sufficient to total up

the absolutes of Scripture and apply them with unbending force to every situation. Circumstances

alter cases. The absolutes of Scripture are a necessary safeguard to the foolishness of the human

heart. But in today’s world, as in the time of Paul, a divorce and remarriage policy that works

will have to be based also on the realities of life at the end of the 20th century. Circumstances alter

cases, and a church policy on this matter must allow sufficient flexibility so that local churches can

apply the principles of Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit. In this matter we may wish to

consider the words of Ellen White that if mistakes are likely to be made it is better to “err on the

side of the people” (CD 211, 3T 21).

I am far from prepared to say exactly what such a principled and flexible policy should be

like, but I have a suggestion to make regarding the process by which that decision will be made.

Perhaps this is already planned, but I will mention it anyway here. As I went over the names of

the people on this committee I noticed that none of the people that I knew on the committee had

ever experienced a divorce and the resulting headaches of dealing with church policy in the midst

of one’s own pain. It may have been a point of wisdom to make sure that no one would vitiate

the study of inspiration by a desire to justify their own prior actions. But along with careful

23
attention to Scripture, I would appeal to the committee to bring in a variety of divorced SDAs

from a variety of places and circumstances (at least 4-6) and let them tell their stories including

the good, the bad, and the ugly about how our church currently deals with the issue of divorce

and remarriage. Only when knowledge of the ideal is combined with knowledge of the real will

we have any hope of being able to follow in the footsteps of the great apostle Paul.

Concluding Remarks

I realize that the above is far from mature enough to be a final word on the subject at

hand. The NT evidence must also be put together with that of the OT and the writings of Ellen

White on the subject. Attention must also be given to the realities of the present times that are

often far less than ideal. But I think the major conclusion of any such a study is not hard to see,

even at this preliminary point. We have at least three models to follow in our application of

inspiration, Moses, Paul, and Ellen White (Jesus’ pronouncements are of fundamental importance

to our task but seem to function more at the theoretical level). All three figures have two things

in common. They each state the ideal of lifelong fidelity in no uncertain terms. The absolutes are

stated as if there were no exceptions and no possibility of pardon for transgression. Yet when

confronted with less than ideal circumstances, each showed a remarkable flexibility in addressing

human need in the context of the real world (It may be instructive, however, to keep in mind that

Jesus often exhibited what was considered shockingly lenient behavior toward sinners such as the

woman taken in adultery [John 8:1-11] and the woman at the well, whose five marriages are

acknowledged as valid [John 4:18, cf.. Luke 15:1-2 and other places]).

Two principles that govern my concluding reflections need to be stated clearly and openly.

24
One is the sense that in Scripture the truth is often stated in terms of a tension between two poles.

The term “tension” is not used here to suggest contradictory assertions, rather it points a balance

between “logical” opposites, both of which are true. When infinite truth is poured into the finite

cup of human language and experience, the cup always shatters, for human logic cannot fully

survive the shock. Maintaining a balance between Biblical opposites is like holding two magnets

together north to north and south to south. They want to fly apart, but with considerable force

you can hold them together.

Many Biblical truths are like that. Although they are true, they defy human logic. For

example, Christians affirm on the basis of Scripture that Jesus is fully (100 %) human and fully

(100%) divine. But 100% and 100% make 200%, which is logically impossible (in human terms).

The God-man Jesus Christ is logically impossible, yet He existed. A truly Biblical theology will

affirm both poles of the Biblical teaching. Heresy, on the other hand, happens when people affirm

Jesus’ humanity at the expense of His divinity or vice versa. Heresy tends to affirm logic over

Scripture and is prepared to misread Scripture in order to defend the logic of a heretical reading

of Scripture. So in Scripture there are, among other things, tensions between faith and works,

justification and judgment, and the now and the not yet, each with its own contrasting heresies.

I believe that a full understanding of the NT position on divorce and remarriage will draw

out another example of Biblical tension, a tension between the ideal and the real, between

absolutes and exceptions. The Scriptures call us to wrestle with titanic tensions and apply them in

real-life situations with both utter faithfulness toward Scripture and the God It represents and

25
absolute tenderness toward the “little ones” who will have to bear the brunt of any exegetical

mistakes we might make here.

A second principle that governs my concluding reflections is the principle of the clear and

the unclear. When our goal is to apply the authority of Scripture to a world-wide body of

believers, it is absolutely mandatory that we operate from what is at least reasonably clear in the

Scriptures. In interpreting Scripture we must move from the clear to the unclear. That which is

clear must be taken with absolute humility. That which is not clear must not be pressed beyond

the limits of what is given. Our goal is complete faithfulness to the Word of God to the fullest

extent of our present understanding. The problem is that the human heart is unwilling to submit

to the Word of God and will often go to great lengths to avoid the implications of its teachings.

There is more than one way to undermine the Word of God. The liberal heresy is fairly

obvious. The liberal takes the clear things of Scripture and determines that he or she does not

wish to live by some or all of those teachings, so he or she goes about rationalizing,

demythologizing, criticizing, ignoring and undermining the clear teachings of Scripture until they

no longer seem so clear and, therefore, can be safely dispensed with in terms of authority for

everyday life. The conservative heresy is equal and opposite. The conservative takes the unclear

things of Scripture, is greatly frustrated by the lack of clarity, and, therefore, harmonizes,

elaborates, and extrapolates in order to “clarify” that which is unclear and then hit everyone else

over the head with it! (Given the shortness of preparation time, I fear that a careful examination of

this paper may produce abundant examples of both types of heresy.)

Given the nature of human avoidance of unpleasant truths, the only safe course in dealing

26
with any subject is to ground our authority not on the vicissitudes of human reasoning, but on the

solid rock of the clear teachings of Scripture. Where the message of Scripture is clear and

undisputable, it must be applied with courage and conviction regardless of those who mock and

quibble. Where Scripture is unclear, care must be exercised lest well-meaning believers abuse the

“little ones” with “truths” that sound Scriptural but are ultimately the by-product of human

reasoning.

If the above analysis of Scripture texts should prove reasonably correct, what is clear and

what is unclear about the Scriptural teaching on divorce and remarriage? One thing seems

perfectly clear to me. The Bible never describes divorce in terms of the ideal. Divorce is never

the will of God, it is the result of human sinfulness. Even where the divorce occurs as the result

of adultery or desertion, it is not a blessing, only a concession. It is still an action contrary to the

ultimate will of God. It is, therefore, absolutely imperative that whatever policy the Church

develops it give no encouragement whatsoever to divorce as an option for Christians.

Now in this paper I have explored some of the exegetical edges of this subject and sensed

the possibility that Scripture and the God of Scripture may be more tolerant of human frailty than

we are. I do not, however, want to be misunderstood. I want to make it absolutely clear that I

am deeply grateful to the SDA Church for providing a context in which I entered into marriage

without any consideration of divorce as an option. There have been many times in our twenty-

four years of marriage when the settled nature of our marriage covenant kept my wife and I

working on things that others would have considered sufficient grounds for divorce in today’s

world. The depth of relationship we have attained after 24 years and the security it gives our

27
family is a joy that would never have been ours in a serial divorce environment. Whatever the

Church does to ensure tenderness and mercy to the “little ones” who stumble into sin, let us not

diminish the call to lifelong faithfulness one iota. And let us be exceeding careful that any use of

exception clauses does not diminish the requirement of faithfulness.

While it has not been the overt subject of this paper, there is another relevant principle in

Scripture that is absolutely clear and that impinges heavily on our discussion here. Divorce may

often be adultery, but adultery is not the unpardonable sin. Sins that have been repented of and

confessed are forgiven and life can go on. There will, of course, be consequences to any divorce

and to subsequent remarriage, no matter how “grounded” in exceptions. And It may prove

advisable that some divorced persons not continue in certain church offices. But sins can be

forgiven and people should not have to live with a lifelong stigma for actions taken years before,

repented of, and dealt with psychologically and emotionally. God is severe to the high-handed

and willful sinner, in the hopes of saving them eventually (cf . 1 Cor 5:5), but He is a merciful and

caring God to all who sense their brokenness and need (cf. 2 Cor 5:5-8).

In practice, of course, these two great Biblical principles are in some tension with each

other. It will probably be impossible to set up clear and simple rules that will work in every

situation. The Biblical tension will call for a great deal of discernment at the local level as elders

and pastors wrestle with specific cases under the guidance of the Spirit. But whatever the Church

decides to do, it is critical that the gospel of full and free acceptance in Christ not be diminished.

A third thing that seems clear in both the Old and New Testaments in the fact that in a

sinful world the ideal and the real must co-exist. Absolutes in the Bible are stated with fixed and

seemingly unbending assertion. Yet the same Biblical writers who pass on God’s absolutes show

28
remarkable flexibility in the face of real-life situations. Moses can provide for certificates, Jesus

can refuse to condemn a flagrant adulteress, and Paul can say, “Always do this, but if in your

circumstances you can’t it’s OK.” We must somehow be unbending and flexible at the same time,

which may sound impossible, but with God all things are possible. To expect less of this

committee may be to concede to heresy (an important truth presented out of balance).

At this level of my exploration a number of things in Scripture seem less than clear. First,

there is the matter of exception clauses. In Matt 5 and 19, what seem to be exception clauses do

not make use of the clearest Greek language for exceptions. They may in fact be exceptions, but

the grammar is less than absolutely compelling.

Even if we allow for an exception clause, however, it is less than clear exactly what is

being excepted. The word that Jesus uses, porneia, can have a variety of meanings in different

settings, and Jesus does not provide sufficient context for linguistic certainty. But even if we

could determine the exact meaning of “fornication” in Jesus’ mind, such an exception would not

be of much practical value in most cases. Unless the violation of the marriage vow has been

flagrant and freely admitted (like leaving town with the secretary), the exception clause tends to

turn church boards into CIAs (Church Intelligence Agencies) that snoop around and pass gossip

in the hope of determining who is innocent and who is guilty.

In a sinful world you will rarely find a totally innocent party to a divorce. That means that

how a person responds to their divorce may be more important in terms of their relationship to the

Lord and the Church than the reasons why the divorce happened in the first place. It might be far

better to acknowledge that in each and every divorce a grievous violation of the will of God has

occurred, and if reconciliation is no longer an option, the issue becomes whether or not the person

29
is willing to confront their sin, to become an agent in upholding the sanctity of marriage in that

church, and to work diligently on the issues in their life that caused or contributed to the divorce.

If the person will not do so experience teaches us that any remarriage will simply replay the issues

that destroyed the previous marriage. But if the person will do so, the time should come in many

cases when they can receive the blessing of the local church for a new relationship founded on a

fresh and unbending commitment to the will of God for marriage.

I believe that it is important to spell out at some length the kind of evaluations and

procedures that are necessary for local churches to operate in the footsteps of Paul. Paul’s

concessions and their implications for us are not entirely clear exegetically or practically. But if

we are to develop a policy that has a more positive impact on the Church than the policies of the

past, it will need to be very practical and thorough in the guidance that it gives local church

boards as they seek to take actions that would be both redemptive in experience as well as meet

with the Lord’s approval.

Let the discussion begin!

30