How Serious a Sin Is Sex outside Marriage?

In Western culture today, anyone who says that sex is only appropriate within a marriage relationship is usually treated with mockery and contempt. This is seen as an extremely old-fashioned and restrictive thing to believe, something that may have looked in place in the 19th century but looks pretty ridiculous today.

For Christians, however, whether things seem old-fashioned or are the latest fashion is beside the point. Unlike fashions, which come and go, God is unchanging, and this means that the values of the Bible are also unchanging. If Scripture has something to say about a moral issue, then it is true just as much today as it was in the past.

What the Bible says about sex and marriage, therefore, is the key thing. So what does it say? Does it teach that sex is only appropriate in marriage relationships?

Yes it does. Let’s look at a couple of passages that teach this.

1 Corinthians 7

In 1 Corinthians 7 the apostle Paul spends some time talking about sex and marriage. Verses 8-9 are especially relevant for our purposes in this article, and they read as follows:

‘8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.’ (ESV)

In this passage Paul speaks positively about remaining single, but he notes that lack of sexual self-control is a problem. And if Christians have poor sexual self-control, what does he say they should do? They should marry.

Prostitution was extremely common in Corinth in Paul’s day. So in these verses Paul is clearly implying that visiting prostitutes is sinful (and other passages in 1 Corinthians are even clearer on this).

But what about having a long-term girlfriend or boyfriend as a sexual partner? Is Paul prohibiting that too?

Sometimes you will hear people argue in the following way on this point:

In the first-century Greek culture of places like Corinth, people didn’t really have girlfriends and boyfriends in the way that people in modern Western culture do. So when Paul says that Christians with poor sexual self-control should aim to marry, he is just thinking in terms of the categories of people who existed at that time, i.e., those who were unattached and those who were married. Paul is therefore not saying anything about the rights or wrongs of having long-term sexual partners other than a husband or wife. This just wasn’t an issue that he faced.

So what should we make of this argument? Is it any good?

The answer to this is a clear no. It is simply not true that in first-century Greek culture people didn’t have long-term girlfriends and boyfriends as sexual partners. It may not have been as common as it is in Western culture today, but it was hardly uncommon.

So Paul’s prohibition should be understood to include sexual relationships between long-term girlfriends and boyfriends. And if it includes these, it certainly includes all sexual relationships outside marriage.

Genesis 2

Another important passage for our topic is Genesis 2:23-24, where we read:

‘23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’ (ESV)

Note how in v. 24 Moses says that when a man leaves his parents and gets married, he will become ‘one flesh’ with his wife. Becoming one flesh is a reference to the physical joining of sexual intercourse. So this passage is teaching that it is God’s will for sex to take place within marriage.

But what about sex outside marriage? Is the passage implying anything about the rights or wrongs of that?

It makes sense to believe that it is. There seems to be quite a strong implication in v. 24 that the becoming one flesh is only appropriate when a man leaves his father and mother and holds fast to his wife.

Let me try to explain why by drawing a comparison. Something else that husbands and wives do together is eat meals. But eating meals together is obviously appropriate in many contexts for all sorts of people, not just husbands and wives.

Suppose for a moment that v. 24 read as follows:

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall eat meals together.’

Doesn’t this look a strange thing to say? Why bother mentioning that a husband will eat meals with his wife, when all sorts of people eat together? It looks too commonplace a thing to say in the context of introducing the institution of marriage.

I would suggest that the same would be true of becoming one flesh, if this were appropriate in a variety of contexts. It would be too commonplace a thing to bother mentioning when introducing the institution of marriage.

But if becoming one flesh were only appropriate in marriage, all strangeness disappears. Now there would be nothing commonplace about becoming one flesh. On the contrary, this would be something that is designed to exist uniquely in marriage. So we can easily understand why Moses would mention it when introducing the institution of marriage.

Therefore, it makes sense to believe that this passage is implying that sexual intercourse is only appropriate within marriage.

Sex outside marriage leads to hell

So the Bible teaches that sex outside marriage is a sin. But what are the consequences of committing this sin?

Well, if someone has committed this sin in the past and they have put their trust in Jesus for salvation, they will have been forgiven.

But what about those who unrepentantly commit this sin at the present time? What are the consequences for them?

We need to be very clear that these people are firmly on track for punishment in hell. Of course, Christians are saved from hell not by doing good deeds but by faith in Christ alone. But crucially, genuine, saving faith is always accompanied by an abundance of good deeds. These good deeds don’t save, but they are evidence of saving faith.

For example, Jesus tells us in Matt 7:17-19 that every good tree produces good fruit, and that every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Similarly, we are told in James 2:17-19 that faith without (good) deeds is dead and will benefit people no more than it will benefit demons.

Especially relevant for our purposes in this article is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, where Paul writes:

‘9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.’ (ESV)

We must note clearly that Paul is explicit here that the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God. In other words, those who unrepentantly commit this sin will end up in hell (unless they decide to repent, understood).

Just as sobering is Revelation 21:8, where God declares in no uncertain terms:

‘But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.’ (ESV)

Again, there is no sugar-coating anything here. People who are unrepentant of sexual immorality are on track for the fire of hell.

It is normal for fighting sin to have a high cost

It is not uncommon for Christians to make excuses to try to justify having sex outside marriage. One common excuse goes as follows:

I agree that it is God’s will as a general rule for sex only to take place within marriage. But I am not married and I find it so difficult and painful to live without sex that I don’t believe God expects me to live like that. So I believe God is OK with me having sex outside marriage.

I would suggest that this is a lie that Satan often uses. In reality, when we look at the Bible, we find that it is normal for fighting against sin to have a very high cost associated with it.

In Luke 9:23, for example, Jesus says:

‘23 If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’ (ESV)

To take up your cross daily is partly a metaphor describing the cost of following Jesus. In and of itself, this metaphor makes it clear that this cost is typically very high.

But the literal aspect of these words should also be taken into account. Jesus is saying that any follower of his needs to be willing every day to be literally crucified for his sake if need be! In other words, it is normal Christian discipleship to be prepared to pay an enormously high price for following the Lord.

The words of Hebrews 12:4 are also very relevant here. In this verse the author states:

‘In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.’ (ESV)

The point is that although following Jesus hasn’t yet cost the readers their lives, it may come to this in the future. And note the explicit reference here to a ‘struggle against sin’. It is fighting against sin, which will certainly include fighting temptation, that is so costly.

And this fight will certainly include fighting sexual temptations. So those who make excuses because they find this a hard fight are deceiving themselves. In actual fact, they are on the road to eternal destruction.

God is with us to help us

I don’t want to make light of the pain that can be involved in fighting temptations. I know how hard it can be.

But we need to trust that God knows exactly where we are at and that he loves us deeply. If we are submitting to his will, he won’t let our lives become a misery.

As the apostle Paul says in Philippians 4:19:

‘And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.’ (ESV)

We must all hold tightly on to this promise.

 

See also:

Should Single Christians Aim to Get Married?

The Radical Nature of the Normal Christian Life

What Attitude Should Christians Have to Homosexuality?

Does the Oral Contraceptive Pill Cause Abortions?

Does Matthew 5:32 Allow Some Divorce and Remarriage?

One area of controversy in the Christian faith, and within evangelicalism, concerns divorce and remarriage.

Most evangelicals say that God allows divorce and remarriage in some circumstances while one’s original husband or wife is still alive, including in cases of marital infidelity. In what follows, I will refer to this as “the majority view.” This is the view that I will be supporting in this article.

By contrast, a minority of evangelicals say that God never allows divorce and remarriage while one’s original husband or wife is still alive. I will refer to this as “the minority view.”

Actually, to be precise, those evangelicals who hold the minority view can be divided into two camps. Some say that God disallows all divorce and all remarriage while one’s original spouse is still alive. Others say that He disallows all remarriage but does sometimes allow divorce while one’s original spouse is still alive.

The question I am most interested in answering in this article is whether God ever allows remarriage while one’s original spouse is still alive. So, for my purposes, the difference between the two groups that hold the minority view is not important, since both groups claim that God always disallows remarriage while one’s original spouse is still alive.

To keep the following discussion as uncomplicated as possible, I will speak as if all those who hold the minority view disallow all divorce and all remarriage, even though some of them allow some divorce. This will simplify the discussion without affecting any argument that I make or conclusion that I reach.

THE PASSAGE TO BE LOOKED AT IN THIS ARTICLE

In the Gospels there are four passages that contain teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage. These are Matt. 5:32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18.

There are many areas of debate concerning the text of these passages, and arguments are given for and against the majority and minority views.

In this article I will concentrate on just one of these passages, Matt. 5:32, which the English Standard Version appropriately translates in this way: 

“32a But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality [porneia], makes her commit adultery, 32b and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Actually, the discussion in what follows will focus on part a of this verse, although part b will also come into the discussion.

“Sexual immorality” in this verse is a translation of the Greek word porneia, which is a broad term. Porneia was probably chosen instead of moicheia, which means “adultery,” so as to allow for the inclusion of sexual unfaithfulness during the time of betrothal, homosexual acts etc. But porneia should be understood to include adultery.

Most evangelicals, including myself, believe that in v. 32a one of the things Jesus is teaching is that there are times when it is acceptable for divorce and remarriage to occur while a person’s original husband or wife is still alive.

Some evangelicals, however, deny this. They claim that in v. 32a Jesus is not teaching that divorce and remarriage is ever acceptable while one’s original husband or wife is still alive.

A consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these positions will be the topic of discussion in this article.

TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS

The first thing we need to do is see what the options are for how we understand v. 32a.

There are two possible interpretations.

Interpretation 1

Jesus is saying the following:

If a man divorces his wife for any reason other than her sexual immorality, he makes her commit adultery when she remarries. But if he divorces her for her sexual immorality, he doesn’t make her commit adultery when she remarries, because she, through her sexual immorality which has led to being divorced by her husband, has made herself commit adultery when she remarries.

Under this interpretation, every woman who is divorced by her husband commits adultery when she remarries. So under this interpretation, every woman who is divorced really remains married to her original husband in God’s sight until either he or she dies.

And the same would be true of men. Every man who is divorced by his wife commits adultery when he remarries, because in reality he remains married to his original wife in God’s sight until either he or she dies.

This would mean that remarriage is never acceptable to God while someone’s original spouse is still alive. So this interpretation fits with the minority evangelical view on divorce, but not with the majority view.

Interpretation 2

Jesus is saying the following:

If a man divorces his wife for any reason other than her sexual immorality, he makes her commit adultery when she remarries. But if he divorces her for her sexual immorality, he doesn’t make her commit adultery when she remarries, because she doesn’t commit adultery when she remarries.

Under this interpretation, a woman who is divorced for a reason other than her sexual immorality really remains married to her original husband in God’s sight. But, under this interpretation, a woman who is divorced for her sexual immorality ceases to be married to her original husband in God’s sight.

And the same would be true of men. A man who is divorced for a reason other than his sexual immorality really remains married to his original wife in God’s sight. But a man who is divorced for his sexual immorality ceases to be married to his original wife in God’s sight.

This would mean that remarriage is sometimes acceptable to God while someone’s original spouse is still alive. So this interpretation fits with the majority evangelical view on divorce, but not with the minority view.  

ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING INTERPRETATION 1

There are some arguments that can be made in support of interpretation 1, i.e., the view that in Matt. 5:32a Jesus is teaching that every divorced person commits adultery when they remarry (while their original husband or wife is still alive).

No exception mentioned in v. 32b

To begin with, there is the point that no exception is mentioned in v. 32b.

Verse 32b says simply: 

“. . . whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

The most straightforward reading of these words is that every man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This would mean that every divorced woman commits adultery when she remarries. And if v. 32b implies that every divorced woman commits adultery when she remarries, v. 32a can’t contradict this.

I think there is some weight to this argument. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to think that the exception which is made explicit in v. 32a should be understood again in v. 32b: 

“. . . whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery [apart from those who marry a woman who was divorced for her sexual immorality].”

Jesus is speaking very concisely in this verse, and it is not at all difficult to understand him to be implying that the exception of v. 32a should be repeated in v. 32b.

Implausibility

It is also sometimes said that if we were to understand v. 32a to mean that divorce and remarriage is sometimes acceptable, this would involve an implausibility.

There are those who argue in this way:

If committing sexual immorality allows the wronged party to break the marriage bond and makes remarriage legitimate, then to say that an innocently divorced wife can't remarry (as Jesus does say in this verse) assumes that her divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another person. But this is a very unlikely assumption.

Again, this argument carries some weight.

It is true that Jesus says in this verse that an innocently divorced wife can’t remarry without committing adultery. Nevertheless, we need to take account of how concisely He is speaking here. We don’t have to understand Him to be giving the whole picture on this issue.

We could understand things in this way:

The big principle that Jesus is stressing in this verse is that marriages last for life, unless one partner commits sexual immorality, in which case the other partner is free to initiate divorce and remarriage. This means that an innocently divorced wife can’t remarry without committing adultery, if there are no complicating factors. However, sometimes there are complicating factors. Sometimes, the original husband of the innocently divorced wife will himself commit sexual immorality. In this case the innocent wife can remarry without committing adultery. Jesus doesn’t discuss any complicating factors, because He is speaking very concisely and just wants to explicitly state the general principle that marriages last for life unless one partner commits sexual immorality.

It is really not that difficult to understand things in this way.

Unfair and an incentive to commit sexual immorality

It is also sometimes said that if we were to understand v. 32a to mean that divorce and remarriage is sometimes acceptable, this would be unfair and create an incentive to commit sexual immorality.

There are those who argue in this way:

It would be strange if a woman who is divorced for no fault of her own commits adultery when she remarries, but a woman who is divorced for sexual immorality doesn’t commit adultery when she remarries. This is not only unfair but it can easily lead to an incentive to commit sexual immorality. So we should conclude, as in interpretation 1, that divorce and remarriage is never acceptable while one’s original spouse is still alive.

Again, there is weight to this argument. However, there are a number of points to make in reply:

First, it seems right to think that the issue of what God does or doesn’t regard as an acceptable divorce or an acceptable remarriage is more important than whether or not certain situations might seem unfair or might be unhelpful in serving as an incentive to commit sin. At its heart, the issue we are dealing with is one of God’s created order.

Second, even if we were to say that allowing remarriage (for both husband and wife) if a woman commits sexual immorality has the downside of creating an incentive for her to commit sexual immorality, it is not as if allowing remarriage has no upside. It has the upside of enabling the wronged husband to avoid a lot of pain. Under interpretation 1, not only is the husband sinned against by his wife committing sexual immorality, but he is not then allowed to divorce her and remarry. However, under interpretation 2 he is allowed to do this.

Third and most importantly, steps can be taken to avoid an incentive to commit sexual immorality. We can say that remarriage is unacceptable after some cases of sexual immorality.

For example, if a man has an affair and his wife divorces him for it and he then wants to marry the woman he had the affair with, I believe that we should, at least usually, refuse to recognise that remarriage.

In other words, we can make exceptions to the exception. We need to understand that in this verse Jesus is giving general principles, not a legalistic set of rules.

So, under interpretation 2 we could set out things in three statements:

(i) As a general principle people must not divorce their spouse and remarry while one’s original spouse is still alive.

(ii) As an exception to that, if the spouse is guilty of sexual immorality, it is legitimate for the wronged party to initiate divorce and for both parties to be free to remarry.

(iii) But as an exception to the exception, it is wise to disallow remarriage if the example being set might lead others to see an incentive to commit sexual immorality.

The argument from unfairness and incentive to commit sin is therefore not compelling.

Summing up

Interpretation 1 states that in Matt. 5:32a Jesus is not teaching that divorce and remarriage is ever acceptable while one’s original spouse is still alive. Each of the three arguments that I have outlined in support of this interpretation carries some weight. However, none of them is very impressive.

ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING INTERPRETATION 2

There are also arguments that can be made in support of interpretation 2, i.e., the view that in Matt. 5:32 Jesus is teaching that not everyone who remarries commits adultery when they remarry (while their original husband or wife is still alive).

An awkwardness

To begin with, there is an awkwardness in interpretation 1.

Under interpretation 1, the divorcing husband is said not to cause his wife who is guilty of sexual immorality to commit adultery when she remarries, because she, by her sexual immorality which leads to her being divorced, causes herself to commit adultery when she remarries.

However, it still looks rather awkward to say that her husband doesn’t cause her to commit adultery, because, by divorcing her, he is still (under interpretation 1) doing something that will lead to her committing adultery when she remarries.

The contrast suggests a real divorce

Next, the contrast in v. 32a also makes most sense if divorce and remarriage is sometimes acceptable while one’s original spouse is still alive.

When Jesus says in v. 32a that a man who divorces his wife for a reason other than her sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery when she remarries, He is implying that the divorce is not a real divorce at all in God’s sight.

Yet this situation is contrasted with the situation where a man divorces his wife for sexual immorality, and the contrast looks most natural if this time the divorce is a real divorce in God’s sight. And if there is a real divorce, the marriage is surely over. And if it is over, it makes sense to think that both parties are free to remarry.

That is not to say that it would necessarily be acceptable for each party to remarry anyone. See the comments above about exceptions to the exception. But as a general principle, if God recognises a divorce, then we would expect both parties to be free to remarry.

An improbability

Most importantly, there is an improbability in thinking that in v. 32a Jesus is not allowing any divorce and remarriage while one’s original spouse is still alive.

The first point to make here is that it is unlikely that the man of v. 32a, who divorces his wife for her sexual immorality, should be viewed as being compelled to divorce her in line with Jewish law.

In this part of Matthew’s Gospel Jesus is contrasting His way of doing things with Jewish customs, including by differing in some respects from the Law of Moses. So it seems strange that He would be speaking as if the divorcing husband was compelled to follow Moses as regards whether or not to divorce, precisely in the context of modifying Mosaic teaching.

It therefore seems improbable that the man of v. 32a should be viewed as being compelled to follow Jewish law.

However, if this man is viewed as not being compelled to divorce his wife for her sexual immorality, things become even more difficult.

If he is not compelled to divorce her, and if it is also true, as it surely is, that the man does no wrong in divorcing his wife for this sin, then interpretation 1 is very difficult. It seems very strange that God would be content for the man to divorce her, when he is not compelled to do so, and when doing so will lead to her committing adultery. Instead, we would expect God to forbid the man to divorce his wife, since adultery is such a grave thing.

Furthermore, if the man is not compelled to divorce his wife, then interpretation 1 also seems very inconsistent. God would want the man who divorces his wife not to remarry, at great cost to himself, so as not to commit adultery. Yet He would be content for this man to divorce his wife, even though that will lead to her committing adultery when she remarries. Why would God want the man to sacrifice so greatly so as not to commit adultery himself, yet to be so casual about whether his wife commits adultery?

Instead, the fact that God is content for the man to divorce his wife (still assuming a scenario in which he is not compelled to divorce her in line with Jewish law) suggests that she does not in fact commit adultery when she remarries, because there has been a real divorce in God’s sight, as in interpretation 2.

If, then, the man of v. 32a is not being viewed as compelled to divorce his wife in line with Jewish law, interpretation 1 looks very difficult and inconsistent.

In conclusion to this section, therefore, interpretation 1 looks improbable. It seems more than a little doubtful that the man should be viewed as being compelled to divorce his wife in line with Jewish law. But if we don’t view him as being compelled to do this, then what God wants under interpretation 1 looks very strange and inconsistent.

Summing up

Interpretation 2 states that in Matt. 5:32a Jesus is teaching that divorce and remarriage is sometimes acceptable while one’s original spouse is still alive. The three arguments that I have outlined in support of this interpretation all carry weight. The first is probably the weakest, the second a bit stronger, and the third is quite a strong argument.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

If we weigh up the support for each position, the combined weight of the arguments supporting interpretation 2 looks more impressive than the combined weight of the arguments supporting interpretation 1.

The overall conclusion to our investigation is therefore that Matt. 5:32a fits better with the majority evangelical view on divorce than with the minority view.

Given the very concise nature of Jesus’ saying in this text, it isn’t a surprise that I haven’t been able to use it to conclusively prove the majority view. But it does seem to fit better with this view than with the minority one.

This means that Matt. 5:32a gives some support to the view that there are times when it is acceptable for people to divorce and remarry while their original husband or wife is still alive.

See also my articles:

Is Divorce and Remarriage Ever Acceptable? What Should We Make of the Lack of Explicit Exceptions in Mark and Luke?

Divorce and Remarriage Are Only Acceptable in Special Circumstances

The Danger for a Christian in Marrying a Non-Christian

Should Single Christians Aim to Get Married?

Is Divorce and Remarriage Ever Acceptable? What Should We Make of the Lack of Explicit Exceptions in Mark and Luke?

One area of controversy in the Christian faith, and within evangelicalism, concerns divorce and remarriage.

Most evangelicals say that God allows divorce and remarriage in some circumstances while a previous husband or wife is still alive, including in cases of marital infidelity. In what follows, I will refer to this as “the majority view.” This is the view that I will be supporting in this article.

By contrast, a minority of evangelicals say that God never allows divorce and remarriage while a previous husband or wife is still alive. I will refer to this as “the minority view.”

Actually, to be precise, those evangelicals who hold the minority view can be divided into two camps. Some say that God disallows all divorce and all remarriage while a previous spouse is still alive. Others say that He disallows all remarriage but does sometimes allow divorce while a previous spouse is still alive.

The question I am most interested in answering in this article is whether God ever allows remarriage when a previous spouse is still alive. So, for my purposes, the distinction between the two groups that hold the minority view is not important, since both groups claim that God always disallows remarriage while a previous spouse is still alive.

To keep the following discussion as uncomplicated as possible, I will speak as if all those who hold the minority view disallow all divorce and all remarriage, even though some of them allow some divorce. This will simplify the discussion without affecting any argument that I make or conclusion that I reach.

GOSPEL TEXTS

Several times in the Gospels we find Jesus teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage. The following are the relevant texts:

Matthew 5:32 

“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

(Scripture readings in this article are from the English Standard Version except where otherwise stated.)

Matthew 19:3-9 

“3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ 

4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ 

7 They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?’ 

8 He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.’”

Mark 10:2-12 

“2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ 

3 He answered them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ 

4 They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.’
 5 And Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” 7 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’
 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.
 11 And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’”

Luke 16:18 

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

1 Corinthians 7

Paul’s teaching on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7 is also relevant for our topic.

However, to prevent this article becoming too long, I won’t discuss what he has to say. Nevertheless, leaving out Paul’s teaching on this issue won’t affect the following arguments or the conclusions that I reach.

THE MAIN ARGUMENT FOR THE MINORITY VIEW

Those who support the minority view on divorce and remarriage use a number of arguments to try to make their case. However, from what I have seen, there is one argument that they find especially persuasive.

This argument concerns the fact that in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, quoted above, Jesus mentions no exceptions to His prohibition of divorce and remarriage. In these passages He just says that divorce and remarriage is wrong without qualifying what He says in any way.

Those who hold the minority view take this to mean that there can be no exceptions to the prohibition of divorce and remarriage while a previous husband or wife is still alive.

THE EXCEPTIONS IN MATTHEW 5:32 AND 19:9

Although Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 mention no exceptions, in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 Jesus gives what looks like an exception to the prohibition of divorce and remarriage while a previous spouse is still alive.

5:32: “. . . except on the ground of sexual immorality . . .”

19:9: “. . . except for sexual immorality . . .”

Those of us who take the majority view believe that these verses do indeed refer to an exception. And we believe that the passages in Mark and Luke must be interpreted in such a way as to allow for an unexpressed exception to the prohibition of divorce and remarriage.

By contrast, those who take the minority view believe that these verses in Matthew must be interpreted in such a way as not to allow any exception to the prohibition of divorce and remarriage.

THE SCOPE OF THIS ARTICLE

I am convinced that the main argument of those who take the minority view is a weak one. I believe it is much easier to say that Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 allow for an unexpressed exception than it is to say that Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 don’t really give an exception.

In what follows, I will not try to give a broad discussion of the issue of divorce and remarriage. Instead, the scope of this article will be much more limited. I will simply attempt to refute the main argument of those who take the minority view. I am sure that it is too simplistic, and that it fails to take account of how the Bible often allows for unexpressed exceptions to things in a way that isn’t found in modern Western culture.

LESS OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN TRUTHFULNESS AND PRECISION

Something that modern Christians often fail to recognize is that the authors of the Bible, and Jesus, expressed themselves in the particular ways of speaking that were customary in ancient Jewish culture. 

Since we first learned to talk, we have been taught to speak about things in certain ways. We have been taught that some ways of speaking are truthful and that other ways are misleading. Most of us reach adulthood without ever having been exposed to another culture that speaks about things a bit differently. So we tend to simply assume that the ways of speaking about things that we are used to are universal.

This, however, is a big mistake. Importantly, what the authors of Scripture regarded as true or false ways of expressing things doesn’t always coincide with what people today regard as true or false ways of expressing things.

For our purposes, the key point we need to grasp is that in Scripture there is often much less of a connection between truthfulness and precision than exists in modern Western culture. The biblical authors were frequently far less precise about things than we tend to be.

This relative imprecision reveals itself in various ways. There are examples of astonishing imprecision in quantity (e.g., Matt. 12:40). There is hyperbole that goes far beyond what we are used to in our culture (e.g., Mark 10:29-30). The New Testament contains some amazingly imprecise quotations of the Old Testament (e.g., Gal. 4:30). And there are remarkable examples of unexpressed conditions (e.g., Matt. 19:28).

UNEXPRESSED EXCEPTIONS

There is another way too in which this general principle of imprecision can be seen, and this is in the way the Bible allows for unexpressed exceptions to things. (Unexpressed exceptions also sometimes involve unexpressed conditions and/or hyperbole.)

I think every culture, including modern Western culture, will allow for some unexpressed exceptions. There are times when we say something with the understanding that there will be exceptions to what we are saying, but we don’t bother mentioning the exceptions.

However, Scripture sometimes does this in ways that we wouldn’t find in our culture. There are places in the Bible where something is stated without exceptions being mentioned, where we would mention that there are exceptions.

Here are some examples of this:

Matthew 5:42

In Matthew 5:42 Jesus teaches: 

“Give to the one who asks you, and don't turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

In fact, it should be obvious that many situations arise when we shouldn’t give to someone who asks us for something or wants to borrow from us. For example, if someone asks us for money to buy illegal drugs, we should certainly refuse!

In this verse Jesus, in line with ancient Jewish cultural habits, sees no need to mention that there will be many exceptions to the principle that He is outlining. We wouldn’t speak like this in our culture. We would tend to convey the same information differently, perhaps by saying something like: “Be very generous in giving and lending things to people.”

Matthew 23:2-3

In Matthew 23:2-3 Jesus teaches: 

“2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you . . .”

In fact, we know from the Gospels that Jesus actually opposed a lot of the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, especially their strict rules that went beyond the written Law of Moses.

What Jesus means is that His audience should do what the scribes and Pharisees teach when their teaching is good. But the “whatever” here clearly allows for numerous unexpressed exceptions. In modern Western culture, we wouldn’t tend to speak like this. We would mention that there were exceptions to the principle that is being given.

Mark 1:5

In Mark 1:5 we read about John the Baptist: 

“And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.”

Actually, we know that there were many Jews, including Pharisees and Sadducees, who didn’t go to be baptized by John. Mark’s point is that large numbers of people went to be baptized by him. But “all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem” allows for many unexpressed exceptions, to a degree that would be unusual in our culture.

Luke 16:15

In Luke 16:15 Jesus states: 

“For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God's sight.” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

In fact, we can think of many things that would have been highly admired by people in Jesus’ day but which wouldn’t have been revolting in God’s sight. For instance, helping someone who has been hurt in an accident is just one of a multitude of examples that could be given.

Again, in line with His Jewish culture, Jesus allows for numerous exceptions to the principle He is outlining, although He doesn’t refer to these exceptions. We wouldn’t speak like this in our culture. We would probably express the same concept by saying something like, “Much that is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.”

John 14:11-12

In John 14:11-12 Jesus says: 

“11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. 

12 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do . . .”

The works of Jesus that He refers to in these verses surely include the miracles that He is found performing throughout John’s Gospel, as commentators widely agree.

It would therefore certainly be a mistake to take these words of Jesus in v. 12 literally. If we did, we would have to say that every Christian should work the sorts of miracles that He Himself worked. However, that would contradict other biblical passages, especially 1 Cor. 12:9-10, 28-29.

Instead, the idea in these words of v. 12 seems to be that being a believer in Jesus is the only qualification that people need in and of themselves to work miracles. For someone to actually work a miracle, God would still need to take the extra step of granting the ability to perform the miracle in that specific case. But believing in Christ qualifies us to potentially work miracles if God enables us. 

Understanding Jesus’ words in this way is not a forced interpretation, and this is apparently what He means. But what is clear is that Jesus allows for many unexpressed exceptions to these words of v. 12. There are many who believe in Jesus who will not in fact do the works that He did.

Again, this passage provides an example of unexpressed exceptions that wouldn’t be found in our culture. If our ways of expressing things had existed back in Jesus’ day, it makes sense to think that He would have worded things differently. He would have conveyed the same information, but with different wording.

Colossians 1:19-20

In Colossians 1:19-20 Paul writes: 

“19 For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”

In this passage, Paul explicitly says that God was pleased “to reconcile to himself all things.” And the “all things” he has in mind are said to be “on earth or in heaven.” There can be no doubt that he is including human beings in what is talking about.

However, Paul cannot have meant that literally all human beings will be reconciled to God, since that would contradict so much else in his letters. See, e.g., Rom. 2:5, 9; 2 Cor. 2:15-16; Gal. 6:8; Phil. 1:28; 3:19; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2 Thess. 1:6-9.

Instead, he must mean that all things will be reconciled to God apart from one unexpressed, exceptional group of beings, comprising some people and some angels, that will experience eternal destruction.

The way that Paul has expressed himself in this passage fitted well with how people spoke in his culture. But this is not how people in modern Western culture would phrase things. We would express the same concept differently.

Titus 1:12

In Titus 1:12 Paul quotes a saying: 

“Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”

And in the next verse he states that this is a true saying.

It makes sense to think that these vices were common in Crete at the time. But there were surely many exceptions to what Paul says here. A modern Westerner – at least one who wanted to speak truthfully – would phrase things differently.

Hebrews 4:15

In Hebrews 4:15 the author says about Jesus: 

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”

In fact, there are many ways in which Jesus would not actually have been tempted. For example, He would never have experienced temptations that are particular to a husband or a father. More importantly, because He had no sinful nature, He could never have been tempted in a way that aroused inherently sinful desires, as we often are.

Someone might want to argue that this verse should really be taken much more literally than I have done. They might claim that Jesus was supernaturally enabled to experience all sorts of temptations that He wouldn’t have encountered in the normal course of His life.

This, however, would surely be a mistake. The whole point of the author’s argument in this part of Hebrews is that Jesus shares in our humanity. He knows what it’s like. He’s been there and done that. Any suggestion of experiencing temptations other than those He experienced in the normal course of life would therefore not fit the context.

What the verse is telling us is that Jesus, as a real human being, experienced temptation in a wide variety of ways. Nevertheless, the phrase “in every respect” allows for many unexpressed exceptions. If our ways of speaking about things had existed in the first century, it is reasonable to think that the author would have worded things differently. The same information would have been conveyed, but with other words.

Summing up

The above examples have shown that Jesus and the biblical authors sometimes allowed for unexpressed exceptions to things in a way that we don’t find in modern Western culture. We tend to feel it necessary to mention exceptions more than they did.

It is important to take account of this when comparing Jesus’ statements on divorce and remarriage in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The fact that in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 Jesus mentions no exceptions to His prohibition of divorce and remarriage is not nearly as significant as those who take the minority view tend to assume. It is not difficult to think that these passages could allow for unexpressed exceptional situations where divorce and remarriage are in fact acceptable in God’s sight.

Comparison with Jesus’ teaching on seeking signs

There is actually an interesting comparison that can be made with Jesus’ teaching about seeking signs in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.

In Mark 8:11-12 we read: 

“11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him. 

12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.’”

Note that in Mark 8:12 Jesus simply says that no sign will be given.

In the parallel passage in Matthew 12:38-39, however, we are told: 

“38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.’ 

39 But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.’”

Note how in Matt. 12:39 Jesus says that no sign will be given except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Matthew 12:39 shows how it would be a mistake to assume that Jesus’ saying in Mark 8:12 allows for no exception. Rather, we should understand Mark 8:12 to allow for an exception – the sign of the prophet Jonah – even though that exception is not mentioned.

It is not difficult to think that the same could be true of Jesus’ sayings on divorce and remarriage. We could understand things in this way:

Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 give the general principle that divorce and remarriage is not allowed. Although these passages don’t mention any exceptions to the principle, it is unwarranted to assume that this means there are no exceptions. Matthew 5:32 and 19:3-9 go into a bit more detail by giving exceptions to the principle, thus showing that there are exceptions to Jesus’ prohibition of divorce and remarriage.

CONCLUSION

As I have said, it has not been my intention in this article to defend at length the majority evangelical view that there are exceptional situations when divorce and remarriage are acceptable in God’s sight.

Instead, I have concentrated my attention on what seems to be the argument that those who hold the minority view find most persuasive. Those who say that divorce and remarriage is never right while a previous spouse is still alive usually seem to find the lack of explicit exceptions in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 to be what carries the most weight on this issue.

This, however, is a mistake. Once we take account of how the Bible allows for unexpressed exceptions in a way that we don’t find in modern Western culture, this argument becomes much weaker.

See also:

Beware of Endorsing Invalid Divorces or Remarriages

The Danger for a Christian in Marrying a Non-Christian

Should Single Christians Aim to Get Married?

The Bible Is Often Very Imprecise about Things