The divorce and remarriage question and answer page, or D&R Q&A, exists to answer questions and errors about the biblical message on divorce and remarriage. When this page cites extrabiblical sources it sometimes uses the letters “C,” “P,” “S” to specify the chapter, paragraph, and sentence of text from historical works.
1. Was John The Baptist’s Conflict With Herod About Divorce And Remarriage?
Matthew 14:3-4
Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her.”1
Mark 6:17-18
For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”2
Luke 3:19-20
But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.3
Scripture is unambiguous: John the Baptist’s conflict with Herod is not about divorce and remarriage, what John the Baptist condemns is the marriage of Herod Antipas to Herodias, the former wife of his brother, Herod Philip. In the case of Herod Antipas and Herodias, their marriage is a transgression of Leviticus 20:21, which states: “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.’”4 The Jewish historian Josephus independently corroborates this reason where he writes, “…Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband’s brother by the father’s side…”5
A man cannot marry his brother’s wife while his brother lives. If his brother dies without a son, the Law requires him to marry his brother’s widow and enable her to conceive a son to receive the name of his deceased brother.6 Some traditionalists cite this dichotomy as evidence of remarriage after divorce being unlawful for a divorcee with a living former spouse, and lawful for a divorcee with a former spouse who is no longer living. This, however, is a false equivalence since God’s law against marriage to a living brother’s wife in Leviticus 20:21, and his law for marriage to a deceased brother’s widow in Deuteronomy 25:5-6, are the determinative standards of unlawful or lawful marriage for the union of a man to his brother’s wife; divorce and remarriage are irrelevant.
Traditionalists claim John references both Leviticus 20:21 and the divorce and remarriage teaching of Jesus in his criticism of Herod Antipas and Herodias. This is false, John makes no mention of remarriage after divorce being adultery; furthermore, he cites the Law, not Jesus, as the standard of conviction for their sin. John declares the marriage of Herod Antipas to Herodias to be “unlawful,” and since divorce and remarriage are not unlawful (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), Herod Antipas’ marriage to his living brother’s wife, Herodias, is the unlawful act (Leviticus 20:21).
1. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 14:3-4 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14%3A3-4&version=NIV
2. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Mark 6:17-18 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+6%3A17-18&version=NIV
3. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Luke3:19-20 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A19-20&version=NIV
4. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Leviticus 20:21 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A21&version=NIV
5. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, c5 p4 s6; c5 p1 s1-5 http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm
6. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Deuteronomy 25:5-6 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+25%3A5-6&version=NIV
2. Did Jesus Teach The One Flesh Union Of A Man And Woman Is Inseparable?
Jesus teaches the one flesh union is separable, saying: “…what God has joined together, let no one separate.”1 His admonition indicates separation of the one flesh union, and by extension, the marriage union, is possible. In Genesis 2:24 the marriage decision or marriage covenant precedes and is unique from the one flesh union. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”2 The man joins or cleaves3 to his wife (marriage) and they become one body or nakedness4 (the one flesh union). The one flesh union is God’s design for the exclusive sexual union between a man and a woman in marriage.
The Apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 6:16, “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’”5 This verse clearly communicates that the one flesh union corresponds to sexual intercourse. Proponents of extrabiblical tradition believe Jesus teaches the one flesh union is inseparable and unites one man and one woman until one of them dies. These beliefs prove contradictory to 1 Corinthians 6:16 if the man is married or the prostitute is not a virgin. Paul articulates without stipulation that sexual intercourse unites a man and prostitute in a one flesh union. Traditionalists, however, insist a married man or nonvirigin prostitute cannot unite in a one flesh union since both are bound for life to an inseparable one flesh union with the first person with whom they had sex.
Some attempt to avoid this untenable contradiction with an equally untenable reinterpretation of the verse. Traditionalists juxtapose the Greek words for one body, heis sóma,6 and one flesh, heis sarx,7 to claim Paul contrasts the union of the man and prostitute with the one flesh union from 1 Corinthians 6:16. This passage, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, consistently (eight times in six verses8) applies sóma to the human body. There is no contextual evidence heis sóma depicts a sinful antithesis to heis sarx. Paul’s purpose is to explain heis sóma is heis sarx, an illicit sexual union is a one flesh union, and he includes Genesis 2:24 as a prooftext.
Another attempt to reinterpret 1 Corinthians 6:16 to fit extrabiblical tradition involves suzeugnumi,9 or joined together, in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9: “…what God has joined together, let no one separate.”10 The verb suzeugnumi only appears in these verses, where Jesus indicates God joins a husband and wife as one flesh. Traditionalists posit that Jesus’ exclusive use of suzeugnumi in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9 is evidence that Paul chose kollaó11 in 1 Corinthians 6:16 to describe a counterfeit union, not a one flesh union. The error of this presumption is that Jesus provides exegesis or commentary with the words: “…what God has joined together [suzeugnumi], let no one separate.”12 Jesus addresses the union God joins in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7-8. A comparison of these verses with 1 Corinthians 6:16 reveals harmony in the word choices of Jesus and Paul.
1 Corinthians 6:16
Do you not know that he who unites [kollaó] himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”13
Matthew 19:5
“and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united [kollaó] to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”14
Jesus and Paul use the same word, kollaó, for the unity of a man and woman in marriage as an immoral bond. In Mark 10:7-8 Jesus uses a similar but different verb, proskollaó.15 The use of kollaó and proskollaó by Jesus for a male-female bond that results in a one flesh union parallels Paul’s own application in 1 Corinthians 6:16. Therefore, it is untrue that a description of the one flesh union must include the use of the verb suzeugnumi.
Jesus teaches the one flesh union is separable, but He teaches against such separation. God’s design since creation has been for a man and woman to unite in marriage then join their bodies through sex to become one flesh. Passages such as Matthew 19:1-12, Mark 10:1-12, and 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 confirm the impermanence of matrimonial bonds due to the reality of sin.
1. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 19:6 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19:6
BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Mark 10:9 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+10%3A9&version=NIV
2. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Genesis 2:24 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A24&version=NIV
3. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Join, Cleave – Dabaq 1692. https://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/1692.htm
4. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Body, Naked – Basar 1320. https://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/1320.htm
5. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:16 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6%3A16
6. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance One – Heis 1520. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/1520.htm
Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance One – Sóma 4983. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/4983.htm
7. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance One – Heis 1520. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/1520.htm
Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance One – Sarx 4561. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/4561.htm
8. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:13 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A13&version=NIV
Biblehub.com. 1 Corinthians 6:13 Interlinear https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/6-13.htm
BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:15 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A15&version=NIV
Biblehub.com. 1 Corinthians 6:15 Interlinear https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/6-15.htm
BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:16 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6%3A16
Biblehub.com. 1 Corinthians 6:16 Interlinear https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/6-16.htm
BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A18&version=NIV
Biblehub.com. 1 Corinthians 6:18 Interlinear https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/6-18.htm
BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:19 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A19&version=NIV
Biblehub.com. 1 Corinthians 6:19 Interlinear https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/6-19.htm
BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:20 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A20&version=NIV
Biblehub.com. 1 Corinthians 6:20 Interlinear https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/6-20.htm
9. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Join Together – Suzeugnumi 4801. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/4801.htm
10. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 19:6 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19:6
BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Mark 10:9 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+10%3A9&version=NIV
11. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Unite – Kollaó 2853. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/2853.htm
12. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 19:6 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19:6
BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Mark 10:9 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+10%3A9&version=NIV
13. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:16 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6%3A16
14. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Matthew 19:5 NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A5&version=NIV
15. Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Cleave – Proskollaó 4347. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/4347.htm
3. Does The Present Indicative “Commits Adultery” Refer To Continuous Adultery?
The present tense, indicative mood of the Greek verbs1 for “commits adultery” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18 does not denote continuous or progressive adultery. The allegation that remarital adultery is a lifestyle or state of sin, as per extrabiblical tradition, is dependent on a progressive translation of the present indicative verbs in the aforementioned verses. Neither the grammar nor the context of the verses supports such a translation, however. The present indicative is not exclusively progressive and the context of the verses supports a punctiliar not progressive translation.
The argument that present indicative verbs require a linear or durative (progressive) translation is erroneous. Of the present indicative, Greek scholar A.T. Robertson writes, “…the present is formed on punctiliar [singular action] as well as linear [progressive action] roots. It is not wise therefore to define the [present indicative] as denoting ‘action in progress…’”2 Dr. Carroll Osburn concurs, finding in his analysis of Matthew that the “vast majority” of present indicative verbs in that gospel are not progressive.3 His conclusion: “The actual use of the present indicative by Matthew, then, corroborates [A.T.] Robertson’s contention that ‘action in progress’ is not adequate to describe that linguistic phenomenon and that the context must decide in each instance.”4
Osburn asserts that context is essential to translate present indicative verbs. “Greek syntax requires that each occurrence of the present indicative be understood in terms of its context to determine whether continuity is involved. The context of Matthew [1]9:3-12 involves a discussion of a general truth, and in Jesus’ statement of that truth moichatai must be taken as a “gnomic present” in which continuity is not under consideration.”5 Beyond the immediate context of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18 in their respective passages, The Tame Divorce Doctrine reveals a broader biblical context linking Jesus’ teachings to Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus references the sin inherent in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 when He teaches about the adultery of remarriage, and Deuteronomy 24:1-4 clarifies the adultery of remarriage to be a singular sin instead of a continuity of sin.
The use of present indicative verbs does not grammatically or contextually demonstrate continuous adultery in Jesus’ teachings on divorce and remarriage.
1. Moichaó in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Mark 10:11-12 and Moicheuó in Matthew 5:32, Luke 16:18
Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Commit Adultery – Moichao 3429. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/3429.htm
Biblehub.com. Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Commit Adultery – Moicheuo 3431. https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/3431.htm
2. Robertson, A.T. (1914) A grammar of the Greek New Testament in light of historical research. Chapter XVIII: Tense, pg.864 https://archive.org/details/grammarofgreekne00robeuoft/page/864
3. Osburn, Carroll D. (1981) “The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9,” Restoration Quarterly: Vol. 24 : No. 4 , Article 1, pg. 195. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=restorationquarterly
4. Osburn, Carroll D. (1981) “The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9,” Restoration Quarterly: Vol. 24 : No. 4 , Article 1, pg. 196. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=restorationquarterly
5. Osburn, Carroll D. (1981) “The Present Indicative in Matthew 19:9,” Restoration Quarterly: Vol. 24 : No. 4 , Article 1, pg. 203. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=restorationquarterly
4. Does Paul Teach That Only A Spouse’s Death Breaks A Marriage Covenant?
Romans 7:1-3, NKJV
Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.1
Paul describes marriage as a life covenant in Romans 7:2, “For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.”2 The presence of a life covenant and adultery in this marriage analogy does not denote divorce and remarriage; even so, that a life covenant makes remarriage after an unjustifiable divorce adultery, is the teaching of Jesus.3 Paul next says that while the woman has a lawful husband, marriage to another man makes her an adulteress. “So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress…”4 The premise is the woman “…bound by the law to her husband…”5 cannot be concurrently “bound by the law” to another. Paul expounds in Romans 7:3, “…but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man,”6 and through Romans 7:4, “…you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another – to Him who was raised from the dead…”7
The point Paul makes is that Jesus’ death saves believers from being subject to condemnation under the Law. He invokes marriage only as an illustration of that point. Unfortunately, there persists an eisegetical tradition of reading divorce and remarriage into Paul’s words about marriage in Romans 7:1-3 (and 1 Corinthians 7:39). Proponents of extrabiblical tradition cite these verses as evidence that death alone ends a marriage covenant, yet no language therein exclusively qualifies death or disqualifies other causes as ends to a marriage covenant. Nor do the verses contain the words “divorce” or “remarriage” or make an allusion to divorce and remarriage. An exegetical reading of Romans 7:1-3 presents a woman with a lawful husband who marries another man – concurrent marriage to two men – and makes her an adulteress because of polyandry. This literal rendition of the verses fits the analogy that man cannot be concurrently under the Law and Jesus.8
The misapplication of Romans 7:1-3 (and 1 Corinthians 7:39) to dismiss biblically justifiable causes of divorce and remarriage is a misrepresentation of God’s Word. Paul limits his analogy to marriage and death to reflect the Law and Jesus’ death as it pertains to believers. He does not make an exclusive qualification in these verses that death alone breaks a marriage covenant.
1. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Romans 7:1-3 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:1-3&version=NKJV
2. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Romans 7:2 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7%3A2&version=NKJV
3. Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18
4. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Romans 7:3 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7%3A3&version=NKJV
5. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Romans 7:2 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7%3A2&version=NKJV
6. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Romans 7:3 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:3&version=NKJV
7. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Romans 7:4 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:4&version=NKJV
8. BibleGateway.com. BibleGateway Passage: Romans 7:5-6 NKJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:5-6&version=NKJV
5. How Reliable Are Early Christian Writings About Divorce And Remarriage?