LET NOT MAN PUT ASUNDER:

A Biblical Study of Divorce

H. Van Dyke Parunak, Ph.D.

Copyright © 1987, 1990, 2010, 2011

All Rights Reserved

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 PREFACE

They shall be one flesh.

Five times in the Bible the Spirit of God uses these words to emphasize the permanence of the
marriage bond. The strength of their union offers man and wife great joy. But it also threatens
unspeakable pain, if so deep a bond should be torn apart. Here, as so often in our lives, we need
the hope brought by patience and comfort of the Scriptures (Rom. 15:4).
Today there is hardly anyone who does not know the pain of divorce — if not personally,
then in the lives of friends and family. For over ten years I have been studying the biblical texts
that concern divorce, in an effort to soothe my own perplexity with heaven's perspective on the
subject. At first, I did not imagine that a book would be necessary. Surely, I thought, these texts
have been worked over and over, and the answers made available in countless pamphlets,
sermons, and articles.
I found abundant published opinions on divorce. Some writers, like Murray 1961 and Adams
1980, hold a thinly-disguised brief for their church's creed. Others, like Wenham 1979, offer
brilliant insights on isolated passages, but do not integrate their observations with other biblical
data. Still others, like Heth 1982, provide helpful summaries of the conclusions of earlier
scholars.
A number of striking insights emerged from my study of the biblical texts, insights that other
authors seem to have missed. When I shared these with Christian friends, they found them
helpful, and urged me to share them with a wider public.
The flavor of this book reflects these origins.
• It is an attempt to give exegetical help with a practical problem. Thus it is addressed
primarily to people with responsibility for ministry. They will welcome its emphasis on
application, and not be put off by some degree of detail in exegetical argument.
• I find that for people who do not know the various scholarly views on an issue, long
refutations of those with whom I disagree tend to confuse and not to clarify. So I strive for an
informal style, presenting my conclusions and the reasons for them as simply and as
positively as I can. To make the book useful to readers with broader exposure, I append to
several chapters notes dealing with technical questions, but these are highly selective and do
not pretend to be an encyclopedic response to every position that has been advocated through
the centuries.
• The book is exegetical, not experiential. You will search in vain for case studies. There are
plenty of those available among your friends and acquaintances, if you have the compassion
to reach out and help. The existing literature is weak exegetically, and it is this gap that I
seek to fill by concentrating on analysis of the text.
• I accept the Bible as the Word of the one God, who cannot deny himself. There is clearly a
progression as one moves through the history of revelation, and God has been pleased to
impose varying economies on his people in different ages. Still, we are not through studying
any one passage until we understand how it fits together with the other biblical texts on the

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 same subject. Thus the book treats every biblical text that I feel might shed light on the
question, including some that are not usually considered in discussions of divorce.
• The central focus of my study has been the text itself, not the opinions and comments of
others about the text. As a result, references appear only in the technical notes, and there only
selectively. Where I knowingly repeat the conclusions of others, I give appropriate credit, but
I do not guarantee that all the other conclusions are original with me. They are, however,
unfamiliar among evangelical believers today, and I am more concerned to publicize them
than to trace their history.
• The study has been based on published Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, not only on
translations. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations in the book are my own rendering,
based on Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia in the Old Testament and Hodges and Farstad 1982
in the New. Textual variants do not affect the main conclusions reached, and readers who
prefer other editions should find the arguments unaffected. My translations frequently
emphasize specific exegetical points, and should not be viewed as competing with standard
translations of the Bible. In fact, readers may find my points clearer if they compare my
renderings with more traditional versions.
The book has three parts.
1.Several introductory chapters survey the entire study and lay a foundation by examining the
biblical concept of marriage.
2.The central portion of the book examines the main texts that bear on the question of divorce,
one by one, in their historical order.
3.A final section examines some practical questions that may arise.
The studies that led to this book began in the 1970’s. Many friends offered helpful comments
on portions of the book or on lectures based on it. Mrs. Francis Quek (Leelian) converted the
book from the original PC Outline files into Microsoft Word. I am particularly indebted to Cyril
Hocking, Brian Sietsema, and my wife Anita for their careful reading and comments on the
entire work. Mrs. Alan Armstrong (Kathi) gave useful comments, and suggested and pursued
possible publishers. My immediate family, including my son Gene, my wife, and her mother
Isabella Nowlin, inspired this work and urged it on, though it often supplanted their personal
interests. To them I offer my special thanks.

Ann Arbor, MI H. Van Dyke Parunak

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
Table of Contents
PART I:
INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW.............................................................................................8
CHAPTER 1
PLEASE READ THIS CHAPTER..............................................................................................9
1.1 The Problem of Doctrine and Practice...............................................................................9
1.2 Paul's Solution to the Problem.........................................................................................10
1.3 Paul's Pattern and This Book...........................................................................................12
CHAPTER 2
A PEEK AT COMING CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................13
2.1 What is a Marriage?.........................................................................................................13
2.2 Bible Passages about Divorce and Remarriage...............................................................15
2.3 Practical Questions...........................................................................................................18
2.4 A Summary Principle.......................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 3
WHAT IS A MARRIAGE?.......................................................................................................21
3.1 Biblical Language for Marriage.......................................................................................21
3.2 Elements of a True Marriage...........................................................................................22
3.3 True Marriages and Happy Marriages.............................................................................27
3.4 Biblical Language for Marriage.......................................................................................29
3.5 Is a Marriage a Covenant?...............................................................................................35
3.6 Are Broken Covenants Dissolved?..................................................................................37
PART II:
INTERPRETATION: THE BIBLICAL TEXTS ON DIVORCE.................................................40
CHAPTER 4
THE LAW OF MOSES AND FORNICATION.......................................................................41
4.1 Survey of Deut. 22:13-29.................................................................................................41
4.2 A Closer Look..................................................................................................................42
4.3 Two Questions.................................................................................................................45
4.4 Two Important Principles................................................................................................47
CHAPTER 5
THE LAW OF MOSES AND DIVORCE.................................................................................48

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 5.1 Two Views of Deut. 24:1-4.............................................................................................48
5.2 Choosing Between the Views..........................................................................................49
5.3 The Implications of “Defiled”in Deut. 24:3....................................................................55
5.4 Wenham's Explanation of Deut. 24.................................................................................55
5.5 Two Questions on Jer. 3:1...............................................................................................56
CHAPTER 6
THE LAW OF MOSES AND CONCUBINAGE.....................................................................58
6.1 Some Recurring Themes..................................................................................................58
6.2 The Law of the Hebrew Concubine.................................................................................58
6.3 The Law of the Captive Concubine.................................................................................60
6.4 Slave-Wives and Divorce................................................................................................61
6.5 The Translation of Exod. 21:8.........................................................................................62
6.6 The Translation of Deut. 21:10-14...................................................................................64
6.7 Concubines in the Old Testament....................................................................................64
CHAPTER 7
WHEN GOD PUT AWAY ISRAEL.........................................................................................69
7.1 God's Marriage to his People...........................................................................................69
7.2 Hosea's Account...............................................................................................................72
7.3 Jeremiah's Account..........................................................................................................74
7.4 Isaiah's Account...............................................................................................................76
7.5 Explaining the Metaphor of Putting Away......................................................................78
CHAPTER 8
EZRA'S DIVORCE COURT.....................................................................................................81
8.1 The Historical Setting......................................................................................................81
8.2 Why does Ezra Urge Separation? ...................................................................................83
8.3 Mixed Marriages in the New Testament..........................................................................86
8.4 Why do Ezra and the New Testament Differ?.................................................................87
CHAPTER 9
DIVORCE IN OUR LORD'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT...................................................89
9.1 The Puzzle of Matt. 5:32..................................................................................................89
9.2 The Lord is Correcting an Error.......................................................................................90
9.3 THE LORD ANSWERS WITH A PLAY ON WORDS.................................................92

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 9.4 FURTHER EVIDENCE FOR "DEPART" = "DIE".......................................................95
9.5 Other Explanations of the Fornication Clause.................................................................96
9.6 The Lord Jesus' Use of Figures........................................................................................98
CHAPTER 10
OUR LORD'S CONVERSATIONS ON DIVORCE..............................................................101
10.1 The Setting...................................................................................................................101
10.2 The Conversation with the Pharisees...........................................................................101
10.3 The Comments to the Disciples...................................................................................103
10.4 Another Conversation with the Pharisees....................................................................104
CHAPTER 11
SUMMARIZING THE LORD'S TEACHING ON DIVORCE..............................................106
11.1 Identifying the Pieces of the Sayings...........................................................................106
11.2 Interpreting the Pieces of the Sayings..........................................................................107
CHAPTER 12
PAUL'S TEACHING ON DIVORCE.....................................................................................109
12.1 A Chapter for Lovers...................................................................................................109
12.2 The Separation Paragraph............................................................................................112
12.3 Verse 15 AND Verse 39..............................................................................................114
12.4 Does Paul Allow Divorce and Remarriage?................................................................115
12.5 Adams' Arguments from 1 Corinthians 7....................................................................116
PART III:
APPLICATION: PRACTICAL MATTERS ..............................................................................120
CHAPTER 13
SOME PRACTICAL QUESTIONS........................................................................................121
13.1 Is Divorce Ever Justified?............................................................................................122
13.2 May Divorced People Remarry?..................................................................................123
13.3 May a Divorced Couple be Reconciled?.....................................................................123
13.4 Are Marriages between Believers and Unbelievers Binding?.....................................124
13.5 Can Marriage Problems be “Under the Blood”?..........................................................124
CHAPTER 14
SHOULD SECOND MARRIAGES BE DISSOLVED?.........................................................126
14.1 What do the Gospels Say about the Second Marriage?...............................................126
14.2 What does Rom. 7:3 Say about the Second Marriage?................................................127
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 14.3 What Principles can we Glean from Other Scriptures?...............................................128
14.4 A Fictitious Case History.............................................................................................130
14.5 The Present Tense: General or Continuous?................................................................132
CHAPTER 15
THE DIVORCED PERSON IN THE CHURCH....................................................................133
15.1 Divorce and Forgiveness..............................................................................................133
15.2 What a Divorced Person May Not Do in the Church..................................................134
15.3 Other Restrictions on Elders, Deacons, and Widows..................................................136
15.4 What a Divorced Person May Do in the Church.........................................................136
15.5 The Penitent in 2 Corinthians 2...................................................................................138
15.6 Other Explanations of “One-Woman Man”.................................................................139
15.7 Ezekiel 44:22...............................................................................................................140
CHAPTER 16
PHYSICAL ABUSE AND DIVORCE...................................................................................142
16.1 Domestic Violence is Wrong.......................................................................................142
16.2 Violence is Not Grounds for Divorce..........................................................................143
16.3 Remedies for Domestic Violence................................................................................145
CHAPTER 17
GOD KNOWS THE WAY OUT.............................................................................................149
CHAPTER 18
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................153
18.1 ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................153
18.2 OTHER REFERENCES..............................................................................................153

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 PART I:
INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 1
PLEASE READ THIS CHAPTER

If you have opened this book with a particular problem in mind, you may be tempted to skip the
first few chapters and move right into the meat.
Please let the rest wait until you have read this chapter. It outlines the philosophy behind the
rest of the book. You'll be much better able to make use of the detailed studies that follow once
you understand the method that lies behind them.
Some people are very theoretical about their faith. They emphasize technicalities of Bible
study, but it doesn't seem to have much effect on their lives. Others take a practical approach to
Christian living, and are impatient with detailed explanations of how we know what the Bible
really means.
This chapter explains why neither of these positions is adequate. We
• describe the problem of keeping both doctrine and practice in focus;
• study Paul's solution to the problem; and
• outline how Paul's pattern affects this book.

1.1 The Problem of Doctrine and Practice

You are interested in an intensely practical subject, the subject of divorce. Perhaps you are
suffering in a strained marriage, and are looking for a way out. You may have loved ones with
family problems, and you want to be able to help them. You may have pastoral responsibilities
for a group of Christians, and need biblical answers to their questions about divorce and
remarriage. Even if you are only curious about these topics, it is probable that someone close to
you is divorced or is contemplating divorce.
Divorce, though, is only part of your interest. You are also interested in the Bible. You
believe that the Bible is relevant to how we live, and you want to bring that relevance to bear on
family problems.
What is the relation between the Scriptures and daily conduct? How can the study of an
ancient book guide twentieth-century decisions about divorce and remarriage?
The task of merging theology and practice is a little like making salad dressing from oil and
vinegar. Oil and vinegar tend to separate from one another, even when they are in the same
container. Constant effort is needed to keep them mixed. It's not enough for the chef to shake the
bottle and place it on the table. Every diner must shake it, too, or else be satisfied with pure oil or
straight vinegar.
Keeping doctrine and practice in step with one another also requires constant effort. It is easy
to slip into an abstract exposition of theology that ignores daily life. It is also easy to live our
lives by intuition and emotion, doing whatever seems practical at the moment, without asking
what the Bible says. These extremes are like unmixed salad dressing. Fortunately, the Bible itself
instructs us how to keep doctrine and action well mixed.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
1.2 Paul's Solution to the Problem
Paul's words to Timothy in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 suggest a framework for applying the Scriptures to
practical life.
Every Scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable
for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for discipline in righteousness,
that the man of God might be
complete,
thoroughly equipped
for every good work.
This passage sets forth the source of the Scriptures, the goal for which God gave them, and
the means of applying them to reach that goal.
1.2.1 The Source of the Scriptures
Paul describes the Scriptures as "given by inspiration of God." It issues forth from God as does
breath from a person. His Spirit carries along the writers:
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being borne
along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).
Behind the many diverse human authors of the Bible there is one ultimate source, God. He is
its author in a way that he is not the author of other books.
This confession has some practical implications for us.
• Though many people had a hand in producing the Bible, it still makes sense for us to say,
"God says ..."
• When we first read some portions of the Bible, they seem to clash with one another. Because
God is the author of them all, we cannot explain contrasting passages as reflecting
disagreements among their writers. Instead, we continue to study them, comparing them with
one another and with other passages, until we can understand them in harmony with one
another. God is not the author of confusion. The best interpretation is the interpretation that
fits all the texts.
• The Bible is not just a collection of interesting anecdotes about people's experience. It is
God's revelation, stating the desires of our Creator and Lord. He expects us to follow it, and
we will have to explain ourselves to him if we do not.
1.2.2 The Goal of the Scriptures
The ultimate purpose of the Bible is
that the man of God might be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The phrase "thoroughly equipped" translates a verb that Greek writers use to describe an oil
press accompanied with its accessories, or a rowboat with its oars. The Bible is the one essential
implement that the man of God needs to do his work. It is practical, not just theoretical. It tells us
not only what to believe, but how to live. It enables us to become master craftsmen in the
workshop of life.
1.2.3 The Means of Reaching the Goal
Paul begins with inspired Scriptures, and ends with people equipped for daily life. Here are the
oil and vinegar that we want to mix. Paul gives us a four-step recipe at the end of verse 16:
Every Scripture ... is profitable
for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for discipline in righteousness.
The first step in applying the Scriptures to life is doctrine, or teaching. Teaching is the
systematic presentation of biblical concepts, either in speech or in writing, by specially gifted
people whom God has given to the church.
After doctrine, and as a result of it, comes reproof. We are reproved when we see something
in our lives that is not as it should be. Reproof is pointing out a problem, revealing a flaw,
shining a light on a blemish that has been hidden.
Discovering deficiencies is only the beginning. The Bible also helps us to correct them. It
shows us how to avoid our errors, and gives positive steps we can take against them.
Finally, the Bible is profitable for discipline in righteousness. The word "discipline" implies
repetitive training. We need to hear the Bible's lessons over and over to strengthen patterns of
behavior that will avoid the sins of the past. It is usually not enough for us to hear a truth once.
We need repetition, and often from different sources, to set the lesson firmly in place. Thus Paul
can send his most theological letter to a church that is already "filled with all knowledge" (Rom.
15:14), because he knows the need to "remind" them (Rom. 15:15).
Paul confirms the practical orientation of the Scriptures in his exhortation to Timothy in the
next chapter:
I charge you therefore before God ...: Preach the word. Be ready in season, out of season. Reprove,
rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Tim. 4:1,2).
This exhortation offers close parallels to the four benefits of the Scriptures described in 3:16.
First, because the Scriptures are profitable for systematic study and exposition, Timothy
should preach them in this way.
Every Scripture ... is profitable for DOCTRINE (3:16). Preach the word. ... with all ... DOCTRINE (4:2).

The Scriptures are effective as a searchlight, to point out people's sin. Timothy should shine
this light where there are problems, rather than dimming it to make people comfortable.
Every Scripture ... is profitable ... for REPROOF (3:16). Preach the word. ... REPROVE, REBUKE ... (4:2).

In exhorting people, Timothy offers practical instruction and encouragement for correcting
the errors that reproof has disclosed.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Every Scripture ... is profitable f… for CORRECTION (3:16). Preach the word. ... EXHORT (4:2).

People need to hear the Scriptures over and over as the Spirit disciplines or trains them in
godly living. The one who preaches those Scriptures should be constantly standing by, ready to
help with this training. Timothy needs longsuffering for this work, because training involves
repetition, and the results may be slow to appear.
Every Scripture ... is profitable ... for DISCIPLINE in Preach the word. ... Be ready IN SEASON, OUT OF
righteousness (3:16). SEASON, ... with ALL LONGSUFFERING ... (4:2).

A skilled craftsman knows his tools and works with them, rather than against them. Timothy
is like a craftsman, and the Bible is his tool. God has designed the Bible for doctrine, reproof,
correction, and training. Thus Timothy's ministry should be marked by a doctrinal foundation,
willingness to identify sin and show how to correct it, and patience in the process of discipline.

1.3 Paul's Pattern and This Book

The rest of this book reflects in several ways the blueprint for applying the Scriptures that Paul
gives Timothy.
Paul moves from doctrine to practice, rather than the other way around. Family problems are
intensely practical, and tend to overwhelm the emotions of those who must confront them. It is
tempting to organize the discussion topically, around case studies of typical family problems.
This approach runs the risk of losing sight of biblical precepts in a storm of practical concerns.
Instead, we expound, one at a time, several biblical texts that discuss divorce and remarriage.
Our first task is to understand these texts and their relationship to one another.
Doctrine is not enough by itself. It must lead to reproof and correction. So our study must be
pastoral as well as academic. We will keep in mind some questions that arise in modern families,
and point out where the biblical text leads to answers. Some of these answers touch on personal
issues, and may lead to emotional pain. We dare not let the fear of pain turn us away from
considering such conclusions. A greater danger is that, for fear of conflict, we will stop at
doctrine and neglect reproof and correction. If we do stop before discussing practical
implications, we short-circuit the work of the Scriptures in our lives.
The cycle of applying the Bible to life concludes with "discipline in righteousness." It is
seldom enough to say something once. We will repeat some themes often in the pages ahead,
from several different standpoints. Each time we reconsider a principle, with God's help we will
understand it a little better and become a little more skillful in following it in daily life.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 2
A PEEK AT COMING CONCLUSIONS

We seek an integrated understanding of the biblical divorce texts, not just a collection of
individual observations. This global perspective comes from keeping all of the passages in mind
as we study each one in detail. You could read the book through twice, once to get a general idea
of what each text teaches and a second time to integrate that general context with the details of
each study. Instead, to save you time, this chapter summarizes the conclusions that subsequent
chapters will develop more rigorously. It raises the issues that the rest of the book addresses, and
lets you peek at the answers we will find.
It is easy to misunderstand a chapter like this one. I am not setting out assumptions on which
the rest of the study rests, or declaring a preconceived creed that the later chapters defend. The
principles outlined here are the conclusions of the study, not its foundation. Logically, this is the
last chapter of the book. It comes first because I want you to understand the later discussions,
and surprise hinders understanding. If you know what is coming, you will be able to understand
it better when it arrives.
Our summary follows the structure of the rest of the book.
• The chapter after this one is the last chapter of Part I, the Introduction of the book. It
seeks a definition of marriage, so that we can know which couples "God has joined
together."
• The nine chapters in Part II study the biblical texts on divorce and remarriage. We treat
them in the order in which they were written, so that we can trace God's unfolding
revelation on the subject.
• The last five chapters, in Part III, discuss some practical topics on the basis of the
conclusions drawn in Part II from the texts.

2.1 What is a Marriage?

The big question in this book is, "What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?" We
can handle this question more easily if we break it down into smaller questions. We could ask,
"What does the Bible say about divorce?" Even this may be too ambitious. We might want to
start with a question of definition: "What is a divorce?"
The last question seems easy. Divorce is a legal action dissolving the marriage of two people.
This leads us to a more basic question. Two people cannot be divorced without first being
married. So it is natural to ask, "What is marriage?" We discuss this question briefly here, and in
more detail in the next chapter.
Even this simple question has answers at several levels.
• People sometimes consider themselves married to one another just by living together,
whether the state recognizes their union or not.
• The state, in turn, declares people to be married or not, usually without asking what God
thinks of the matter.
• The Lord Jesus taught that there is a level of marriage that God recognizes, and even ratifies:

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt. 19:6).
Since we want to know God's will about divorce and remarriage, we need a definition of the
third level of marriage. Our question becomes, "When are two people joined together by God?"
To answer this question, we will study several examples of marriage in the Bible, and ask what
characteristics they share.
The Bible regards marriage as the only legitimate context for physical union between man
and woman. Physical union, though, is not enough to make a couple man and wife before God.
The Lord Jesus makes this clear to the woman at the well of Sychar when he tells her that the
man with whom she is presently living is not her husband (John 4:18). In the next chapter, we
will see that at least three things are true of unions that the Bible recognizes as marriage.
• The man and woman enter into a covenant or commitment to one another.
• They make this commitment in keeping with the standards of their society and culture.
• They unite physically.
These elements form the weakest bond that God ratifies as marriage. They do not guarantee
that the marriage is pleasing to God. A marriage may meet these conditions and still violate the
standards of God's word. For instance, a believer sins if she knowingly marries an unbeliever. If
that union meets these three conditions, though, God has joined them together. If the man and
woman seek to dissolve that marriage, the biblical teaching on divorce applies to them.
Though physical union is not the only element of marriage, it is an important one, and we
will refer to it frequently. In discussing unlawful union, we will use the terms "fornication" and
"adultery" in keeping with their biblical usage. "Adultery" describes a union in which at least one
partner belongs to someone else. It always involves unfaithfulness to marriage. "Fornication"
describes any unlawful union, whether or not the participants are being unfaithful to their
spouses. Every case of adultery is a case of fornication, but some cases of fornication (such as
premarital union between single people) are not cases of adultery.
The definition of marriage that we have outlined has important practical consequences.
• Premarital union does not turn into marriage if a couple persists in it for a long time, even if
they are committed to each other. They are members of society. One of the functions that
God has given society is to recognize and regulate the union of man and wife. Christians are
to be subject to the civil authorities (Rom. 13), and so should follow their rules for marriage.
• Not every separation of a man and a woman living together is divorce. Divorce is the
breakup of a marriage, and is forbidden throughout the Scriptures. A union that is not
marriage, on the other hand, should be dissolved.
• Paul teaches in Rom. 7:3 that a woman who remarries while her first husband is alive
commits adultery. If physical union alone were marriage, a Christian whose past life includes
fornication could never marry anyone else without committing adultery against the first
partner. Because physical union alone is not marriage, it does not make a future marriage
adulterous. A Christian who has repented of previous fornication and forsaken it, and who
has not married a person still living, may marry without committing adultery.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
2.2 Bible Passages about Divorce and Remarriage
After we substantiate our definition of marriage in the next chapter, we will work through
passages in five major bodies of revelation that bear on the question of divorce and remarriage.
The five portions of the Bible that we will study in Part II are
• the Mosaic Law;
• the Prophets, represented by Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah;
• Ezra in the period after the Babylonian captivity;
• the teaching of the Lord Jesus;
• and Paul's instruction.
2.2.1 Does Moses approve divorce?
Chapters 6 through 8 analyze passages from the Law of Moses that regulate divorce and
remarriage in Israel.
Moses and Immorality – Deuteronomy 22 outlines the consequences of fornication (including
adultery) in Israel. It always punishes adultery by executing the guilty parties. Because
remarriage is so much a part of the divorce question today, we note with interest that this penalty
has the additional effect of terminating the marriage that the adultery violated.
Deuteronomy 22 is also important for understanding Joseph's actions in Matthew 1, when he
finds that Mary is with child out of wedlock. We will see that her case is ambiguous in the light
of Deuteronomy 22, and Joseph's actions reflect that ambiguity.
Moses and Divorce – Moses lays down certain laws about divorce in Deut. 24:1-4. As these
laws are translated in many versions of the Bible, they seem to permit divorce and remarriage.
For instance, the Authorized Version renders them,
When a man has taken a wife, and ... he hath found some uncleanness in her, then let him write her a
bill of divorcement ... And ... she may go and be another man's wife (Deut. 24:1-2, AV).
This translation, while possible linguistically, is not the best. There is another rendering that
is grammatically preferable. The Lord Jesus endorses this alternate translation in his teaching on
divorce in the Gospels. Moses is not telling disgruntled husbands how to get rid of their wives.
He is recognizing that divorce does occur, and is telling people what they may and may not do as
a result.
In particular, Moses teaches that
IF a couple is divorced, and
IF the wife remarries, and
IF that second union ends,
whether by death
or by divorce,
THEN the original couple may not remarry.
Moses and Slave Wives — Two passages in the Mosaic Law describe unions between masters
and slaves. In one case, the master purchases a female slave of Israelite birth (Exod. 21:7-11),
while in another, the slave is a captive of war (Deut. 21:10-14). In both cases, the Law
anticipates that the master may lose interest in the girl. If this happens, he may not simply sell
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
her, but must allow her to be redeemed, or even set her free without payment, depending on the
circumstances.
In these cases, the man has obligations that he does not have toward other slaves. The woman
is no longer his property, to be bought and sold as he pleases. Yet she is not fully a wife, either.
Though Moses never uses the word of her, we will see that she is a concubine. Moses does not
encourage such a relation, or the casual way in which the master loses interest in his slave.
Because these things do happen, though, the Law protects the woman.
2.2.2 Do the Prophets give a precedent for divorce?
In Chapter 7 we study prophecies of Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah that describe the Lord's
separation from Israel. For example, Hosea is a prophet who preaches in Israel in the eighth
century before Christ. His contemporaries have forgotten the Lord, who brought their ancestors
out of captivity in Egypt and gave them the land of Canaan, and now worship other gods. Hosea
tells them how sinful this apostasy is, and warns them about what will happen if they do not
repent.
Hosea, under God's instruction, marries a woman who is later unfaithful to him. He compares
himself to God, and his wife to Israel. Just as he married a wife, so God married Israel. Just as
his wife betrayed him for other men, so Israel betrayed her Lord and went after other gods. Now
God will deal with Israel as a man might deal with an adulterous wife. In 2:2-5, the Lord files a
formal legal indictment against Israel, and proclaims, "She is not my wife, neither am I her
husband." Hosea describes legal proceedings in which the Lord puts away faithless Israel.
The Lord's law suit against Israel shows that infidelity within marriage is cause for
separation. It also shows the form that the separation is to take. This separation does not leave
both parties free to remarry. The Lord urges Israel, his "wife," to repent of her sin,
lest I strip her naked, and ... slay her with thirst (Hos. 2:3).
In accordance with the Law of Moses in Deut. 22, the unfaithful wife deserves death, but
God graciously offers forgiveness and restoration.
Isaiah and Jeremiah also use the metaphor of marital infidelity to describe Israel's relation to
the Lord, and speak of separation between the nation and her divine husband. As in Hosea, this
separation does not free the parties to seek other unions. Rather, it offers Israel the choice of
reconciliation or death.
2.2.3 Does Ezra promote divorce?
Ezra is a scribe and Bible teacher among the Jews who return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian
captivity in the fifth century B.C. He comes from Babylon to Jerusalem some years after the
return of the first settlers. On his arrival, he learns, to his horror, that these earlier colonists have
taken pagan partners. These women come from the unbelieving population that the settlers found
living in the land when they returned. Ezra realizes that these mixed unions threaten to weaken
the Jews' devotion to God, and also to produce offspring accustomed to spiritual compromise. In
fervent prayer to God (Ezra 9), he confesses the sin of the people as though it were his own.
Then he and the leaders of the people agree that the mixed families should be separated, and they
carry out their plan.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 At first glance, Ezra seems to be sponsoring community divorce. On closer study in Chapter
3, we will see that the unions he dissolves, unions between believers and unbelievers, are illegal
under the law of Moses, which was the constitution of the restored Jewish nation. These unions
cannot be considered legitimate, since they violate the civil law. Thus the separations that Ezra
demands are completely in order biblically.
2.2.4 Does the Lord Jesus support divorce?
In Chapters 11 through 13, we will give close attention to the Lord Jesus' words on divorce,
especially the exception for fornication that Matthew mentions, and examine who becomes
guilty of adultery in the case of remarriage.
The Fornication Clause — The Lord Jesus teaches,
Whoever dismisses his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery (Matt.
5:32).
Whoever dismisses his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery (Matt.
19:9).
The Lord says that fornication excuses dismissing and remarriage. Thus many Christians feel
that fornication is the one legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage.
It is not.
We will see that "dismissing" does not mean exactly the same thing as "divorce." Divorce is
one way to "dismiss" a member in a marriage. But "dismiss" in the Bible can also mean "put to
death; kill." In the context of these verses about fornication and dismissal, the Pharisees are
distorting what Moses taught about fornication and divorce, and the Lord is correcting their
error. Moses taught that the nation Israel should put to death a spouse who is guilty of
immorality. This, the Lord says, is the only way to dissolve a marriage so that one spouse is free
to remarry.
In other words, the Lord is saying,
Anyone who dismisses his wife by divorce, as you people commonly do, causes her
to commit adultery when she remarries, and commits adultery himself by remarrying.
There is, however, one case in which remarriage is not adultery. If she is guilty of
fornication, the Law requires Israel to dismiss her, not by divorce, but by execution.
In that case, the surviving spouse may remarry.
Which Parties may Remarry? — In four different passages (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11;
Luke 16:18) the Lord Jesus describes a second marriage after a divorce as adultery. Modern
Christians sometimes claim that such a marriage may not be adultery, depending on whether the
previously married person initiated the divorce or not, or was guilty of infidelity or not. Close
study of the Lord's words shows that both parties in a divorce commit adultery if they remarry.
2.2.5 Does Paul permit divorce?
God hates divorce, and his children do all they can to avoid it. Sometimes, though, a believer is
divorced by an unbelieving spouse. May the believer remarry?
Paul's words in I Cor. 7:15 have been interpreted as allowing remarriage under these
circumstances.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. The brother or sister is not enslaved in such cases.
We will see in Chapter 12 that "bondage" here is not the marriage tie, but the obligation to share
bed and board with an antagonistic spouse. Each partner in a marriage has duties toward the
other. Paul teaches that when an unbelieving partner leaves the marriage, the believer is freed
from those duties.
For instance, a wife should submit herself to her husband (Eph. 5:22). If he leaves her, she is
no longer bound to obey him. It is quite another thing to say that she is no longer joined to him
by God, and thus free to remarry. This Paul does not say. Divorce does not end a marriage so far
as God is concerned, whether the one who institutes it is a believer or an unbeliever.

2.3 Practical Questions

Our commitment to be practical as well as exegetical requires that we go beyond the textual
studies in Part II and examine how the principles we learn there apply to concrete situations.
According to the pattern in 2 Tim. 3:16, we want to move from "doctrine" to "reproof," "cor-
rection," and "discipline in righteousness." Part III suggests biblical approaches to several
common problems.
2.3.1 What about Divorce and Remarriage before Salvation?
Sometimes Christians treat questions of divorce and remarriage differently depending on
whether the divorce or remarriage took place before or after the person involved became a
believer in the Lord Jesus. For example, we sometimes hear that divorce before salvation is
cleansed away by the blood of Christ, and does not hinder remarriage after salvation. Chapter 13
studies this claim.
The blood of Christ purges the guilt of sin before salvation. It also purges the guilt of sin
after salvation, if the sinner repents. The solution for sins committed after salvation is the same
as that for sins before salvation.
The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:7).
It is misleading to suggest that God has different rules for pre-salvation divorce and post-
salvation divorce. The Bible gives us no grounds to treat one differently from the other. Both
may involve sins that can be forgiven. Both may leave consequences, such as the inability to
marry someone else.
Marriage does not need church blessing to be binding. A marriage between two unbelievers
is a valid marriage, and continues to bind them after they become believers. God has joined them
together even though they are unbelievers. If they divorce, they sin against God. If conversion
could wipe away previous divorces, it would also wipe away previous marriages, and couples
who trust Christ after marriage should be counseled to remarry. The New Testament knows of no
such custom. Many things change when one becomes a believer. Marital state--married,
unmarried, widowed, divorced — is not one of them.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
2.3.2 Should Second Marriages be Dissolved?
How should a pastor counsel someone who is divorced and remarried, and now understands that
the remarriage was adulterous? Is it sinful to remain in the second marriage? Should the person
try to end the second marriage to avoid continual adultery?
Chapter 14 shows that the adultery is in entering the second marriage, not in continuing in
it. Remarriage is a sin, and demands repentance. But because our society recognizes the second
union as marriage, the believer cannot dissolve it without sinning anew. A remarried couple
should repent of their sin of adultery, accept the Lord's forgiveness, and strive to obey biblical
principles of marriage and the home in their new union.
2.3.3 May Church Officers be Divorced and Remarried?
1 Timothy 3,5 and Titus 1 lay down a number of requirements for people in prominent ministries
in the church. Among these is the marital status of the candidate.
An overseer then must be ... the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2).
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife (1 Tim. 3:12).
Let a widow be enrolled ... the wife of one husband (1 Tim. 5:9).
Ordain elders in every city, ... if any be ... the husband of one wife (Titus 1:5,6).
When we study these passages in Chapter 15 we will see that those who represent God's
people must not be guilty of adulterous remarriage. God does not recognize divorce. When
people divorce and remarry, they are joined by God into two marriages at the same time. Such an
experience disqualifies a person from certain positions in the church. Furthermore, the stigma of
being multiply married persists even if one of the duplicate spouses dies.
The church needs to honor this restriction. At the same time, it should not pretend that
divorce and remarriage is the only sin worthy of note. There are problems other than remarriage
that disqualify a person from prominent church positions, and there are ways that a person who
has repented of remarriage may serve. The church should require its representatives to meet all
the biblical qualifications, including the qualification about multiple spouses, but should not
ostracize those who have repented of their sin.
2.3.4 Does Domestic Violence Authorize Divorce?
Many people who oppose divorce in general will justify it in cases of domestic violence. We will
learn in Chapter 16 that the Bible condemns strife between people, and so offers no approval of
physical abuse in marriage. It also establishes several spheres of authority (the home, the church,
and the civil government), so that an abused spouse is justified in seeking the intervention of the
church or the civil government. One step that the Bible never endorses is divorce. Children may
be separated from their parents if they are endangered, but God has joined man and wife together
into one flesh. It is no more biblical to stop abuse by dividing that union than it is to prevent theft
by cutting off someone's hands.

2.4 A Summary Principle

Out of the entire study, one overwhelming conclusion emerges:

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 There is no biblical basis
for a second marriage after divorce
while the first spouse lives.
Paul puts it this way, in a more restricted context:
Let not the wife depart from her husband.
But if she depart,
let her remain unmarried, or let her be
reconciled to her husband (I Cor. 7:10-11).
It is a terrible thing when husband and wife separate.It may be unavoidable, when an
unbelieving partner initiates it. Subsequent marriage to someone else is not unavoidable. As long
as the first spouse lives, remarriage violates the Lord's solemn command, Thou shalt not commit
adultery.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 3
WHAT IS A MARRIAGE?

The biblical teachings on divorce apply only to those couples who are truly married, whom "God
has joined together." An unmarried couple can be separated, but hardly divorced. If we want to
know what the Bible says about divorce, we should know what it considers marriage.
The Bible nowhere gives a succinct definition of marriage that we can apply to situations
today to determine whether they qualify. Instead, it gives us many pictures of relationships
between men and women, especially in the Old Testament. Some of these relationships qualify
as marriage, and some do not. To learn the elements of a biblical marriage, we need to study
these pictures and observe what characteristics distinguish the marriages from the non-marriages.
Before we can begin this survey, we need to learn how to recognize a marriage in the Bible
when we see one. Biblical writers do not describe marriage in the same terms that we do.
• So we begin by examining biblical language for marriage.
• Then we can test common western notions of marriage against biblical examples to
discover the elements of a true marriage.
• Finally, we step back from the pattern we discover to distinguish between a true
marriage and a happy one.

3.1 Biblical Language for Marriage

In an English book, it's easy to tell whether the writer considers two people married or not. A
"husband" is a married man and a "wife" is a married woman. In biblical Hebrew and Greek,
though, "husband" is usually the same word as "man," and "wife" is the same word as "woman."
The translators of the English Bible use "husband" and "wife" to show which couples they think
are married. We need to learn to test each case ourselves.
We can use a disciplined method to learn what the biblical marriage vocabulary is.
• There are two sets of words in the Bible, both describing relationships between man and
woman, that never overlap. For a given relationship, we may find words from one set, or
from the other, but never from both. One set of words includes "fornication" and "adultery,"
and clearly describes relationships that are not marriage. The other set contains words that
imply official marriage, just as "husband" and "wife" do in English. From these two sets of
words, we can identify some examples of marriages and some examples of non-marriage.
• When we compare the examples with one another, we find that the examples of marriage
contain some expressions or idioms that the examples of non-marriage do not. The individual
words in these idioms are not technical words for marriage or non-marriage. However, the
idiom as a whole is restricted to one kind of union or the other.
• Once we find that an idiom is restricted to marriage, we can use it to identify further
examples of marriage.
An extended note at the end of this chapter gives the results of this study. We use these
results to identify the relationships that we examine in the rest of this chapter as examples of
marriage or non-marriage. One important conclusion is that, though Hebrew and Greek do not
describe marriage with the same language that English does, the use of English marriage
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
vocabulary (like "husband" and "wife") in the common translations is often reliable, since the
expressions in which these terms appear are technical idioms for legitimate unions. In our
translations in this book, we will use English marriage vocabulary (like "husband" and "wife")
when the underlying Greek or Hebrew expression unambiguously implies marriage, unless the
point of the passage turns on knowing the literal sense of the individual word.

3.2 Elements of a True Marriage

When modern Christians think of marriage, they usually think of four things:
• The physical union of a man and a woman;
• The promise of the couple to live together and care for one another;
• Recognition of their union by the appropriate civil authority, so that their family has legal
status;
• Recognition of the union by a religious group.
In this chapter, we will study each of these four characteristics of a marriage. We will look at
couples in the Bible who satisfy different sets of these criteria, and ask whether the Bible
considers them married. In this way, we will learn which of the conditions must be satisfied for a
couple to be married.
3.2.1 They Shall Be One Flesh--Physical Union
Most people's definition of marriage includes physical union. The Bible teaches that physical
union is an important part of marriage. By itself, though, it does not make two people man and
wife.
Marriage Involves Physical Union — The first marriage recorded in the Bible is between
Adam and Eve in Eden. God took a rib from man, and from it fashioned a woman. He brought
her to the man, who said,
This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman, because she was taken
out of Man (Gen. 2:23)
Moses adds a comment to this record of the origin of marriage:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be
one flesh (Gen. 2:24).
The word "therefore" shows the close relation between these verses. Verse 23 says that one
person (Adam) became two. Verse 24 says that two people become one. From the physical union
of two people there issues a child, recalling the one person from whom the original couple was
formed. Physical union commemorates the origin of man and woman as one person. God
instituted it before man sinned, so it is not a shameful appendage to a spiritual institution, but a
symbol of the true unity of marriage.
Marriage is More than Physical Union — Marriage cannot exist without physical union
between man and woman. Physical union alone, though, is not a marriage, as at least two biblical
episodes make clear.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The patriarch Jacob, like his father Isaac and grandfather Abraham before him, is a nomad.
One of his many campsites is near the home of Shechem, the son of Hamor (Gen. 33:18,19).
During Jacob's sojourn there, Shechem saw Jacob's daughter Dinah,
took her, and lay with her, and humbled her (Gen. 34:2).
Shechem and Dinah are united physically. Yet neither Shechem nor Jacob recognizes this
union as marriage. Shechem wishes to normalize the relationship, and asks his father, " Get me this
girl for a wife" (verse 4). Jacob and his sons do not consider the union an automatic marriage,
either. They lay stringent requirements on Shechem before they will permit him to marry the
woman he has already possessed.
We cannot ... give our sister to one who is uncircumcised. .. If you will not hearken unto us, to be
circumcised, then we will take our daughter and go (Gen. 34:14-17).
Both parties realize that physical union alone does not constitute marriage.
The fourth chapter of John's gospel confirms that marriage is more than physical union.
There, the Lord Jesus interviews a woman of Samaria. In the course of the conversation,
Jesus says to her, "Go, call your man, and come here."
The phrase "your man" is the common idiom for "your husband," but to understand the
dialog, we must remember that the word translated "husband" in the English versions is, strictly,
the Greek word for "man."
The woman answered and said, "I don't have a man."
As we show in the notes at the end of the chapter, the phrase "to have a man" (unlike "your
man") is ambiguous. It can describe marriage, and the woman seems to intend it in this sense.
But it can also refer to cohabitation out of wedlock. The Lord's response plays on this ambiguity.
Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I don't have a man.' For you have had five men, and he whom
you now have is not your man" (John 4:16-18).
The conversation turns on the difference between the expressions "your man," which implies
marriage, and "to have a man," which implies union but not necessarily marriage. The woman
has lived with five men. We do not know whether she was married to any of them, but the Lord
makes clear that she is not married to her present partner. Physical union alone is not enough to
make them man and wife.
3.2.2 "I John Take Thee Joan"--Commitment
Weddings in Western society involve an exchange of vows between bride and groom. Each
person promises some sort of commitment to the other.
Expression of commitment has a place in the marriages of Bible characters as well. There, it
takes the form of a covenant, a solemn promise between two parties. Several passages in the
Bible show that marriage is a covenant, a promise of commitment between a man and a woman.
The clearest reference to the marriage covenant is in Malachi 2:14-16:
The Lord has testified between you and your youth-wife, with whom you have dealt treacherously.
Yet she is your companion, and your covenant-wife. .. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that none

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 deal treacherously with his youth-wife. For the Lord, the God of Israel, says that he hates putting
away. .. Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you deal not treacherously.
Malachi describes a man's wife as "your covenant-wife," the one with whom the husband has
entered into a formal agreement. In putting her away, Malachi says that a man "deals
treacherously." The English words "deal treacherously" translate the Hebrew term that means,
"betray a covenant." Malachi's words show that he considers a man and his proper wife to be
bound by covenant to one another.
Jeremiah 3:20 compares the Lord and Israel to husband and wife.
"Surely, as a woman departs treacherously from her husband, so have you dealt treacherously with me,
house of Israel," says the Lord.
The phrases "depart treacherously" and "deal treacherously" both translate the Hebrew word
describing breach of covenant. Israel has violated God's covenant just as a wayward wife violates
the marriage covenant.
Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, describes Israel's relation to God under the figure of marriage. He
devotes the sixteenth chapter of his book to an elaborate metaphor. Jerusalem is an unwanted
baby girl, cast out to perish of exposure. The Lord is a passerby, who discovers the infant and
rescues her from certain death. Not only does he save her life, but when she grows to
marriageable age,
"I spread my skirt over you, and I covered your nakedness, and I swore unto you, and I entered into a
covenant with you," says the Lord God, "and you became mine" (Ezek. 16:8).
The marriage involves a solemn oath ("I swore unto you") that forms the basis for a covenant
("I entered into a covenant with you").
The chapter goes on to picture Israel's idolatry as adultery against the loving husband who
has provided so generously for her. By this faithlessness, the Lord says, she has "despised the
oath in breaking the covenant" (Ezek. 16:59). Yet her husband does not forsake her:
I myself will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth (Ezek. 16:59).
Ezekiel describes the marriage of the waif to her rescuer as a covenant, and uses the marriage
covenant to illustrate God's covenant with Israel. Marriage is a frequent illustration of God's
relation to his people in both the Old and the New Testaments. It emphasizes that God's dealings
with man involve irrevocable promises.
These examples show that marriage involves an expression of commitment. This promise is
an obvious difference between the relation "husband and wife" and the relation "man and harlot."
3.2.3 The Marriage License--Society's Role
Physical union and a promise of commitment are necessary for a marriage. Are they all that is
necessary? If a man and a woman pledge themselves to one another, may they live together
legitimately as man and wife?
In modern Western cultures, they usually may not. The state regulates marriage, and without
its approval a couple does not constitute a legal unit. Even when a government endorses common
law marriage, the marriage has legal standing because it is recognized, not just because the
partners are committed to one another. The Bible offers precedents for this role of society.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Genesis does not picture the patriarchs under a large central government. Society in that early
day is a network of extended families. No marriage is valid without the approval of these
families.
When Shechem the son of Hamor desires Dinah the daughter of Jacob as his wife, he does
not simply elope with her, but asks his father to arrange the wedding (Gen. 34:4). The families of
Hamor and Jacob then enter into elaborate negotiations. The marriage of Shechem and Dinah
means the union of two families. Those families have a say in whether the marriage takes place.
The weddings of Isaac with Rebekah, and of Jacob with Rachel and Leah, are similar to the
wedding of Shechem and Dinah. In each case, the bride's family must approve the marriage.
Abraham's servant discovers Rebekah at the well of Haran, and knows by a test that she is the
woman he has been sent to fetch (Gen. 24:27). He does not speak directly to her about marrying
Isaac, but asks to be taken to her father's house. There, he explains his errand to her father
Bethuel and brother Laban. Only when they approve do they ask Rebekah what she thinks (Gen.
24:58).
Similarly, when Jacob flees to Haran from Esau his brother, he meets Rachel at the well. He
falls in love with her (Gen. 29:18), and his proposal must be cleared with Laban, her father, who
is now the leader of the extended family. They agree on terms. Jacob will serve for seven years
for the hand of Rachel. At the end of the seven years, Jacob claims his wife, but Laban
substitutes his elder daughter Leah, and Jacob finds himself married to the wrong woman. He
protests,
"What is this that you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served with you? Why then have
you deceived me?" Then Laban said, "It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before
the firstborn. Fulfill her week. .." And Jacob did so (Gen. 29:25-28).
Jacob is not pleased with the strictures of Laban's society, but he must acquiesce to them. For
without the endorsement of society, there is no true marriage.
Genesis shows the role of society in marriage not only in the weddings of the patriarchs, but
also by distinguishing between full wives and concubines. In Chapter 6 we will examine the
custom of concubinage and see how it differs from full marriage. The major distinction between
a concubine and a full wife is in her legal status. In other words, the difference is defined by
society.
In the examples in Genesis, there is no central government. When God does establish a more
formal government for his people, marriage is one of the things it regulates. Moses, Israel's great
legislator, lays down laws stating who may marry whom. On the one hand, he outlaws some
unions (Lev. 18:6-18) because the man and woman are too closely related. On the other, Deut.
7:3,4 forbids marriage with pagans, who because of their idolatry are too foreign to Israel to be
joined to its society through marriage.
There are no examples in the Pentateuch of Moses breaking up a union that violates Lev.
18:6-18 or Deut. 7:3,4. In our Chapter 8, we will study how Ezra the priest did separate unlawful
unions among the people who returned from Babylon after the captivity. Society defines what is
marriage and what is not. Its approval is necessary for two people to marry.
Society's authority to regulate marriage may give the impression that marriage is a man-made
custom. It is not. In Matt. 19:6, the Lord Jesus teaches that "God has joined together" those who
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
are truly married. Marriages are ratified in heaven. That is why we search God's word, rather
than books of man's law, for heaven's standards for marriage. God does give society the
responsibility for some decisions about marriage. Society has a say, though, only because God so
decrees. In turn, he will judge the members of society for how they discharge the responsibility
he gives them.
3.2.4 "Before God and These Witnesses"--Religion and Weddings
So far, we have found three elements in marriages that God considers valid: physical union,
covenant, and the approval of society. The "traditional wedding" often has a fourth element. It is
administered by a religious leader, in a building dedicated to the worship of God. Is this
necessary? Must a union be blessed by the church before it is a true marriage?
In the examples we have just studied, it is hard to separate civil and religious approval.
Family heads in the Old Testament are the religious leaders of their homes, as well as authorities
in the society of the day. Moses is not only Israel's lawgiver, but also her first prophet, a notable
religious leader. When Bethuel, or Laban, or Moses approves a wedding, that wedding enjoys
both civil and spiritual approval.
Perhaps, though, only one of those authorities is necessary. We could tell, if we had an
example of a civil authority that is not religious, or a religious authority that is not civil. The
New Testament gives us both. It teaches that the church is a spiritual authority, but not a civil
one. It also teaches that believers are to respect secular government as a civil authority, but not a
spiritual one. When we survey church involvement in marriages in the New Testament, we find
that marriages contracted without church approval are binding, though not pleasing to God. Thus
we conclude that it is the civil, not the spiritual, approval of Old Testament society that makes a
marriage binding.
Unblessed Marriages are Binding — If the New Testament required church blessing for a
marriage to be binding, it might express that requirement in two ways.
1.It might contain instruction, or at least some record, of the church's role in marrying men and
women.
2.It might give some indication that people who "marry" before salvation are really living in
sin, with some examples of converts remarrying to make their unions valid.
The New Testament has much to say about marriage. Yet it shows neither of these signs.
The New Testament gives no instructions or precedents for church weddings. We have both
instruction (in the Epistles) and examples (in Acts) of the church's activity in baptism, the Lord's
Supper, caring for the poor, preaching, evangelism, prayer, and church discipline, but not a word
about the church as an agent of marriage. Paul commands young widows to marry (1 Tim. 5:14),
and condemns those who forbid marriage (1 Tim. 4:3), but he never gives the church a role in
legitimizing a union. This silence does not forbid church ceremonies, but it does leave us without
biblical support for insisting on them.
Furthermore, the church accepts secular marriages. In I Corinthians 7, Paul encourages
believers married to unbelievers to stay married rather than seek separation. These mixed
marriages probably originated with the secular marriage of two unbelievers. Later, only one
partner believed on Christ. Paul regards these unions, solemnized according to the civil custom
of the day, as real marriages, and as binding on the participants.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Nowhere does the New Testament ever tell those who are first married and then saved to
remarry. The first believers are all adult converts, and in many cases converts from paganism.
These converts must change many aspects of their lives when they "turn to God from idols to
serve the living and true God" (I Thess. 1:9). One aspect they are never told to change is their
relationship to their lawful wives.
Church blessing is not necessary to make a marriage binding. Unbelievers as well as
believers can be lawfully married, if their physical union is founded on an expression of
commitment to one another and obeys the laws of their society.
Unblessed Marriages are Sinful — The church's blessing is not needed to make a marriage
binding, but it is essential if a marriage is to please God. At this point in our discussion, we focus
our attention on the marriages of believers. So far as unbelievers are concerned, neither their
marriages nor anything else they do can please God, for they are his enemies until they repent
and receive salvation (Rom. 8:7,8). The point here is that the marriage of a believer, though
binding with respect to divorce, can still be displeasing to God if the believer enters it in
violation of New Testament teaching.
The church has higher standards for marriage than does secular society. For instance, in I
Cor. 7:39, Paul teaches that a single woman (in this case, a widow)
is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord.
Because of this teaching, a church should not allow its members to marry unbelievers.
Believers who enter such unions, against the instruction of the church, should be disciplined. If
their unions meet the three conditions of a binding marriage, the believers are not guilty of
adultery. However, they are guilty of disobeying biblical teaching about separation.
In a society that sanctions polygamy, a man may legitimately have several wives at once. A
believing man who takes several wives is not living in adultery, but he has disobeyed the biblical
standard of monogamy. The church should discipline him, and (as we will see in Chapter 15)
should not allow him to serve in positions of leadership.
Godly believers seek the sanction of their local church when they marry, and ask God's
blessing on their union. It is wonderful when believers marry in the presence of other believers,
and thus dedicate their life together to the Lord. The religious ceremony can be of great spiritual
value. However, it does not make the marriage legitimate unless the state gives it that role.

3.3 True Marriages and Happy Marriages

We have found three criteria that must be present in unions that the Bible recognizes as marriage:
1.Physical union;
2.A promise of mutual commitment;
3.The approval of their society or government.
These are important conditions. Yet the Bible describes other conditions that can make a
marriage godly or sinful, happy or sad. For example:
• Both the Old Testament and the New Testament exhort believers not to marry unbelievers.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 • The parents of Isaac (Gen. 24:3,4) and Jacob (Gen. 27:46-28:2) insist that their sons seek
wives from their own culture, suggesting the value of marrying a person from a similar social
background.
• The New Testament requires church leaders to have only one wife each, and even the Old
Testament exposes polygamy as an invitation to unhappiness.
A common faith, a common background, and monogamy are all criteria for a happy
marriage. Are they also necessary for a valid marriage?
Principles such as monogamy are essential to a good marriage. They do not, though, make
the difference between marriage and fornication. A polygamous marriage violates New
Testament teaching and threatens its members with unhappiness. But if it includes physical
union, a promise of commitment, and social approval, it is binding, and the biblical teachings on
divorce apply to it.
The three criteria we found in this chapter are not enough to guarantee a good marriage.
Instead, they are the fewest conditions under which God considers two people married at all.
Two people who satisfy only the necessary criteria will probably not be happy together. Still,
God has joined them together, and if they divide their union they are guilty of divorce.
It takes very little to be biblically married. The simplicity of the criteria gives a strong
warning. God allows no trial weddings, no apprentice marriages, no middle ground between
fornication and lawful union. We cannot later break a sad or sinful marriage because we think
there is no love in it, or because it lacks church approval, or because one member is a believer
and the other is not. If a couple is married at all, God considers them married until he separates
them in death. It takes many ingredients to make a marriage happy, but only three conditions to
make it permanent. We must enter marriage with great caution, lest we be trapped in a union that
offers neither happiness nor escape.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What are the necessary elements in a valid marriage?
2. Why cannot we rely on the use of the words "husband" and "wife" to tell who in the
Bible is married?
3. What does the "one flesh" relationship commemorate?
4. Please cite an episode in the Bible to show that physical union alone does not constitute
marriage.
5. What is there in common between marriage and God's relation to his people that makes
one so suitable an illustration of the other?
6. Why is it reasonable for society to regulate marriage?
7. Did Moses regulate marriage in his capacity as a religious leader, or in his capacity as a
civil legislator?
8. Is a Christian couple living in fornication if their marriage has not been blessed by the
church? Why or why not?
9. What are the consequences if a believer disobeys biblical principles concerning
marriage and the home?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 10. Should a believer enter a marriage based only on the three criteria studied in this
chapter? Why or why not?
NOTES

3.4 Biblical Language for Marriage

At the beginning of this chapter, we mentioned the problem of identifying legitimate marriages
in the Bible. English words like "husband" and "wife" do not have common unambiguous
counterparts in Hebrew and Greek. Those languages do distinguish between legitimate and
illegitimate unions, but they do it with a set of words and idioms rather different from those of
English. This note outlines the biblical expressions that allow us to identify a particular relation
as marriage.
Biblical language for marriage falls into two classes.
1. Hebrew and Greek have some individual words that refer explicitly to concepts related
to marriage or concubinage. When a writer uses one of these terms, we know that a
legitimate union is in view. These terms appear much less often in biblical text than
their counterparts do in English.
2. The Bible commonly uses idioms of ownership to describe marriage. Though these
idioms are not limited to the relation between man and wife, they do not seem to be
used of men and women in illegitimate unions. That is, they can describe a man and his
wife, or a man and his ox, but not a man and a harlot.
3.4.1 Words for Marriage Concepts
Some biblical words specifically describe marriage, and allow us to detect legal unions. They do
not usually distinguish between full marriage and concubinage, a legal union with a slave.
Chapter 6 will study the differences between marriage and concubinage, and help us to keep
these two relations straight.
3.4.1.1 In-Laws
Though the Bible does not single out "husband" and "wife" with special words, it does have
special word families for "daughter-in-law," "son-in-law," and "sibling-in-law." The ancients
realized very acutely that marriage joins together not just two individuals, but two families as
well.
The Hebrew words for in-laws are not straightforward translations of the English terms. In
English, for instance, "father-in-law" can refer either to a woman's husband's father or to a man's
wife's father. In Hebrew, two different words distinguish these concepts. So we must be careful
to identify precisely the relation described by each of the words we study.
The Hebrew word ‫" כלה‬daughter-in-law" describes the relation between a woman and either
of her husband's parents. Sarah is the daughter-in-law of Terah, the father of Abraham, in Gen.
11:31, and the same word describes Tamar's relationship to Judah in Gen. 38:11,16,24; 1 Chr.
2:4, by virtue of her marriage to his sons Er and Onan. The word also describes the wife of
Phinehas the son of Eli (1 Sam. 4:19), and Ruth and Orpah, the wives of the sons of Naomi (Ruth
1:6,7,8,22; 2:20,22). This last case shows that a wife is the "daughter-in-law" of her husband's
mother as well as of his father.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The laws of incest reflect the closeness of the relationship established by marriage. A
daughter-in-law is so closely bound into the family that physical intimacy between her and her
husband's father would be incest (Lev. 18:15; 20:12; Ezek. 22:11).
The expression "daughter-in-law" almost always describes a woman who is either engaged or
newly married, and so takes on the meaning "bride." In Cant. 4:8-12; 5:1; Isa. 62:5, the English
versions render it "spouse" or "bride." A related word means "betrothal" in Jer. 2:2.
Another word, ‫ חתן‬, means "son-in-law," and describes the relation between a man and his
wife's father. Lot has at least two sons-in-law in Sodom (Gen. 19:12,14). Samson's marriage to a
Philistine woman involves an extended feast (Judges 14), and results in him being a son-in-law
to her father (Judg. 15:6). David would have had this relationship to Saul if Saul had kept his
promise to give his daughter Merab to David (1 Sam. 18:18). Later, David becomes Saul's son-
in-law by marrying Michal (1 Sam. 22:14). Tobiah is described as Shechaniah's son-in-law in
Neh. 6:18, and Joiada's son is Sanballat's son-in-law in Neh. 13:28. Judges 19:5 uses "son-in-
law" to describe the relationship between a Levite and the father of his concubine. We do not
know whether the word could be applied to the relation between a man and his wife's mother.
As does "daughter-in-law," "son-in-law" can lose its emphasis on the relationship between
families and come to mean "bridegroom." Zipporah uses it in this way to describe Moses in Ex.
4:25,26. It often stands parallel to "daughter-in-law" to describe "bride and bridegroom" (Isa.
62:5; Jer. 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 33:11; Joel 2:16).
We have already noted that Hebrew has two distinct words for "father-in-law." One of these,
‫חתן‬, is a cognate of ‫" חתן‬son-in-law," and means "wife's father" (not "husband's father"). It
describes the fathers of Moses' two wives, Jethro (Ex. 3:1; 4:18; 18:1-27) and Hobab (Num.
10:29; Judges 1:16; 4:11), and also the father of the Levite's concubine (Judges 19:4,7,9). The
feminine form of "wife's father" means "wife's mother," a relation so close that physical union
within it is incest (Deut. 27:23).
Another related noun, ‫ה‬, means "marriage," but occur‫הָּנ‬, means "marriage," but‫חת‬, means "marriage," but occurs only in Cant. 3:11.
The verbal form of ‫ חתן‬is ‫ןֵּתן‬, and emphasizes the alliances‫התח‬, means "marriage," but occur, and emphasizes the alliances that form between families as
a result of marriage. David performs this action by marrying Saul's daughter Michal (1 Sam.
18:21-27), and Solomon by marrying Pharaoh's daughter (1 Kings 3:1). The verb also describes
what happens to the parents when their children marry. Jehoshaphat does this to Ahab (2 Chr.
18:1), probably not by marrying Ahab's daughter himself, but by having his son marry her (2
Chr. 21:6). Hamor the father of Shechem proposes this sort of alliance with Jacob in Gen. 34:9.
Later, God forbids Israel to enter into such alliances with the pagan inhabitants of Palestine
(Deut. 7:3; Josh. 23:12; Ezr. 9:14).
The second Hebrew word for "father-in-law" is ‫" ם‬husband's father," which describes the relatio‫" ח‬husband's father," which describes the
relation of Judah to his son's wife Tamar (Gen. 38:13,25), and Eli to the wife of his son Phinehas
(1 Sam. 4:19,21). A feminine form of this same word, ‫" ח ות‬husband's mother," describes the
relation of Naomi to her son's wife Ruth (Ruth 1:14; 2:11,18,19,23; 3:1,6,16,17).
The in-law relation among siblings is especially important in the Old Testament because of
the law of levirate marriage. This law requires that if a married man dies without children, his
brother should marry the widow and beget children to inherit the dead man's name and estate.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 ‫" ם‬husband's father," which describes the relatio‫" יב‬brother-in-law" describes the husband's brother who must marry the widow (Deut.
25:5,7). The widow is his ‫ה‬, means "marriage," but occur ‫" יב‬sister-in-law" (Deut. 25:7,9). "Sister-in-law" also describes the
relation of Ruth and Orpah (Ruth 1:15), who marry brothers and are both then widowed. A
related verb describes the action of carrying out the duty of a husband's brother toward his wife
(Deut. 25:7; Gen. 38:8).
3.4.1.2 Other Relations
Besides special vocabulary for in-laws, the Bible has distinctive terms describing concubines,
betrothal, illicit unions, and (in Greek) marriage itself.
In Chapter 6, we will discuss the ancient custom of concubinage, or marriage to a slave.
While this relationship is viewed as inferior to a full marriage, it is still a legitimate union.
Sometimes it is described with a special word (for example, in Gen. 25:6 and 35:22).
In biblical custom, engagement or betrothal is almost as serious an undertaking as is marriage
itself. In becoming engaged, the man pays a bride-price to his fiancee's father. Hebrew uses two
distinctive words, a noun and a verb, for this transaction. They are reserved for discussions of
marriage, and never refer to general commercial transactions.
The verb ‫ ארש‬is commonly translated "to betroth," and focuses especially on payment of the
bride-price. This action is the step before marriage in Deut. 20:7; 22:23-28; 28:30; Exod. 22:15.
David satisfies this requirement for Michal, Saul's daughter, by slaying a hundred Philistines, 2
Sam. 3:14. The Lord, in describing his spiritual marriage to Israel, uses this word in Hos. 2:19,20
(Hebrew 2:21,22), where he describes the dowry he has paid as "righteousness, judgment,
lovingkindness, mercies, and faithfulness."
The noun for the bride-price itself is ‫הר‬, means "marriage," but occur . Shechem offers to pay an arbitrarily large dowry
for Dinah (Gen. 34:12). The word describes the Philistines that Saul demanded of David for
Michal (1 Sam. 18:25). The amount involved is set by custom, and Exod. 22:17 (Hebrew 22:16)
refers to that amount in setting the fine for rape, if the girl's father forbids the couple to marry.
The previous verse uses a related verb to describe payment of the dowry if they do marry.
So far, all the terms we have studied have indicated that a legitimate union exists between a
man and a woman. Another group of terms show us when a union is definitely not legitimate.
The English versions translate these words uniformly in both Testaments as "fornication" and
"adultery." "Fornication" refers to any physical union not within the bonds of legitimate marriage
or concubinage, and includes incest, rape, prostitution, and general immorality. It is closely
related to a noun that means "harlot" or "prostitute." "Adultery" refers to any physical union in
which one partner is married to someone else. The Lord's words in Matt. 19:9 show that whether
the cheating spouse is the husband or the wife, the action is still called "adultery."
Hebrew has no common verb with the range of meaning of English "to marry," and
occurrences of "marry" in the English Old Testament are usually paraphrases of less specific
Hebrew idioms. Greek, though, does have a general verb γαμεω "to marry," which indicates the
existence of a legitimate union between two people.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
3.4.2 The Language of Ownership
When the Bible uses its special marriage vocabulary, we can easily identify the relation being
described as definitely legimate (or, in the case of "adultery" and "fornication," definitely
illegitimate). In addition to these special words, the Bible has some idioms that indicate the
existence of marriage. These idioms are made up of common words that in themselves do not
identify a union as legitimate or illegitimate. Each overall expression, though, is regularly used
to indicate that a man and a woman are married. They are conspicuously absent in descriptions
of rape and harlotry.
A common semantic element running through the various biblical idioms for marriage is the
notion of ownership. Both Hebrew and Greek have general ways to indicate that a person owns
something. When the "something" is a person of the opposite sex, marriage is often in view.
Most of the expressions describe the husband as owning the wife, but one very common idiom
shows clearly that the wife also owns the husband. Some of the expressions (notably the
genitive) can express other close relations besides that of ownership, but the common notion in
all of these expressions is ownership, and their common use for marriage brings this notion to the
fore.
This emphasis on marriage as a kind of ownership is as strong in the Bible as it is weak in
modern society. Today people strongly reject any suggestion that one person could own another,
feeling that such an interpretation of marriage is tantamount to slavery. There is an important
difference, though. Slavery is a one-way ownership, and marriage is two-way. Abuse and
oppression in marriage do not arise from an overemphasis on the notion of ownership, but from
an underemphasis. Because each member owns the other, each is also owned, and neither is
justified in abusing or exploiting the other. The biblical conclusion from the interpretation of
marriage as ownership is that
the woman does not have authority over her own body, but the man does. Similarly, the man does not
have power over his own body, but the woman does (1 Cor. 7:4).
The ownership expressions that we will discuss are restricted in the Bible to legitimate
relationships. There are some other ownership expressions that describe illicit unions. We know
that an expression describes marriage, not because it speaks of ownership, but because it does
not appear in descriptions of rape, harlotry, or fornication. It is interesting, though, that when we
have identified the marriage idioms, they emphasize ownership so strongly.
Verbs of Buying and Ruling.—The closest thing Hebrew has to a verb meaning "to marry" is
l(b "to rule." It describes authority and lordship in general, and appears in this sense in 1 Chr.
4:22 (of the rulers of Moab) and Isa. 26:13 (of earthly rulers in general). It is used specifically of
the man's relation to his woman in Deut. 24:1, and in Deut. 21:15, where it describes
concubinage.
The passive form of the verb designates a woman as married. It describes Sarah in Gen. 20:3,
and is the determining factor in identifying an illicit union as adultery in Deut. 22:22.
The related noun ‫ ל‬is the closest word‫ בע‬is the closest word Hebrew has to English "husband." It describes
Abraham's relation to Sarah in Gen. 20:3, and Uriah's relation to Bathsheba in 2 Sam. 11:26
(second time; first is "her man.") Unlike English "husband," it is not restricted to marriage, but

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
can describe a man as the owner of an ox (Exod. 21:28-29), a house (Exod. 27:7), or an ass (Isa.
1:3), among other things.
In Ruth 4:10, Boaz describes his marriage to Ruth with the verb ‫ה‬, means "marriage," but occur‫" קנ‬to acquire." The verb
elsewhere describes the purchase of such things as land (Gen. 47:20), slaves (Deut. 28:68), or a
sash (Jer. 13:1). Its use for a wife clearly illustrates how marriage is viewed as a kind of
ownership.
The Possessive Genitive.—Most references in the English Bible to "his wife" or "her husband"
are literally "his woman" or "her man" in the original. The construction is exactly the same as
that used to describe anything that someone owns. Moses uses the construction in Exod. 20:17 to
describe not only "your neighbor's wife" (literally, "your neighbor's woman), but also "your
neighbor's house, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his ass." It is this construction that
shows that the wife owns the husband, just as the husband owns the wife.
Though the nouns in these expressions literally mean "man" and "woman" instead of
"husband" and "wife," the Bible applies the expressions almost exclusively to legitimate unions.
Thus, in the context of the whole idiom, the translation "husband" or "wife" is usually
appropriate, and accurately conveys the meaning of the text.
A few of the wives described as "his woman" are Eve to Adam (Gen. 3:20; 4:1,25); Sarah to
Abraham (Gen. 12:5,11; 20:2); Lot's wife (Gen. 19:16,26); Mary to Joseph (Matt. 1:20,24);
Elisabeth to Zechariah (Luke 1:5,13,18,24); and Sapphira to Ananias (Acts 5:1,7). The vast
majority of biblical references to "his wife" really refer to "his woman," using this idiom.
Conversely, a wife's husband is "her man." Examples include Abraham to Sarah (Gen.
16:13); Manoah to his wife (Judg. 13:9); Elqanah to Hannah (1 Sam. 1:8,23; 2:19); Phinehas to
his wife (1 Sam. 4:19,21); and Phaltiel to Michal (2 Sam. 3:16). In Judg. 19:3, even a concubine
owns "her man" in this way. We will see in Chapter 6 that this ownership gives her certain rights
that other slaves do not enjoy. In 2 Sam. 11:26, Uriah is twice identified as Bathsheba's husband,
first with the noun la(ab and a second time as "her man".
The genitive is occasionally used casually for an enduring union with slight irregularities, as
in Judges 21:21. There it describes women kidnapped from a harvest festival to reestablish the
tribe of Benjamin after the other tribes have sworn a rash oath not to give Benjamin their
daughters in marriage. The kidnapping is indeed arranged by some of the other tribes, as a legal
fiction: if the men of Benjamin steal their daughters, the tribes will not be guilty of breaking their
oath. The woman seized by each Benjamite is termed "his woman," though the relationship is
one of rape and not of marriage. The expression may be used proleptically, but there is no
indication in the context that the unions were subsequently normalized with the payment of the
bride price as Deut. 22:29 requires. More likely, the genitive is applicable to any abiding
relationship, most of which will naturally be legitimate unions rather than fornication.
"Give, Take, Be" with Indirect Object.—Greek has a verb meaning simply "to marry," but the
Hebrew verbs describing marriage are fairly rare, and all focus on particular aspects of the
transaction, such as paying the bride-price or establishing an alliance between families. To
describe marriage in general, Hebrew uses idioms involving the verbs "to take," "to give," and
"to be." (Another verb, ‫" נשא‬to lift up," occurs occasionally where one would expect "to take."
We will discuss it in Chapter 8.)
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The basic expression is formed with the verb "to be," and appears in English translations as
"she became his wife." This expression appears in three contexts in the Old Testament.
Sometimes it occurs alone, sometimes it is paired with "to take," and sometimes the verb "to be"
drops out and the expression merges with "to take" or "to give."
The basic expression appears in the English Bible in the words, "she became his wife." This
translation overstates things a bit. As usual, "wife" here simply translates the Hebrew word for
"woman," so that we might render the expression, "she became his woman." In English, though,
these words could describe fornication, while in Hebrew they are restricted to legitimate unions.
The notion is not just that "she became his," an idiom that can describe a casual union (Judges
15:2). The Hebrew idiom emphasizes that she assumes with respect to him the particular role of
"woman," with all the echoes of the episode in which she received that title (Gen. 2:18-25).
The same construction appears twice in the common statement of God to Israel, "You shall
be my people and I shall be your God." In one sense, every nation belongs to God, and God is
God over them all. This expression, though, emphasizes the special, selective relationship that
binds God and Israel together. So also, the idiom "she became his woman" reflects the special
ownership of a legitimate union.
Marriages described with this idiom include Sarah and Abraham (Gen. 20:12); Abigail and
David (1 Sam. 25:42); Bathsheba and David (2 Sam. 11:27); Ahab's daughter and Jehoram (2
Kings 8:18); and Tabat and Ben-Abinadab (1 Kings 4:11).
The most formal Old Testament idiom for marriage results from combining the expression
"she became his woman" with the clause "he took her." By itself, "he took her" does not imply
marriage, and can even describe rape (Gen. 34:2). The composite expression, though, occurs
only with true marriages: "he took her and she became his woman." It describes the marriage of
Isaac and Rebecca (Gen. 24:67), David and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:10), and Ruth and Boaz (Ruth
4:13).
Literally, the formal idiom is, "he took her, and she was to him as a woman." The most
common verbal idioms for marriage have all the parts of this expression except for "and she
was." They occur both with "to take," describing the role of the husband and his family, and with
"to give," describing the role of the wife's family.
With "to take," this expression emphasizes the role of the husband and his family: "he took
her to him as a woman." This expression appears in English translations in such forms as as "he
took her to him to wife," "he took her for his wife," or "he took her to be his wife." Usually the
man himself takes his wife, but sometimes the subject of the verb is his father or mother. Men
who take their own wives include Pharaoh taking Sarah (Gen. 12:19); Isaac taking Rebecca
(Gen. 25:20); Esau taking Maxlat (Gen. 28:9); and David taking Abigail (1 Sam. 25:39,40).
Parents who take wives for their sons include Hamor requesting Dinah for Shechem (Gen. 34:4)
and Samson's parents taking a Philistine girl for him (Judg. 14:2).
A similar idiom states, "he took to him a woman." In this case, no particular woman is
named, and the expression has a meaning similar to "he got married." Examples include Lamech
(Gen. 4:19). Abraham uses this expression several times when he sends his servant to find a
bride, as yet unidentified, for Isaac: "Take to him a woman," or as we might say, "Get him a
wife" (Gen. 24:4, 7, 37, 38, 40).

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 A still simpler expression, "he took a woman," seems to have a similar meaning in Gen. 25:1
(describing Abraham and his concubine Keturah) and Jer. 29:6. We should be cautious, though,
since the expression "he took X," where X is a specific woman, can also refer to an illicit union,
as in the rape of Dinah (Gen. 34:2).
The basic idiom with "to give" is, "he [typically the girl's father or brother] gave her to him
[the bridegroom] as a woman." Examples include Caleb giving his daughter Achsah to Othniel
(Josh. 15:17; Judg. 1:13); Rachel giving her handmaid Bilha to Jacob as his concubine (Gen.
30:4; cf. 30:9); and Pharaoh giving his subject Asenath to Joseph (Gen. 41:45).
Sexual ownership apart from marriage.—The biblical marriage idioms all reflect ownership,
but not all ownership expressions are restricted to marriage.
In Gen. 34:2, the words, "he took her," describe the rape of Dinah, while the expression two
verses later, "take this girl to me as a woman" is a request to arrange a formal marriage. The
addition of the words "as a woman" to the latter expression distinguishes it from the former one,
and shows that it reflects ownership in marriage rather than simply physical possession.
Judges 14 records the betrothal and wedding feast of Samson to his Philistine wife. After the
wedding he leaves her for a season, and her father gives her to another man. When Samson
returns to enjoy his conjugal rights, her father explains that she now belongs to someone else,
and offers Samson her sister, with the words, "let her be yours instead" (Judges 15:2). The point
at issue is physical union, not a formal marriage, for there is no mention of a betrothal or
marriage feast for the second girl, only of Samson possessing her. The father's offer reflects
ownership apart from marriage.
In the New Testament, the verb εχω "to have" describes physical union, but does not imply
marriage. In John 4:18, the Lord Jesus tells the woman at the well of Sychar that the man "whom
you have is not your man." "Your man" is the standard idiom for husband. The man in question
is not her husband, though she "has him" in the sense of physical relations. John the Baptist
rebukes Herod for taking his brother's wife with the words, "It is not lawful for you to have her"
(Matt. 14:4). Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their tolerance of the shameful sin, "that one
should have his father's woman" (1 Cor. 5:1). In each case, the verb "to have" emphasizes
physical union, and is not restricted to legitimate marriage.
3.4.3 Summary
The Bible's language for describing marriage does not line up exactly with English terminology,
but it does have its own internal logic that allows us to recognize legitimate unions. In addition to
specific technical terms for the relationships among families that marriage produces, the Bible
has an extensive set of idioms that describe marriage in terms of mutual ownership. These
biblical words and expressions form the foundation of our understanding of marriage, and thus of
divorce, in the Bible.

3.5 Is a Marriage a Covenant?

In this chapter and throughout this book, I frequently emphasize that marriage is a covenant. This
position is not universally held, especially among Jewish scholars. For instance, Moshe
Greenberg 1983:277-278 insists that the application of covenant terminology to marriage in

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
Ezek. 16:8 is only metaphorical. He feels that the view of marriage as a covenant rests only on
Mal. 2:14 and Prov. 2:17, passages for which other interpretations exist.
The existence of other interpretations for Mal. 2:14 and Prov. 2:17 does not in itself
invalidate the interpretation which understands "covenant" in these passages as referring to a
marriage covenant. Scholars probably hesitate here because they do not want to introduce a
notion to these two texts that is not attested elsewhere in the Old Testament. However, these
passages are not the sole basis for seeing marriage as a covenant. At least two other strands of
evidence can be cited. the allegory of Ezekiel 16, and the use of the verb ‫ בגד‬to describe marital
unfaithfulness.
3.5.1 The Allegory of Ezekiel 16
Greenberg raises the issue of whether marriage is a covenant because the passage he is
expounding, Ezekiel 16, describes it as one. The Lord describes Israel as an abandoned waif, and
himself as a passerby who discovers her, raises her to maturity, and then marries her. Their union
is described with the words,
I spread my skirt over you, and I covered your nakedness, and I swore an oath to you, and I entered
into covenant with you, ... and you became mine (16:8).
The word "covenant" also appears explicitly in Ezek. 16:60,62.
No one questions that Israel is in covenant with the Lord. The reality of which Ezekiel 16 is a
picture includes the covenant God made with the nation at Mount Sinai. The question is whether
the reference to "covenant" in 16:8 is part of the metaphor, describing a marriage covenant, or
whether at that point the prophet drops out of metaphorical language to refer to the reality that
the metaphor represents.
The passage is smoother rhetorically if "covenant" here refers to the marriage, with an
allusion to the covenant of Sinai, thus preserving the continuity of the metaphor. Furthermore,
we can better understand the use of marriage as a metaphor for Israel's covenant relation to the
Lord if marriage is also a covenant. The notion of covenant relation becomes one of the common
points between image and reality that makes the metaphor possible.

3.5.2 The Use of ‫בגד‬

In this chapter and Chapter 7, we note the use of the Hebrew verb ‫ בגד‬to describe violation of
marital responsibilities. Throughout the Old Testament, this verb is a technical term for breach of
covenant. Its use with reference to marriage is strong evidence that marriage is also considered a
covenant.
Erlandsson 1974:470-473 analyzes the occurrences of the verb into four categories. The first
is marriage. The second is Israel's covenant with the Lord. The third is man's relation to the
created order, which can be traced to the covenant God established with man through Noah in
Genesis 9. The fourth is human agreements and treaties. The last three all involve covenants of
one form or another. So it is reasonable to understand the use of the term with reference to
marriage to imply that marriage is also a covenant relationship.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
3.6 Are Broken Covenants Dissolved?
The observation that marriage is a covenant has led some writers to conclude that since
covenants can be broken, so can marriage, leaving the partners free to remarry. This argument is
the cornerstone of an elaborate treatise by William Luck (1987). To highlight the issues, we will
discuss his position as an example, first outlining its basic elements, then examining his
conclusion.
Luck's position has three main elements.
First, he distinguishes between unilateral covenants imposed by a sovereign on a subject, and
bilateral covenants in which the parties are of equal standing, and argues that the Old Testament
shows marriage to be bilateral. Citing Killen and Rea 1975, he maintains that such covenants
persist only as long as both parties accept and fulfill their conditions.
Then he seeks to establish what vows the marriage covenant includes. Though the Old
Testament nowhere enumerates these vows in so many words, inductive study of several
passages suggests that the man is responsible to provide for the wife's bodily needs (Exod.
21:10), to be present with her, not to abuse her body (Exod. 21:26), and to protect her reputation
(Deut. 22:19), and that the woman is responsible to be faithful to her husband (Num. 5:19), not
to abuse his body, and to be present with him. Luck concludes that violation of any of these
provisions breaks the covenant.
For our purposes, the most important step in his argument is the conclusion (66) that "Since
marriage is a bilateral covenant, the covenant is truly broken when one party fails to keep the
vows…. Implied in this 'breaking' is that the moral obligation of the 'innocent' party to keep
fulfilling his or her side of the agreement is technically ended." That is, Luck assumes that once a
covenant (at least a bilateral covenant) is broken, all of its terms are cancelled. In particular,
when a marriage covenant is broken, the marriage ceases to exist.
All three steps in this argument have serious methodological flaws.
Bilateral and Unilateral Covenants.—The distinction between bilateral and unilateral
covenants on the basis of the equality or inequality of the parties is difficult to sustain, since
(setting aside marriage), every other contract in the Bible that is explicitly called a covenant is
between a superior and an inferior, most commonly between God and his people. It is well
known (Kitchen 1966) that even these "divine covenants" are patterned after contemporary
human covenants. In fact, in classifying the covenant of Sinai as bilateral (1987:30), Luck
implicitly violates his own definitions. The biblical evidence would suggest that all covenants are
bilateral, in that they involve two parties; all are conditional, in that they obligate the participants
to certain actions; and all are between a superior and an inferior party. Incidentally, this insight
shows that submission in marriage is not a New Testament addition to the Old Testament
concept, as Luck suggests, but rather (as his citation of 1 Pet. 3:5,6 should have led him to
realize) integral to the notion of marriage as a covenant.
The Covenant Requirements.—While the marriage covenant certainly has requirements, one is
uncomfortable with the methodology by which Luck derives these requirements. Several of the
conditions that he proposes are mentioned only in laws concerning slaves and concubines, and
require an argument a fortiori to extend them to marriage. Even then, it is not clear that all the
provisions he identifies constitute breach of covenant. For example, Luck cites Exod. 21:9,10 as
evidence that the covenant binds the man to provide for his wife's bodily needs, but in fact it is
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
only selling the concubine out of the family that the passage identifies as breach of covenant, as
we will discuss later. The provisions of 21:10 are presented, not as covenant vows, but as
‫ה!נות‬, means "marriage," but occur "the custom of daughters" (21:9), the socially acceptable way to treat a dependent woman
in one's household. We simply do not have an exhaustive list of the provisions of the marriage
covenant preserved for us in the Old Testament.
The Results of Breach of Covenant.—Luck seeks a precise identification of the covenant
conditions because of his conclusion that a broken covenant ceases to be binding, and his desire
to make more precise under what terms the marriage covenant is dissolved. He derives the
conclusion that a broken covenant is dissolved rhetorically, without any appeal to biblical data,
and in fact there are no biblical examples of what happens in a human covenant to the
obligations of one party when the other party breaks the covenant. We do have abundant
teaching about God's covenant with Israel at Sinai. Luck himself considers this a "bilateral"
covenant, and it is the basis of the prophetic metaphor about God's marriage to Israel.
Furthermore, though it is between God and Israel rather than between two humans, it follows the
form of purely human suzerainty treaties, so the data it offers would seem to be relevant. Several
passages show that breach of this covenant by one party does not dissolve the agreement.
The first such passage is Lev. 26:15-44. Verse 15 anticipates that Israel may break the
Sinaitic covenant. The following verses, through verse 43, outline the judgments that God will
bring upon them as a consequence of their action. Study of secular covenants from the ancient
world shows that such judgments are as much a part of the covenant as are the blessings that the
covenant promises to those who keep it (Kitchen 1966:92-93). That is, the covenant specifies not
only what Israel must do, but what God will do to her if she breaks the covenant. If people in the
ancient world considered a covenant to be dissolved the moment one party broke it, it would
make no sense to embed such sanctions in the covenant, for the very act that breaks the covenant
and thus calls the sanctions into action would remove the legal basis for the aggrieved party to
invoke them.
Even more direct evidence for the persistence of the covenant after one party breaks it is the
verse immediately after the recital of the punishments, Lev. 26:44. God promises that in spite of
Israel's breach of covenant, and in spite of the judgments that he will send on her as a result, he
will not "break [his] covenant with them." Regardless of Israel's rebellion, he considers himself
still bound under the terms of the covenant, so that to deviate from it would be to break it.
The book of Jeremiah reflects the same consciousness that breach of covenant by one party
does not dissolve the whole arrangement. In Jer. 11:10, God declares, The house of Israel and the
house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers, and in 14:20 the people
acknowledge that they have indeed sinned. Yet they go on to plead in 14:21, do not disgrace your
glorious throne; remember, do not break your covenant with us. According to their concept of covenant,
it would disgrace God's righteous rule for him to break his covenant, even though they have
already broken it! The covenant continues in force even though one party has broken it.
Ps. 106 describes how Israel sins repeatedly against the Lord, and how he punishes them. In
spite of their blatant disregard of the covenant, verse 45 claims that God has mercy on them
because he remembered for them his covenant. Once again, the covenant persists even though one
party breaks it.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The covenant of Sinai is finally rendered ineffective, but not because one party breaks it. It
continues as a binding covenant through the anarchy of the period of the judges, the idolatry of
the divided kingdom, the judgments of Assyrian and Babylonian captivity, and the repeated
lapses of the restoration. In spite of Israel's sin, the covenant persists until Christ. Then it finally
becomes ineffective, not because people break it, but because the Messiah fulfills and completes
it (2 Cor. 3:14 [Greek]; Heb. 8:13).
Thus the biblical data show that breach of covenant does not dissolve the covenant, at least
for the only covenant on which we have enough information to draw a conclusion. Marriage is a
covenant, and many actions may violate its terms, but none of these can annul it or excuse either
party from further obedience.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 PART II:
INTERPRETATION: THE BIBLICAL TEXTS ON DIVORCE

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 4
THE LAW OF MOSES AND FORNICATION

In the last chapter, we learned that God has given civil government the responsibility to define
standards and regulations for marriage. God gave ancient Israel, as a civic body, many statutes
concerning marriage and the home. The Law of Moses not only defines marriage, but also warns
against fornication and adultery. In this chapter we study Deut. 22:13-29, where many of these
warnings appear together.
In a modern law book, a detailed table of contents, bold-faced headings, indentation,
different sizes of type, and other typographical devices show us the structure and organization of
the laws. These devices do not appear in ancient books. In their place, symmetrical patterns of
repetition show us where sections begin and end, and indicate their inner structure. Deuteronomy
22 is an excellent example of this technique.
• We begin by surveying the structure of the section that discusses fornication and
adultery.
• When we understand this structure, we can study each law detail .
• The detailed study raises two questions that we seek to answer.
• Finally, we summarize some of the principles that we learn from the passage.

4.1 Survey of Deut. 22:13-29

There are five main laws in Deut. 22:13-29, beginning at verses 13, 22, 23, 25, and 28. Each law
begins with the words "If a man ... " or "If a damsel ... ," and discusses three points:
1. the marital status of the woman;
2. an illicit physical union between the woman and some man, in which the man is always
guilty and the woman is sometimes innocent and sometimes guilty;
3. the consequences for the woman (and the man, if he can be identified).
To make these ideas clear, we print the text with notes along the side showing where the
paragraphs begin, and identifying the words and phrases that show the woman's status, her guilt
or innocence, and the consequences.

First Paragraph, verses 13-21:

If a man takes a wife and goes in unto her, and hates her, and lodges irresponsible charges, and brings
1. Woman
up an evil name upon her, and says, "I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid,"
married
then the father of the damsel and her mother shall take and bring out
the tokens of the damsel's virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. The damsel's father shall say to
2. Woman
the elders, "I gave my daughter to this man as a wife, and he hates her, and look, he has lodged
innocent
irresponsible charges." ... Then the elders of that city shall take that man and
chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and shall give them to the father of the
3. Consequence
damsel, ... and she shall be his wife. He may not put her away all his days .
But if this thing is true , and the tokens of virginity are not found for the damsel, then they shall bring out
2. Woman guilty
the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall
3. Consequence stone her with stones , so that she dies , and you shall put the evil away from among you.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
Second Paragraph, verse 22:
1. Woman
If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband ,
married
then both of them shall die , both the man who lay with the woman, and the woman, and you shall put
3. Consequence
away the evil from Israel.

Third Paragraph, verses 23-24:

1. Woman If a damsel who is a virgin is betrothed to a man, and a man finds her in the city, and lies with her, then
engaged you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city,
3. Consequence and you shall stone them with stones, so that they die ,
2. Woman the damsel, because she cried not , being in the city, and the man, because he has humbled his
presumed guilty neighbor's wife, and you shall put away the evil from among you.

Fourth Paragraph, verses 25-27:

1. Woman
But if a man finds a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man forces her, and lies with her,
engaged
3. Consequence then only the man who lay with her shall die. Unto the damsel you shall do nothing .
2. Woman There is in the damsel no sin worthy of death. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel
innocent cried, and there was none to save her.

Fifth Paragraph, verses 28-29:

If a man finds a damsel who is a virgin, who is not betrothed , and lays hold on her, and lies with her,
1. Woman single
and they are found,
then the man who lay with her shall give the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his
3. Consequence
wife. Because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days .

Table 1 summarizes the entire passage.

Table 1: Summary of Deuteronomy 22
Woman's Woman
Section Consequences
Status Guilty?
22:13-21 The Wife Accused
15-19 No Husband fined; may never put her away
Married
20-21 Yes Wife executed by stoning.
22:22 The Adulteress Discovered Not Stated Wife and illicit partner executed.
22:23-24 Defiled in the City Presumed Yes Man and woman both executed.
Engaged
22:25-27 Defiled in the Country Presumed No Only man executed; woman goes free.
22:28-29 Single Girl Defiled Single Not Stated Man must marry woman; can never put her away.

4.2 A Closer Look

Now that we see how these laws are organized, we give our attention to each of them in more
detail.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
4.2.1 The Wife Accused, 22:13-21
The first case that Moses discusses is that of a man who accuses his wife of moral impurity
before marriage:
I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid (22:14).
The elders of the city must decide whether the woman is guilty or innocent. They base their
decision on the "tokens of virginity" preserved by the wife's parents.
This is the only Bible passage to mention these tokens. Jewish custom of the first few
centuries A.D., and much later Arab custom, suggests that they are linens from the nuptial bed,
bearing blood stains that show that the husband is the bride's first partner. The marriage feast
lasted several days beyond the wedding night, and the sheets were displayed to the guests, then
carefully preserved by the bride's parents.
If the parents can produce these cloths, the elders (who would certainly have been present at
the marriage feast) are expected to recognize them and pronounce the woman innocent. Then
they chastise the man, fine him, and forbid him ever to put away his wife.
If, on the other hand, no one presents the tokens of virginity, the elders declare the woman
guilty of the charge, and condemn her to death by stoning. This effectively dissolves the union,
and the man is free to remarry.
Curiously, the text says nothing about the man with whom the woman committed fornication.
It seems unfair to leave him unpunished, while bringing such a harsh judgment on the woman.
We will discuss this problem after we have summarized the other cases.
4.2.2 The Adulteress Discovered, 22:22
The case of a married woman discovered with a man who is not her husband is short and to the
point. They both die. Their sin is adultery, since the woman is married. There is no question
either what happened, or who the man is, since they are discovered while together.
This is the law invoked by the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:1-11.
The scribes and Pharisees brought to [Jesus] a woman caught in adultery, and when they had set her in
the midst, they say to him, "Master, we found this woman in the act, committing adultery. Moses in
our Law commanded us to stone such women. Now: what do you say about her?" (John 8:3-5)
The Lord points out their own sinfulness, and they slink away, condemned by their own
consciences. Then he asks the woman,
"Woman, where are your accusers? Has no man condemned you?" She said, "No man, Lord." Then Jesus
said to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more" (John 8:10-11).
Why does he pass over her sin so lightly? Moses requires both the man and the woman to
die. There is no reason, if they are caught in the act, for only one to be accused. Yet the scribes
and Pharisees bring only the woman, not the man, to Jesus. Without both parties, the law cannot
be satisfied, even if the scribes stay to press charges. In fact, they abandon the case, and without
the witnesses required by Moses (Deut. 19:15), even the woman cannot legally be prosecuted.
The Lord's actions are completely in keeping with the Law of Moses.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
4.2.3 Defiled in the City, 22:23-24
An engaged girl attacked in the city is executed, along with her attacker, because she cried not. These
words tell us that if she does cry out, she will be acquitted. A person who cries for help in an
ancient city can count on being heard. The houses stand close together, often sharing walls, and
there is no motor traffic to drown out voices. If people do not learn about the event until later,
they will reason, "No one heard her cry, therefore she did not cry, therefore she acquiesced in the
sin, therefore she is guilty."
4.2.4 Defiled in the Country, 22:25-27
If a girl is not heard in the city, the law presumes she is guilty. In the country, on the other hand,
she is presumed innocent. Far away from other people, she might well cry out without being
heard.
In every section other than this one, the woman is either stoned if guilty (20-21, 22, 23-24) or
guaranteed a secure marriage for life if innocent (15-19, 28-29). In this case, the victim is judged
innocent, but nothing is said about her coming marriage.
People in Bible times care deeply about family lines and the legitimacy of their children. A
man whose fiancee is molested away from the city may well believe that she is innocent, and still
not wish to marry her. He might fear that if he did go through with the wedding, people would
question who was the real father of his first child. Furthermore, though we understand the law's
fairness in assuming that the damsel cried, and there was none to save her, the husband might be unable
to escape a nagging question about her purity in the matter. Moses' law leaves the woman's fate
open. She is not to be executed, but she may lose her fiance.
This paragraph explains Joseph's behavior when Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost
(Matt. 1:18). At first he does not understand the Spirit's role, and can only conclude that she is
involved in fornication. Matthew describes him as a just man, a man who lives according to the
standards of God's law. The law condemns fornicators to death, yet Joseph resolves to put Mary
away privately, and allow her to live. It is Deut. 22:25-27 that lets him spare her life. He assumes
that she was forced against her will in the country, and so is innocent. To protect his own family
line, he decides to put her away. He bears her no malice, and so will do this privately, to spare her
the pain of public display.
4.2.5 A Single Girl Defiled, 22:28-29
If a man takes a single girl, he must support her for the rest of his life. He is not executed, as he
would be if he violated an engaged girl. This difference in his fate points up an interesting
contrast in the two situations.
When a man takes an engaged girl (verses 23-27), he seizes one who has been promised to
someone else. He wrongs not only the girl, but also her betrothed. The severity of the death
penalty reflects the double nature of his sin. A shotgun wedding is out of the question. That
would only make his theft of her permanent.
When a man takes an unengaged girl (verses 28-29), he is left alive out of consideration for
the girl. If he were stoned, he could not provide a living for her. Furthermore, because of his

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
actions, she may not be able to find another husband. The law spares his life so that he can
support her.

4.3 Two Questions

These five laws lead to two questions that we now consider in more detail.
1. Why is no penalty specified for the first partner of the deceitful wife in verses 13-21?
2. What does the specific prohibition of divorce in verses 19 and 29 teach us about the
Old Testament view of divorce in general?
4.3.1 The Question of the Unknown Penalty
We saw surprising extremes in the treatment of a man who molests a woman. In some cases he is
put to death. In others, he is not. What is the difference?
Table 2 below gives a clue to the answer. For each paragraph, it shows
• the reference;
• a description of the episode;
• the time of the defilement, relative both to the engagement and to the marriage;
• and the penalties for the man and the woman.
Table 2: Another View of Deuteronomy 22
Time Penalty
Verses Episode Engagement Wedding Man Woman
20-21 Woman Accused by Husband ? Before ?
22 Adulterers Discovered After Dies
23-24 Defiled in the City After Dies
25-27 Defiled in the Country Before
Lives
28-29 A Single Girl Defiled Before Lives

The column headed "engagement" tells whether the sin happened before or after the girl is
engaged. If we compare this column with the one that gives the penalty for the man, we see a
pattern.
• In every case where a man defiles a woman after her engagement to someone else, he
dies (verses 22, 23-24, and 25-27).
• If he defiles her before the engagement, he does not die (verses 28-29). .
• In one case, his fate is unclear. This case is the only one in which we do not know
whether the defilement took place before or after the engagement (verses 20-21).
The Man's Penalty — Imagine the elders officiating at the trial of the woman in verses 20-21.
Her husband accuses her, and her parents are unable to produce evidence of her purity on the
wedding night. The law is clear. They should condemn her to death by stoning. However, justice
is not complete. The one with whom she has sinned ought also to answer for his sin. If the elders
can persuade her to reveal his identity, what should they do with him?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Verses 20-21 do not say, but the other paragraphs do. Either she sinned with him after her
engagement to her legal husband, or she did not. If there was an illicit union after the
engagement, verses 23-24 and 25-27 condemn him to death. If, on the other hand, their
fornication took place entirely before the engagement, verses 28-29 apply. Obviously, the
attacker will not marry the woman, since she is to die. He is still liable, though, for the fine of
fifty shekels.
Our first impression was that the law does not say what to do with the other man in the case
of the woman accused by her husband. That impression is wrong. Though verses 20-21 do not
mention her first partner, the other laws in the passage are clear. If the elders can learn his
identity, one or another of them defines his fate.
The Woman's Penalty — We may still think that the law is unfair. Of the three paragraphs that
tell us what to do with the attacker, two (verses 25-27 and 28-29) tell us that the woman is to
live. Perhaps the condition her husband discovers results from one of these situations. Why is she
freed there, but stoned in verses 20-21?
The woman's penalty is harsh not because she was violated, but because she concealed her
condition from her fiance. She or her parents represented her to him as pure, when in fact she
was not. He assumed he was marrying a virgin, but he was not. By deceiving him, she abuses the
mutual trust and commitment that they make to one another in marriage. She violates the
marriage covenant at the very moment she seals it. It is this faithlessness to the covenant, and not
just physical fornication, that merits the death penalty.
4.3.2 The Question of "Never Put Away"
In two of the situations discussed in this section, Moses forbids the husband ever to put away his
wife (verses 19 and 29). Some people feel that these prohibitions shed light on the status of
divorce in general under the Law of Moses. Perhaps Moses must rule out divorce in these
situations because they are exceptions to ordinary situations in which he approves it.
The Law of Moses contains no global condemnation of divorce. It also contains no blanket
approval. The only references it makes to divorce are negative, either forbidding it or restricting
those who have been divorced.
On the one hand, the Pentateuch does not give us grounds to read the Lord Jesus' explicit
prohibition of divorce back into early Israelite society. On the other hand, the prophet Malachi
accuses Israel of "profan[ing] the covenant of our fathers" (2:10), and backs up his accusation by
describing marital abuses, particularly divorce. Malachi clearly sees divorce as contrary to "the
covenant of our fathers," which is either the covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai
through Moses or the earlier covenant with Abraham. We cannot accuse the prophet Malachi of
reading back New Testament teaching into the Old Testament, and his reference to the Law as
the basis for his teaching makes it unlikely that he is suggesting a different standard from that of
the Law.
Moses does not tell us in general terms what God thinks of divorce. We do know that the
Law never approves it explicitly, and does condemn some specific instances of it. If the Law
approves of divorce in general, then it differs not only from the New Testament but also from
later portions of the Old Testament. It seems preferable to understand that Israel at Sinai has

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
problems that are far more pressing than divorce, and so the Law focuses on these questions,
treating divorce only in specific situations.
The argument that prohibiting divorce in some situations approves it in all others is only
valid if we assume that Moses' Law is exhaustive. Clearly, it is not. What it condemns explicitly,
we know is wrong. What it commands explicitly, we know is right. There are some things,
including divorce in general, that it neither condemns nor commands. On these subjects we must
await the revelation of later Scriptures. When that revelation comes, it clearly condemns divorce,
and we should not soften that condemnation by pretending that the silence of earlier Scriptures
contradicts it.

4.4 Two Important Principles

Deuteronomy 22 gives us two principles of the Mosaic Law, principles that will be important in
our later study.
4.4.1 Why were Marriages Terminated?
Moses' Law does specify circumstances when a marriage should be terminated. When a man or
woman commits adultery, or when an unmarried girl involved in fornication hides this from her
betrothed until after the wedding, Moses requires an end to the marriage.
The reason for ending the marriage is always moral impurity. There is no mention of
"incompatibility," "mental cruelty," or "domestic violence." In fact, when a husband accuses his
innocent wife, we can imagine that their relation is already very poor. Still, the Law does not
separate them, but insists that they stay together.
4.4.2 How did the Law Terminate Marriages?
The means by which the Law terminates a marriage is death by stoning. This verdict is very
severe to the guilty, but unlike modern divorces, it leaves no nagging questions about whether
the innocent spouse may remarry. The survivor is not divorced, but widowed. The old union is
over and done as only death can make it.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. How is Deuteronomy 22 organized?
2. How are the rules governing married people like those governing the engaged?
3. How are the rules for married and engaged people different?
4. How does Deuteronomy 22 illustrate John 8?
5. How does it illustrate Matthew 1?
6. The situation in Deut. 22:13-21 could result from actions like those in 22:25-27. Why is
the penalty different?
7. What grounds does the Law of Moses recognize for ending a marriage?
8. How is a marriage terminated?
9. What is the Law's attitude in general toward "putting away"?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 5
THE LAW OF MOSES AND DIVORCE

In the last chapter we learned that the Old Testament Law specifies capital punishment, not
divorce, as the penalty for fornication and adultery. Still, there is divorce in ancient Israel.
Legislation concerning it appears in Deuteronomy 24, which twice in four verses describes a
man who writes a "certificate of divorce," gives it to his wife, and sends her out of his house.
Since before the time of Christ, interpreters of Deut. 24:1-4 have debated whether or not it
sanctions divorce. In this chapter,
• we will summarize the two main views.
• Then, to help us choose between them, we will discuss
◦ the grammatical structure of the text;
◦ certain contradictions that arise in one interpretation;
• Moses' explanation of the law; and
• Jeremiah's use of the law in Jer. 3:1.

5.1 Two Views of Deut. 24:1-4

There are two different ways to interpret Moses' instructions about divorce. One interpretation
tells people how to divorce one another. It commands divorce. The other recognizes that
divorce, like murder and theft, is an unfortunate part of life, and tells people how to behave if it
happens. It allows for divorce.
This law, like many in Deuteronomy, is a conditional statement. It has the form, "IF [or
WHEN] someone does something, THEN you should do something." Both interpretations
recognize the "if-then" structure of the law. They differ on how many "if-then" statements the
law contains.
The translation of Deut. 24:1-4 in the Authorized Version identifies three "if-then" or "when-
then" pairs, followed by an explanation. It sees three laws in the passage, so we call it the "three
law interpretation." Another translation of the passage is possible. This translation sees only a
single instruction and its explanation in the passage. We call it the "one law interpretation."
Table 3compares the three law interpretation (on the left) with the one law interpretation (on the
right).
In the three law interpretation, each of the three conditions is a distinct instruction.
1. The first condition provides that if a woman does not please her husband, he may
"write her a bill of divorcement [certificate of divorce], and give it in her hand, and
send her out of his house" (verse 1). This law explicitly authorizes divorce.
2. The second condition permits a woman so divorced to marry another man (verse 2).
3. The third condition forbids a woman who is divorced, remarried, and then divorced or
widowed to return to the first husband, for that would be a particularly heinous sin
(verses 3-4).
So the three law interpretation permits divorce and remarriage under some circumstances.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Table 3: Two Interpretations of Deut. 24:1-4
Three Law Interpretation One Law Interpretation
First Law, 24:1 One Law, 1-4a
When a man hath taken a wife, When a man has taken a wife,
and married her, and married her,
and it come to pass and it happens,
that she find no favor in his eyes, if she does not find favor in his eyes,
because he hath found some uncleanness in her, because he has found some uncleanness in her,
then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and he writes her a certificate of divorce,
and give it in her hand, and gives it in her hand,
and send her out of his house. and sends her out of his house,
Second Law, 24:2
And when she is departed out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
[then] she may go and be another man's wife. and goes and becomes another man's wife,
Third law, 24:3-4a
And if the latter husband hate her, and the latter husband hates her,
and write her a bill of divorcement, and writes her a certificate of divorce,
and giveth it in her hand, and gives it in her hand,
and sendeth her out of his house, and sends her out of his house,
or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife,
[then] her former husband, which sent her away, may not take then her former husband, which sent her away, may not take
her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled. her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled.
The Explanation, 24:4b
For that is abomination before the Lord, and thou shalt not For that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not
cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for cause the land to sin, the land that the Lord your God gives
an inheritance. you for an inheritance.

The one law interpretation recognizes that divorce and remarriage happen, just as
Deuteronomy 22 recognizes that fornication happens. It does not approve the first divorce, or the
remarriage, or the second divorce, any more than Deuteronomy 22 approves fornication. Like
Deuteronomy 22, it tells what God wants people to do if these unfortunate events occur.

5.2 Choosing Between the Views

The interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 that we choose makes a great deal of difference to how we
view divorce and remarriage. Five insights show that the one law interpretation, the one that does
not approve of divorce and remarriage, is correct.
1. The one law interpretation is the more natural translation of the Hebrew text.
2. The three law interpretation leads to contradictions among the three laws.
3. The explanation "For that is abomination before the Lord …" (verse 4) fits well with
the one law interpretation.
4. Jeremiah cites the passage in a way that presumes the one law interpretation.
5. The Lord Jesus endorses the one law interpretation in the Gospels.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 We study the first four of these insights in the remainder of this section, and the fifth in
Chapter 10.
5.2.1 The Grammar of Deut. 24:1-4
The simplest reading of Deut. 24:1-4 is as one law rather than three. The prophet Jeremiah
alludes to this passage in his prophecy. He knows biblical Hebrew much better than any modern
scholar, for he speaks it as his native tongue. It is interesting that he paraphrases the law as a
single command, not as three:
If a man puts away his wife, and she goes from him, and becomes another man's, shall he return unto
her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? (Jer. 3:1)
In English, the words "if" (or "when") and "then" show the difference between the one law
interpretation and the three law interpretation. In Hebrew, the difference between a condition (an
"if-then" sentence) and an ordinary sentence is much more subtle. Hebrew does have several
words for "if," but most conditions do not use a special word to introduce the "then" clause.
Other features, such as word order or verb tense, sometimes show where the "if" stops and the
"then" begins. It is even possible to have a condition in which the "if" clause and the "then"
clause can be distinguished only by meaning. Perhaps the spoken language marked these with
special intonation, but we cannot detect this from our written text.
Hebrew words for "if" occur three times in Deut. 24:1-4, but they do not correspond to the
three conditions in the three law interpretation. The first occurs at the beginning of 24:1, "when a
man takes a wife …." The second is in the middle of 24:1, "if she does not find favor in his eyes
…." The third is in 24:3, "when the latter husband dies …." There is no "if" at the beginning of
24:2 or 24:3. Furthermore, of the three "then"s required by the three law interpretation, only the
one at the beginning of 24:4 corresponds to a distinctive Hebrew construction.
Hebrew conditions are not always marked clearly. The three law interpretation is not
impossible. However, there is nothing in the text to suggest that it is correct. We will see it there
only if we bring it with us to the text. If we follow only the clues that the text gives us, we will
read 24:1-3 as one long "if" and 24:4a as the "then."
5.2.2 Three Paradoxical Laws
Not only is the one law interpretation simpler linguistically than the three law interpretation, but
it also avoids certain contradictions that arise among the three laws of the three law
interpretation.
The three laws of the three law interpretation are:
1. A man may divorce his wife, thus ending their marriage (verse 1).
2. A divorced woman may marry someone else (verse 2).
3. If anything happens to the second marriage, the woman may not return to the first
husband, because she is defiled (verses 3,4).
The first law, allowing divorce, leads logically to the second law, allowing marriage to someone
else. If the first marriage is really gone, there can be no objection to remarriage. The first law and
the third, though, are in conflict, as are the second and the third.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
A Divorce that Doesn't Work..—The first law seems to conflict with the third law, forbidding
reconciliation of the first couple. If the first marriage is really gone, there is no relationship
between the woman and her first husband. He and she should be like any other man and woman
in Israel. If the second husband dies and they wish to remarry, they should be able to marry one
another as well as anybody else. Under the three law interpretation, they may marry other people,
but not one another. Some sort of tie remains between the woman and her first husband. The
divorce of verse 1 cannot obliterate this relationship.
If we think Deut. 24:1 sanctions divorce as a way to undo marriage, then 24:4a is strange, for
it implies that the marriage is not completely undone after all.
A Marriage that Defiles.—The second and third laws also conflict. The second law expressly
permits the woman to remarry, but the third law says that she is "defiled" as a result of
remarrying.
"Defiled" in this context indicates that entering the second marriage is a sexual sin. Leviticus
18 uses the word to describe the sexual sins of the Canaanites.
You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to defile yourself with her (Lev. 18:20).
Do not defile yourselves in any of these things, for in all these things the nations are defiled, the
nations that I cast out from before you (Lev. 18:24).
1. You shall keep my ordinance, so that you do not commit any of the abominable customs that were
committed before you, and so that you do not defile yourselves in them (Lev. 18:30).
In the three law interpretation, the third law says that the wife defiles herself in the second
marriage, and thus views the consummation of that marriage as sexual sin. Yet the second law
explicitly allows her to remarry. Thus the second law and the third law, like the first law and the
third law, are contradictory.
If there are three laws in Deut. 24:1-4, they contradict one another. The one law
interpretation has no such problem. It sanctions neither divorce nor remarriage, but only tells
what to do in one particular combination of these events.
5.2.3 How does Moses explain the Law?
Both interpretations of Deut. 24:1-4 agree that the law forbids the reconciliation of a divorced
couple if the wife has been married to someone else during the period of the divorce. The
passage itself offers an explanation for this prohibition.
For that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not cause the land to sin, the land that the
Lord your God gives you for an inheritance (Deut. 24:4b).
This explanation is the third piece of evidence that helps us choose between the interpretations.
Under the three law interpretation, the explanation is as confusing as are the contradictions
among the laws. If divorce really is possible, if people can really dissolve a marriage, why
should a later reconciliation be "an abomination before the Lord?" By this interpretation, both the
first and the second marriage are gone. They should not have any effect on remarriage.
The explanation does fit well with the one law interpretation of Deuteronomy 24. The first
verse is not God's way to dissolve a marriage, but only men's attempt to do so. People cannot
completely untie the knot that God has tied. A special relationship remains between man and
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
wife, in spite of their best efforts to dissolve it. It is the persistence of this special relationship
that makes reconciliation so abominable.
The explanation in Deut. 24:4 is the only verse in the Bible that uses the word "sinning" to
describe "the land." Jeremiah once again can help us understand this law, for he uses a synonym
when he paraphrases it: "Shall not that land be greatly polluted?" (Jer. 3:1). Among other
passages, Num. 35:31-33 talks about the pollution of the land. Though the specific causes of the
pollution are different in Numbers and in Deuteronomy, both passages talk about averting
pollution. The greater detail in Numbers can help us understand Deuteronomy.
Murder Also "Pollutes the Land" — In Numbers 35, God tells the nation Israel how to judge
and punish the crime of murder. The conclusion of this chapter talks about polluting the land.
You shall take no atonement for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put
to death. … So you shall not pollute the land where you are, for blood pollutes the land, and no
atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who
shed it (Num. 35:31,33).
Blood shed by murder "pollutes the land." The damage can be reversed, by punishing the
murderer. Otherwise, the pollution remains.
Ever since the time of Noah, the penalty for murder is death. God tells Noah,
Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed (Gen. 9:6).
Under Moses, the responsibility for discharging this judgment falls on the relatives of the dead
man. One of them, called "the avenger of blood" in Numbers 35, seeks out the killer to slay him.
The killer, in turn, flees to a "city of refuge" for protection until the elders of his home city
extradite him for trial (Deut. 19:12). If the trial finds that the killing was accidental, he returns to
the city of refuge, safe from the avenger of blood. But if he is guilty, he is delivered to the
avenger of blood for execution.
The law of murder makes the avenger of blood responsible for preventing pollution of the
land, by executing the murderer. There is no provision for the avenger of blood to forgive the
murderer. More is at stake than a personal vendetta between murderer and victim. God's law has
been broken, and it is God's judgment, not just personal vengeance, that the avenger must
execute. Whatever the avenger's personal feelings toward the murderer, he has a duty to perform
as God's minister.
How is Adultery like Murder? — Adultery, as well as murder, "pollutes the land:"
She polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees (Jer. 3:9).
Under the one law interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, divorce and remarriage is really adultery,
for the divorce has no divine sanction, but is entirely man-made. In spite of the "certificate of
divorce" that the first husband gives the woman in Deut. 24:1, she is still his wife. When she
marries the second man, she commits adultery against the first, and threatens the land with
pollution.
Numbers 35 shows that the pollution that sin brings on the land can be removed if the sin is
judged. In the case of murder, the prosecutor is the avenger of blood. There is also a prosecutor
for the sin of adultery. It is the first husband. Throughout the Law of Moses, he is the one who
must bring charges against an adulterous wife. In Deut. 22:13-21, he accuses her of premarital
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
impurity. In Num. 5:11-31, he accuses her of unfaithfulness after marriage. The analogy of
Numbers 35 suggests that in both cases he is not only defending his own honor, but also
enforcing God's law.
As with murder, the judgment on adultery must not be bypassed, or the land will remain
polluted. It is not just a question of the relationship between the man and his wife, but of the
discharge of God's law among his subjects. Certainly, it is unlikely that the first husband will
accuse his wife of adultery after divorcing her, and less likely that any society that recognizes the
divorce will accept the charges. Still, before God, the husband is responsible to prosecute his
wife's sin. If he drops the charges, the land remains defiled, for he has abandoned his
responsibility to execute God's justice.
Now the reasoning behind the law of reconciliation is clear. A husband may take back his
divorced wife if she has not remarried, for the divorce is only a man-made institution and does
not change their union in God's eyes. However, once she marries someone else, she commits
adultery against her first husband. Now he is responsible to prosecute her sin. If he accepts her
back, he effectively pardons the sin. Yet he has no authority to pardon her, for it is God's law, not
his, that demands satisfaction. By refusing to satisfy that law, he leaves the land polluted with
adultery.
The explanation that Moses gives for Deut. 24:1-4 thus presents a paradox if the passage
sanctions divorce. If the passage only forbids reconciliation, the explanation makes sense.
5.2.4 How does Jeremiah use this law?
The prophet Jeremiah cites Deut. 24:1-4 when he condemns Judah for idolatry, a condition he
describes vividly as spiritual adultery. He writes,
"They say,
'If a man sends out his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man's, may he return to
her again?
Would not that land be greatly polluted?'
In your case, you have played the harlot with many lovers, and would you now return to me?" says
the Lord (Jer. 3:1).
Jeremiah argues that if the law forbids reunion with one's spouse after adultery with even a
single partner, Judah can hardly expect the Lord to welcome her back after she has been
unfaithful with many lovers. For the purposes of our discussion, the form in which he cites the
law is important. He paraphrases the law as a single long condition, followed by a conclusion,
which he expresses as a question, "May he return to her again?" This question clearly expects a
negative answer. Under the conditions described, restoration is impossible. That is, Jeremiah
reads the law, not as three separate instructions, but as a single law. In our terms, he follows the
"one law interpretation."
5.2.5 One Law or Three?
It is encouraging when we can establish the meaning of a passage of scripture "in the mouth of
two or three witnesses." In our case, we have found four witnesses to the one law interpretation
of Deut. 24:1-4, with a fifth to come in Chapter 10. Of the two main interpretations of the
passage, the one law interpretation is more natural grammatically, avoids contradictions to which
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
the other interpretation leads, better fits the explanation that Moses gives for the law, and is
consistent with Jeremiah's paraphrase. We will soon see that the Lord Jesus also follows the one
law interpretation.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Please paraphrase Deut. 24:1-4 in two different ways, illustrating the two conflicting
interpretations of the passage.
2. Which interpretation is smoother grammatically?
3. What paradox arises if Deuteronomy 24 sanctions divorce?
4. Please compare the law of reconciliation with the law of murder with respect to the
initial offense, the prosecutor, and why the prosecutor cannot pardon the offender.
5. Which interpretation of Deut. 24:1-4 does Jeremiah's use of the passage support, and
why?
6. How would you counsel a divorced couple who wish to reunite?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 NOTES

5.3 The Implications of “Defiled”in Deut. 24:3

Yaron 1966:8 insists that "defiled" in verse 3 does not describe the second marriage as
adulterous, but is simply a reference to the consummation of that marriage as putting the woman
"finally beyond the reach of her first husband." His explanation is very abbreviated, but seems to
allude to the fact that even a legitimate marriage (as he considers the second marriage to be)
brings impurity under the Law:
As for a woman with whom a man lies with seed of copulation, they shall wash in water, and they
shall be defiled until the evening (Lev. 15:18).
This note argues that "defiled" in Deut. 24:4 means more than this temporary ceremonial
impurity, because of the duration of the defilement and the existence of clearer alternatives for
describing the second union.
The defilement of Lev. 15:18 lasts only one day. The defilement of Deut. 24:4 persists even
after the death of the second husband. They thus seem to be two different kinds of defilement.
There are clearer ways for the law to speak of the consummation of the second marriage than
an obscure reference to Lev. 15:18. Hebrew has at least four words denoting copulation.
1. "To ravish" is so direct that Jewish scribes living after the time of Christ systematically
change it to another verb, "to lie with."
2. "To lie with" indicates copulation, either legitimate or illegitimate, either with or
without the consent of both parties. It occurs in Gen. 39:7, 12, 14; 30:15, 16; 2 Sam.
11:11; and many other times.
3. "To humble" usually describes a rape, as in Judg. 19:24 and 2 Sam. 13:12,14. It is the
word that some versions render "defile" in Gen. 34:2.
4. "To know" is used frequently of the physical union of married couples (Gen. 4:1, 17,
25). Only once (Judg. 19:25) does it describe a situation where one participant does not
consent to the union.
If the function of the word "defiled" in Deut. 24:4 is simply to refer to the consummation of a
second legitimate marriage, either "to know" or "to lie with" would be a much clearer term.
The defilement of the second marriage is more than the ceremonial result of lawful union. A
much better parallel seems to be the uses of "to defile" in Leviticus 18, which we have
summarized in the body of the chapter.

5.4 Wenham's Explanation of Deut. 24

I explain Deut. 24:1-4 as forbidding reconciliation after remarriage on the grounds that the first
husband has a divine duty to prosecute his remarried wife for adultery. This interpretation seems
to be a new addition to the collection of several that have grown up around the passage. (For
summaries of earlier views see Yaron 1966; Heth 1982:52-56.) The latest view to be expounded,
and one favored by several recent writers (Steele and Ryrie 1983:26-27; Kaiser 1983:202-203) is
that proposed by Gordon Wenham 1979. He observes that the reasons given in Deut. 24:4 for

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
prohibiting the remarriage are characteristic of the prohibitions against incest in Leviticus 18 and
20. He argues that marriage binds a man and woman into a relationship as strong as that between
parent and child, a virtual blood relationship. "The result is paradoxical. A man may not remarry
his former wife, because his first marriage to her made her into one of his closest relatives"
(Wenham 1979:40), and the reconciliation would therefore be incestuous.
Wenham's view is creative, and shows a sensitivity to the biblical view of the depth of the
marriage bond, but there is a problem. Deuteronomy 24 assumes that some persisting
relationship between the first husband and his wife prohibits reconciliation after she remarries.
This relationship must result from the intervening remarriage, since without the remarriage
reconciliation is not forbidden. Wenham argues that the relationship in question is the virtual
blood bond resulting from the first marriage. But this bond exists whether or not the woman
remarries. If it is strong enough to cause incest, then it should prevent reconciliation, whether or
not the woman has remarried. In fact, it should prevent any union between man and wife after
the marriage has been consumated, for the incest laws of Leviticus 18 and 20 directly forbid
intercourse, not just marriage, with one's close relatives.
But it is patently not incestuous for a man and his wife to have intercourse, and there is no
evidence whatsoever that reconciliation after divorce in the absence of an intervening marriage is
considered incest. The relationship in view in Deuteronomy 24 is caused, not by marriage alone,
nor by marriage and divorce, but by marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The bond identified by
Wenham does not meet this requirement. The relation between a husband and his unfaithful wife
does.

5.5 Two Questions on Jer. 3:1

Our discussion of Jer. 3:1 invites an important question. If Moses' law forbids Judah, as the
Lord's unfaithful wife, from returning to him, how can the Lord later promise to restore the
nation (as in Jer. 23:5-8; 24:6-7; and many other places)?
We might think that God is not bound by his own laws, since he made them in the first place.
This explanation, while plausible at first glance, is probably not correct. The New Testament
emphasizes the importance of Christ's fulfilling the Law for his people, and bearing their penalty
in their place. If it were consistent with God's character for him simply to waive his own laws,
then the imputation of our sin to Christ and of his righteousness to us would be unnecessary.
There would be no need for God to sacrifice his Son to procure our forgiveness, if he could
simply waive the laws that we have violated.
In fact, the contrast between what the law would allow and the restoration promised later in
Jeremiah, emphasizes the wonder and mystery of God's forgiveness. A human husband cannot
restore his wife because he cannot forgive the offense against God's Law. God does forgive
repentant sinners. This truth is so characteristic of the Lord that he proclaims it as part of his
name to Moses in Exod. 34:6,7:
The LORD, the LORD, a God … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.
Because God can forgive the sin, he can restore Israel to himself.
The Old Testament teaches clearly enough that God forgives sin, but we must wait until the
New Testament to learn in full detail how he is able to forgive without compromising his own
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
holiness. There we find that God in Christ has himself carried his people's guilt and borne their
punishment for them. The Old Testament hints of this in the very word "forgive," for it is the
same word translated "bear" in expressions like "he shall bear his iniquity" (Lev. 5:1,17). When
God forgives sin, he himself shoulders its burden, and ultimately discharges it on Calvary.
Though God, as the author of forgiveness, can restore his wife, the original law is not
suspended or revoked. The law itself, in Exod. 34:7, recognizes that God can forgive, and this
revelation antedates Deut. 24:1-4. The sacrifices of the Law could never convey a clear
conscience (Heb. 9:9; 10:1,2), but Psalm 32 clearly shows that those whose faith went beyond
the Law could know the blessedness of forgiven sin. Still, the fact of God's forgiveness does not
remove the physical penalties that the Law imposes for sin, or relieve God's people of the need to
obey the Law.
The New Testament does not revoke this particular law, just as in general it retains the Old
Testament's teachings about marriage. This law thus provides guidance to believers who may
have stumbled in the area of divorce and remarriage. A divorced couple may be reconciled if
neither has remarried. If a remarriage has intervened, they may not be reconciled, even if the
second spouse has died. In particular, this law offers a direct refutation to the suggestion
sometimes heard that believers in second marriages should dissolve them and return to their
original spouses. We will consider the dissolution of second marriages in more detail in .Chapter
14, but this law explicitly forbids a restoration of the first marriage under any circumstances.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 6
THE LAW OF MOSES AND CONCUBINAGE

We have studied two of Moses' laws about divorce. Deuteronomy 22 explicitly forbids divorce in
some specific cases. Deuteronomy 24 regulates remarriage after divorce. Both statements
recognize the existence of divorce in Israelite culture, but do not endorse it. Instead, they make
divorce more difficult and less palatable than it would be otherwise.
In contrast, two other texts in Israel's law code, Exod. 21:7-11 and Deut. 21:10-14, tell how a
man should put out a woman who does not please him. Such instruction does more than
recognize that people divorce each other. It tells them how to do it. How can we reconcile these
texts with the opposition to divorce reflected in Deuteronomy 22 and 24? What are their
implications for the believer's conduct today? To answer these questions, we examine each
passage in detail, observing common features that occur in both of them.

6.1 Some Recurring Themes

The two passages we will study share three important features.
1. Both passages deal with legitimate unions, not fornication. They use some of the
special words and expressions for marriage that we studied in the notes to Chapter 3.
2. The women in both cases are slaves, and thus of a lower social class than their partners.
In the notes, we show that Israelite society distinguishes wives who are slaves from
other wives, often using the special word "concubine" to describe them. This peculiar
status appears to be the reason that these unions are so easily broken.
3. Though the union with a concubine is more tenuous than that with a full wife, the point
of both laws is not to weaken the bond, but to strengthen it. The laws do not teach that
slaves are easier to discard than free women, but that married slaves are harder to
discard than unmarried ones.

6.2 The Law of the Hebrew Concubine

The first law describes a free-born female Israelite whose father has sold her as a servant, and
whose owner has taken her as a wife either for himself or for his son.
And if a man sells his daughter as a handmaid, she shall not go out as the menservants go out. If
she should be displeasing to her master, who appointed her for himself, then he shall cause her to be
redeemed. To an unfamiliar people he shall have no authority to sell her, in dealing treacherously with
her.
And if he should appoint her for his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If
he takes another for him, her meat, her clothing, and her ointment he shall not diminish. And if he does
not do these three for her, she shall go out gratis, without charge (Exodus 21:7-11).
The law has three provisions, each specifying how the relation between the master and the
servant may end. .
1. In contrast to ordinary Israelite servitude, the relation does not expire automatically
after six years.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 2. The woman may not be sold out of her husband's family. She may only be "redeemed"
and thus restored to her original family.
3. If she is abused, she wins her freedom at no cost.
6.2.1 Expiration of Indenture
The words, "She shall not go out as the menservants do," allude to the law in Exod. 21:1-6, just
before this law. The earlier law shows that one Israelite cannot own another absolutely. The
servitude is more like an indenture, with a fixed term.
If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years, and in the seventh he shall go out as a free
man, gratis (Exodus 21:1).
After six years, the master must set the servant free, unless the servant wishes to remain in his
master's household.
In general, the principle of release after six years applies to both men and women servants, as
Deut. 15:12 shows. The law we are studying now gives one exception to the six year release. If a
man "appoints" his female servant for himself or his son, she "shall not go out as the menservants
do" (Exod. 21:7), "in the seventh [year]" (Exod. 21:1). A man may not take advantage of a
female servant, and then discard her. If he takes her, he elevates her from servant to family
member. Servants leave after six years. Members of the family are permanent.
6.2.2 Resale
The second paragraph of the law tells how the master may and may not regain his investment if
the servant does not please him. He may "cause her to be redeemed," but not "sell her to an
unfamiliar people," that is, out of the family.
The owner cannot sell his concubine out of the family, for by doing so he would "deal
treacherously with her." The phrase "deal treacherously" translates the Hebrew verb describing
breach of covenant that we considered in Chapter 3. The relation between the master and his
servant involves a covenant, which in this context is probably the marriage covenant. Most
translations of this law suggest that because the covenant has been broken previously, the master
cannot sell her. As we discuss in the notes, the Hebrew construction suggests that it is the act of
selling that breaks the covenant. By marrying the girl, the master has elevated her above her
former status. To sell her as a common chattel would betray that commitment.
The law does allow the man to regain his investment, by "caus[ing] her to be redeemed."
Redemption of a servant is like a sale in that money is paid to remove the servant from an
owner's possession. It differs from a sale in two ways. In a sale, the servant becomes the property
of the person who paid the previous owner, and the purchaser can be anybody. In redemption,
the purchaser is someone with an original claim to the servant, and the servant becomes free. The
intent seems to be that the girl's father repays the purchase price he received for his daughter, and
she returns to his home as a free person.
This provision gives us a clearer view of the girl's status. Her union with the master has made
her more than a common slave, so that she cannot be sold. From the master's point of view she
still has a value, and the law allows him to regain his funds if her family by birth will redeem
her.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
6.2.3 Emancipation
If the owner is unhappy with his concubine and her family cannot afford to redeem her, he must
continue to provide for her. If he neglects her, she wins her freedom without any repayment to
her owner.
6.2.4 Summary
The law of the Hebrew concubine in Exodus 21 shows clearly the three features we anticipated
as we began.
1. The legitimacy of the union is implied by the statement that the husband is liable for
breach of covenant if he sells his concubine out of the family.
2. The woman is a slave, for she is "sold" as a "handmaid."
3. The emphasis of the law is not on how easy it is to put away a slave, but on the
restrictions the master must accept if he takes her as his concubine. He cannot abuse her
and discard her, just because she is his property. A covenant exists between them, and
he must abide by it.
A close parallel to the law of the Hebrew concubine appears in Leviticus 19:20.
As for a man who lies carnally with a woman, she being a handmaid appointed for a[nother] man, not
at all redeemed, nor freedom given her: there shall be an investigation. They shall not be put to death,
because she was not free.
• In both cases, the woman is a servant with some sort of relation to a man. Leviticus
does not state that he is her master, but because she is a handmaid, we expect that the
relation is either with him or with someone approved by him (such as the son of Exodus
21:9).
• In both cases, the relation can be ended either by redemption or by outright release.
The passage enhances our understanding of Exodus 21:7-11 by illustrating how the relation of
man and concubine is inferior to that of man and full wife. What is to be done with a man who
takes a woman to whom he is not married? If she is single, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires him
to marry her. If she is engaged or married, Deuteronomy 22:22-27 requires at least the man to
die. In this case, though, neither law applies, "because she was not free." She belongs to someone
else, so the seducer may not marry her. But the offense is not serious enough to warrant death.
The seducer offers a trespass offering (Leviticus 19:21), and is forgiven.

6.3 The Law of the Captive Concubine

The second law that seems to allow divorce describes a female prisoner of war whose captor
wants her as his concubine. In the first law the woman is an Israelite, but here a Gentile woman
is in focus.
It may happen that you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them
into your hand, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives an attractive woman, and
you desire her, and you take her to yourself as a wife, and you bring her into your house. Then she will
shave her head, and do her nails, and put off the garment of her captivity from upon her, and sit in
your house, and weep for her father and her mother for a month. After this, perhaps you go in unto

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 her, and become her husband, and she becomes your wife. Now, if you do not take pleasure in her, you
may send her away according to her desire. But you must not sell her for money, nor treat her
abusively, because you have humbled her (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).
According to the customs of the Ancient Near East, prisoners of war ordinarily became
slaves of their captors. Israel's Law provides that a female captive whose master takes her as his
concubine is thereby elevated above the status of an ordinary slave, just as is the servant in
Exodus 21. Her master has "humbled her." That is, they have been united physically. Therefore
he may no longer dispose of her as a piece of property.
The question of redemption does not arise. The captor has no financial investment in her.
Besides, because she is a foreigner whose relatives have been slain, it is unlikely that he could
find a redeemer for her. His only alternative to living with her is to set her free. Even this action
is restricted "according to her desire." As a foreigner, she might not want to be independent in
Israel. The wording of the law suggests that in this case her master might be compelled to
continue to provide for her.
This law exhibits the same three characteristics we saw in Exodus 21.
1. The expressions "you take her to yourself as a wife" and "you ... be her husband, and
she shall become your wife" are formal idioms for marriage.
2. The woman's status as a slave is a direct consequence of her being a prisoner of war.
3. The law does not grant additional liberties to the husband because his partner is a slave,
but imposes restrictions on his disposition of her that would not apply if she were not
his concubine.

6.4 Slave-Wives and Divorce

We turned our attention to Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21 because these passages seem to
authorize dissolution of marriages. We now understand that the relationships in view in these
laws are of a special kind that does not arise in modern Western society.
Our fundamental insight is that because the women in view are slaves, their relationships
with their masters are concubinage and not full marriage. The ease with which these unions are
broken does not contradict the high regard for marriage reflected in Deuteronomy 22 and 24,
since two different relations are in view. Deuteronomy 22 and 24 consider a full marriage. God
has joined the partners together, so not even a formal divorce can dissolve their union in his eyes.
Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21 describe concubinage, a union distinguished by the culture from
full marriage. This union is thus man-made, so man can sever it.
Because concubinage has no legal status in Western culture, these laws offer no precedent for
modern divorces. In fact, if anything, they argue against divorce. Contrasted with the pagan
standards of the day, Moses' Law greatly restricts the husband's tyranny over his concubine.
These decrees are steps away from casual liaisons and toward fuller commitment, even in the
context of slavery.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What general attitude toward the dissolution of marriage do Deuteronomy 22 and 24
reflect?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 2. How do Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21 differ from this?
3. What three features characterize both of these laws?
NOTES

6.5 The Translation of Exod. 21:8

The translation of Exod. 21:8,10 in the text differs from most English translations in three
details: the rendering of the phrase ‫" ם נכרי‬husband's father," which describes the relatio‫ ע‬, the handling of the infinitive construct phrase with
‫ ב־‬at the end of 21:8, and the interpretation of the third item in 21:10 that the master is obligated
to provide for her (AV “duty of marriage”).
6.5.1 The "Unfamiliar People"
Most translations render ‫" ם נכרי‬husband's father," which describes the relatio‫ ע‬as "foreign people" or "foreign nation," implying that the
husband can sell his concubine as long as he sells her to an Israelite and not to a foreigner. This
interpretation seems unlikely on three grounds.
1. The verse draws a contrast between selling the woman and causing her to be redeemed,
not between selling her to one group as opposed to another. Redemption (‫ )פדה‬always
involves an original owner’s regaining possession of something by offering a payment
of some sort. In the context, the original owner would be the woman's father (verse 7),
who could return the purchase price and bring his daughter home. The law allows
redemption by the woman's family, but forbids selling her to ‫" ם נכרי‬husband's father," which describes the relatio‫ע‬. The logical
contrast to her family is anybody else, not just non-Israelites.
2. In the parallel text Lev. 19:20, the two conditions that could remove a woman from the
position of concubine are redemption and release. There is no mention of sale to
anyone, Israelite or not.
3. The second law protects a foreign captive concubine from being sold to anybody, not
just from being sold to a non-Israelite. She can no longer be traded as a common
chattel. If the first law permits the husband to sell his concubine at all, we are drawn to
the strange conclusion that the Law of Moses offers greater protection to foreign
concubines than to Israelite ones.
The precise expression ‫" ם נכרי‬husband's father," which describes the relatio‫ ע‬appears nowhere else in the Old Testament. ‫" ם‬husband's father," which describes the relatio‫ ע‬need not
denote a nation, but can refer to the citizens of a locality (for example, in Gen. 19:4; 1 Sam.
9:12,13; and Jer. 29:16,25), and the feminine of ‫ נכרי‬can refer to someone from another family,
as in the use of the feminine form for a harlot, a woman who is "alien" to a man because she is
not his proper wife. The overall expression seems appropriate to describe anyone not in either of
the woman's two families (the families of her father and of her husband). The phrase is thus not
restrictive ("he may sell her, but not to a foreigner"), but definitive ("he may not sell her, thus
removing her from her own people").
6.5.2 The Connection of "Deal Treacherously"
The infinitive construct phrase with ‫ ב־‬at the end of 21:8, ‫!בגדו־בה‬, is universally translated as a
causal clause, "since he has dealt treacherously with her," explaining why the husband cannot
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
sell her. I have rendered it as specifying more precisely what would be involved in selling her: by
doing so he would be dealing treacherously. Two arguments show why this rendering is
preferable.
1. On close examination, other cases of ‫ ב־‬with the infinitive construct commonly cited
as "causal" are not clearly causal. For instance, R. Williams 1967:pars.247,534
exhibits Exod. 33:16 and 1 Kings 18:18 as examples of this usage. But consider these
citations more closely.
And how [literally in what ] then shall it be known that I have found favor in your eyes, I
and your people? Is it not in your going with us? (Exodus 33:16)
The causal interpretation would paraphrase the emphasized phrase, "because you are
going with us." However, the "in" in the phrase is an echo of the same preposition in
the Hebrew idiom "in what," at the beginning of the verse. Moses asks, "How shall it
be known?", not "Why shall it be known?". The answer gives a means, not a cause.
And he said, "I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father's house [have], in your
forsaking the LORD's commandments, and going after the Baals (1 Kings 18:18).
Elijah accuses Ahab of troubling Israel. The emphasized phrase does not describe why
Ahab has troubled Israel, but how he has done it. Forsaking the Lord's commandments
does not lead up to the troubling of Israel, but is the very substance of the troubling.
The use of ‫ ב־‬with the infinitive construct here specifies more closely the meaning of a
preceding verb, just as in Exodus 21:8.
2. The verb ‫ בגד‬is a technical term for breaking covenant. He has not broken covenant
with her before selling her. But to sell her as a common slave, after marrying her,
would be a breach of covenant.

6.5.3 The Third Obligation

The master is obligated to provide the girl with three things: food (specifically, meat), clothing,
and ‫ ענתה‬. This last term appears only here in the Hebrew Bible. Following the Septuagint, most
versions understand the term to refer to the woman's conjugal rights.
The traditional rendering has two weaknesses. First, it is usually justified by deriving the
word from ‫" ענה‬to afflict, humble," a decidedly negative word that sometimes refers to rape. The
text obviously seeks the woman's interests, and it seems inconsistent with these to require the
master to "afflict" her sexually. One might derive the term from ‫" עון‬to dwell," but this root does
not have the same sexual overtones in Hebrew that "live with" does in English. Second, there is
no parallel elsewhere in the Old Testament, or indeed in ancient Near Eastern literature, to
suggest that a woman has a "right" to sexual attention from her husband. Citations of 1 Cor. 7:3
are quite beside the point, since the cultural context is entirely different, and nothing in 1 Cor. 7
would suggest that Paul has Exod. 21:10 in mind.
My interpretation follows Paul 1969, who shows that many ancient Near Eastern law codes
identify three things that must be provided for a dependent person (such as a slave, a deserted
wife, a dependent sister, or a dependent parent): food, clothing, and oil. These three things were
viewed as the necessities of ancient life, and had to be provided for a person who was otherwise

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
without support. Exod. 21:10 describes the same social context as these parallels (maintenance of
a dependent person), two of the three items are the same, the third item in Exodus is otherwise
unknown in the Old Testament, and there is no other parallel available to explain the Exodus
triplet. The conclusion seems unavoidable that Moses is reflecting a contemporary notion of the
basic requirements of life, and that sexual attention is not one of them.

6.6 The Translation of Deut. 21:10-14

English translations begin the apodosis of the first conditional at 21:12, with the effect, "If you
see a beautiful captive, then you shall bring her into your house." This analysis recommends the
practice of taking captives as concubines.
The Hebrew text contains no indication of a break at the start of verse 12. The suffix
conjugation verbs with waw consecutive that begin in 21:10 continue through ‫ה‬, means "marriage," but occur‫ ובכת‬in 21:13.
Only with the disjunctive clause ... ‫ ואחר כן‬in 21:13 do we come upon the command itself. All
that goes before simply indicates the normal circumstances of war and the expected behavior of a
female captive. The law does not recommend that warriors take their captives as concubines, but
demands that if the captor decides on such a course of action, he must wait for the woman's
mourning to run a reasonable course before taking her.
The law is not one of the standard Hebrew conditional forms. It is misleading to render it
with a standard English conditional such as "if ... then" or "when ...then." Hebrew can use its
common conditional particle ‫ כי‬without a formal apodosis, but English does not enjoy the same
freedom with "when" or "if." Using English "when" for the introductory ‫ כי‬makes it impossible to
avoid an earlier apodosis. So I have rendered the waw consecutive chain as a hypothetical
situation, "It may happen that." Even so, it becomes monotonous in English, so I break the
sentence when the subject shifts from the captor to the captive. The important point to keep in
mind is that there is no command before verse 14.

6.7 Concubines in the Old Testament

The laws about servants and captives who are concubines to their masters envision a relation that
less binding than full marriage. Though there is no unambiguous Hebrew word for "wife," there
is one for "concubine," *‫ ל*ג‬is the closest word+ , suggesting that this relation is distinctive in the social fabric of the
time. This note seeks to enhance our understanding of the custom in order to give further
perspective to the two laws concerning it that we have studied.
Table 4 lists the relations identified in the Bible as concubinage. For each instance, we give
• a central reference for the relation;
• whether the passage is in a genealogical context or not;
• who the man and the woman are;
• the period in Israel's history (Patriarchal, Conquest, Judges, Monarchy, Captivity) in
which the relation existed;
• other texts that refer to the same relation.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Table 4: Instances of Concubinage in the Bible (in chronological order)
Reference Gen’l Man Woman Period Other Refs.
Gen. 22:24 x Nahor Reumah Patriarch
Gen.25:6 x Abraham Hagar? Patriarch
1 Chr. 1:32 x Abraham Keturah Patriarch
Gen. 35:22 Jacob Bilhah Patriarch
1 Chr. 7:14 x Manasseh ? Patriarch
Gen. 36:12 x Elipaz Timnah Patriarch
1 Chr. 2:46 x Caleb Ephah Conquest
1 Chr. 2:48 x Caleb Maacah Conquest
Jud. 8:31 Gideon ? Judges
Jud. 19,20 Levite ? Judges
2 Sam. 3:7 Saul Rizpah Monarchy 2 Sam.21:11
2 Sam. 5:13 x David many Monarchy 2 Sam. 15:16; 16:21f; 19:6; 20:3; 1 Chr. 3:9
Song 6:8,9 Solomon many Monarchy 1 Kings 11:3
2 Chr. 11:21 Rehoboam many Monarchy
Est. 2:14 Xerxes many Captivity
Based on the instances of concubinage in this table, we can answer some questions about the
custom.
• How is it distributed, both in Israel's history and in the different parts of the Old
Testament?
• What is its legal status in the Old Testament?
• How does it differ from full marriage?
• What is the relation between concubinage and slavery?
6.7.1 Distribution of the Custom
The table shows that the custom of concubinage appears in almost every period of Israel's
history. It is not mentioned before the flood. It also does not appear by name during the Egyptian
bondage or the exodus or (among Israelites) after the beginning of the Babylonian captivity,
probably because a concubine is a kind of slave and slave-owning is a luxury that the Israelites
can ill afford in those periods when they are themselves slaves. The custom is well known
among the patriarchs, and was active in the generations that lived during the conquest and the
period of the judges.
The Law of Moses does not use the actual term "concubine." Perhaps the word, rare even in
the patriarchal period, would be unfamiliar to the people after living without concubines or other
slaves for four hundred years. Instead, the Law describes two common instances of the custom
without using the term, anticipating that when Israel is once again a free people with property
rights, they will resume the practice.
6.7.2 Is a Concubine a Wife?
In modern Western culture, a concubine is not a wife. She has no more of a legal relationship to
her man than if she did not live with him (though a few recent "palimony" lawsuits suggest that
this situation could change). By contrast, the culture of ancient Israel does recognize
concubinage as a kind of marriage. We have already seen evidence of this identity in the use of

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
technical marriage vocabulary to describe the union of masters and slaves. The comparisons
below give further evidence in cases where the word "concubine" appears explicitly.
Some women are described as wives in one passage and called concubines in another.
• In 1 Chron. 1:32, Keturah is called Abraham's concubine. Yet in Gen. 25:1 she seems
very much Sarah's peer: "Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah."
• Bilhah is Jacob's concubine in Gen. 35:22. Yet we would never have suspected this
from the story of their union in Gen. 30:4, where Rachel "gave him Bilhah her
handmaid as wife." The expression is exactly the same as the one that describes full
marriages in Gen. 41:45, where Pharaoh gives Asenath to Joseph; Josh. 15:17, where
Caleb gives his daughter Achsah to Othniel; and 1 Sam. 18:27, where Saul gives his
daughter Michal to David.
When the kings of Israel build their harems, wives and concubines are described in parallel
terms: .
And David again took concubines and wives (2 Sam. 5:12).
And [Solomon] had women: 700 princesses, and 300 concubines. Now, his women turned away his
heart (1 Kings 11:3).
For [Rehoboam] took 80 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chron. 11:21).
A concubine deprived of her husband is said to live in "widowhood" (2 Sam. 20:3).
Judges 19-20 offers an extensive picture of the relation of a man with his concubine. The
man "takes" her as a wife (19:1), an action described with the same idiom as that used for the
marriage of Abram to Sarah, or Nahor to Milcah (Gen. 11:29). He is "her man" (Jud. 19:3), the
same position occupied by Abraham with relation to Sarah (Gen. 16:3). Her father is described
as his "father in law" (Jud. 19:4,7,9), and he as the father's "son in law" (Jud. 19:5). If we were
not told that the woman is his concubine, we would surely consider her his wife. Their
partnership is no casual alliance of the moment, but a union recognized by the culture. When the
people of Gibeah rape and murder the woman, the resulting social outrage is so great that it leads
to civil war.
These similarities show that concubinage is a relation that the culture of the Old Testament
recognizes. It is a kind of marriage. We know that a concubine is different from a full wife
because Hebrew uses a special word to describe her.
6.7.3 How are Concubines Different from Wives?
We can see the difference between a concubine and other wives most clearly in the effect on the
children, and in how the husband treats the concubine.
The children of the concubine often take second rank to the children of the full wife.
We have seen already that Keturah is Abraham's concubine. Careful study of Gen. 25:6
suggests that Hagar is another. The verse refers to Abraham's "concubines," so we know that
there were at least two. Genesis records three women in Abraham's household: Sarah, Hagar, and
Keturah. Keturah is one concubine. Sarah is certainly not a concubine, so unless the author has
left some of Abraham's women unnamed, Hagar must be the missing second concubine.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Once we realize that Hagar is a concubine, we can clearly trace the effect of the custom on
the children. Speaking of Hagar and her son Ishmael, Sarah tells Abraham,
"Drive out this handmaid and her son, for the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son, with
Isaac" (Gen. 21:10).
Even after Sarah's death, Abraham complies with her request.
Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham
gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son while he was still living, eastward, to the east land
(Gen. 25:5,6).
Abraham takes pains to secure the preeminence of Sarah's son as his full heir. He physically
removes the other children from Isaac, to lessen the risk of later competition.
When the Chronicler enumerates the sons of David, he barely mentions those born of
concubines:
All the sons of David, besides the sons of concubines, and Tamar their sister (1 Chron. 3:9).
In fact, as Table 4 shows, it is from genealogical passages that we learn who most of the
concubines in the Bible are. Genealogies place more emphasis on the difference between wife
and concubine than do other sorts of literature, because that difference affects the standing of the
children.
Some families in the Bible do not discriminate against the children of concubines. Jacob has
children not only by his wives Leah and Rachel, but also by his concubine Bilhah, and by Zilpah,
who is probably also a concubine. The sons of the handmaidens are Gad, Asher, Dan, and
Naphthali, and they become fathers of tribes in Israel, as well as Judah, Reuben, Benjamin, and
the others. The father is at liberty to treat his children as he pleases, but the culture presumes that
he will favor the children of full wives over those of concubines.
The concubine herself, as well as her children, is a second class citizen in her husband's
home. In Gen. 21:10, Sarah has no qualms about asking Abraham to send Hagar away, and the
Lord gives his permission for this separation. When David flees from Absalom, he leaves ten of
his concubines to keep the house (2 Sam. 15:16), exposing them to the abuse of his angry son (2
Sam. 16:22). When he returns to Jerusalem, he virtually divorces them (2 Sam. 20:3) because
Absalom has defiled them.
6.7.4 Servants and Concubinage
We have seen that concubines and wives are the same, but different. Both are recognized
relations in the culture of the Old Testament, but they differ in the status of their children. Unless
a father expressly intervenes, the children of legitimate wives take precedence over the children
of concubines.
The reason for this distinction seems to lie in the lower social status of concubines. We do
not know the class of every concubine named in the Old Testament, but in the cases where we do
have evidence, they are slaves.
Hagar is one of Abraham's concubines. She is also a slave, the handmaid of Sarah (Gen.
16:1). It is because she is a slave that Sarah insists on her second class status (Gen. 21:10).

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Bilhah, identified as Jacob's concubine in Gen. 35:22, is Rachel's handmaid (Gen. 30:1-8).
The symmetry between Bilhah and Zilpah, the maid whom Leah gave to Jacob, suggests that
Zilpah should also be considered as Jacob's concubine. Even after their marriage to Jacob, they
are considered his handmaids (Gen. 32:22), so their elevation does not remove them from the
status of slaves.
The ten concubines whom David leaves in Jerusalem when he flees Absalom are probably
also servants. Their duty in David's absence is to "keep the house." They are domestics whom
David has taken into his harem.
The overtones of slavery in concubinage are so strong that some authors (e.g., Neufeld
1944:121) suggest that the two Hebrew words for "handmaid," ‫ה‬, means "marriage," but occur ‫ א‬and ‫ה‬, means "marriage," but occur‫ פח‬, share with *‫ ל*ג‬is the closest word
the basic meaning of "concubine." This position is overstated. Both words for "handmaid"
frequently refer to a woman's handmaid as well as a man's, and are often applied to women
whom their masters do not take as concubines. It does reflect the strong impression throughout
the Old Testament that concubinage and slavery are closely related institutions. A society that
distinguishes slaves and free people would have a hard time giving a slave wife the same status
as a free wife. At least some of the difference between a concubine and a full wife reflects the
difference between slave and free.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 7
WHEN GOD PUT AWAY ISRAEL

We have learned that the marriage bond is forged by God, but divorce is a man-made institution.
Though Israel's law recognizes that divorce occurs, it never sanctions it. So we are startled when
some of the Old Testament prophets describe God as putting away his spiritual wife, the nation
Israel. In this chapter
• we study the prophetic picture of Israel as God's wife.
• Then we examine the references to the separation of God and his people,tracing three
common themes through Hosea, Jeremiah, and Isaiah .
• Finally we examine more closely the rationale behind the description of God putting
away his spiritual wife.

7.1 God's Marriage to his People

In both Testaments, the Bible frequently uses marriage to picture the relationship between God
and his people. In fact, Eph. 5:30-32 suggests that God designed marriage in the form he did
specifically so that it could help us better understand and appreciate our relationship with him.
Marriage is a good picture of God's relation to his people, in many different ways. In this
section, we trace five aspects of this similarity:
1. the uniqueness of the partnership,
2. its basis in covenant;
3. the fruitfulness that results from it,
4. the jealousy that arises when the covenant is betrayed,
5. and the need to judge an unfaithful partner.
7.1.1 A Unique Partnership
Israelite society is basically monogamous. Its ideal is one wife for each husband and one
husband for each wife. In Eden, God makes one woman for one man. Genesis does record how
some of the patriarchs have extra wives — and extra troubles to go with them. The tensions
between Sarah and Hagar, or between Leah and Rachel, are an implicit warning against
polygamy. Thus Paul can summarize the Old Testament teaching as monogamous. To those
"who know the law" (Rom. 7:1), he writes,
The woman in wedlock is bound by law to her living husband. But if her husband dies, she is
discharged from the law of the husband. So then, while her husband lives, she shall be called
"adulteress" if she marries another man (Rom. 7:2-3).
Marriage is an appropriate picture of God's relationship with Israel because he as Israel's
husband has no other nation as his wife, and she as his wife has no other god as her husband. He
insists that she be his alone: "You shall have no other gods besides me" (Exod. 20:3). He, in turn,
reserves his special favor for her:
You are a holy people to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you over all the peoples
that are on the face of the earth to become a special people for himself (Deut. 7:6).
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
7.1.2 A Relationship by Covenant
When we considered the nature of marriage in Chapter 3, we learned that marriage is a covenant,
a solemn promise between two parties.
God's relation to Israel is also defined by a covenant, the covenant he made with them at
Mount Sinai after they left Egypt.
• When he meets with them in Exodus 19, he invites them to "obey my voice and keep my
covenant" (Exod. 19:5).
• After giving them the ten commandments in Exod. 20:1-17, he summons Moses up into the
mount for more detailed instruction. This instruction, contained in Exodus 21-23, is later
called "the book of the covenant" (Exod. 24:7).
• After reading this book to the people and obtaining their consent, Moses sprinkles them with
the blood of oxen and says, "Behold, the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with
you concerning all these words" (Exod. 24:8).
Marriage is a fitting image of God's relation with Israel because both relationships have their
basis in covenants.
7.1.3 A Fruitful Union
Children are at the center of the Bible's idea of marriage.
Behold, children are the Lord's bequest; The fruit of the womb is a reward (Ps. 127:3).
The patriarchs mourn when they are childless, and rejoice when the Lord brings fruit to their
unions.
The Bible frequently refers to Israel as "God's children." Moses is to demand the release of
Israel from Egypt with the words
Thus says the Lord: "Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to you, 'Let my son go, that he may serve
me. If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your son, your firstborn'" (Exod. 4:22-23).
Later, Moses tells the Israelites, "You are sons for the Lord your God" (Deut. 14:1). Once the
metaphor presents God as the father of his people, it is natural to introduce the nation as the
mother. As we will see, the prophets take this step, depicting the nation as God's wife, and the
individual citizens as the children of this union.
Thus, both human marriage and God's marriage with his people produce offspring.
7.1.4 A Matter for Jealousy
God ordains that one man and one woman commit themselves to one another. When one spouse
violates this trust, the other is right to feel jealous. The Bible never condemns this sense of zeal
for one's own partner, but describes it as a natural emotion. It is depicted most clearly in Num.
5:11-31. There "a spirit of jealousy comes upon" a man "and he is jealous of his wife" (Num.
5:14). God does not dismiss his jealousy as a petty or childish whim, but provides a test to see
whether or not his fears are justified.
Israel belongs to God, and is to worship no one else. She risks God's anger if she forsakes
him. To emphasize this, he draws once again on the vocabulary of marriage, and describes
himself as "jealous."
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 You shall not make for yourself any carved image, ... for I the Lord your God am a jealous God (Exod.
20:3-5).
You shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God (Exod. 34:14).

7.1.5 The Results of Faithlessness

With so many points of similarity between marriage and God's relation to Israel, it is natural that
the Bible should depict God and Israel as husband and wife. We have already seen components
of this metaphor--unique partnership, the covenant, fruitfulness, jealousy--in the earliest books of
the Bible. The word-picture is so appropriate that when the prophets must describe the
faithlessness of Israel in departing from the Lord, they naturally use marital imagery.
Israel has two ways to handle unfaithfulness in human marriage. God's way is to stone the
guilty party. Society's way is divorce. Neither is entirely adequate to describe how God handles
faithless Israel. He does not dismiss her to seek another wife, as do men who divorce their
spouses. Nor does he destroy her, for forgiveness and restoration are central to the prophetic
message.
In the last section of this chapter, we examine more closely the choices faced by the prophets
and how they select among them. The picture they adopt, though with significant modifications,
is that God puts the nation away. This putting away takes the form of physical exile. Like a
husband putting his wife out of his house, the Lord thrusts out first the Northern Kingdom in 722
B.C., then the Southern Kingdom in 586 B.C., from the land of promise and into captivity.
At least three prophets draw attention to this detail of the Lord's marriage to Israel. Hosea
describes the people of the Northern Kingdom as the children of that nation, and has them join
the Lord in court against their adulterous mother, in warnings issued just before the Assyrian
captivity in 722 B.C.
Bring charges against your mother, bring charges. For she is not my wife, and I am not her husband
(Hos. 2:2).
Jeremiah also describes the spiritual adultery of the Northern Kingdom, during the period
between the two captivities.
For all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery, I had sent her away and given her
certificate of divorce to her (Jer. 3:8).
Isaiah speaks in similar terms to the people of the Southern Kingdom. Though he ministers
before 722 B.C., he speaks from a future, prophetic vantage point, as though the Babylonian
captivity of 586 B.C. has already taken place.
Thus says the Lord: "Where is the certificate of your mother's divorce, whom I have put away? Or
which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? For your iniquities you have sold yourselves, and
for your transgressions your mother has been put away" (Isa. 50:1).
We will study each of these passages in its context. As we compare them, we will find three
features repeated in each one.
1. Israel has been guilty of spiritual adultery against God, her husband.
2. God puts her away , with varying degrees of formality.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 3. Yet the result of this separation is not an end to the relation. God does not set Israel
free from the marriage, but offers her a choice between punishment and restoration.

7.2 Hosea's Account

Hosea prophesies during the last years of the Northern Kingdom. The ten tribes have repeatedly
turned away from the Lord. Hosea condemns their sin, reveals God's anger against it, and warns
of coming punishment. His warnings are fulfilled in the Assyrian conquest of Samaria in 722
B.C.
Hosea develops God's putting away of Israel as a drama in four acts.
1. In Hosea 1:2-9, God commands Hosea to marry a woman who will be unfaithful to
him.
2. Hosea's experience becomes an illustration of God's experience with Israel in Hos. 2:2-
13. God takes his errant wife to court. The imagery is founded on Hosea's accusation of
his wife, but in fact Hosea does not seem to have pressed formal charges, for his wife is
not executed but left alive so that he can restore her later. Verse 13 shows that the real
application of the passage is to Israel.
3. In spite of Israel's unfaithfulness, God promises in Hos. 2:14-23 to restore her.
4. Hosea, to complete the picture, takes back his faithless wife in Hosea 3. The Lord must
explicitly instruct him to take this action, since it is contrary to the principle of the law
of divorce in Deuteronomy 24.
The three points we are tracing (the putting away, Israel's spiritual adultery, and the hope of
restoration) are emphasized in the second and third acts.
7.2.1 God Puts Away Israel
The first half of Hosea 2 depicts God's actions in putting away Israel. The scene opens in a
courtroom.
Bring charges against your mother, bring charges (Hos. 2:2).
The verb "bring charges" is a legal verb describing a formal lawsuit. God is not merely talking
about Israel's sin. He is taking her to court. Her sin is so flagrant that her children recognize it,
and so heinous that they stand with him to accuse her.
The point of the lawsuit is given in the words,
She is not my wife,
and I am not her husband (Hos. 2:2).
These words are far more significant than their brevity might lead us to expect. They are a
reversal of the traditional Jewish formula of marriage. From the Jewish settlement of Elephantine
in Egypt of the fifth century B.C., scholars have recovered marriage contracts that suitors
prepared in order to take wives. These contracts always include the words,
She is my wife
and I am her husband.
Hosea reverses these words in Hos. 2:2 to describe an "unmarriage," a putting away.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The formula in Hos. 2:2 by which the Lord puts Israel away recalls Hos. 1:9,
You are not my people,
and I am not "I AM" to you.
"I AM" is the name under which God led the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod. 3:14). As he prepares
the people for their Exodus, he promises them,
I will take you to me for a people,
and I will be to you for God (Exod. 6:7).
This relationship of God and people lies at the heart of the covenant of Sinai. In effect, Hos. 1:9
repudiates that covenant.
Marriage is a picture of God's covenant with Israel. God revokes the covenant by
contradicting one of its key formulas in Hos. 1:9. In the same way, Hos. 2:2 dissolves the
marriage that depicts the covenant by contradicting the ancient formula of marriage.
7.2.2 Israel's Spiritual Adultery
As the trial proceeds, God makes very clear that his wife is the guilty party. She has left her
husband for other men:
"She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry, and went after her lovers. But me she forgot," says
the Lord (Hos. 2:13).
She has borne children to her lovers:
I will not have mercy on her children, for they are the children of harlotry (Hos. 2:4).
She is ignorant of the Lord's gifts to her, and instead attributes them to her lovers:
For she said, "I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my linen,
my oil and my drink" (Hos. 2:5).
For she did not know that I gave her the grain, and the new wine, and the oil, and multiplied silver to
her, and gold (Hos. 2:8).
She has stopped living as the Lord's wife, and we are not surprised that he insists,
She is not my wife,
and I am not her husband (Hos. 2:2).

7.2.3 Punishment or Restoration

We are witnessing a lawsuit between God and the nation Israel. Thus far, it looks just like any
divorce. The husband accuses the wife of infidelity, and declares that they are no longer man and
wife.
In modern divorces, the man and woman would now be free to go their own ways. Israel has
no such freedom in Hosea 2. God still acts like her husband. He is still jealous, and presses
charges against her for adultery. He still loves her and wants her for his wife.
Israel is not free, for God threatens her with judgment.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Let her put away her harlotries from her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts, lest I strip
her naked and expose her, as in the day she was born, and make her like a wilderness, and set her like a
dry land, and slay her with thirst (Hos. 2:2,3).
Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall deliver her from my hand
(Hos. 2:10).
I will visit upon her the days of the Baals, in which she burned incense to them (Hos. 2:13).
God also does not claim freedom to seek another wife. He still wants Israel.
Therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and wall her in, so that she cannot find her
paths. She will chase her lovers, but not overtake them. She will seek them, but not find them. Then
she will say, "I will go and return to my first husband, for then it was better for me than now." (Hos.
2:6-7)
In the third act of Hosea's drama (Hos. 2:14-23), God promises to restore his bride to himself:
I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me with righteousness, and with justice, and
with lovingkindness, and with mercy. I will betroth you to me with faithfulness, and you shall know
the Lord (Hos. 2:19-20).
Hosea 3 then emphasizes this divine reunion in the prophet's life. Though the law requires an
adulterous wife to be stoned, Hosea, after divine insistance, takes back his adulterous wife.
To secular readers both ancient and modern, God's separation from Israel in Hosea is very
strange. Like many divorces, it results from the unfaithfulness of one party, and is a legal
proceeding. Unlike secular divorces, it does not end the relationship of man and wife. Instead, it
seeks restoration, and offers punishment by death as the only alternative.
Hosea's description of God putting away Israel is strange. But it is not alone. Both Isaiah and
Jeremiah describe the break-up of God's marriage with his people. The details of the picture
language differ among the three books. All three lead to the same unexpected outcome, that
putting away does not end the relationship between man and wife.

7.3 Jeremiah's Account

Jeremiah begins his ministry to Judah, the Southern Kingdom, in 627 B.C., the thirteenth year of
Josiah the king (Jer. 1:2). Almost a hundred years have passed since Sargon took Israel, the
Northern Kingdom, captive to Assyria. A century earlier, the Southern Kingdom saw what
happened to their northern relatives. But they refuse to mend their ways, and Jeremiah must
announce to them that their own judgment is close at hand.
In Jeremiah 3, the prophet uses the metaphor of marital separation both to recall Israel's fate
and to warn Judah of her own coming judgment.
7.3.1 Judah's Idolatry as Adultery
Throughout Jer. 2, the prophet illustrates the wickedness of Judah's idolatry with the metaphor of
marital infidelity. Then, in Jer. 3:1, he explicitly introduces the divorce law of Deut. 24:1-4.
Judah callously assumes that she can indulge her lusts as long as she pleases, and then return to
the Lord when she finds it convenient. By a close paraphrase of God's divorce law, Jeremiah
warns his hearers that they have no right to presume on God's grace in this way.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 "They say, 'If a man divorces his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man's, may he
return to her again? Would not that land be greatly polluted?' In your case, you have played the harlot
with many lovers, and would you now return to me?" says the Lord.
Jeremiah abstracts three points from Deuteronomy 24:
1. If a man divorces his wife,
2. and she lives with another man,
3. then her first husband may not take her back.
His warning grows out of the second and third of these points.
Judah's sin is worse than that of the woman in Deuteronomy 24. There, the woman's adultery
was confined to a single man, and made respectable with the veneer of "marriage." Here, Judah
takes many partners in open harlotry.
Where have you not been ravished? By the roads you have sat for them like an Arabian in the
wilderness, and you have polluted the land with your harlotries and your wickedness. ... You have had
a harlot's forehead. You refuse to be ashamed (Jer. 3:2-3).
The severity of her sin makes judgment all the more imminent, yet Judah refuses to grasp the
enormity of her infidelity. She assumes that she can enjoy her sin and then come running back to
the Lord at the last moment:
In the time of their trouble they will say [to the Lord], "Arise, and save us." But where are your gods,
hom you have made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you in the time of your trouble (Jer
2:27,28).
Judah should know from the law of Deut. 24:1-4 that an adulterous wife has no claim on her
husband's care and protection.
7.3.2 The Memory of Israel's Rejection
Jeremiah seeks to awaken Judah to her peril by reminding her of her sister's fate. Having
introduced Judah's sin under the figure of adultery, he describes Israel's sin and rejection by the
Lord in the same terms, using the same three points of the marital metaphor that we have traced
in Hosea: infidelity, putting away, and restoration.
Jeremiah says explicitly that the Lord gave Israel a "certificate of divorce," recalling the
detailed legal language of Hosea's account.
And I saw when, for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery, I had sent her
away and given her certificate of divorce to her, yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went
and played the harlot also (Jer. 3:8).
The "adultery" mentioned in verse 8 is spiritual adultery, following after other gods in place
of the Lord.
Have you seen what apostate Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under
every green tree, and there played the harlot (Jer. 3:6).
The Canaanites build their pagan sanctuaries in groves of trees on the tops of hills. Israel
commits adultery against the Lord by participating in this worship.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Backsliding Israel committed adultery ... Through her casual harlotry, she polluted the land and
committed adultery with the stones and the trees (Jer. 3:8-9).
"The stones and the trees" here are the idols whom she has taken as gods instead of the Lord.
Surely, as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, so have you dealt treacherously with me, oh
house of Israel (Jer. 3:20).
The verb translated "treacherously depart" and "deal treacherously" refers to the violation of the
marriage covenant. By her adultery, Israel has broken that sacred promise.
God puts Israel away for her adultery against him. As in Hosea, the separation does not break
the relationship between the parties. Israel is not free from God's wrath, if she refuses to repent.
He, in turn, desires no other wife, but invites her to return.
"Return, apostate Israel," says the Lord, "and I will not cause my anger to fall on you. For I am
merciful," says the Lord. "I will not remain angry forever. Only acknowledge your iniquity, that you
have transgressed against the Lord your God, and have scattered your ways to strangers under every
green tree, and you have not obeyed my voice," says the Lord. "Return, backsliding children," says the
Lord, "for I have married you" (Jer. 3:12-14).
God does not say, "I will marry you," but, "I have married you." He has put Israel away, yet the
original marriage is still in effect. God's putting away of Israel has many effects. It expresses
God's displeasure over of Israel's adultery, and it exposes her to his wrath. One effect it does not
have is the one secular thought most often associates with divorce. It does not dissolve the
marriage between them.
It is worth noting how the quotation of the divorce law in Jer. 3:1 highlights God's grace
toward his people. According to the law, the unfaithful wife cannot return to the first husband,
and God rebukes Judah for assuming that she can casually slide back and forth from one partner
to the other. Her sin merits judgment, as Jeremiah warns over and over. Yet the Lord, unlike a
human husband, can overrule the restriction of Deut. 24:4. He invited Israel to return (Jer. 3:12),
and he urges Judah to turn again to him, not superficially, but with all her heart (Jer. 4:4,14).

7.4 Isaiah's Account

Isaiah is a contemporary of Hosea. They both preach "in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and
Hezekiah, kings of Judah" (Hos. 1:1; Isa. 1:1). Hosea speaks mostly to the Northern Kingdom
and warns of the Assyrian captivity. Isaiah also talks about the Assyrian captivity, but his main
message is to the Southern Kingdom, Judah (Isa. 1:1). The first 39 chapters of his prophecies
warn Judah of the coming Babylonian captivity, which began around 600 B.C. Chapters 40
through 66 take as their perspective a time after that captivity, and look forward to God's
restoration of the nation.
Thus Isaiah, who lives before Jeremiah, depicts the fulfillment of the events of which
Jeremiah warns. Judah does not learn from Israel's separation, but persists in her adultery, and
Isaiah reports that the Lord does indeed put her away for her sin. Because he is describing the
captivity as past (rather than future, as Hosea did for Israel), he emphasizes the coming
restoration.
Isaiah does not package his picture of Judah's separation from God as neatly as Hosea does
Israel's, but spreads it through five chapters of the restoration prophecies, Isaiah 50 through 54.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
The three key images of spiritual adultery, putting away, and restoration mingle with pictures of
the Exodus and promises of the Messiah, the Servant of the Lord, in a kaleidoscope of hope and
promise.
7.4.1 The Separation and Judah's Guilt
The separation is recorded in Isa. 50:1.
Thus says the Lord: "Where is the certificate of your mother's divorce, whom I have put away? Or
which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities you have sold
yourselves, and for your transgressions your mother has been put away."
Hosea says that God puts the nation away, and shows her as the guilty party. Isaiah
emphasizes that the wife takes the initiative to leave. God never gives Judah the legal certificate
described in Deuteronomy 24. Her estrangement is not quite as formal as that of the Northern
Kingdom, which was founded on deviation from the true faith. Still, the end of the verse does
state that she "has been put away."
Isaiah uses two different pictures to show that the fault is Judah's alone. God did not sell her
as a slave; she sold herself. God did not write her a certificate of divorce; she herself transgressed
against him. This verse does not detail the sin as spiritual adultery, but accusations of idolatry are
prominent throughout the rest of the book, and this offense is certainly included in the
"iniquities" and "transgressions" mentioned in Isa. 50:1.
7.4.2 The Result of the Separation
Judah's separation from the Lord does not end their relation. Instead, it opens the floodgates of
God's wrath against her. In Isa. 51:17-20, the prophet looks back at the punishment God brought
on her for her sin.
Awake, awake! Stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his
fury. You have drunk, you have drained, the dregs of the cup of trembling (Isa. 51:17).
She cannot turn for help to her husband, for she has left him. Perhaps the children of that
marriage will aid her. But no,
there is no one to guide her among all the sons she has brought forth, nor is there any who takes her by
the hand among all the sons she has brought up. These two things have come to you; who will be sorry
for you? the desolation, and the destruction, and the famine, and the sword--_by whom will I comfort
you? (Isa. 51:18-19)
Her children cannot save her, for they are children of adultery, and the Lord is angry with them
as much as with their mother.
Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of all the streets, like an antelope in a net--_they who are
full of the fury of the Lord, the rebuke of your God (Isa. 51:20).
Yet anger is not God's only response to Judah's departure. Immediately after this record of
punishment, God promises restoration:
See, I have taken out of your hand the cup of trembling, the dregs of the cup of my fury. You shall no
longer drink it any more (Isa. 51:22).
In Isaiah 54, the prophet returns to the picture of marriage to portray this restoration.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed; nor be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame. For you
will forget the shame of your youth, and will not remember the reproach of your widowhood any more.
"The shame of" Judah's "youth" is her unfaithfulness to the Lord as his wife. "The reproach of
your widowhood" is the stigma she bears after she has left him. God will remove the reproach of
widowhood by taking her again as his wife. Then she will be faithful to him, and no longer
endure the shame of her youth.
For your maker is your husband. The Lord of Hosts is his name. And your redeemer is the holy one of
Israel. He is called the God of the whole earth (Isa. 54:5).
In spite of the putting away, God is still her husband and her redeemer. They have been
estranged, but the separation never altered their fundamental relationship as man and wife. The
paradox between "I have put [you] away" (Isa. 50:1) and "your maker is your husband" (Isa.
54:5) is the same as that in Jeremiah between "I put her away" (3:8) and "I have married you"
(3:14). In both cases, divorce serves to express the Lord's wrath, but does not alter the
fundamental relation between man and wife.
"For the Lord has called you like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, like a youthful wife, when
she is be refused," says your God (Isa. 54:6).
God did refuse her for her sin, and she has come to mourn the separation she craved. Now he
restores her to himself.
"For a short moment I have forsaken you, but with great mercies I will gather you. With a gush of
wrath I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting lovingkindness I will have mercy on
you," says the Lord, your Redeemer (Isa. 54:7-8).
What about those children to whom she turned for help, those children who, like her, felt the
blast of God's wrath? Now she will bear the Lord's own offspring, whom he will instruct to
follow him.
All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children (Isa. 54:13).
For Isaiah, as for Hosea and Jeremiah, God puts away his people because they are unfaithful.
Like Hosea and Jeremiah, and unlike modern thought, Isaiah shows that this separation does not
free God and his people from one another. Judah is not free to pursue her idols, but is punished
for her adultery. God does not take another wife, but patiently plans the restoration of his true
love.

7.5 Explaining the Metaphor of Putting Away

After having considered the prophetic texts, we can summarize the contrasts between human
divorce and the separation of God and Israel. To understand this metaphor, we need to review the
message that the prophets have to convey and the options open to them within the broader
picture of marriage. Then we can understand why the prophets say that God puts Israel away,
and why they alter the details of this separation from those of common divorce.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
7.5.1 A Strange Kind of Separation
Israel's law does not sanction divorce. The common culture, though, does practice divorce, and
understands it very much as people do today. Then and now, people think that a divorce ends a
marriage, so that the partners have no obligation to one another and are free to remarry.
God's separation from Israel is different from this prevailing view. When God puts Israel
away, the parties remain related to one another. Israel is not free to take another husband, and the
Lord does not want to take another wife. Israel must still deal with the Lord. He will either
forgive her or punish her.
Here is a dilemma. The prophets describe God as the husband of Israel. Marriage is an
appropriate metaphor for them to use. Yet when God puts Israel away, he does it in a way very
different from the divorces that people know in daily life. To understand this altered image, we
need to examine the ideas that the prophets are trying to convey.
7.5.2 The Prophetic Message
God has designed marriage so that the prophets can depict God and his people as man and wife.
Part of the story that the prophets must tell is that Israel has violated her side of the covenant, and
God will deal with her. How do they express this concept within the framework of marriage?
The law of fornication and adultery in Deuteronomy 22 gives one set of images that they can
use. Moses commands that faithless wives be stoned. The prophets can simply say that the nation
is a faithless wife, and God will destroy her for her sin. But they cannot preach only judgment,
for God has given them a message of forgiveness and restoration as well.
The prophets have another set of images with which they can tell the story of a faithless wife.
Their society recognizes divorce as a way for a man to be rid of such a woman.
There is need for caution here. The Law nowhere sanctions divorce. It warns repeatedly
against adultery and harlotry, and divorce is a legal trick that people use to justify these sins. The
prophets know that God unites man and wife in a way that no human institution can sever. When
a couple divorces and the partners marry other people, they commit adultery. The prophets dare
not portray God as doing something sinful.
At the same time, the law nowhere condemns divorce itself. It is remarriage that is adultery.
It will be two hundred years before God reveals through Malachi that he "hates divorce" (Mal.
2:16), and even there the context shows that the problem is "dealing treacherously," breaking the
marriage covenant by adultery. A husband does not sin by repudiating a wife who has already
broken that covenant. Indeed, the law commands the wronged husband to repudiate her, and to
"put the evil away from among" the nation by stoning her. Stoning, however, does not convey
the prophets' message.
7.5.3 The Prophetic Image
Guided by the Holy Spirit, the prophets depict God as putting Israel away, while taking two
precautions to avoid misunderstanding.
First, to protect God's reputation, they make it clear that Israel has already broken the
marriage covenant by her adultery. (They need to make that point anyway, for in reality Israel
has broken the covenant God made with her at Mount Sinai.)

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Second, they do not want people to say that they are "following God's example" by divorcing
faithless wives. The people should follow the law and stone them. So the prophets make it clear
that God's separation frees neither God nor his people to seek other partners. They are still bound
to each other, and if Israel does not repent, her destiny will be the same as though she had been
stoned. In God's sovereign mercy, she will repent, and he will restore her to himself.
This picture is exactly the one we have seen in Hosea, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. The metaphor of
God's separation lets them show God's wrath against Israel's spiritual adultery. It is the first stage
in a sequence of actions that leads naturally to destruction, illustrated by the stoning of the
adulteress. Unlike stoning, it leaves the way open for repentance and restoration. Because the
Law does not forbid divorce explicitly, the prophets can use it, with certain qualifications, to
describe God. But the way Israel and other people commonly practice divorce, as a means of
dissolving marriage, is against the Law. The prophets do not want to give tacit approval to this
practice. So they sensitively describe God's action to show that it does not end God's marriage
with Israel, but places it in an unstable condition where Israel must choose between forgiveness
and judgment.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What similarities suggest describing God's relation with Israel as a marriage?
2. What prophets specifically extend this metaphor to speak of God putting away Israel?
3. What three features do all of these descriptions share?
4. How is God's separation from the Northern Kingdom different from his separation from
the Southern Kingdom?
5. What is unusual about God's separation from his people, compared with human
divorce?
6. Why do the prophets describe such an unusual form of marital separation, rather than
using stoning or normal divorce to picture God's rejection of Israel?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 8
EZRA'S DIVORCE COURT

The Bible uniformly disapproves of divorce. So we are surprised to find in chapters 9 and 10 of
Ezra a spiritual leader apparently urging his men to reject their women. In this chapter,
• we study the historical setting of Ezra's action
• and learn why it is right for him to do it.
• Then we compare his actions with New Testament instructions for similar situations,
• and explain the differences between the two cases.

8.1 The Historical Setting

Ezra is a Bible teacher who lives in Jerusalem beginning about 458 B.C. To understand his
society, we need to look back more than a century before his time, to the destruction of
Jerusalem, the Babylonian captivity, and the Jewish restoration.
8.1.1 The Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar
Few days are as black in the memory of Israel as the ninth day of the month Ab, 586 B.C., when
the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar destroys the temple in Jerusalem.
Solomon labors for seven years to raise this monument to the God of Israel. Then the people
gather there three times a year, at the great pilgrimage feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and
Tabernacles. Israelites offer sacrifices in it to give thanks to God and ask his forgiveness for sin.
The priests serve there for two week shifts, and then return to their villages to instruct the people
in the law of God. The temple is the center of Israel's life and culture.
Then, suddenly, it is gone. The elegant cedar paneling burns to ashes. Pagan hands tear away
the ornaments of gold and silver, as booty for foreign gods. The great hewn stones crash into the
courtyards. And those who would rather stand and mourn, march in chains to a land hundreds of
miles and weeks of travel away.
Yet not all is good that perishes under Nebuchadnezzar's torch. For years, the temple
preserved the form of the Israelite faith, while the content of that faith decayed and rotted. The
kings of Judah turned away from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and worshipped other
gods, the gods of the pagan nations around them. They brought this worship even into the courts
of the temple, erecting altars to false deities in the sanctuary of the Lord. Ironically, the problem
was as old as the temple itself. Solomon, who built the temple, also built sanctuaries for false
gods, so that his pagan wives could worship their deities in Jerusalem (I Kings 11). What
happens to the temple under Nebuchadnezzar already happened, years before, to the faith it was
meant to enshrine. The Hebrew Prophets teach that the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian
captivity are God's chastisement on his wayward children.
8.1.2 The Jewish Restoration
The disaster of 586 B.C. is a severe chastisement. Yet God uses it, like all chastisement, to help
those who endure it.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Seventy years after the burning of the temple, Babylon itself falls to the Persian conqueror
Cyrus, as the Hebrew Prophets said it would. Cyrus, again fulfilling the Prophets, permits the
Jews to return home and restore their traditional sanctuary.
The refugees are zealous for pure worship. Sobered with the memory of God's recent
judgment, they carefully offer their sacrifices "as it is written in the Law of Moses the man of
God, … as the duty of every day required" (Ezra 3:2,4). The priests conduct their work "after the
ordinance of David king of Israel" (Ezra 3:10).
These refugees arrive in three waves. The first group comes under the leadership of
Zerubbabel, who is the governor of Judah in the Persian bureaucracy (Haggai 1:1; 2:2,21).
Eighty years later a smaller group of Jews returns with Ezra. After thirteen more years, another
band comes back with Nehemiah, who like Zerubbabel is a Persian official of Jewish descent.
Zerubbabel and Nehemiah are administrators. They supervise the tasks of rebuilding first the
temple, then the city wall. Ezra is a priest, "a ready scribe in the Law of Moses" (Ezra 7:6).
8.1.3 The Work of Ezra
Ezra returns to Jerusalem, as did the others, bearing gifts and business papers from the Persian
ruler. His personal motive, though, is a pastoral one:
Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statute
and ordinance (Ezra 7:10).
He has a mandate from King Artaxerxes to establish the Law of Moses as the civil law of
Jerusalem. The king tells him to appoint magistrates who know Israel's Law (Ezra 7:25), and
instructs him,
Whoever will not do the law of your God, … let judgment be executed on him with all diligence (Ezra
7:26).
Ezra comes with civil authority to guide the people in obedience to God's law.
Shortly after Ezra arrives, a group of leaders comes to him for counsel. They report,
The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of
the lands. ... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons, and the holy
seed have mingled themselves with the people of the lands. Indeed, the hand of the princes and the
rulers has been chief in this trespass (Ezra 9:1-2).
Ezra is astonished to hear that this remnant, whose purpose is to avoid the sins of the past,
has slipped so quickly into Solomon's original error of pagan spouses. He rips his garments and
tears the hair from his beard and head to show his grief. Then he pours out his heart in a prayer
of abject confession and penitence to God (Ezra 9).
Many of the sinners are jolted by Ezra's intercession. They gather about him and weep with
him over their sin. Then one of their number suggests what they should do.
We have trespassed against our God, and have taken pagan women from the peoples of the land. Yet
now Israel has hope concerning this. So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the
women, and those who have been born to them, according to the counsel of the Lord, and of those that
tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the Law (Ezra 10:2,3).

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Ezra agrees with the suggestion. The leaders summon the entire population, under severe
threat:
Whoever would not come within three days, … all his property would be confiscated, and he himself
would be separated from the congregation (Ezra 10:8).
When the people assemble, there are too many mixed couples to handle them all on the spot.
For the next three months Ezra and selected elders labor over the cases, dissolving the unions
that threaten the vitality of the young commonwealth. The work is not easy or pleasant. Even
people from the priestly families are involved. Some of the unions are of long standing, and
many have children (Ezra 10:44). It is a social upheaval of major proportions, undertaken only
because the people realize that the alternative is "the fierce wrath of our God" (Ezra 10:14).

8.2 Why does Ezra Urge Separation?

The actions of Ezra 10 pose a challenging puzzle. Ezra and his contemporaries want to follow
the Law of Moses to the utmost detail. They are plainly the heros of the scriptural record. Yet
they are separating families, while the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Epistles decry
divorce.
8.2.1 Ezra and Malachi
Some of God's laws change from time to time. The laws of marriage are comparatively stable.
Moses, hundreds of years before Ezra, recognizes only death as ending a marriage. Centuries
after Ezra, the Lord Jesus in Matthew 5 confirms this legislation. In Ezra's own generation, to
Ezra's own society, the prophet Malachi makes one of the strongest statements against divorce in
the entire Bible:
The Lord testified between you and your youth-wife, with whom you have dealt treacherously. Yet is
she your companion, and your covenant-wife. ... Therefore take heed to your spirit, that none deal
treacherously with his youth-wife. For the Lord, the God of Israel, says that he hates putting away.
"For it covers one's garment with violence," says the Lord of hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit,
that you deal not treacherously (Malachi 2:14-16).
Malachi emphasizes that "the Lord … hates divorce," while Ezra tells the same generation
that they must put away their consorts. In spite of appearances, Ezra and Malachi do not
disagree. By observing carefully how Ezra describes the unions, we will see that he distinguishes
them from ordinary marriages, much as Moses distinguishes concubines. By recalling the legal
status of mixed unions under the Law of Moses, we will learn the reason for this distinction.
8.2.2 How Ezra Describes the Unions
When we studied concubinage in Chapter 6 we learned that biblical society recognizes more than
one kind of marriage, and God's Law imposes different standards on these different relationships.
Concubinage, for instance, is less binding than full marriage, but more binding than a casual
alliance. We recognized that concubinage was distinct from full marriage because it has a
distinctive name. By studing examples of the custom, we concluded that it provided for wives of
a specific social class.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Concubinage and full marriage may be compared along three dimensions. Linguistically,
though some marriage idioms apply to both, there is a special term for a concubine. Socially, a
concubine is her master's slave, while a full wife is not. Legally, the Law discourages divorce of
a full wife, but permits divorce of a concubine.
The same three dimensions help us to understand the unions in Ezra 9 and 10. Legally, Ezra
demands that these unions be ended, while concubinage may be ended and full marriage must
not be ended. Socially, the unions in Ezra 9 and 10 are with free foreign women, not slaves or
free Israelites. Linguistically, like concubinage, these unions are described with language that
includes some marriage idioms but also has distinct features. The legal and social character of
the cases with which Ezra deals are clear from our historical survey. Here, we discuss the
linguistic distinctions in more detail.
Distinctive Language in Ezra 9-10.—The descriptions of the unions in Ezra 9 and 10 differ in
subtle ways from the standard language for marriage that we studied in the notes to Chapter 3
The expressions that describe how the Israelites enter these unions are shorter than the standard
expression and use different verbs, suggesting that the unions are not legitimate.
Ezra 9 and 10 describe the unions of Israelite men with pagan women with the phrase, "take
a woman."
They have taken some of their daughters for themselves and for their sons (9:2).
We have trespassed against our God, and have taken pagan women (10:2).
You have transgressed, and have taken pagan women (10:10).
…all those …who have taken pagan women … (10:14)
…all the men who had taken pagan women …(10:17)
… there were found … those who had taken pagan women … (10:18)
All these had taken pagan women (10:44).
The expression "He took a woman" can describe marriage in the Bible, as in Gen. 25:1 or Jer.
29:6. However, it can also describe a rape (Gen. 34:2), so it does not by itself imply that a union
is legitimate. Biblical writers use more complicated expressions, such as "he took to him a
woman" or "he took her and she was to him as a woman," to refer unambiguously to marriage.
Furthermore the standard expression elsewhere always uses a certain verb "to take" that the
expressions in Ezra 9 and 10 do not use. Ezra uses two words, both different from "took" in Gen.
24:67. The verbs used in Ezra 9 and 10 appear elsewhere in the Old Testament, and always
describe substandard unions. Sometimes they are applied to polygamy. More often, as here, they
refer to unions with pagans. Never do they describe a marriage such as that of Adam and Eve, or
Abraham and Sarah, or Isaac and Rebekah. The verbs used in Ezra 9 and 10, as well as the form
of the expression, imply that something is wrong with the union that they describe.
Standard Expressions in Ezra 9-10.—The short expression and the nonstandard verbs are
linguistic clues that these unions differ from full marriages, just as the special word for a
concubine alerts us to a distinct relationship with slaves. Yet these unions are more than casual
alliances, as we learn from the length of time and the amount of effort needed to dissolve them in

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
an orderly fashion. Thus we are not surprised to see some standard marriage language used to
describe them.
One of the longer expressions for entering a marriage occurs once in these chapters, in Ezra
9:2, when the leaders report to Ezra shortly after his arrival,
The people of Israel … have taken of [the pagans'] daughters for themselves, and for their sons.
The formula, "to take [a woman] for someone," is nowhere used of a rape or other casual
union. It is the expression that Abraham uses to send his servant to find a wife for Isaac in Gen.
24:4, 7, 37, 38, 40. However, the verb in Ezra 9:2 is not the standard marriage verb, but one of
the unfamiliar verbs used elsewhere in these chapters. The form of the statement suggests an
official marriage, but the verb is different.
The most official marriage idiom that appears in these chapters is the expression "their
wives" in Ezra 10:19, describing the foreign partners of some of the priests. Like the form of
Ezra 9:2, this expression reflects the stability and informal social acceptance of the unions. As in
the case of concubinage, the special expressions used to describe the unions alert us that they
may be treated differently from full marriages.
8.2.3 Mixed Unions and the Law of Moses
Ezra 9 and 10 describe the union of an Israelite and a pagan with distinctive language because
the Law of Moses forbids such unions. Ezra in his prayer of confession recalls the law given
originally in Deut. 7:3.
We have forsaken your commandments, which you commanded by your servants the prophets, saying,
"… Now therefore do not give your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters for your
sons" (Ezra 9:10-12).
The Law of Moses is the cornerstone and constitution of the restoration. Mixed unions
violate the constitution, so they are illegal. This particular law was ignored as the custom grew
more popular. But these couples were never legally married. They never can be married, as long
as one partner remains pagan. Ezra and his helpers are not advocating divorce. They are
annulling unions that cannot enjoy the civil endorsement required for a full marriage.
8.2.4 Ezra and Malachi Again
Our attention was drawn to Ezra's actions by their contrast with Malachi's strong teaching against
divorce. The two teachers do not contradict one another. Ezra does not command the people to
divorce and thus betray "your wife by covenant" (Mal. 2:14), but to forsake partnerships that
violate the civil law. Malachi feels as strongly about pagan unions as Ezra does. Just before
denouncing the divorce of a truly married couple, he cries out,
Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. For Judah
has profaned the holiness of the Lord, … and has married the daughter of a strange god (Mal. 2:11).

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
8.3 Mixed Marriages in the New Testament
Ezra separates Jews from their pagan partners. Today, believers married to unbelievers are in a
similar situation. Should church leaders urge members of their flocks to leave unbelieving
spouses?
Like Ezra, the New Testament disapproves of mixed unions. Unlike Ezra, it tells believers
with unbelieving partners to stay with them, rather than to leave.
8.3.1 Mixed Unions are Wrong
The New Testament gives strong warnings against any commitments to unbelievers, not just
marriage. For example, Paul charges the Corinthians with being so friendly with unbelievers that
they have no time for their brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul says that they unjustly reject him:
You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. Now … you also be open
(2 Cor. 6:12,13).
We may paraphrase this,
We have not shut you out, but you have shut us out of your affections. I beg you, make room for us.
Later he urges them,
Receive us. We have wronged no man. We have corrupted no man. We have defrauded no man. …
You are in our hearts, to die and live with you (2 Cor. 7:2-3).
He must plead for their affection because they have been seduced by ungodly influences.
Between these two requests for their affection, Paul instructs them,
Do not become unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and
lawlessness have? And what communion does light have with darkness? And what concord does
Christ have with Belial? Or what part does a believer have with an unbeliever? And what agreement
does the temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God: as God has said, "I
will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Wherefore, "Come out from among them, and be separate," says the Lord, "and touch not the unclean
thing, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you and you shall be my sons and daughters,"
says the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from
all filthiness of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).
Believers must "come out from" ungodly alliances, if they wish to be God's "sons and
daughters." No Christian who understands this principle can contemplate the intimacy of married
life with an unbeliever.
8.3.2 Mixed Unions Should Not Be Dissolved
The New Testament condemns mixed marriages. Yet it describes no episode parallel to that of
Ezra. There were many mixed marriages in the early churches, resulting when one spouse
received Christ and the other did not. The New Testament writers never tell the believing spouse
to leave the unbeliever. In fact Paul tells the Corinthians to remain in such unions.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
And as for the woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he is pleased to dwell with her, let her
not leave him (1 Cor. 7:12-13).
These are the same Christians whom he later exhorts not to be "unequally yoked together
with unbelievers." The relation is undesirable, but he does not command them to end it, as Ezra
did. Though the New Testament forbids close alliances with unbelievers, it explicitly says that
believers who are married to unbelievers should remain in those unions.
The instruction not to dissolve mixed marriages is no excuse for a believer to marry an
unbeliever. We have already seen that a believer who marries an unbeliever sins against the
Lord, and can expect divine chastisement for such disobedience. Paul's instructions are intended
for people who become Christians after marriage, and whose spouses do not follow them in faith.
They do not justify entering a union that is mixed from its beginning.

8.4 Why do Ezra and the New Testament Differ?

In Chapter 3, we saw that a valid marriage requires physical union, the promise of mutual
commitment of the partners, and conformity to the civil law in effect when the marriage takes
place. The third element, conformity to civil law, distinguishes the situation in Ezra 9-10 from
parallels in the New Testament and in modern society.
The civil authority in Jerusalem during the restoration period is that of Persia, delegated
through the governor of Judea. That governor is a Jew, and rules the community according to the
Law of Moses. The Law of Moses is thus a civil constitution, as well as a divine revelation. It
forbids the marriage of believer with unbeliever. In that context, a mixed union can never be a
valid marriage. It may embody physical union and deep mutual commitment, but it cannot satisfy
the requirements of civil law. Because the unions can never be normalized, they must be
dissolved.
In first-century Corinth and in modern western society, the civil authority does not follow
biblical principles. The spiritual state of the partners in a marriage means a great deal to the
church and synagogue, but is irrelevant to the civil definition of marriage in ancient Greece or
the modern United States. A mixed union is illegal in Jerusalem under Ezra, but acceptable to the
civil authorities in Corinth in A.D. 60 or in New York in A.D. 1987. Spiritual problems will
result from such a union, and with these spiritual problems the church must deal. But the
marriage is legally in order, and to dissolve it is divorce.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Why does God send the children of Israel into captivity in Babylon?
2. What is the constitution of the Jewish commonwealth after the Babylonian captivity?
3. What is the status of mixed unions under that body of law?
4. What evidence is there in Ezra that mixed unions are considered irregular?
5. Do Ezra's actions support divorce? Why or why not?
6. Does the New Testament approve of mixed marriages?
7. Compare and contrast the handling of mixed unions under Ezra and in the New
Testament.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
8. Should a believer today seek to dissolve a mixed marriage? Why or why not?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 9
DIVORCE IN OUR LORD'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord Jesus raises several practical questions about godly living.
One of these is the matter of divorce (Matt. 5:32).
Whoever dismisses his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery,
and whoever marries a dismissed woman commits adultery.
These verses are puzzling, because the clause about fornication applies only to the divorced wife
and not to her second husband. If her divorce results from fornication, she appears to be
protected from committing adultery, but her future spouse is not! Scholars have wrestled with
these verses for centuries, and the notes to this chapter summarize some of their approaches. This
chapter presents a new solution.
• We begin by stating the puzzle in more detail.
• By comparing the divorce verses with their context,we see that the Lord is addressing
an error in the Pharisees' teaching about divorce and remarriage.
• Then we show how the puzzle arises from a play on words that the Lord uses in
correcting their error.

9.1 The Puzzle of Matt. 5:32

The puzzle of Matthew 5:32 centers about the clause that reads, "except for the cause of
fornication." If this clause were not here, the verse would read,
Whoever dismisses his wife causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a dismissed woman
commits adultery.
This teaching would agree with the Lord's statements in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, as well
as with the general trend that we have traced through the Old Testament. God institutes marriage,
and man cannot undo God's marriage bond. "If one should marry her who has been dismissed,"
he takes a woman who still belongs to someone else and thus "commits adultery." Furthermore,
the Jewish culture of the first century A.D. offers almost no way for a divorced woman to earn a
living. "Whoever divorces his wife" puts her in a position in which she must marry someone
else, and thus "causes her to commit adultery."
The fornication clause complicates things. "Whoever dismisses his wife, except for the cause
of fornication, causes her to commit adultery." This suggests that whoever dismisses his wife for
the cause of fornication will not cause her to commit adultery. Why not? Has fornication
somehow dissolved the marriage bond, so that she may remarry without being guilty of adultery?
The Lord's second statement leads us to doubt that fornication dissolves marriage. "Whoever
marries her who has been dismissed commits adultery." The Lord makes no exception to this
statement, not even for fornication. The man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery,
whether or not she was divorced because of fornication. Even if fornication somehow frees her to
marry a second husband, it does not free the second husband to marry her.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Table 5: The Contrasts of Matthew 5
(5:21) You have heard that it was said to those (5:22-26) But I say to you that whoever is angry with
Murder of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the
murders will be in danger of the judgment." judgment. …
(5:28-30) But I say to you that whoever looks at a
Adultery (5:27) You have heard that it was said to those
woman to lust for her has already committed adultery
of old, "You shall not commit adultery."
with her in his heart. …
(5:32) But I say to you that whoever dismisses his wife,
Divorce (5:31) Furthermore it has been said, "Whoever except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit
dismisses his wife, let him give her a divorce." adultery, and whoever marries a dismissed woman
commits adultery.
(5:33) Again you have heard that it was said to
Oaths those of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but (5:34-37) But I say to you not to swear at all, …
shall perform your oaths to the Lord."
(5:39-42) But I say to you not to resist an evil person.
Revenge (5:38) You have heard that it was said, "An eye But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
other to him also. …
Love (5:43) You have heard that it was said, "You
(5:44-48) But I say to you, "Love your enemies, …"
shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy."

The real puzzle about the fornication clause is that it does not apply equally to the woman
and her second husband. It prevents her from committing adultery, but offers him no such
protection. Why is fornication so unbalanced in its effects on the woman and her future suitors?
To solve this puzzle, we must consider the context in which the Lord presents it. He is
disputing the teaching of the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, and he uses a play on words to
emphasize an underlying inconsistency in their thought.

9.2 The Lord is Correcting an Error

The Lord presents the matter of divorce in Matthew 5 as one of a series of six contrasting pairs
of statements. Each pair presents an earlier, erroneous teaching, and gives the Lord's correction
of it. People sometimes suggest that the errors are outdated Old Testament teachings that the
Lord is replacing with new instruction. By surveying all six pairs and considering the
introduction to the section, we can see that it is Jewish tradition, not the Old Testament, that is in
error.
9.2.1 Matthew 5 Offers Six Contrasts.
In Table 5, the center column presents the earlier error, and the right-hand column offers the
Lord's correction. We want to identify the source of the center elements in these pairs.
9.2.2 The Source is Not the Old Testament.
Each contrasting pair begins with a statement like "You have heard." Some of these statements
include quotations from the Old Testament. At first glance, we might think that they summarize
the Old Testament Law, and that the Lord's comments in "I say to you" make that Law obsolete.
The Lord is not overruling the Old Testament, though, as we can see in three ways: by
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
comparing the "You have heard" sentences with the Old Testament, by reading the Lord's
introduction to this section in Matthew 5:17-20, and by noting how he introduces each saying.
In several cases, the "You have heard" sentences actually deviate from the Old Testament.
For instance, Matthew5:43 records the ancient teaching as "You shall love your neighbor and
hate your enemy." Only the first clause, "You shall love your neighbor," comes from the Old
Testament (Lev. 19:18). The second clause, "You shall hate your enemy," does not. The verse
we are considering, Matt. 5:31, is another example of this deviation. Deuteronomy 24 does
discuss the "certificate of divorce," but as we saw in Chapter 5 it does not sanction divorce, as
does the statement here.
The introduction to the six contrasts, Matt. 5:17-20, shows even more clearly that the "You
have heard" sentences are not summaries of the Old Testament Law.
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For assuredly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means
pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore repeals one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does
and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your
righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of
heaven.
In these verses, the Lord condemns anyone who would repeal any Old Testament command.
Certainly he will not turn around and immediately render six of them obsolete! Since the Lord
identifies the "you have heard" sections as erroneous, he must not mean them as summaries of
the Old Testament.
A third confirmation that these verses are not meant as citations from the Old Testament lies
in how they are introduced: “You have heard that it was said.” Our Lord frequently cites the Old
Testament (for example, to Satan in his temptation in the wilderness, in Matt. 4:4, 6, 7), and
nowhere else does he ever introduce an Old Testament quotation by “it was said.” The term he
uses to indicate an Old Testament citation is “it is written.”
9.2.3 The Source is First Century Jewish Teaching.
We can infer the source of the "you have heard" sections from the last verse of the Lord's
introductory words, Matt. 5:20.
For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by
no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
He tells his hearers that "the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" is inadequate, and
then sets forth six examples of inadequate teaching.
The "You have heard" sections are specimens of "the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees." These religious leaders include the Old Testament in their teaching, so we hear
echoes of the Old Testament in the Lord's summaries of their teaching. Because their teaching
often deviates from the intent of the Scriptures, the "You have heard" sections often alter or add
to the words of the Old Testament. In particular, the Pharisees believe that Deuteronomy 24
authorizes divorce, and Matt. 5:31 summarizes their teaching, not the Law of Moses.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The contrast we noted in the last section between “it is said” in Matt. 5 and “it is written”
elsewhere in the gospels reflects the longstanding distinction in Pharisaic Judaism between the
oral law and the written law. This tradition teaches that alongside the written law, God gave
Moses an oral law that was not written down, but passed down from one generation to the next.
The use of the phrase “it was said” rather than “it is written” in Matt. 5 refers to this oral
tradition. In three of the citations, this instruction is said to have been given “to those of old”
(5:21, 27, 33)1, an allusion to the delivery of the tradition to the ancients, who then passed it own
down to the scribes and Pharisees of the Lord’s day. By the first century, the oral tradition has
come to dominate the the written text. Our Lord’s teaching calls the Jews back to the authority of
what “is written” over what “is said.”
9.2.4 The Pharisees' Interpretation is Wrong.
When we studied Deuteronomy 24 in Chapter 5, we compared two interpretations, the "three law
interpretation" and the "one law interpretation." According to the three law interpretation, the
passage authorizes divorce. According to the one law interpretation, it does not authorize
divorce, but controls restoration if someone divorces and remarries. We gathered evidence to
show that the one law interpretation is preferable, and that the passage does not teach divine
recognition of divorce.
The Pharisaic rule that the Lord is discussing is based on the faulty three law interpretation.
Whoever dismisses his wife, let him give her a divorce (Matt. 5:31).
The Lord's response to their position rejects the three law interpretation outright.

9.3 The Lord Answers with a Play on Words

The Pharisaic teaching cited in Matt. 5:31 is not only an erroneous interpretation of Deut. 24:1,
but also a loose paraphrase rather than a quotation of that verse. The Lord plays on one detail of
their paraphrase to highlight their underlying error.
9.3.1 The Citation is Loose.
The Pharisees' paraphrase of Deut. 24:1 deviates from the original in at least three ways.
1. Moses wrote of a "certificate of divorce," but they ignore the "certificate" and speak
only of the "divorce."
2. Having dropped the "certificate," they do not speak of writing, as does Moses, but only
of "giving a divorce."
3. Moses used a specific verb for "put away." The Pharisees use a different verb,
"dismiss."
The third deviation is the least obvious to us, since most English versions translate both terms as
"put away" or "divorce," but it is critical in understanding the Lord's response. He develops a
word play with the Pharisees' term, a word play that would be impossible if they used Moses'
word.

1The dative is much more naturally understood to refer to the recipients of the speech than to the speakers, as the
KJV takes it.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 We must proceed with caution. We are studying a record written in Greek, of a sermon that
may have been delivered in Aramaic, concerning a Hebrew law. How can we meaningfully say
whether or not the vocabulary of Matthew 5 corresponds to the Old Testament vocabulary?
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek, so strictly speaking no
Old Testament word occurs in the New Testament. However, the Jews of the first century A.D.
had Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament, just as we have English translations of the
Hebrew and Greek Bible. The Greek versions of the Old Testament show us the commonly
accepted Greek equivalents for the Hebrew words for divorce. Whether the Greek terms that we
are considering originated with the Lord or with a later translator, our argument assumes that the
widespread use of Greek translations of the Old Testament influenced the selection of those
terms.
In Deut. 24:1-4, Moses uses three Hebrew phrases to describe the separation of man and
wife. The English translations of these phrases are "certificate of divorce," "send her out"
(elsewhere frequently translated "put her away"), and "she is departed." Whenever the Old
Testament describes divorce, it always uses one or more of these expressions. Table 6 shows the
English expressions, the Hebrew expressions, and the Greek terms used to translate them in the
Greek Old Testament.
When the Pharisees tell a man to give his wife a "divorce," they use a word whose Greek
equivalent is αποστασιον. (They themselves may have used either the Greek word or an Aramaic
term of which this word is the translation.) From the table, we see that this is half of the Greek
translation of the Hebrew expression "certificate of divorce." Even though the word is Greek
rather than Hebrew, we can fairly say that it is an Old Testament word, since it corresponds to
the Hebrew word through the Greek Old Testament.
When the Pharisees describe a man's "putting away" his wife, they do not use any of the
words in the table above. Instead, they introduce a word whose Greek equivalent is απολυω
"dismiss." This verb is a common word for "divorce" in Greek of the first century A.D., but it is
never used in the Greek Old Testament to speak of marital separation.
In itself, using a secular word for "divorce" rather than a biblical word is not wrong. When
Paul discusses divorce in 1 Corinthians 7, he uses the words αφιημι and χοριζω, neither of which
is an Old Testament word for "divorce." But the Pharisees are not just discussing divorce. They
are citing Deuteronomy 24. Because they substitute a new word in an old passage, that word
attracts the Lord's attention. "So you Pharisees want to talk about 'dismissing' a wife?" he might
say. "Then let me tell you what the Law says about 'dismissing.'" Once we realize that he is
playing with their new word, we can understand his answer in a new way.
9.3.2 Some Meanings of "Dismiss"
Scholars who try to explain the puzzle of Matt. 5:32 usually concentrate their attention on the
fornication clause. Instead, we study απολυω "dismiss," the Greek counterpart of the strange
word for "divorce" that the Pharisees introduce and that the Lord picks up in answering them. It
never means "divorce" in the Greek Old Testament, but does have two meanings of interest to us.
The literal meaning of απολυω is "dismiss." This meaning appears, for example, in the title to
Psalm 34 (Ps. 33:1 in the Septuagint):

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 A Psalm of David, when he changed his behavior before Abimelech, who drove him away ["dismissed
him"], and he departed.
The title alludes to the episode recorded in 1 Sam. 21:10-22:1. David, fleeing from Saul, seeks
refuge with Achish, king of the Philistines. (The word "Abimelech" in the title of the Psalm is
not a name, but a title, just as "Pharaoh" is the title of the kings of Egypt.) The men of Achish
recognize David as an enemy. To escape, David pretends that he is insane, and Achish, in
disgust, sends him away. The title to the psalm describes this sending away with "dismiss."
It is easy to see how "dismiss" comes to describe divorce, where a man "dismisses" a woman
from his household. The word develops this meaning by New Testament times, but the Old
Testament never uses it in this sense.
The other Old Testament meaning of "dismiss" of interest to us appears in Gen. 15:2. Our
translation here follows the Septuagint, which differs slightly from the Hebrew.
Table 6: Biblical Terms for Divorce
English Hebrew Greek
certificate of divorce sepher keritut biblion apostasion
send out, put away shillac apostellein, exapostellein
depart yatsa', hotsi' exerchomai, aperchomai, ekballo, ekfero

And Abram said, "Lord God, what will you give me? For I am dismissed childless, and the son of
Masek of those born in my house is this Eliezer of Damascus."
Abram is saying, "I am going to die without any children, and according to custom, one of the
children of my slaves will be my heir." The text uses the verb "to be dismissed" as a euphemism
for death.
Another example is Num. 20:28-29 (again translated from the Septuagint),
And Aaron died upon the top of the mount. … And all the congregation saw that Aaron was
dismissed , and all the house of Israel mourned Aaron thirty days.
God tells Moses and Aaron that Aaron's time has come to die. They ascend Mount Hor, where
Aaron expires. Again, "to be dismissed" means "to die."
So the word "dismiss" can mean "dismiss from life." It is used this way in the New
Testament. Luke's gospel records how the aged Simeon greets the infant Jesus in the temple. God
promised Simeon that he would not die until he saw the Messiah, and now the promise is
fulfilled. So Simeon prays,
Now dismiss your servant, Lord, according to your word, in peace. For my eyes have seen your
salvation (Luke 2:29-30).
Simeon knows that his time has come. With the words, "Dismiss your servant," he invites the
Lord to take him.
The notes contain further examples of this use of apoluo from pagan Greek writers.
9.3.3 The Answer to the Puzzle
We now know two important facts about apoluo "dismiss."

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 1. It is used in the New Testament, but never in the Old Testament, to describe marital
separation. Thus it attracts the Lord's attention when the Pharisees use it to paraphrase
the Mosaic Law on divorce.
2. In both Testaments, it can mean "dismiss from life."
If we keep these two meanings in mind as we read Matt. 5:32, the puzzle about fornication
becomes much clearer. We can now understand how fornication prevents a dismissed wife from
committing adultery.
Whoever dismisses his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery.
There are two ways in which a man may "dismiss" his wife. He may "divorce" her, putting her
out of his house. In this case he causes her to commit adultery, for she will be without support
unless she remarries. But if she is guilty of fornication, he has another option. Deuteronomy 22
says that a married woman who commits fornication should be stoned to death. (Recall our study
in Chapter 4) If she is guilty of fornication, he may "dismiss" her from life by having her tried
and stoned. In this case he does not cause her to commit adultery, for she is dead and so cannot
remarry.
The law of Deuteronomy 22 prescribes stoning not only for adultery (unfaithfulness after
betrothal or marriage), but also for uncleanness before marriage that is concealed from the
bridegroom. The word "fornication" covers both of these cases, and so the Lord uses it in his
instruction.
The second part of the Lord's teaching is also clear.
And whoever marries a dismissed woman commits adultery.
Remarriage is possible only when the woman is "dismissed" in such a way as to leave her alive.
Whenever the woman survives her "dismissal," remarriage is adultery, both for her and for her
new spouse. When a woman is "dismissed" by stoning because of fornication, though, the
question of remarriage does not arise.
The Lord thus rejects the Pharisees' notion that God sanctions divorce. Divorce and
remarriage is adultery. By introducing the case of fornication, with its associated penalty of
stoning, he emphasizes that only death can break the marriage bond. His answer reflects not only
the Old Testament notion that "the Lord hates divorce" (Mal. 2:16), but also the law that
condemns impure wives to death (Deuteronomy 22).
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is puzzling about the fornication clause in Matt. 5:32?
2. What are the two parts of each contrast in Matt. 5:21-48?
3. Which part of each contrast amplifies Matt. 5:17-19?
4. Which part of each contrast amplifies Matt. 5:20?
5. What is the source of Matt. 5:31?
6. What is the relationship of Matt. 5:32 to the Old Testament?
7. Where do the Pharisees get their word for "divorce"?
8. What are two possible meanings of "dismiss" in the time of Christ?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 9. How does the ambiguity in the meaning of "dismiss" help resolve the puzzle about the
fornication clause?
NOTES

9.4 Further Evidence for “Depart” = “Die”

The assertion that απολυω "depart" can describe death is central to the interpretation of the
fornication clause advanced in this chapter. In addition to the biblical examples discussed above,
several passages in secular Greek clearly show this usage for απολυω and its cognates.
In Sophocles' play Antigone, written in the fifth century before Christ, Creon the king
stubbornly drives his son Haemon to suicide, and then laments over him,
Alas, alas.
You have died; you have departed,
By my folly, not your own (1267-1269).
The italicized words translate the aorist passive indicative of απολυω. A few lines later, Creon
learns that his queen has also died, and asks for details in the words,
How then did she depart? (1314)
This time, the verb appears in the aorist middle.
The other classical examples of this usage come from the fourth century before Christ, and
all involve the noun απολυσις "departure, which is a close derivative of απολυω, the verb that
we are studying.
• Diogenes Laertius, in his biography of the philosopher Lyco, includes a copy of this
philosopher's will. Lyco stipulates that, "after my departure," one of his brothers should
dispose of oil from his olive trees in a certain way (5.71). The noun απολυσις is here used
in a legal document to specify decease.
• The naturalist Theophrastus describes a poison, compounded of hemlock, poppy, and
other herbs, that "produces an easy and painless departure" (Enquiry into Plants, 9.16.8).
• Aristotle, in discussing the nature of death, claims that "death in old age is painless. …
The departure of the soul happens utterly without sensation" (On Respiration, 479a.22).
Table 7 summarizes these examples and those from the Bible.
Table 7: Classical and Biblical Instances of a)polu/w and Cognates
Life of Lyco 5.71 απολυσις
Enquiry into Plants 9.16.8 απολυσις
On Respiration 479a.22 απολυσις
Antigone 1268 απολυω aor. pass. ind.
Antigone 1314 απολυω aor. mid. ind.
Gen 15:2 απολυω pres. mid./pass. ind.
Num 20:29 απολυω aor. pass. ind.
Luke 2:29 απολυω pres. act. ind.
Matt 5:32; 19:9 απολυω aor. act. subj.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Figure 1: Relationships among
nouns
The first three examples are instances of the verbal noun απολυσις "departure" in the sense of
"death." The next four, including two from pagan authors and two from the Septuagint, use the
middle or passive voice of the verb to describe the death of the subject of the verb.The last two
use the active voice to describe the death of the object of the verb.

9.5 Other Explanations of the Fornication Clause

Seven major views of the fornication clause have been proposed. 2 The main differences among
the views are in the interpretation of the word “fornication” 3 and the scope of the exception
clause (whether it authorizes only divorce, divorce and remarriage, or something altogether
different). The views agree with one another, and differ with my interpretation, in understanding
the “putting away” as a legal separation that leaves both people alive.
9.5.1 The Meaning of “Fornication”
The exception assumes that one party in the marriage is guilty of something called “fornication.”
What does this term describe? How does it differ from other kinds of sexual conduct condemned
by the Bible, such as incest, prostitution, adultery, or homosexual behavior? We are particularly
interested in its relationship to adultery, which describes a relation between a married person and
someone other than the other member of that marriage.
To understand the different answers to this question, we need to understand some distinctions
that are used in studying meaning in language. When two different words describe related
concepts, they can be related in different ways. We can illustrate these different relationships 4 by
comparing the word “dog” with the words “cat,” “mammal,” and “pet.”
• “Dog” and “cat” are mutually exclusive. If something is a dog, it cannot be a cat, and
vice versa.

2 I follow the convenient summary in Heth 1982:101-107. For the five major variants, see Steele and Ryrie 1983:85-
98. Heth and Wenham 1984 offer a more thorough discussion, and references.
3 πορνεια
4 We are discussing what a linguist calls the extensional meaning of a noun, that is, the set of things to which it
applies. The study of meaning also includes intensional meaning, which is defined by the concept to which a word
refers. For our purposes, we need only consider extensional meaning.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 • In contrast, “mammal” and “dog” are not mutually exclusive. Every dog is also a
mammal, as is every cat. However, not every mammal is a dog or a cat. Some mammals
are squirrels, ferrets, or whales.
• The relation between “pet” and “dog” is of yet another kind. Some dogs are pets, but
others (wild dogs) are not pets. Similarly, some pets are dogs, but some are cats, and
some (goldfish, for example) aren't even mammals at all.
Sometimes it is helpful to represent relationships like these with a picture, as in Figure 1,
technically called a Venn diagram. Imagine that all the objects we want to describe are spread
out on the table, and we draw lines around those to which a given name applies. The three kinds
of relations we have described correspond to three different kinds of relations between named
areas. The areas containing dogs and cats do not intersect at all. The “dogs” area falls completely
within the “mammals” area. The “dogs” and “pets” areas partially overlap, and are partially
independent. It is customary in such diagrams to indicate the overall set of items (here
“animals”) that the smaller curves distinguish.
Now we can be more precise in discussing the meaning of “fornication.” Let's spread out all
possible instances of sexual sin on the table and draw lines around them corresponding to their
names, just as we did for animals in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows two alternative relations that have
been proposed between “fornication” and “adultery.”

a
Sin

Fornication Adultery

b
Sin

Fornication
Adultery

Figure 2: Alternative relations between

“fornication” and “adultery”

Figure 2a understands fornication and adultery to be two distinct kinds of sexual sin.
The usual contrast consistent with Figure 2a is that fornication is between people who are not
married, while adultery requires that one of the people in the sinful union be married (to
somebody other than their partner in sin). This distinction is invoked by people who understand

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
the exception clause to deal with a woman who is found not to be a virgin on her marriage night,
as envisioned in Deut 22:13, 14. Those who understand “fornication” in this way say that the
Lord allows a husband to annul such a marriage. It rests on a deception, and so is not legally
valid. Thus understood, the clause does not justify divorce.
Another contrast that has been proposed is that “fornication” refers to incest, specifically, the
degrees of marriage forbidden in Leviticus 18. This position is usually based on the rule taken by
the conference in Jerusalem in Acts 15:20, in which Gentiles were urged to “abstain from …
fornication” in order not to offend Jews unnecessarily. Again, the Lord's words are understood to
authorize annulment of an illegal marriage, not the dissolving of a legitimate one.
These suggestions understand the word to refer to specifically Jewish legislation, and so
explain why only Matthew, the most distinctly Jewish of the Gospels, includes the exceptive
clause. However, this interpretation requires Matthew's readers to understand “fornication” as a
technical term for specific sexual sins.
Other interpretations follow Figure 2b, which understands “fornication” to be a more general
term for sexual sin, and “adultery” to be a specific kind of sin, in which one partner is married to
somebody other than their partner in sin. Some interpreters think the Lord is referring to the
“matter of uncleanness” described in Deut 24:1, a reference that we shall discuss in more detail
in Chapter 4. In this case, “fornication” is just a general designation for any sexual sin. This
interpretation lies behind the traditional position as well. Based on the exception for fornication,
the Westminster Confession authorizes separation for adultery. This reasoning makes sense only
if adultery is a form of fornication. Curiously, though, the Confession's very wording suggests
that fornication can take place only before marriage, while adultery requires one member of the
sinning couple to be married.
The biblical use of the word “fornication” is decidedly in favor of Figure 2b. The underlying
Greek word and its relatives5 are used in the Bible to describe a wide range of illicit behaviors.
It is the most common family in the LXX to describe prostitution. It renders two Hebrew
words, a common one6, and a rarer one, the feminine form of the adjective “holy,” 7 reflecting the
fact that ritual prostitution was a common part of the pagan religions of Canaan. Both Hebrew
words appear in Hos 4:14, and the story of Judah and Tamar uses both the common secular word
(Gen 38:15) and the religious one (Gen 38:21-22). Clearly, the sin of prostitution does not apply
only to unmarried people, or only to incestuous relations. It is a vehicle for any form of
illegitimate union.
Based on the use of the word family to describe prostitution, some might suggest that the
Bible condemns only commercial impurity, not relations based on love between people who are
not married to one another. This distinction is also not supported by the data. A common
metaphor in the Old Testament presents the nation Israel as the wife of the Lord, and condemns
her idolatry as spiritual fornication. Ezek 16:26, 29 uses this family of words of the nation, even
while noting that she did not charge for her services, vv. 31-34.

5 The noun πορνη “harlot,” the adjective πορνικος “pertaining to a harlot,” and the verbs πορνευω and εκπορνευω
“commit fornication, play the harlot”
6 The root ‫ זנה‬and its derivatives
7 ‫קדשׁה‬
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 As Figure 2b suggests, fornication can be used of an unmarried person, to whom “adultery”
is not applicable. A good example is Hos 4:14,
I will not punish your daughters when they commit fornication,
nor your daughters in law when they commit adultery
Hosea, like many of the prophets, presents his oracles in poetic form. The basic form of
Hebrew poetry consists of paired lines that use different terms with closely related meanings.
Here Hosea pairs “daughter” with “daughter in law,” and “fornication” with “adultery.” It
certainly is appropriate for him to accuse a (virgin) daughter of fornication and a (married)
daughter in law of adultery, but his usage does not argue for Figure 2a. The distinction of Figure
2b fits just as well, and the rules of Hebrew poetry require that he use a different but related word
in the second line.
Ezekiel 16 shows that adultery is a specific kind of fornication, not distinct from it. The
chapter frequently uses the “fornication” family of words to describe Judah's idolatry, all the
while characterizing her as the wife of the Lord. In fact, after repeated descriptions of her sin as
fornication, 16:32 describes her as “a wife that commits adultery.”
Fornication can be used even more broadly. Jude 7 uses the term to describe the
characteristic sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which according to the record in Genesis 19 was
homosexual rape. The Damascus document, a Hebrew text used at Qumran around the first
century, uses a common Hebrew equivalent8 of the Lord's word for fornication to describe
polygamy, and perhaps incest and other sexual impurity. 9
Clearly, “fornication” is a general word for any kind of sexual sin. Adultery, homosexuality,
polygamy, and incest, as well as premarital relations, are all called “fornication” in the Bible and
other Jewish literature of the first century. Given this broad usage, our Lord's words would be
very misleading if he intended to allow divorce only in a specific technical situation such as
incest or impurity before marriage. He chose the broadest term possible, and did not explain it in
any way. The broad scope of “fornication” means that his words authorize putting away for any
sexual impurity. We cannot evade their force (or the paradoxes they introduce) by trying to
restrict the meaning of “fornication.” The word is a very general one, applicable to a wide range
of lapses of purity. Certainly, it includes incest and premarital dalliances, but it can hardly be
restricted to these senses, as the explanations based on Figure 2a suggest.
The broad scope of “fornication” is the meaning understood throughout the Roman world.
That culture recognizes such conduct as grounds for divorce, and would understand Matthew's
record of the Lord's teaching to endorse divorce in such cases. As we have seen, such an
interpretation leads to inconsistencies, both within Matthew, and between Matthew and the other
Synoptics.
So we see that attempts to explain the exception clause by restricting the meaning of
“fornication” fail. Perhaps attempts based on the syntax of the verses will be more successful.

8 ‫זנות‬, which is the Hebrew original behind nine of the instances of πορνεια in the LXX.
9 CD 4.20 clearly links the word to polygamy. Fitzmyer (Matthean Divorce Texts, 220-221) understands the scope
of the saying to extend to 5.6-10, which refer to lying with a woman during her period and incestuous relations as
well. The extension is rhetorically questionable, since the text goes on to discuss non-sexual sins such as impious
speech (5.11-12), but the broad scope of ‫ זנות‬would certainly make the allusion possible in the mind of the writer.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Matt 5:32 Matt 19:9
I say to you I say to you
Whoever dismisses Whoever dismisses
a 1
his wife, his wife
except for the cause 2
b except for fornication
of fornication, 3
c and marries another 5
4
causes her to commit
d commits adultery
adultery
and whoever marries and he who marries
e
a dismissed woman a dismissed woman
f commits adultery commits adultery

Figure 3: The Scope of the Exception Clause

9.5.2 The Scope of the Clause
The exception clause describes conditions under which some other statement does not apply. By
the “scope” of the exception clause, we mean the set of other statements that it qualifies, that is,
the set of statements that do not apply when the exception is satisfied. Opinions differ as to just
which other statements fall within its scope.
Let's begin by reviewing how exception clauses are used elsewhere in the Greek Bible.
First, an exception can come either before or after the clauses to which it gives an exception.
An example of an exception that precedes its scope is 1 Cor 14:9:
Unless you utter a clear word,
how will it be known what is said?
An exception that follows its scope is Acts 26:29,10
I pray to God that, sooner or later,
not only you but all those who hear me today might become such as I am,
except for these chains.
Second, an exception is never separated from its scope by a conjunction (“and” or “but”).
Third, exceptions attached to conditional statements (as in the two verses we are considering
in Matthew) are very rare, probably because the exception in itself amounts to a condition, and
placing one condition on another is bound to be confusing. I have only found a few examples in
the Greek Bible.
if I come unto you speaking with tongues,
what shall I profit you,
unless I shall speak to you either
by revelation,
or by knowledge,
or by prophecy,
or by teaching? 1 Cor 14:6
Also, if someone competes as an athlete, he is not crowned, unless he competes lawfully. 2 Tim 2:5
In both these cases, the exception follows the entire conditional sentence.

10 This example uses the uncommon exceptive word παρεκτος that appears in Matt 5:32.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Now, let's consider where the exception clauses fall in our verses in Matthew. Figure 3
enumerates the clauses, and shows various suggestions for the scope of the exception clause.
Both of Matthew's citations consist of two “if-then” sentences. In both cases, clauses a and d
form the first sentence, and e and f form the second. Clause c is part of the first “if” in 19:9. For
example, in 5:32, the first sentence might be paraphrased, “if someone dismisses his wife” (a),
“then he causes her to commit adultery” (d).
The exception clause (b) comes immediately after the first “if” (a) in both cases. In 5:32, it
also comes immediately before the first “then” (d), but in 19:9 it is separated from the first
“then” by the extension of the “if” in c. Since the exception clause cannot be separated from its
scope by a conjunction, in 19:9 its most natural scope is as shown by the bracket labeled 1, and
this scope is consistent with 5:32 as well.
Based on the usage of exception clauses in the Greek Bible, this view of the scope of the
exception is the most natural. The clause applies only to the “if” part of the first statement.
Fornication permits the husband to dismiss his wife, but in any case she commits adultery if she
remarries. The grammar is straightforward, but the meaning is confusing, Consider 5:32.
I say to you, “Whoever dismisses his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit
adultery, and whoever marries a dismissed woman commits adultery.”
The first husband “causes her to commit adultery” by leaving her without support, so that she
must marry someone else if she is to survive, and this dilemma is the reason that the Lord gives
in this verse for not divorcing. The exception clause can justify divorce only if it can remove the
danger of adultery, yet the position of the exception means that it covers the divorce without the
remarriage.
Under scope #2, fornication authorizes divorce and the remarriage of the first husband, but
not of his wife. This situation is puzzling. He can remarry without committing adultery only if
the marriage is dissolved. Yet then she ought to be able to remarry as well. Grammatically, scope
#2 is unusual. If the Lord intended it, he would have put the exception clause after clause c.
Scope #3 allows her to remarry as well, but leads to the enigma that her new husband
(clauses e and f) commits adultery by marrying her! Again, the grammar is unusual. Based on the
examples of 1 Cor 14:6 and 2 Tim 2:5, we expect an exception governing an entire if-then
sentence to follow the entire sentence.
Scope #4 has been suggested to avoid these semantic inconsistencies. It understands the
exception to justify both the divorce and all subsequent remarriages. This is the view promoted
by Erasmus. However, grammatically, it is the most unusual. The clearest way to provide an
exception to both if-then sentences would be to repeat the exception clause at the end of each
sentence.
Scope #5 extends the exception to the high-level statement, “I say to you.” On this view, the
Lord refuses to discuss the case of fornication at all. He intends no exception to the principles
laid down in Mark and Luke. We might paraphrase, “Your scribes debate the impact of
fornication on marriage. Let's leave that question aside for now. Whoever dismisses his wife
causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a dismissed woman commits adultery.”
Once more, the grammar is unusual. If the Lord meant to provide an exception to the entire

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
statement, one would expect the exception to be associated with the introduction, thus: “Except
for fornication, I say to you, ...”
As the exception clause is commonly understood, only scopes #4 and #5 avoid the logical
contradiction of allowing one divorced spouse to remarry, but condemning the other (or the
other's new spouse) of adultery. However, the only scope that is consistent with the usage of
exception clauses elsewhere in the Greek Bible is scope #1. It seems that we are forced to choose
between an understanding that is grammatically sound but semantically confusing, and
alternatives that are semantically consistent but grammatically irregular.

9.6 The Lord Jesus' Use of Figures

My solution to the problem of the fornication clause proposes that the Lord uses one word,
απολυω, with a double sense. When we read the verses without the exception clause, the word
means "divorce." In the case of fornication, though, it means "kill." Readers may reasonably ask
whether there is precedent for the Lord's use of such wordplay, especially since it seems to
obscure his instruction. In this note I
• motivate my explanation by observing some functions of figurative language;
• analyze the particular form of figure that the Lord is using; and
• present other examples of this figure, both on the Lord's lips, and elsewhere in the
Bible.
9.6.1 Some Functions of Figures
Figures of speech are to language what herbs and spices are to food. They keep the hearer alert
and interested, and whet his appetite to hear more. Like flavorings, they can be overused.
Blatant, self-conscious wordplay attracts attention to itself and away from the message. Used
skillfully, it makes the difference between boredom and brilliance.
Figures are verbal barbs, helping ideas to stick in the memory. If we examine any famous
saying carefully, we will find some trope that has contributed to its persistence. Some figures,
like metaphors and similes, do their work by drawing a word picture. Others catch our attention
with repetition of similar sounds. Still others begin by puzzling us, forcing us to think twice (and
thus remember them more thoroughly) in order to figure them out.
When figurative language requires extra thought, it can serve as a gate, excluding those who
do not truly wish to understand and admitting only the interested. All three synoptic Gospels
explicitly state that the Lord sometimes veils his teaching with rhetorical devices, particularly the
parable (Matt. 13:10-17; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9,10).
In principle, then, the Lord's use of figures of speech should not surprise us, even if those
figures sometimes require a second or a third reading to be understood. His frequent use of
parables might even encourage us to expect an unusually high frequency of other rhetorical
figures in his teaching.
9.6.2 What Is the Figure?
It is reasonable to expect figures of speech in the Lord's teaching, but we are not justified in
forcing any figure we please on his speech. No one is surprised if we point out a parable, since
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
he commonly uses parables. In this study, we want to know whether the particular kind of figure
suggested for Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 appears elsewhere in the Bible, and particularly in the Lord's
teaching.
At first glance, the figure appears to be a polysemantic pun, a single word used with two
meanings at the same time. However, the double meaning operates at a deeper level than single
words. As Heth and Wenham 1985 frequently point out, all interpretations of the exceptive
words except the Augustinian understand it as an elliptical clause. That is, the sense of the
exception includes a repetition of "dismiss" from the main sentence. The full form of the verses
would begin, "Whoever dismisses his wife, unless he dismisses her for fornication, …" The
second occurrence of "dismisses" drops out in the surface form of the sentence, but the sentence
is understood as though it were present.
Our interpretation of the exception also relies on a second understood "dismisses." The
difference in meaning is really between these two occurrences of the verb: "Whoever dismisses
[= divorces] his wife, unless he dismisses [= executes] her for fornication, …"
If we understand the Lord's figure here as the use of the same word twice in a sentence with
different meanings, its classical name is antanaclasis or "word-clash" (Bullinger 1898:286). It is
a variety of the more common paronomasia, where the two words need not be identical but may
merely sound alike.
9.6.3 Related Figures in the Bible
Whether we class the Lord's figure of speech as a pun or as word-clash, it is not without parallel
in the rest of the Bible.
Strict puns are comparatively rare in the Bible. Bullinger 1898 lists none in his encyclopedic
survey of biblical figures of speech. Watson 1984:241-242 lists ten examples from the Old
Testament, but comments that the figure "is not all that frequent; it took a skilled poet to exploit
multiple meaning." Moule 1959:197 gives three examples from the New Testament.
One pun from the speech of Christ is John 6:29. The Jews ask, "What should we do, that we
may work the works of God?" He replies, "This is the work of God, that you believe on him
whom he has sent." At first, they understand the phrase "work of God" to mean "a godly or
righteous work." As he continues to teach, he uncovers a second, deeper sense in the words.
All whom the Father gave me shall come to me (6:37). No one is able to come to me unless the Father
who sent me draws him (6:44).
Belief is not just a godly work that men do; it is ultimately a work that God himself performs in
the hearts of men. As the Jews use the phrase "work of God," they understand it in the first sense,
and the Lord in repeating it in his response invites them to understand it the same way. His
subsequent teaching shows that he has a second meaning in mind for it as well.
The Lord also uses a pun in his interview with Nicodemus in John 3. His famous phrase
"born again" can also be translated "born from above." Both meanings fit well in the context, and
the Lord probably intends Nicodemus to understand them both. The same chapter also contains a
play on the two meanings of the Greek word πνευμα, "wind" and "spirit" (John 3:8).
One of the examples given by Moule is the word υψοω "to lift up," which appears on the
Lord's lips in John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32. The immediate reference in each case is to the physical
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
elevation of the Lord's body on the cross, but lurking not too far in the background is the notion
of the exaltation and glorification of Christ that paradoxically results from that humiliating death.
Word-clash and paronomasia are more common than simple puns in the Bible. Bullinger lists
numerous examples. One example on the lips of the Lord in Matthew's gospel is Matt. 8:22. A
disciple asks leave to bury his father before following the Lord, who replies, "Let the dead bury
their dead." The second occurrence of "dead" refers to someone physically dead (in this case, the
disciple's father), while the first occurrence refers to spiritual death. The shift in the sense of the
word makes the phrase far more interesting and memorable than it would be if the Lord had
spelled out the meaning explicitly.
The words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels are not plodding prose platitudes, but the
work of a master teacher. Paul may bore his hearers to sleep (Acts 20:9), but the Lord never fails
to seize their attention. Like any good speaker, he sometimes uses words with multiple senses to
add spice (and perhaps a bit of a puzzle) to his teaching. The use of a pun or word-clash in the
divorce texts is neither unprecedented nor unexpected on the lips of Christ.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 10
OUR LORD'S CONVERSATIONS ON DIVORCE

The Lord Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount near the beginning of his public ministry, just
after calling his twelve disciples. We have seen how he challenges the Pharisees' understanding
of divorce. They think that a marriage can be dissolved so that both partners may remarry. By
playing on their word for "divorce," he shows that the Old Testament Law allows separation only
in the case of fornication. In such circumstances, according to Deuteronomy 22, the guilty party
is stoned, and the question of remarriage does not arise.
About three years later, toward the end of his ministry, the Pharisees directly challenge the
Lord about marriage and divorce. In the course of the conversation, recorded in Matt. 19:1-12
and Mark 10:1-12, the Lord again rejects their understanding of Deuteronomy 24. In this chapter,
• we discuss the setting of the conversation,
• then study the conversation itself and
• the Lord's comments afterwards to his disciples.
• Finally, we look briefly at another conversation between the Lord and the Pharisees,
recorded in Luke's Gospel.

10.1 The Setting

In the Gospels, the Jewish leaders often try to force the Lord into a position that will make
enemies for him. They spring one of these traps as he travels from Galilee to Jerusalem just
before his crucifixion.
Several roads lead from Galilee in the northern part of Israel to Jerusalem in the center. Both
Galilee and Jerusalem are west of the Jordan River, so most routes stay on the west side of the
Jordan. One very popular route, though, is east of the Jordan, through the territory of Perea. The
Lord follows the eastern route on his last journey to Jerusalem (Matt. 19:1; Mark 10:1).
The ruler of Perea is Herod Antipas, who beheaded John the Baptist. Herod did not dislike
John, and in fact rather enjoyed listening to him preach (Mark 6:20). But John spoke out against
Antipas' marriage to Herodias, whom he had seduced to divorce her first husband so that he
could take her. John's preaching convicted Herodias, and to silence the prophet, she persuaded
Antipas to imprison John and later to execute him (Mark 6:17-28).
The Pharisees know that divorce is a sensitive subject in Perea. They also know that the
Lord's position on divorce, as presented in the Sermon on the Mount, is similar to John's. When
they find Christ in this region, they try to lure him into saying something about divorce that will
enrage Herod's wife, so that she will destroy him as she did John. Matthew and Mark record
portions of the resulting conversation.

10.2 The Conversation with the Pharisees

The two interpretations of Deut. 24:1-4 differ on whether Moses considers divorce as a
legitimate option in marriage, or whether he merely takes its effects into account. Twice in the
conversation between Christ and the Pharisees, this contrast becomes apparent. The Pharisees

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
introduce the contrast to bait the Lord into condemning divorce. Later, he turns the contrast
against them.
10.2.1 The Pharisees Challenge the Lord
Mark 10:2-4 records how the Pharisees introduce the contrast at the opening of the conversation.
The Pharisees … asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife?", tempting him.
And he, answering, said unto them, "What did Moses command you?"
And they said, "Moses allowed to write a bill of divorcement, and to dismiss."
The Pharisees set their trap by asking whether divorce is lawful. They do not expect the Lord
to say "Yes," because they think he holds the same view that John did. If the Lord says "No,"
they will report him to Herod. The Lord detects their malice, and answers by asking them what
Moses commands.
Like most Jews of their day, the Pharisees believe that Moses not only allowed, but in fact
commanded, divorce. However, they hesitate to press this point, since they wish to lead the Lord
into a clear condemnation of divorce. To elicit the Lord's view, they must make the law seem
ambiguous and invite his interpretation. So they respond, "Moses allowed to write a bill of
divorcement."
Since they invite an interpretation, the Lord gives them one.
Jesus answered and said unto them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this precept"
(Mark 10:5).
That is, Moses knew that the people had hard hearts, and that they would stumble into divorce.
He wrote Deut. 24:1-4 to tell people what to do when they find themselves in such a
circumstance. But God never intended that man and wife should separate. Christ reminds the
Pharisees that the same Moses who wrote Deut. 24:1-4 also recorded the institution of marriage
in Genesis:
"From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. Because of this a man shall leave his
father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. So then they are no more
two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

10.2.2 The Lord Takes Control

The Pharisees want the Lord to comment on Deuteronomy 24 and divorce. The Lord deflects
their attention to Genesis 3 and marriage. Frustrated, they try to pull him back to Deuteronomy.
They carelessly drop their guard, and show their real attitude toward the passage by calling it a
command. Matthew records this part of the conversation.
[The Pharisees] say unto him, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to
dismiss away?" He says unto them, "Moses because of your hardness of heart allowed you to dismiss
your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:7,8).
The Lord answers, not by opposing Moses, but by opposing their interpretation. They claim,
"Moses commanded." He responds, "Moses allowed." Moses' legislation does not command
divorce. It only makes allowance for it, by telling people what to do if they are divorced.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The Pharisees see divorce as a right guaranteed by the Law, following the three law
interpretation of Deuteronomy 24. The Lord says that it merely makes provision for man's sin.
He supports the interpretation of the entire paragraph as a single command.
The Lord has taken control of the conversation. From this position of strength he delivers his
teaching:
And I say to you, "Whoever dismisses his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits
adultery, and he who marries a dismissed woman commits adultery" (Matt. 19:9).
Ironically, this is probably just the sort of strong statement that the Pharisees originally hoped to
elicit from him. Yet he delivers it only after making clear to them who is in control. His control
extends beyond them to Herod, for in spite of their malice, they do not succeed in bringing John's
fate upon him.
The Lord's teaching on divorce here is similar to that in the Sermon on the Mount. He again
uses the Pharisees' word for divorce, meaning literally "dismiss." He again says that it is adultery
to marry a dismissed woman. Going beyond the Sermon on the Mount, he adds that the husband
who dismisses her and marries someone else commits adultery, unless he dismisses her for
fornication. Once again, we understand from Deuteronomy 22 that in the case of fornication she
is dead, and there is no danger of adultery.

10.3 The Comments to the Disciples

The Lord's teaching is strict. Unlike the Pharisees, he forbids divorce and remarriage. The
disciples have heard the Lord's position before, in the Sermon on the Mount. That sermon
touched on so many themes that they may have overlooked how strict his position is. Now they
hear it again, all by itself, as he explains it to the Pharisees. They are shocked, and ask him two
questions about it.
10.3.1 The Disciples Ask about Remarriage
Mark records the disciples' first question.
And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter (Mark 10:10).
They wonder if they have heard him correctly, and ask him to repeat his teaching once more. He
responds with the same conclusion he gave the Pharisees, elaborated a little.
And he says to them,
"Whoever dismisses his wife, and marries another,
commits adultery against her,
and if a woman dismisses her husband and is
married to another,
she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12).
For the first time, the Lord adds a comment about a woman who divorces her husband. Neither
the husband nor the wife can initiate divorce and then remarry.
Mark does not mention the exception for fornication. In the next chapter, we will see that
Mark may leave it out because his audience would not understand it. In any event, the disciples

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
now know that they have heard correctly. The Lord does forbid divorce and remarriage, in the
strongest possible terms.
10.3.2 The Disciples Ask about Celibacy
The disciples' next question shows that they have always thought of divorce as a possible escape
from a bad marriage.
His disciples say to him, "If the case of the man be so with the wife, it is not expedient to marry"
(Matt. 19:10).
If there really is no escape from marriage other than death, then one had better remain unmarried.
The disciples' suggestion shows how strong they understand the Lord's teaching to be. Some
modern readers may try to find loopholes in the Lord's words. To the disciples, who hear the
teaching over and over and discuss it with the Lord, there are no loopholes. The Lord's answer to
their comment certainly doesn't add any, either.
He said to them, "Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who
were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and
there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him who is
able to receive it, receive it" (Matt. 19:11-12).
Their analysis is correct, as far as it goes. He who can follow it, should. But the disciples need to
realize that not everyone can live a godly life as a single person. Celibacy requires a special gift
from God. Most people should marry—and marry with the understanding that only death can end
their union.

10.4 Another Conversation with the Pharisees

Luke records another conversation between the Lord and the Pharisees in which the subject of
divorce comes up. This conversation probably occurs in the period between the Sermon on the
Mount and the encounter in Perea. The main subject of the conversation is not divorce, but
money.
As Luke 16 opens, the Lord is talking to his disciples. He tells them a story about an unjust
steward, and concludes, "You cannot serve God and mammon" (Luke 16:13). The Pharisees are
listening in, and offer their opinion.
And the Pharisees also, being covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him (Luke 16:14).
The Lord responds to their mockery by condemning them:
You are they who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is highly
esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15).
The Pharisees despise him for warning against material wealth, but God despises that wealth, for
it steals men's affection from him.
The Pharisees' carnality is all the more despicable, because most people receive the preaching
of the kingdom eagerly.
The Law and the Prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every
man presses into it (Luke 16:16).
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
The multitudes gladly hear the Lord and follow him. Their commitment is not always deep, but
they do not immediately reject him as the Pharisees do.
To point up their sinfulness, the Lord issues his teaching on divorce. God's law cannot fail.
As an example, the Lord mentions marriage.
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fall. Every one dismissing his
wife and marrying another commits adultery, and every one marrying a woman dismissed from a
husband commits adultery (Luke 16:17,18).
His comment rests on the understanding that the Pharisees do not accept his teaching on divorce.
By their position on divorce they reject God's law. This rejection reveals their wickedness and
assures their judgment.
The conversation in Luke 16 is the third context where we find the Lord presenting the same
position on divorce and remarriage. Its repetition in different settings shows that this teaching is
not a casual comment. It is a principle that is as important to the Lord as it is foreign to the
teaching of the Pharisees.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Why do the Pharisees want the Lord to make a statement about divorce in Matthew 19
and Mark 10?
2. Please explain how the difference between saying "Moses commands divorce" and
saying "Moses allows divorce" corresponds with the two interpretations of
Deuteronomy 24 that we studied in Chapter 5
3. How do the disciples' questions confirm the strictness of the Lord's teaching?
4. What suggestion do the disciples make to avoid marital problems?
5. What does the Lord think of their suggestion?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 11
SUMMARIZING THE LORD'S TEACHING ON DIVORCE

The Lord's four sayings on divorce sound similar to one another. They are made up of similar
pieces, such as "Whoever dismisses his wife …," "except for fornication …," and "commits
adultery …." No one saying has all of the pieces, and no piece appears in all four sayings.
The Lord's sayings about divorce are like salads assembled at a salad bar with five
ingredients. Each ingredient is a different idea about divorce. Each saying combines two or three
different ingredients. In the last two chapters, we considered each saying in its own context. Now
we bring all of them together to study the individual ingredients and to see the complete picture
of divorce and remarriage that they present.
In this chapter
• we reprint each complete saying, identifying the different ideas that it contains.
• Then we gather together the similar parts from the different sayings so that we can
understand the ingredients.

11.1 Identifying the Pieces of the Sayings

We will quote each of the sayings, breaking it into parts and marking each with a capital letter.
Some of the letters will occur in more than one saying. Those sayings have parts in common.
Matt. 5:31-32
I say to you,
A Whoever dismisses his wife,
B except for the cause of fornication,
A causes her to commit adultery,
C and whoever marries a dismissed woman commits adultery."
The saying in the Sermon on the Mount has three ideas.
A A dismissed woman commits adultery when she remarries, and the man who divorces
her shares in the guilt of that adultery.
B Fornication prevents this adultery.
C The second husband of a dismissed woman commits adultery by marrying her.
Matt. 19:9
I say to you,
D Whoever dismisses his wife,
B except for fornication,
D and marries another, commits adultery,
C and he who marries a dismissed woman commits adultery.
When the Lord speaks to the Pharisees in Perea, he introduces a new idea:
D The man who dismisses his wife commits adultery when he remarries.
He also repeats two of the ideas from the Sermon on the Mount:
B Fornication again prevents adultery in remarriage.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 C The second husband of a dismissed woman commits adultery by marrying her.
He does not repeat the teaching that the dismissed wife commits adultery in remarrying.
Mark 10:11-12
He says to them,
D "Whoever dismisses his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her,
E and if a woman dismisses her husband and is married by another, she commits adultery."
After speaking with the Pharisees in Perea, the Lord explains matters further to his disciples.
D He repeats what he told the Pharisees about the remarriage of the first husband.
E A woman who initiates a divorce and remarries commits adultery.
Luke 16:18
D Every one dismissing his wife and marrying another commits adultery,
C and every one marrying a woman dismissed from a husband commits adultery.
In the conversation with the Pharisees recorded by Luke, the Lord says the same things that he
said to the Pharisees in Perea, but without the clause about fornication.

11.2 Interpreting the Pieces of the Sayings

We have identified five ingredients in the salad bar, five main ideas from which the Lord builds
his sayings. Now we can look at each ingredient by itself.
The Divorcee (A) – In Matt. 5:32, the Lord teaches that divorce causes the divorced woman to
commit adultery by remarrying. He takes it for granted that a divorcee will remarry, for she
needs a husband to support her. When she does remarry, she commits adultery. It does not matter
whether her first husband was justified in divorcing her or not. Perhaps he abused her and made
her life miserable, then discarded her for someone else. Still, she cannot remarry innocently. In
God's eyes, she is still his wife and he is still her husband. Furthermore, the first husband shares
in the guilt of her adulterous remarriage, because he opened the door to that marriage by
divorcing her in the first place.
The Fornication Clause (B) – Both times that Matthew cites the Lord's sayings on divorce, he
includes the fornication clause. Furthermore, only Matthew cites the clause. Mark and Luke
never mention it. Why does it occur only part of the time?
Perhaps the difference goes back to the Lord himself. No two Gospels cite exactly the same
saying. Matthew quotes the Sermon on the Mount and the Lord's words to the Pharisees in Perea.
Mark quotes the Lord's later explanation to the disciples in Perea, while Luke records an entirely
different conversation. The Lord may have used the phrase in two instances, and not in the other
two.
We are at a loss, though, to know why he would not use it every time. The same ideas occur
in Matt. 19:9 and Luke 16:18, except that Matthew adds the fornication clause. The audience (the
Pharisees) is the same in both cases. There is no clear motive for the Lord to include the saying
one time but not the other.
Two facts suggest another explanation. The two facts are:

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 1. The fornication clause assumes that the reader or hearer understands the laws of
fornication defined in Deuteronomy 22. Only in the light of these laws can we
understand how a woman can be "dismissed" for fornication and not commit adultery
by remarrying.
2. Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels. It presents the Lord to a Jewish audience as
the fulfillment of the Messianic promises of the Old Testament. Mark and Luke are
written to more general audiences, audiences that include Greek and Roman readers
who will not understand the Old Testament very well.
Matthew includes the fornication clause because his Jewish readers should know
Deuteronomy 22 and catch the Lord's pun on "dismiss." Gentile readers, not knowing that the
Law requires a fornicator to be stoned, might misunderstand the clause and think that it justifies
remarriage in the case of fornication. This is exactly what the Lord does not teach. Mark and
Luke, keeping their Gentile audience in mind, avoid possible misunderstanding by leaving the
clause out.
The Second Spouse (C) – Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, and Luke 16:18 all affirm that the second
husband of a divorced woman commits adultery. This teaching is just the other side of the coin to
A. She still belongs to her first husband, and the second husband violates that sacred union by
taking her to himself.
The Divorcing Husband (D) – Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:11, and Luke 16:18 agree that the man who
divorces his wife still belongs to her, and is not free to remarry. In spite of a man's best efforts to
break the marriage bond, it remains intact before God. It does not matter how miserable the wife
makes the husband, or how grievously she has wronged him. He is hers as surely as she is his.
Fornication may separate them, if it is dealt with according to the Law, for then one spouse will
die. But it is death, not a man-made divorce, that ends the union. By omitting the fornication
clause, Mark and Luke warn us that Gentile responses to fornication, such as separation without
capital punishment, do not justify remarriage.
The Divorcing Wife (E) – Most of the Lord's sayings are phrased in terms of a man's divorcing
his wife. This form of divorce was the most common one in the first century A.D.. However, the
principles remain valid whoever initiates the separation. Mark 10:12 emphasizes this symmetry
by rephrasing idea D in terms of a woman who seeks the divorce.
Each component of the Lord's teaching emphasizes that marriages are made in heaven, but
divorce is a purely human product. Every party involved in divorce and remarriage is guilty of
adultery. The Lord condemns the mate who initiates the divorce, and (if remarriage follows the
separation) the one who is put away and the second partner. The fornication clause seems to
make an exception. But it was only recorded for Jewish audiences, and they should know from
their own Scriptures that fornication leads, not to divorce, but to death.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Why is the fornication clause only in Matthew?
2. What parties in divorce and remarriage are guilty of adultery?
3. What exceptions justify divorce and remarriage?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 12
PAUL'S TEACHING ON DIVORCE

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives the most extended discussion of marriage in the New Testament.
Most readers think of this chapter as the one where Paul tells people to remain single if they
possibly can. One verse even seems to give people married to unbelievers an excuse to end their
marriage and begin another:
But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. The brother or sister is not enslaved in such cases (1 Cor.
7:15).
When we examine this verse in its context, we see that it makes provision for separation
under special circumstances. It does not allow remarriage. We examine three contexts of the
verse.
• The entire chapter is often misunderstood. Its purpose is not to urge people to remain
single, but to encourage them to consider marriage.
• The paragraph containing verse 15 encourages people in bad marriages to persevere,
and takes away some excuses they might have for seeking a divorce.
• When we contrast verse 15 with another verse in the chapter, we see that Paul does not
allow remarriage.

12.1 A Chapter for Lovers

When it comes to marriage, Paul has a reputation as a spoil-sport. Most people think of him as a
crochety old bachelor who views romantic love as a snare of the devil. If you ask for evidence,
they turn to 1 Corinthians 7 and point out such gems as "It is good for a man not to touch a
woman" (verse 1), "He who causes her to marry does well, but he who does not cause her to
marry does better" (verse 38), and "She is happier if she abides [unmarried]" (verse 40).
This impression is superficial and misleading. We can see this by examining some
contradictions to which it leads, reconstructing the correspondence that leads to this chapter,
tracing parallels between it and the Lord's teaching on individual gifts for marriage and celibacy,
and identifying Paul's real objective.
12.1.1 Some Puzzles in 1 Corinthians 7
The conventional interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 leads to puzzling contradictions, both within
the chapter and with other writings by Paul.
Puzzles Within — Paul begins, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman (1 Cor. 7:1b)."These
words seem to advocate the single life. However, if they do, the next sentence is very strange.
Nevertheless, because of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her
own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2).
Instead of building on the theme of celibacy, he immediately says that everybody should be
married. Furthermore, verses 3 through 5 show that he is not talking about platonic unions.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The internal puzzle lies in the tension between the first two verses of the chapter. If Paul
wants Christians to stay single, why does he write verse 2? If he wants them to marry, why does
he write verse 1?
Puzzles Without — If Paul is so much against marriage in 1 Corinthians, he changes his tune in
later Epistles.
• He condemns false teachers who "forbid to marry" (1 Tim. 4:3).
• He advises "that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house" (1 Tim.
5:14).
• He even uses marriage as a picture of Christ's union with his church (Eph. 5).
Perhaps he changed his mind! Then again, perhaps the traditional interpretation of 1 Corinthians
7 is incorrect.
12.1.2 Reconstructing a Lost Letter
Paul's words seem puzzling because, as 1 Cor. 7:1 tells us, they are only one half of a
conversation. Paul begins the chapter, "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me."
He is responding to a letter from the Corinthians. We can understand his answer better when we
reconstruct their views. What sort of letter from them could lead to the contrasting statements
with which Paul begins his response?
Imagine that the Corinthians wrote something like this to Paul:
Dear Paul,
You're going to be so proud of us! The Lord has led us to new heights of devotion and
spirituality. We are the bride of Christ, and we have resolved to belong to no one but him.
All the single folks in the church reject the prospect of marriage. Isn't that great?
Marriage is just a concession to the flesh, and we are above such temptations. The
married Christians are a bit sad that they didn't see these truths earlier, before they
succumbed to the carnal lure of matrimony. To avoid sinning in the future, they have all
agreed not to touch their spouses. From now on we are brothers and sisters in Christ, with
no thought of unholy desire to cloud our Christian love.
In Christ,
Your Friends at Corinth
How would Paul respond?
He cannot endorse such a scheme. This is just the sort of heresy against which he writes in 1
Tim. 4:3. But the Corinthians are not heretics. They sincerely want to serve the Lord. Paul must
correct their ideas gently, or he may alienate them.
Sometimes friends approach us with a very bad idea that they think is very good. We may
respond, "That's a nice idea. But have you considered … ?" We first try to find something good
in what they say, something with which we can agree. Then we present the facts as we see them.
Paul uses this strategy in 1 Corinthians 7. His opening words are a summary of the
Corinthians' position: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." There is something noble and
exalted about the idea of Christians devoting themselves wholly to the service of God. In
practice, though, this idea will not work. Celibacy does not quench physical appetites. It only

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
removes the legitimate channel for their expression. In theory, undivided devotion to God looks
better than the distraction of marriage. In fact, marriage is better than the sin of fornication.
In the context of the Corinthians' letter, Paul's occasional negative comments about marriage
in this chapter reflect, not a strong personal distaste for marriage, but his tact in dealing with that
church. The amount of space he devotes to dissuading them from celibacy suggests that, far from
condemning marriage, he in general approves it.
12.1.3 Building on the Lord's Teaching
The conversation we have just reconstructed between Paul and the Corinthians sounds familiar.
We heard the same two positions in our Lord's conversation with his disciples in Matthew 19. As
Table 8 shows, both the disciples in Matthew 19 and the Corinthians suggest celibacy as a
general policy. Both the Lord and Paul caution their hearers not to go beyond their individual
gifts.
Table 8: Cautions to Ascetic Students
Students: Let's all Disciples Corinthians
stay single (Matt. 19:10) (Lost letter)|
Teacher: Be sure Lord Jesus Paul
of your gift (Matt. 19:11) (1 Cor. 7:7)

In Matthew 19, the disciples react to the Lord's teaching about divorce with the words,
If the case of the man be so with the wife, it is not expedient to marry (Matt. 19:10).
Like the Corinthians, they advocate celibacy. The Lord responds,
Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given (Matt. 19:11).
He emphasizes that the single life is a gift from God.
Paul says the same thing.
Every one has his own gift from God (1 Cor. 7:7).
As God has distributed to every one, … so let him walk (1 Cor. 7:17).
The Corinthians are trying to force all believers into a single mold. Some believers are gifted for
celibacy. Others are gifted for marriage. All should live according to their gifts, not according to
the latest "spiritual" fad.
12.1.4 Paul's Real Objective in 1 Corinthians 7
The puzzles produced by the conventional interpretation, our reconstruction of the letter from the
Corinthians to Paul, and the relation between this chapter and Matthew 19 all show that Paul is
not advocating universal celibacy. He expresses his real hopes for the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 7:32:
"I want you to be without care."
Certainly, marriage brings cares.
He who marries cares for the things of the world, how he will please his wife. … She who marries
cares for the things of the world, how she will please her husband (1 Cor. 7:33,34b).

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
A faithful husband cares for maintaining a good income for his wife, so that she has a secure
home for him and for their children. A faithful wife cares for keeping that home neat and
comfortable, so that he can be happy. A believer who can live single can avoid these cares, and
Paul wants the Corinthians to be without care.
But the single life also brings cares.
He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, how he will please the Lord. …She who is
unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit (1 Cor.
7:32,34a).
It is tempting to see these cares as signs of special piety, but Paul does not single them out as
better than the cares of the married. He describes them with the same word, "cares," that he
applies to married people. The cares of the unmarried result from natural appetites that have no
proper channel for fulfillment. They are as undesirable as the care "for the things of the world"
that the married believer may have.
Paul wants his readers to be free from care--not just the care of this world, but also the care
of holiness in the face of unrelenting temptation. It takes a special gift from God to live single
without the continuous distraction of desire. It also takes a special gift to live married without
putting material security above spiritual values. Celibacy is not right for everybody, and nor is it
universally wrong. "Every one has his own gift from God" (1 Cor. 7:7).
When we understand the Corinthians' question, we also understand the chapter. It is not a
diatribe against marriage. In fact, it opposes those who would reject marriage for all people. The
last thing we expect in such a chapter is encouragement for people to divorce. With this
understanding of the chapter, we now turn to the paragraph containing the "divorce verse," 1
Cor. 7:15, and then to the verse itself.

12.2 The Separation Paragraph

Paul divides the church at Corinth into three groups: the "unmarried and widows" (7:8-9), the
"married" (7:10-11), and the "rest" (7:12-16). The verses about the "rest" describe believers with
unbelieving spouses, so the "married" must be believers married to other believers.
The question of divorce does not arise with the single believers, but Paul does discuss it with
the two married groups. In the fervor of the celibacy fad at Corinth, married couples might
misunderstand normal marital tensions as "chastisement" for the "sin" of marriage, and seek to
dissolve their unions. Paul tells them to remain together, whether or not both spouses are
believers.
12.2.1 Unmixed Homes, Verses 10-11
Paul first addresses believers married to other believers.
To the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, "Let not the wife depart from her husband. But if
she should depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband
put away his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11).
Paul traces his instruction to the Lord's teaching in the Gospels,which is in turn an exposition
of the Law of Moses. The Law allows marriages only between two Israelites, and the Lord's
words also assume a Jewish context, in which both partners claim to be under the old covenant.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
So they are a good basis for Paul's teaching to couples where both members profess salvation
under the new covenant.
Paul adds nothing new to what we have already seen in the Gospels. Neither the husband nor
the wife should initiate a separation. Even if they do separate, they are not free to remarry, except
to one another.
12.2.2 Mixed Homes, Verses 12-16
The Law of Moses does not recognize marriages between believers and unbelievers. The Lord's
teaching also does not directly address mixed marriages. When Paul speaks to believers with
unbelieving spouses, he acknowledges that this revelation is new through him.
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord (1 Cor. 7:12).
His words are no less inspired than those uttered by Lord during his earthly ministry. Paul is
commenting on the channel of revelation, not its authority.
Without this new revelation, believers would turn to the Old Testament for guidance about
unbelieving spouses. There, they would learn from Ezra that God does not recognize mixed
unions. In Corinth's rush to celibate bliss, the result would be a flood of divorces. To stop this
tendency, the Lord gives new instruction through Paul.
The instruction has two parts. The first mentions an unsaved spouse who is happy to remain
married to the believer. The second deals with an unbeliever who wants to leave. In both cases
Paul tells the believer what to do, and gives reasons for keeping the home together.
The Happy Spouse (1 Cor. 7:12-14) — Ezra separated mixed couples because the civil
authority, the restored Jewish commonwealth, could not sanction mixed marriages. In the New
Testament, the civil authority is distinct from the church, and allows unions of believers and
unbelievers. If the unbeliever is happy with the marriage, the believer should not end it.
If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
And the woman who has an unbelieving husband and he is pleased to dwell with her, let her not put
him away (1 Cor. 7:12-13).
Corinthians who know their Old Testament might have misgivings about this instruction. The
Mosaic Law provides that children whose ancestors treated Israel unkindly cannot become
citizens of Israel for at least three generations (Deut. 23:7,8). Descendents of Ammonites and
Moabites, ancient enemies of Israel, are excluded for ten generations (Deut. 23:3). Illegitimate
children, of whatever ancestry, are also excluded (Deut. 23:2).
To Christians, these Old Testament teachings might suggest that God views children of
mixed marriages as somehow inferior to those whose parents are both believers. So Paul goes on
to explain that God will protect these children from the ungodly influence of the pagan spouse.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the
husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy (1 Cor. 7:14).
The believer should not leave the marriage, even for the sake of the children. God will see to
it that the children are not polluted by the ungodly influence of the unsaved spouse.
The Unhappy Spouse — Sometimes the unbeliever does not want to stay with the believer.
Paul's next instructions deal with this problem.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Buf if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. The brother or sister is not enslaved in such cases (1 Cor.
7:15a).
The believer may feel bound to the duties of marriage, even toward a spouse who has abandoned
the union. Paul relieves the Christian's conscience. If the unbeliever leaves, the believer is no
longer responsible to consider the wishes and well-being of the partner, as in a normal marriage.
The believing wife does not need to submit to her husband. The believing husband is no longer
responsible to support his wife. The spouse who leaves no longer has the authority over the body
of the believer that Paul describes in 1 Cor. 7:4.
This provision does not mean that Christians should make the home as unpleasant as possible
in order to chase the unbeliever away.
But God has called us in peace (1 Cor. 7:15b).
Paul is not referring to the internal calm that comes from being no longer enslaved to a heathen spouse.
"Peace" in Paul rarely if ever refers to internal peace of mind. He uses the word almost always to
describe peace between individuals, such as man and God (Rom. 5:1) or among men (Rom. 14:19).
Believers are to live in peace with all men (Rom. 12:18), including unbelieving spouses. The believer
should do everything possible to make the unbeliever content and to preserve the marriage.
The greatest outcome, after all, would be the salvation of the unbeliever.
For how do you know, wife, whether you won't save your husband? Or how do you know, husband,
whether you won't save your wife? (1 Cor. 7:16)
The phrase "How do you know" is common in the Greek Old Testament. It almost always has a
hopeful sense. We might paraphrase Paul's words,
You never know. You may be the means God will use to bring your spouse to salvation!
Peter, who frequently echoes Paul in his Epistles, may have this verse in mind when he writes,
Likewise, you wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, so that if some disobey the word, they
may be won without a word through the conduct of the wives (1 Pet. 3:1).
The constant theme of 1 Cor. 7:10-16 is the permanence of marriage. Believers must never
separate from other believers. If one spouse is unsaved, the believer should persevere in the
marriage. If the unbeliever seeks a separation, the Christian should pray for the salvation of the
unbeliever, and take advantage of any opportunity for a peaceful restoration of the marriage.
Paul's instructions about reconciliation strongly suggest that verse 15 does not authorize
remarriage for the believer. If the believer marries someone else, reconciliation becomes
impossible, because of the requirements of Deuteronomy 24, and the believer's channel of
influence on the unbeliever is broken.

12.3 Verse 15 AND Verse 39

The emphasis on peace and reconciliation in verses 15 and 16 is one reason to conclude that Paul
does not mean verse 15a to permit the believer to remarry. Another reason emerges when we
compare verse 15 with another verse in the chapter that explicitly does permit remarriage, verse
39.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The wife is bound by the Law as long as her husband lives. But if her husband is dead, she is free to
marry whomever she wishes, only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39).
In this verse, being "bound" to a husband and being "free to marry" are opposites. If a woman is
bound, she may not marry. If she is not bound, she may marry.
According to 1 Cor. 7:15, the believer is "not enslaved" if the unbeliever leaves. Is "not
enslaved" the same as "not bound"? Does the deserted believer share the freedom of the
widowed believer to remarry?
Many English translations emphasize the similarity of the two verses. In the AV, ASV, and
NASB, the abandoned spouse is not under "bondage," while the widow is no longer "bound."
The RSV and the NIV make the similarity even stronger, using "bound" in both verses.
In Greek, the two words are quite distinct. In verse 39, "bound" is the Greek word δεω, the
same verb that Paul uses in Rom. 7:2 in a similar context:
The woman who is under a husband is bound by the Law to her living husband. But if her husband
should die, she is released from the law of her husband.
The concrete sense of δεω is "to bind or tie." The death of one spouse unties this bond, dissolves
the union, and leaves the survivor free to remarry.
The verb in verse 15 is δουλοω, meaning literally "to enslave." This verse is the only place in
the Bible that the word describes marriage. In other contexts, δουλοω and related words
emphasize that one person submits to, obeys, and seeks the pleasure of another. For example,
Paul describes himself as a "slave [a word derived from δουλοω] of Jesus Christ" in Rom. 1:1,
and urges believers to "present your members slaves to righteousness unto holiness" (Rom.
6:19). So, in 1 Cor. 7:15, the word teaches that in a healthy marriage each spouse should serve
the other's well-being. It emphasizes the daily duties of marriage, not the "marriage bond." When
the unbeliever walks out of a mixed marriage, these daily duties end. If an unbelieving wife
leaves, her husband does not need to keep her car running. If an unbelieving husband leaves, his
wife does not need to consult him on major decisions.
When the unbeliever departs, the believer is no longer enslaved to the spouse. The human
duties end. But 1 Cor. 7:15 says nothing about the bond that marriage establishes before God.
Verse 39 does discuss that bond, using a different Greek word to describe a unity that it later
says ends with death. Because Paul uses different terms in the two verses, we should not assume
that they describe the same concept.

12.4 Does Paul Allow Divorce and Remarriage?

Contrary to popular opinion, 1 Corinthians 7 is not a manifesto for bachelors and old maids. It
recognizes both celibacy and marriage as gifts of God. It commands believing couples to stay
together, and urges people married to unbelievers to do all they can to preserve their marriages.
When we understand the chapter in this way, verse 15 takes on a new light. It does not
authorize an easy way for people to get out from under the carnal burden of marriage. It simply
recognizes that if an unbeliever seeks a separation, the believer may not be able to do anything
about it. When the human union is broken, the believer cannot discharge the duties of marriage,
and should not feel guilty about those duties. An abandoned believer is no longer enslaved to the

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
departed spouse. But such a believer may not remarry, for only death breaks the bond that ties
man and wife together before God.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What feature of 1 Corinthians 7 seems strange if we think that Paul is advocating
celibacy?
2. To what sort of position on the part of the Corinthians is Paul probably responding?
3. How is Paul's response to the Corinthians like the Lord's teaching to his disciples on the
same subject?
4. How are "the rest" in 1 Cor. 7:12 different from "the unmarried and widows" and "the
married" of the earlier verses?
5. How does this difference explain Paul's comments, "not I but the Lord" (verse 10) and
"I speak, not the Lord" (verse 12)?
6. What is the "peace" to which the Lord has called the believer in verse 15?
7. Please compare and contrast the words "bound" in 1 Cor. 7:39 and "enslaved"
("bondage" or "bound" in some translations) in 1 Cor. 7:15.
NOTES

12.5 Adams' Arguments from 1 Corinthians 7

In addition to 1 Cor. 7:15, Adams (1980) comments extensively on two other passages in the
same chapter to support his position that divorce breaks the marriage bond in God's sight.
12.5.1 1 Cor. 7:11: "Remain Unmarried"
In the instructions to believing couples, Paul writes,
To the married I exhort—not I, but the Lord: Let not the wife depart from the husband. But if she
should depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to the husband (1 Cor. 7:10,11).
Because Paul calls the woman "unmarried," Adams (1980:40-44) argues that her departure is a
full divorce rather than a separation. Paul endows this statement with the full authority of the
Lord. So, Adams concludes, God himself recognizes the result of divorce as being "unmarried,"
and we cannot speak of divorced people as "still married in God's eyes."
So far as civil authority is concerned, the departure probably is divorce, not just a temporary
separation. The verb "to depart" is the passive of χωριζω, and is used in the papyrii as a legal
term for divorce (BAG sub voce). Furthermore, the result is certainly the state of being
unmarried so far as secular custom is concerned, for that is both the purpose of divorce and the
plain statement of the text. The point at issue is whether or not God recognizes that state.
If both God and the state recognize the couple as unmarried, then Paul's exhortation is
confusing, for he enjoins the divorced wife, with an authority he attributes to the Lord, to
"remain unmarried." What is the reason for this injunction?
Adams argues that Paul is seeking reconciliation between the partners, and because Deut.
24:1-4 blocks reconciliation after remarriage, remarriage must be prevented. But Paul does not

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
cite Deuteronomy as the basis for his ruling. He cites the teaching of the Lord Jesus in the
Synoptic Gospels (as Adams recognizes). In the Gospel passages about divorce, the Lord does
not raise the issue of reconciliation. In fact, he does not even say, "Don't remarry." He does say,
"If you remarry, you commit adultery."
The Lord Jesus recognizes that divorces happen, and so does Paul. The Lord condemns
remarriage to another person as adultery, and Paul, claiming the Lord's authority, also condemns
remarriage. Because Paul explicitly cites the Lord, it is clear that he is thinking of adultery, not
technical irreconcilability, as the motive for his command, "Remain unmarried." Paul is echoing
the Lord's teaching that a divorced person who marries someone else commits adultery.
What, then, does "unmarried" mean? Certainly, civil custom considers a divorced couple
unmarried. If God also does, why is it adultery to remarry? Paul forbids remarriage. In support,
he explicitly cites the Lord's teaching, where the reason is adultery. Adultery is only a problem if
a union still exists before God.
This understanding of the text leads to the conclusion that the Scriptures can call a couple
"unmarried" even if that state is only true in a civil sense and not in a spiritual one. The Bible
does sometimes describe events according to their outward appearance. For example, Gen. 3:20
states that Eve is "the mother of every living [person]," plainly referring to the mass of mankind
that issues from her. Yet all of them are born "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1), and many
never know spiritual life at all. The only life they know is physical, yet the Bible does not
hesitate to call them "living." For another example, the Lord in Matt. 23:9 instructs the disciples,
"Do not call [anyone] on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." Yet Matt.
4:21 describes James and John as being "in the boat with Zebedee their father," and Matt. 10:37
includes "father" as among those whom believers should love less than they do the Lord. In the
most complete sense only God is our Father, yet the Bible sometimes uses the word in a more
superficial sense to describe human parents.
Words sometimes have a secular sense and a spiritual sense. When they do, the Bible may
use either sense, and only the context can show the meaning in a particular passage. The context
in 1 Cor. 7:10,11 indicates that the kind of "unmarried" state in view is one that prohibits
remarriage. That is, civil custom recognizes the original marriage as dissolved, but God
considers a union still to be in effect between the original partners.
12.5.2 1 Cor. 7:27,28: Bound and Released
Later in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes,
Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek release. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But
if you should marry, you have not sinned (1 Cor. 7:27,28a).
Adams argues that the two occurrences of "release" in this passage both refer to divorce.
Clearly, when Paul says that one must not seek to be released from a wife he doesn't mean by
death! The release in view can mean only one thing—release by divorce. So too, the release
in the second instance must refer to release from the bonds of marriage by divorce (Adams
1980:84).
He concludes that the permission granted in 7:28a is explicit permission for divorced people to
remarry.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 It is unthinkable to Adams that one spouse could seek to be released from the other by death.
Sadly, many people in tense marital situations find it much easier than Adams does to think of
this possiblity. Case studies of both murder and suicide all too often report unhappy marriages as
contributing to the tragedy. It would be comforting to know that people only seek release by
divorce, but the grim reality is otherwise. Even a believer who would never raise a hand against
self or spouse might in time of anguish cry out to God for an end to life. Paul himself expresses a
desire "to depart, and to be with Christ," a condition that he describes as "far better" than earthly
turmoil so far as his personal comfort is concerned (Phil. 1:23), and the imprecatory psalms show
clearly how a believer sometimes pleads with God to remove an adversary that he dares not
touch himself.
So it is not clear that "the release in view [in 1 Cor. 7:27] can mean only … release by
divorce." It might very well mean release by death, as a believer begs God to remove an
intolerable spouse or to be himself removed. In fact, when we take the larger context of the
chapter into account, the possibility that Paul is referring to death rather than divorce grows into
a strong probability.
Paul organizes 1 Corinthians into sections introduced by one of the two phrases "Now
concerning X" (7:1,25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1,12) and "Now I Z you, brethren" (where Z is a verb of
speaking: 1:10; 11:2; 15:1; 16:15). The section in which 7:27,28 falls is 7:25-40, marked off
clearly by the headings at 7:25 and 8:1. Internally, Paul organizes this section as a chiasm, a
literary device marked by correspondences between the two ends, then between the sections just
after the start and just before the finish, and so on, in an ABC...CBA pattern. This pattern is a
common way to organize documents in the ancient world (Parunak 1981, 1982, 1983). When we
find such a pattern, it can help us understand a passage by showing us sections of the passage
that we should interpret together, though they may be separated by several verses.
Table 9 summarizes the chiasm in 1 Cor. 7:25-40. Each
line summarizes one pair of sections, except for the last Table 9: The Chiasm of 1 Cor
line, which corresponds to the center. Note how the order 7:25-40
of the verses carries us down the list of topics, then back 1. Paul's "Judgment" 25b 40b
up, showing the inverted symmetry or chiasm. The italics 2. Marriage Optional 26-28a 36-40a
show how he makes his point at three symmetrically 3. Paul's Point 28b 35b
located positions in the overall structure. 4. "This I Say/Speak" 29a 35a
5. Qualifications 29b-31 32b-34
1. Paul's "Judgment" — Throughout 1 Corinthians 7, 6. Paul's Point 32a
Paul is careful to indicate whether he draws his
teaching from the earthly words of Christ or from
the direct moving of God's Spirit in his mind. This section opens and closes with the note
that it is new revelation to Paul.
2. Marriage Optional — The verses we are studying, 7:27-28, indicate that singleness is
attractive but not required, a point also made in 7:36-40a.
3. Paul's Point — The main point Paul wants to make appears on both sides of the chiasm at
7:28b,35b, as well as in the center at 7:32a. It is that believers should be without care or
distraction in their service to the Lord.
4. "This I say/speak" — The strong verbal similarity between "this I say" (7:29a) and "this I
speak" (7:35a) is a formal pointer to help us keep track of the chiastic order.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 5. Qualifications — The sections at 7:28b-31 and 7:32b-34 both show why neither marriage
nor singleness can be an absolute good. The first section emphasizes that marital state,
like all the other accoutrements of this life, is only a temporary circumstance that will one
day come to an end. We are to use it for God's glory, without making it an end in itself.
The second section illustrates this ambivalence by showing that both the married and the
unmarried are subject to care and distraction, which the believer is to avoid. Care (worry)
for the things of the Lord is no better than care for the things of the world. Both are
wrong.
6. Paul's Point — At the center, Paul reaffirms his central principle. Christians should be
without worry. Whether they marry or not should depend on which state leaves them
most free from care, not which state is more "holy."
In this symmetrical structure, verses 27 and 28 correspond to verses 36 through 40a. In 7:27-
28, Paul abstractly describes marriage as an option. In 7:36-40a, he gives two concrete
illustrations of this option. The first illustration is a first marriage of two young people (7:36-38).
The second illustration is the remarriage of a widow after the death of her husband (7:39-40).
The second illustration describes a specific "release" from marriage—through death, not divorce.
The chiastic structure shows that Paul means these two sections (7:27-28, 36-40) to amplify
one another. Both sections talk about a "release" from marriage, and the second one identifies
this release as resulting from the death of one partner. So a reference to "release" through death
is not at all unlikely in 7:27-28. In fact, it is more likely than any other nuance, given the context.
In summary, Adams understands "release" in 1 Cor. 7:27,28 to refer to divorce, since he
cannot conceive that Paul would speak of seeking release from a marriage through death. If the
release in question is by divorce, then 7:28 explicitly permits remarriage after divorce. We have
seen two reasons to believe that divorce is not the primary means of release that Paul has in
mind. First, it is not at all unthinkable that someone in an unhappy marriage might seek escape
through death, perhaps by agonizing prayer that God would end a union that seems untolerable.
Second, the overall structure of the passage links 7:27,28 with 7:39-40, where the only release in
view is by death. Since Paul is probably thinking of death in 7:27, 7:28 does not give explicit
permission for remarriage after divorce.
We must remember that while seeking escape through death is not unthinkable, it is also not
spiritual. Paul exhorts his readers, "Do not seek release." In helping others, we must know that
sometimes they may explore this avenue. For ourselves, we should ask God to solve the problem
within marriage, not by breaking it.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 PART III:
APPLICATION: PRACTICAL MATTERS

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 13
SOME PRACTICAL QUESTIONS

So far, this book has been textual, not topical. We have studied the major biblical texts dealing
with divorce in the order in which they were probably written. We began with texts, rather than
topics, because of Paul's blueprint for Bible study:
Every Scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable
for doctrine,
for reproof,
for correction,
for discipline in righteousness,
that the man of God might be
— complete,
— thoroughly equipped for
every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Doctrine takes priority over the more practical concerns of reproof, correction, and discipline.
We begin with doctrine, but we do not stop there. The Bible goes beyond the head to touch
the heart and change the life. Beginning in this chapter, we will concentrate on reproof (pointing
out practical errors) and correction (suggesting ways to fix these problems).
Paul also requires discipline in righteousness. This step goes beyond what a book can
provide. Such discipline is best done in local churches, with the caring help of committed
believers and the firm guidance of godly elders.
In this chapter, we will summarize the practical lessons of the texts we have examined. Then,
in the final chapters of our study, we will discuss questions that do not grow directly out of the
main texts on divorce.
There is not space here to treat every question about divorce and remarriage. The only book
that can answer every need of the human heart is the Bible. Any lesser work can at best be
selective, concentrating on some areas of need but leaving many other questions untouched.
When the Bible answers some of our questions through a study like this one, we will be
encouraged to go to the Bible for the answers to the others as well. If these chapters do not
discuss your particular question, please consider it an "exercise for the student," and take it
directly to the Scriptures.
The answers to some practical questions are implicit in the passages we have already studied.
In this chapter, we review what we have learned about five such questions:
• Is divorce ever justified?
• May divorced people remarry?
• May a divorced couple be reconciled?
• Are marriages between believers and unbelievers binding?
• Can marriage problems be "under the blood"?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
The next three chapters consider additional questions that are not directly addressed in the
“divorce” passages, but for which other Scriptures give guidance.

13.1 Is Divorce Ever Justified?

Marriage unites two people more intimately than does any other human relationship. Everything
that one partner does affects the other. They can clearly see one another's faults, and are often
hurt when those faults frustrate their own desires. Marriage confronts us with our own
selfishness and immaturity. It gives the most practical evidence one could want that "the heart is
deceitful above all things, and incurable" (Jer. 17:9).
Marriage problems differ in their complexity, and couples differ in their maturity and ability
to work out disagreements. Most families can handle most of the problems that arise, either by
themselves or with the help of friends and counselors, but sometimes a couple encounters a
problem that exhausts these resources. It is then that the question arises, "Is it time for a
divorce?"
For believers, the answer to that question is always, "No." We have examined every passage
in the Bible that is commonly cited to excuse divorce. None supports that conclusion.
• Moses never legislates divorce, but only tells people what to do once it happens (as we
saw in Chapter 5).
• God's separation from Israel (see Chapter 7 ) does not release the partners from the
marriage, but is a prelude leading either to execution or to reconciliation.
• Ezra's massive separation of families (considered in Chapter 8 ) gives no precedent for
divorce, because the relation in view is not full marriage.
• The "exception clause" in the Lord's teaching in Matthew (dealt with in Chapters 9-11 )
refers to ending a marriage, not by divorce, but by capital punishment.
• The "Pauline Privilege" of separation from an unbelieving spouse (studied in Chapter
12 ) does not release the believer from the marriage, but only from certain of its
obligations, and in any case is never initiated by the believer.
Some have suggested that certain extreme circumstances, such as physical abuse in a family,
may permit a believer to seek a divorce. Chapter 16 will examine this specific situation. For now,
it is enough to note that the Bible never explicitly authorizes a believer to seek a divorce.
What, then, are people to do with their problems? What happens when a couple cannot agree,
when their family cannot help, when the counsel of friends is ineffective? What happens when
every resource is exhausted? The Bible exhorts them to look again. There is one resource that is
never exhausted — God, with whom "nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37). Many believers
run away from miracles. They say that God can do the impossible, but try very hard to save him
the trouble by taking matters into their own hands.
Certainly, we are not to set up impossible situations to tempt God into a miracle. The Lord
establishes this principle when he refuses to summon an angelic parachute by jumping off the
temple pinnacle. But when impossible situations do arise, we should not try to bend the word of
God to create an escape. Instead, we should turn to God in confession and repentance, and expect
him to intervene.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 God can save an unbelieving spouse. He can change a mate's bad habits (or our own, if that is
where the problem lies). In truly impossible cases, he can end a marriage instantly, by taking one
partner away. Every believer will agree that God can do these things. If he chooses not to, we are
hardly justified in taking matters into our own hands and putting asunder those whom God has
joined together.

13.2 May Divorced People Remarry?

The Bible never authorizes divorce. Yet divorce happens, through the initiative of unbelievers or
of misguided believers. Afterwards, the partners sometimes wish to marry others. May they?
In Chapter 10, we saw that the Lord Jesus forbids remarriage after divorce. The statements
preserved in Mark and Luke are unambiguous. In Matthew, the Lord qualifies his teaching. On
the basis of this qualification, some believers allow remarriage in cases of infidelity.
Our study of the Law of Moses in Chapter 4 illuminates the Lord's words in Matthew.
Fornication does allow remarriage without adultery, but only because execution of the guilty
partner breaks the marriage bond and leaves the other free to remarry, as we saw in Chapter 9
In 1 Cor. 7:15, Paul writes,
But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. The brother or sister is not enslaved in such cases.
Many people have suggested that such desertion leaves the believing partner free to remarry. Our
study of this text and its context (in Chapter 12) shows that this conclusion is unfounded. Paul
does recognize that the believer is free from certain obligations that marriage usually brings.
However, he carefully avoids vocabulary that he elsewhere uses to describe the end of a
marriage. The couple is still one in God's eyes, and remarriage would be adultery.
In sum, there is no biblical justification for a divorced person to remarry while the original
partner remains alive.

13.3 May a Divorced Couple be Reconciled?

After a divorce, the partners may repent and desire to restore their home. Their task will not be
an easy one, for the problems that drove them apart will probably surface as soon as they are
together again. Still, if they have not married others during their separation, they should be
encouraged to reunite. Before God, they are man and wife, and they fail in their responsibilities
not only to one another but also to him by remaining apart.
They may not simply begin living together, for as Christians they are to be subject to the civil
authorities (Romans 13), in whose eyes they are no longer married. They should be legally
remarried, and then get on with the business of building a Christian home.
The situation is different when one partner or the other has married someone else since the
divorce. The most direct biblical teaching on the matter is Deuteronomy 24, which forbids any
reunion of the original couple. In this case, they should look to the Lord for grace to remain
celibate as long as they both live.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
13.4 Are Marriages between Believers and Unbelievers Binding?
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament prohibit marriages between believers and
unbelievers. Ezra 9 and 10 show that such unions could be dissolved in the Old Testament, but
Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 7 indicates that, under the new covenant, believers should not
leave their unbelieving spouses.
We learned the reason for this difference in Chapter 8
A legitimate marriage requires civil recognition. In Israel, civil and sacred law are one and
the same. That law forbids mixed marriages, so they are not binding. Today, God has separated
civil government (the state) from spiritual government (the church). The church prohibits mixed
marriages, and should discipline its members if they enter them, but the marriages themselves are
binding if the state allows them.

13.5 Can Marriage Problems be “Under the Blood”?

In discussions of divorce, one commonly hears the question, "Did the divorce [adultery,
remarriage, fornication, etc.] happen before or after he was saved?" Some people feel that such
sins, if they happen before salvation, are "under the blood" and do not affect later decisions. For
example, it is often suggested that a divorced woman who is later saved may remarry. Or a
church may exclude divorced and remarried people from positions of church leadership and
prominent service, but make exceptions for people who were saved after they sinned.
Such arguments confuse the guilt of sin with its consequences. Sin has two effects--one that
affects our relationship with God, and one that affects us privately and in relation to other people.
Salvation removes the first effect immediately, but not the second.
For example, drunkenness is a sin. It excludes a person from the kingdom of God (1 Cor.
6:10). It also destroys the body, by poisoning the liver and other organs. Any drunkard who
wishes to come to God may be saved by repenting, forsaking his sin, and receiving Jesus Christ.
The guilt, the relationship of enmity between the person and God, is gone immediately. But the
physical damage of sin may persist until the "redemption of the body" at the return of Jesus
Christ (Rom. 8:23).
The consequences of sin may include liver disease for an alcoholic, hallucinations for a drug
abuser, venereal disease for a licentious person, or an inescapable bond of marriage for a
divorced person. Paul is speaking of these consequences of sin when he writes,
Be not deceived. God is not mocked. For whatever a person sows, that shall he also reap. For he who
sows to his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption (Gal. 6:7,8).
God does not promise deliverance from these consequences during the present age.
Consider the implications if remarriage were permitted for divorces that take place before
salvation but not for those that take place afterward. We would have to conclude that salvation
not only forgives the sin, but also dissolves a previously existing marriage bond. Then we would
have to conclude that every couple who is married before salvation should remarry after, and
there is no evidence in the Bible that early Christians did anything at all like this. Many things
change when one becomes a believer. Marital status — married, single, widowed, divorced — is
not one of them.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Marital sin incurs guilt toward God, guilt that is completely removed when a person turns in
repentance and faith to the Lord Jesus. Marital sin also has very practical consequences for our
relationships with other people. The Bible nowhere teaches that those consequences disappear
automatically when someone is saved.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
Mark a sheet of paper into rows and columns. Label the rows with the references of the passages
that we studied in the earlier chapters. Label the columns with practical questions about divorce
and remarriage. You might include the questions we discuss in this chapter, questions from some
of the later chapters, or questions of your own that this book does not cover. Then try to fill in
each block on the page with the contribution that the passage in that row makes to answering the
question in that column. Can you think of other passages, not discussed in this book, that help
answer some of your questions?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 14
SHOULD SECOND MARRIAGES BE DISSOLVED?

It is adultery for a divorced person to marry someone else while the previous spouse is still
living. Some people may learn this teaching after already being divorced and remarried. What
does God expect of them now? Certainly, they should confess their sin and repent of it. They will
be careful never to repeat it. They may wonder, though, whether they are not continually
repeating it by remaining in the second marriage. After all, if the first union still stands before
God, perhaps the second one can never be more than an adulterous affair in his eyes. Should they
seek to dissolve the second family to avoid living in sin?
Many devout believers do counsel divorced and remarried people to end their second unions.
They base this advice on the reasoning we have just outlined, and sometimes buttress it with
arguments from the Lord's earthly teaching and Rom. 7:3. We will examine
• the argument based on the Gospels
• and that from Romans 7,
• then ask how the advice to leave second spouses fits in with the rest of the Bible,
• and finally discuss a fictitious case history to illustrate the practical consequences of the
two views.

14.1 What do the Gospels Say about the Second Marriage?

In all four Gospel texts on divorce, the Lord uses a verb in the present tense to describe the
adultery of remarriage. Greek literature often uses this tense to emphasize continuous action. If
the present tense in these verses served this function, the verses would teach that the adultery of a
remarriage is a continuing state, not just a single action, and the second marriage would have to
end.
The Greek present tense does not always indicate continuous action. Sometimes it indicates
that the action is what one would usually expect in the circumstances. This usage is common in
statements of general truths, such as proverbs or legal pronouncements.
For example, Heb. 3:4 uses the present tense: "Every house is built by someone." The writer
does not mean that somebody is continually active in constructing every house, as though the
building process were never completed. The present tense here means that, as a general truth, if
you see a house, you can assume that someone built it.
The general present also appears in 1 Cor. 15:42-44.
So also is the resurrection of the dead.
It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.
It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory.
It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
It is sown a soulish body; it is raised a spiritual body.
The present tense in the verbs "sown" and "raised" does not indicate that being sown (or buried)
and raised are continual actions. Actually, Paul is describing them as single, well-defined events.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
He uses the present tense to emphasize that it is a general, timeless truth that burial reflects
corruption, dishonor, and weakness, while resurrection shows incorruption, glory, and power.
In the notes, we give technical reasons for understanding the present tense of the verbs in the
Lord's teaching about divorce as general rather than continual. The tense does not emphasize that
a second marriage is continual adultery, but identifies the teaching as a general statement about
divorce, remarriage, and adultery, a statement that is true regardless of the details of how the
divorce or remarriage takes place. Thus these passages do not prove that the adultery of
remarriage is continual.

14.2 What does Rom. 7:3 Say about the Second Marriage?
To some readers, Rom. 7:1-3 suggests that it is adultery to continue in a second marriage
after divorce. Translations such as the AV, the NEB, and the RSV especially encourage this
view. For example, the AV renders the passage,
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over
a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her
husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So
then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.
The English phrase "be married to another man" is ambiguous. It might mean either "enter
into another marriage" or "be in another marriage." If it means, "be in another marriage," then
continuing in a second marriage after divorce would be adultery, and second marriages should be
dissolved to avoid this continuing adultery. If it means, “enter into another marriage,” then the
sin consists in the act of remarrying, not the state of being remarried, and there are no grounds
for dissolving the second marriage.
Paul gives us an important clue to interpreting this paragraph when he tells us that he is
writing to those who know the Law. He is not presenting new teaching, but merely emphasizing
what the Law of Moses already requires. He chooses his language to bring to mind the Old
Testament laws that govern adultery.
One example of this emphasis on Old Testament language is the phrase that describes the
woman in Rom. 7:2, "which hath a husband." This phrase translates the Greek word hupandros,
literally "under a husband," which is used in the Greek translation of the canonical Old
Testament books only at Num. 5:20. There it describes a woman who is accused of adultery.
Because she is "under a husband," she is guilty if she consorts with someone else. By using this
rare word in Rom. 7:2, Paul calls to mind the law of the adultery trial in Numbers 5.
The phrase "be married to another man" is another citation from the OT. It is a precise
quotation from the Septuagint of Deut. 24:2, which describes what a woman divorced from a
man is very likely to do. She is likely to remarry, to enter into another union. We saw in Chapter
5 that Moses does not excuse her action, but considers her "defiled" as a result of it, and expects
the original husband to prosecute her for infidelity. In Deut. 24:2 the phrase emphasizes entering
the second union, and we should take it the same way in Rom. 7:3.
The Greek verb "to be" that the Septuagint and Paul use in this expression strengthens this
conclusion. Greek has two verbs that the Bible commonly renders "to be." One describes abstract
existence. The other, the one, used here, is closer to the English verb "to become," and

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
emphasizes a change from one state to another. If Paul meant to teach that the state of remarriage
(as opposed to its initiation) is adultery, we would expect him to use the other verb. The verb he
does use, as well as the source of the entire phrase in the Pentateuch, confirms that Paul is
condemning the act of entering the second marriage, rather than describing the state of being in
that marriage.

14.3 What Principles can we Glean from Other Scriptures?

Our study of the divorce saying in the Gospels and in Romans 7 shows that it is sinful for
divorced people to enter into a second marriage. Is it also sinful for them to continue in such a
relation? When people in this circumstance repent, should they end their union?
We have seen that the verses usually cited to urge such separation do not carry the weight
placed upon them. Other scriptural evidence suggests that separation is not the answer in such a
situation. We will consider the general biblical attitude toward the marriage covenant, the
biblical treatment of polygamy, and Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 7.
14.3.1 Marriage in the Bible
We have seen over and over how highly God values the marriage union. If a second union after
divorce is a marriage, it shares this high position. We naturally expect that if God wants such
unions dissolved, he will say so explicitly. But the Scriptures never command that second
marriages be dissolved. So we should be cautious about demanding their separation.
The crucial link in this argument is the statement, "IF a second union after divorce is a
marriage." Those who urge separation believe that it is not a marriage, but adultery. We have
seen that the Gospel passages and Romans 7 do not support this conclusion. In fact, the Lord's
words in the Gospels explicitly describe the union as a marriage. They use the Greek word for
"marry" to describe the second unions of both the husband and wife from the first marriage.
The verb "to marry" in these verses might refer only to the human custom, without implying that
God recognizes the union. In the notes to Chapter 12 we saw that another marriage term, the
adjective "unmarried," can mean "unmarried so far as people are concerned," and apply to people
whom God still considers joined together. There is a difference, though, between being secularly
married and secularly divorced. We saw in Chapter 3 that God joins people together when there
is physical union in the context of a commitment to live together as man and wife and in keeping
with the requirements of civil government. Thus, those who enter a secular marriage are joined
before God as well. God never sanctions separation, so a divorce can only be secular. There is
such a thing as purely secular separation, but we have no reason to think that there is such a thing
as purely secular marriage.
Two points are clear.
1. The Scriptures call second unions marriages.
2. The Scriptures never demand, or even authorize, separation of a marriage while the
partners live.
If we require termination of second unions, we go beyond the teaching of the Bible, and
possibly contradict it.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
14.3.2 The Place of Polygamy
A first marriage is (of course) marriage. Though people may seek to end it by divorce, God does
not recognize their action. A second marriage is also marriage, according to the Gospels. It is
natural to conclude that people who are divorced and remarried are really married to two people.
In 1 Tim. 3:2,12; 5:9 Paul speaks of men who are "husbands of one wife" and women who
are "wives of one husband." These expressions recognize the possibility that a person could be
married to more than one person at a time, at least from God's perspective. As we will discuss in
Chapter 16 the reference is probably to multiple mates through divorce and remarriage.
Remarriage places one person in two marriage bonds, and thus can be viewed as a kind of
polygamy (or polyandry, if a divorced woman remarries). The Old Testament has much to say
about polygamy.
• The Old Testament recognizes polygamous unions. As we saw in Chapter 8 even
unions with concubines are not to be dissolved casually, and the patriarchs' multiple
wives clearly represent unions superior to concubinage.
• The Old Testament never commands polygamy.
• In fact, the Old Testament disapproves of polygamy. The marriage God ordains for
Adam and Eve is not polygamous. The humor in the story of Jacob and his two wives
(Genesis 30) shows the writer's scorn of such arrangements. Moses warns against
polygamous kings (Deut. 17:17), and the historian expressly traces the downfall of
Solomon's kingdom to his many wives (1 Kings 11).
• Yet the Old Testament never commands that polygamous unions be dissolved.
Apparently, once they begin, they impose responsibilities on their members just as any
other marriage would.
Monogamy is not an invention of Christianity, or an original idea in the New Testament. It is
the teaching of the entire Bible. Similarly, both Testaments tolerate polygamy. The New
Testament never commands that polygamous unions be dissolved (whether they result from
explicit polygamy, or from divorce and remarriage).
14.3.3 The Evidence of 1 Corinthians 7
The problem of divorce and remarriage is not new. Moses gives legislation to control it in
Deuteronomy 24, showing that some Israelites of his time are divorced and remarried. The issue
does not disappear in the New Testament, for the Lord addresses it in his teaching in the
Gospels. We can imagine that the problem is especially acute in the Gentile churches of Greece
and Asia Minor, where the Bible's high view of marriage is in tension with the immorality of
pagan culture.
When we consider how widespread the problem is, we turn naturally to 1 Corinthians 7. The
Corinthian believers view celibacy as intrinsically good, and propose dissolving their existing
marriages. Paul tells them that they must not divorce, or even forego normal marital relations.
The only exception he allows is separation from bed and board if an unbelieving spouse leaves.
If being involved in a second marriage is grounds for divorce, we would expect him to say so.
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul does not urge separation from a second marriage. His silence is
significant, since he is writing about separation to people whose culture readily allows divorce
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
and remarriage. Some Corinthian believers may well be married to divorced people. Even if they
are not, this case is likely to arise in the loose morality of Corinth, and we expect Paul to
anticipate it and deal with it. In fact, Paul does not make this case an exception from his general
rule that the believer, whether married to an unbeliever or to another believer, must not seek
divorce.
1 Corinthians 7, more than any other chapter in the Bible, seems tailor-made for instruction
about ending second marriages. Even here, Paul reinforces the biblical strictures against marital
separation. Neither he nor any other biblical writer commands divorce in these cases. We should
certainly hesitate to go beyond their example.

14.4 A Fictitious Case History

One strong motive for ending second marriages is an interest in promoting godly conduct. To
understand and evaluate this motive, we consider a hypothetical example.
14.4.1 An Argument for Ending Second Marriages
Assume that Jim divorces Jane, and she later falls in love with Bob. Jane professes faith in
Christ, and understands that it would be adultery for her to marry Bob while Jim is still alive.
The two positions under discussion in this chapter might have very different effects on Jane.
Suppose she believes that the adultery of the second marriage consists in entering that
marriage, and that once the marriage is established, it is valid in God's eyes. She might reason,
"I'll go ahead, sin once, and marry Bob. Once we're together, no one can separate us. Then I will
confess my sin, God will forgive me, and I'll have Bob."
If, on the other hand, she believes that continuing in the second marriage is adultery, she can
never salve her conscience with the thought, "I'll just sin this once." She can never be right with
God until she leaves the adulterous relationship.
It seems that teaching that second marriages should be dissolved might help keep people like
Jane out of sin.
14.4.2 Paul's View of a Similar Argument
The argument is plausible, but it has a questionable pedigree. Paul meets the same objection to
his teaching of salvation by grace apart from works in the early chapters of Romans. "If you
teach people that God's grace saves them in spite of their sin," his opponents insist, "people will
just keep on sinning." Paul summarizes their argument in these words: "Shall we continue in sin,
that grace may abound?" (Rom. 6:2). In other words, his teaching is suspect because it makes it
too easy for people to sin.
Paul does not want people to continue in sin, but he does not change his teaching, either. His
response occupies the next three chapters of Romans. In them he insists that anyone who would
take advantage of God's grace to continue in sin, shows by his sin that he has not really received
God's grace. "How shall we, who died to sin, live any longer in it?" (Rom. 6:2).
Paul's response applies to Jane as well. Jane may profess salvation, but if she presumes upon
the grace of God and decides to sin "just this once" to get Bob, she shows a sad lack of
understanding of the basic gospel. She may plan later to turn back to God, but there is no

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
assurance that he will receive her. Her scheming will probably lead to feigned repentance that
cannot win his forgiveness, not to godly sorrow and contrition. Her wilful sin suggests that she is
not truly saved to begin with. How, then, can she expect God's mercy if she deliberately
transgresses his law? The church should deal with her, not by adjusting its doctrine on pragmatic
grounds, but by solemnly warning her of the implications of her attitude, and by disciplining her
if she persists in her plan.
14.4.3 Unexpected Consequences
It's important to warn Jane that even if God does forgive her "single sin," its consequences may
persist for years. "God is not mocked. Whatever a person sows, that shall he also reap" (Gal.
6:7). She may be unable to escape the nagging of a guilty conscience. If Bob is willing to
cooperate with her rebellion, he certainly is not fit to lead her spiritually, and she cannot expect a
Christian home. Her children will probably find her sinful example more forceful than her
righteous protestations, and she will live to mourn their rebellion. She may expect smooth sailing
once past "the single sin," but God's harvest law warns of repercussions at least as awful as the
notion of continued adultery advanced by those who would urge a second divorce.
In fact, the practical consequences of remarriage are in some ways even graver if we consider
the second marriage valid than if we demand its termination. As a valid marriage, it can be ended
in God's eyes only by death. With the sinful foundation she is laying for it, she can expect only
unhappiness and strife in it. Yet there will be no escape from it that does not sink her even deeper
in sin. The day will come when she will wish with all her heart that she were free of it, and she
will rue her rashness in seeking to press beyond "one little sin" to the satanic promise of
remarried bliss.
14.4.4 How to Motivate Godliness
The church must exhort its members to godliness, but not by inventing unscriptural doctrines. It
should teach God's absolute holiness and hatred of sin, the folly of trying to "slip one over" on
him, and the certain danger of reaping what we sow even if God does forgive us. It should warn
that "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20,26), and that wilful, deliberate sin speaks louder
than the most pious profession of belief. It should be ready to back up its teaching with
discipline. Then it will see increase in godliness, not only in marital purity, but in every area of
practical piety.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What kinds of action might the present tense of the verb "commit adultery" represent in
the Gospel texts, and what implications would each kind of action have for the question
of second marriages?
2. Which kind of action do you think the verb represents, and why?
3. What phrase in Rom. 7:3 might mean that second marriages should be dissolved?
4. What evidence is there that it does not mean this?
5. Given the general teaching of the Bible about marriage, what would you conclude
about second marriages?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 6. Please compare the teaching of the Old Testament with the teaching of the New
Testament on monogamy and polygamy.
7. What does 1 Corinthians 7 contribute to the question of dissolving second marriages?
8. Is one position on this question more likely to promote godliness than the other? Please
discuss.
NOTES

14.5 The Present Tense: General or Continuous?

Both the syntax of the verses and their broader context suggest that we should interpret the
present tense of "commit" in the Gospel divorce sayings as general rather than continuous.
Syntactically, the verses in Matthew and Mark are conditional relative clauses. Luke uses an
alternate construction with much the same sense. The use of the present tense in the "then" part
of such clauses fits a pattern called "the present general supposition," which indicates that the
writer is setting down a general principle without having a specific example or instance in mind
(Burton 1898:123). That is, in conditional relative clauses, the present tense is commonly used to
present general action.
The context of each of the Gospel sayings also supports their interpretation as present general
suppositions. In none of them is the Lord discussing a particular instance of divorce or
remarriage. Rather, he is laying down a general principle applicable to anyone who divorces. In
such a case, we expect him to use the present tense with general meaning, to emphasize the
generality of his instruction.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 15
THE DIVORCED PERSON IN THE CHURCH

In some churches, divorced people are outcasts, barred from any ministry and shunned by those
who know their background. In others, divorce is considered a private matter, and the church
takes no note of it at all. In this chapter, we consider the implications of divorce for a believer's
fellowship and ministry in the local church.
• Divorce has implications for a person's role in the church, but so does the forgiveness
that is in Christ Jesus.
• Divorce and remarriage do disqualify a person for certain ministries.
• They are not the only disqualification, and should not eclipse other requirements for
these positions.
• Furthermore, divorced people, like other saved sinners, have spiritual gifts that they
should exercise for the benefit of the whole church.

15.1 Divorce and Forgiveness

When people divorce or remarry in violation of God's law, the church should reprove them. If
they truly repent of their sin, there is no more need for reproof. They should not mourn over the
sin that is past, but rejoice in God's forgiveness. The church, in turn, should share their joy and
restore them to fellowship.
The Corinthian epistles illustrate both the need to reprove the sinner and the need to restore
the penitent.
15.1.1 Sin in Corinth
1 Corinthians 5 tells of a man who married his father's wife, in violation of both Levitical and
pagan standards. The Corinthians overlook his conduct, and are proud of their tolerance, but Paul
views the matter differently.
You are puffed up, and have not mourned instead, that the one who has done this deed might be
removed from your midst (5:2).
They should not give the offender their fellowship as long as he continues in his sin.
[Do] not associate together, if anyone who is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an
idolater, or a reviler, or an alcoholic, or a thief. With such a person [do] not eat. … Remove the
wicked one from among you (5:11,13).
His brazen rebelliousness strongly suggests that he is not a believer, so he has no place in the
fellowship of God's people. "Remove" means to put him out of the church. "Do not eat"
emphasizes the most visible consequence of being put out of the church, exclusion from the
Lord's Supper.
The church needs to act just as decisively today when its members sin. Divorce and
remarriage deserve stern treatment, as do other flagrant violations of God's law.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
15.1.2 Restoration in Corinth
Church discipline involves not only judgment as in 1 Corinthians 5, but also restoration,
illustrated in 2 Corinthians 2. (The notes explore the possibility that both chapters describe the
same case.) In response to a letter from Paul (2:4), the Corinthians have put out a member from
their assembly. Paul describes the discipline as "this punishment, which is by the majority" (2:6).
The elders decide the case, but the entire assembly excludes the sinner from its fellowship.
Now Paul is satisfied that the discipline is "sufficient" (2:6). The man has repented, and is in
danger of being "overwhelmed with excessive sorrow" (2:7). It is time for healing, and Paul
outlines three steps the church should take in restoration: "pardon" the penitent, "comfort" him,
and "affirm [their] love toward him" (2:7,8).
When a person under discipline for sin gives sufficient evidence of true repentance, the
church must first pardon. When the Lord has forgiven the sin, the church can have no further
charges.
A formal pardon is not enough. True repentance places a person under deep sorrow. The
church should recognize this stress, and comfort the brother or sister just as they would anyone
who has been severely bereaved.
Finally, the church needs to affirm its love toward the grieved believer. Other believers
should go out of their way to reassure the penitent, "You are one of us. What is past, is past. The
Lord has forgiven you, and so have we, and we love you because he does." Then they should
integrate the person into the life of the church.
15.1.3 The Lessons of Corinth Today
The experience of Corinth offers two lessons for today.
1.1 Corinthians 5 shows that the church should take firm and biblical action against open sin.
2.2 Corinthians 2 shows that when the sinner repents, the church should be eager for
restoration.
The first lesson shows that a church should discipline a member who actively seeks a divorce
or who remarries after divorce. The broad and consistent teaching on the subject that we have
traced throughout the Bible clearly condemns such conduct, and the local assembly should use
its authority to enforce this teaching.
When a sinner repents, we also need the second lesson. The church must offer, not an on-
going stigma, but pardon, comfort, and love, to those whom the Lord has forgiven.
With regard to repentance and forgiveness, the Bible does not distinguish marital sins from
any others. People should repent of them. When people truly repent, they are forgiven.

15.2 What a Divorced Person May Not Do in the Church

We have already distinguished the guilt of sin, which affects our relation with God, from its
consequences, which affect our relations with other people. God's forgiveness removes guilt, but
consequences in this life may remain. In particular, a person forgiven of marital sin is still
excluded from three positions of prominence in the local church: elders, deacons, and widows. In
this section we describe these positions and examine the requirements that the New Testament
places on them.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
15.2.1 The Restricted Positions
The elders (otherwise called "bishops," "overseers," or "pastors") are the leaders of churches in
the New Testament. They correspond approximately to the "pastor" in most modern churches,
with three important differences.
1. They are unsalaried, not professionally trained and supported.
2. They work as teams rather than as individuals.
3. They, not the congregation, are the highest human authority in the church.
The New Testament does not mention deacons in most of the churches, and we know little
about their specific activities. The churches where they do appear (Philippi, Ephesus, and
probably Jerusalem) include a good number of needy folk, so their main responsibility is
probably practical ministry of various sorts, though some of them are capable teachers as well.
Only 1 Timothy 5 describes an official group of widows in the church. They seem to be
supported by the church, and may be occupied in various ministries of mercy, hospitality,
visitation, and counseling.
All three positions enjoy public recognition in the church. We know from 1 Tim. 5:22 that
Elders are set apart by the symbol of laying on of hands. The same symbol may have been used
for deacons (Acts 6:6), who in any event assume their official responsibilities only after careful
probation (1 Tim. 3:10), and the widows are "enrolled" (1 Tim. 5:9) for support. As a result of
this recognition, these individuals represent the church in a way that others do not. Since both
believers and unbelievers will scrutinize them unusually closely, they must meet unusually high
standards of character.
15.2.2 The Requirements
Because elders, deacons, and widows are so visible, Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and 5 lays down
stringent requirements for their character and conduct. His instructions are not mere
recommendations or ideals: "The overseer must be blameless, …" None of the requirements
explicitly mentions divorce or remarriage, but two of them require character traits that a divorced
person lacks, and a third cannot be satisfied by a divorced person who has remarried. The three
requirements are that one who represents the church officially "be blameless," "rule his own
house well," and "be a one-woman man."
To be blameless (1 Tim. 3:2,10; cf. 5:10) is more than having one's sins forgiven. Paul wants
church officers to be so exemplary that even unbelievers speak well of them (1 Tim. 3:7). Visible
moral failings on the part of prominent members must not be allowed to mar the assembly's
reputation. Divorce is highly visible, and many people consider it a character blemish.
Blamelessness is even less characteristic of a divorced person who commits adultery through
remarriage.
Elders and deacons must not only be blameless, but also have successful experience in
leading a home (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 12). The interpersonal skills needed to guide a church successfully
are the same as those required to lead a home. Where modern churches require seminary as
preparation for pastoring, the New Testament requires experience in leading a home in harmony
and godliness. Divorce is the ultimate breakdown in home life, and such a background is a strong
warning that a man lacks the personal equipment for church leadership.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The third requirement relevant to divorce and remarriage is that elders (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6)
and deacons (1 Tim. 3:12) be "one-woman men," while widows (1 Tim. 5:9) are to be "one-man
women." These phrases do not refer to any specific marital situation, but require that a person be
free from any taint of infidelity to a single spouse. Remarriage after divorce is adultery, and so
(along with many other conditions) violates these requirements. Furthermore, the death of one
spouse does not turn a two-spouse person into a one-spouse person, for a widow can fail to be a
"one-man woman" (1 Tim. 5:9) even though as a widow she currently has no spouses!

15.3 Other Restrictions on Elders, Deacons, and Widows

In general, divorce disqualifies a person for prominent church service, and remarriage only
compounds the problem. The emphasis commonly given to marital issues sometimes eclipses
other requirements for church leadership. The disqualification that results from divorce and
remarriage does not reflect the indelibility of the sin, but the solemnity of the positions. Many
other sins, and even characteristics that are not sins, also disqualify people from these roles. A
careful church monitors many issues in the lives of its leaders, and does not overlook other
shortcomings by focusing only on marital problems.
For instance, divorce is not the only way a man can fail to rule his house well. Rebellious
children give as much evidence for failure to rule well as does divorce. In fact, the elder must
have his "children in submission with all graveness" (1 Tim. 3:4). They must be "believing
children, not accused of debauchery or unsubmissive" (Tit. 1:6). Yet some churches that would
never dream of having a divorced man as pastor excuse his children's conduct with sympathetic
comments about "preachers' kids."
In fact, the requirement that a man rule his house well requires that he have a family, but
many churches that exclude divorced men from leadership allow single men to hold the same
positions.
Blamelessness also requires more than freedom from divorce. Many circumstances may so
tarnish a man's reputation that he cannot effectively represent a church in a recognized position
of prominence. We will not know that a man is blameless simply by asking whether or not he is
divorced. We need a much more thorough knowledge of his life and character.
Other requirements for elders include vigilance and hospitality (1 Tim. 3:2). A lazy or
careless man, or one who is greedy, has no place over God's flock. We hardly think of
carelessness in the same category as divorce, but both disqualify a man from serving as an elder.
There are many other requirements for prominent ministry besides monogamy. We should
view divorce, not as the one great unpardonable sin, but as one among many elements that
exclude a person from certain positions in the church.

15.4 What a Divorced Person May Do in the Church

The requirements for church leadership are so stringent that many believers besides those
divorced do not meet them. Yet all believers should have some ministry in the church. The Bible
teaches that every Christian has a special ability or gift, given by the Holy Spirit for use in the
body of Christ.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 To every one is given the manifestation of the Spirit, for the advantage [of all] (1 Cor. 12:7).
As every one has received a gift, minister[] it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of
God (1 Pet. 4:10).
Those who cannot represent the church in publicly recognized capacities should still "minister
[their gifts] to one another" in less formal ways.
The ministries that God exercises through his people include prophecy, service, teaching,
exhortation, giving, and showing mercy (Rom. 12:6-8). Others in the church besides elders,
deacons, and widows should exercise such gifts. A divorced person can exercise the gift of
giving. The experience of marital disaster may uniquely qualify a person for exhortation and
showing mercy to those currently facing family tensions. Personal Bible studies and group
discussions offer opportunities for informal teaching to believers who might not qualify for
prominent public ministry. The requirements for elders and deacons are just that—no less, and
no more. We should not make them less than requirements, and place those who do not meet the
conditions over the flock. Nor should we extend them beyond elders and deacons, and
discourage those with such a background from any contribution to the body of Christ. The real
issue in the question of the qualifications for public ministry is the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus
Christ—over his church, and in the lives of his people.
Christ is sovereign in the church. He is the one who should select church leaders. The lists in
1 Timothy and Titus express the qualifications he requires for leaders. If we remove some
qualifications or add others, we usurp his place as the head of the body.
Christ is also sovereign in our individual lives. All of us, left to our own devices, are fully
capable of violating every requirement for church service (and even fellowship). Those who
meet these requirements do so only because God graciously guards them from temptation and
guides their steps. The Lord both sets the requirements and enables some people to meet them.
The agreement between the requirements and personal characteristics is our way of identifying
those whom the Lord has chosen to represent his church. A person who does not meet the
requirements should take that circumstance, not as cause for discouragement, but as the Lord's
direction into other areas of influence.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What two steps in handling a sinning church member does Paul teach to the church of
Corinth?
2. What three things is the church to do toward someone who has repented of serious sin?
3. Why can sin restrict a person's ministry even after the sin has been forsaken and
forgiven?
4. What three positions in the church have marital qualifications?
5. What common feature do these positions share that places such high demands on the
character of those who hold them?
6. What three requirements in Timothy and Titus exclude divorced and remarried people
from recognized positions of prominent ministry?
7. What evidence is there that a divorced and remarried person fails to meet the "one-
spouse person" qualification even after the death of the extra spouse?

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 8. Please list three requirements other than marital success for elders.
9. Please give three examples of ministries that a divorced person could exercise in the
church.
NOTES

15.5 The Penitent in 2 Corinthians 2

In discussing repentance and forgiveness, I suggest that the penitent described in 2 Cor. 2 might
be the same as the sinner castigated in 1 Cor. 5. This view was favored by many commentators
of the last century. Some recent commentators think that the two are not the same, and that the
person in 2 Cor. 2 was guilty, not of sexual sin, but of challenging Paul's authority.
The point made in the chapter does not depend on whether the two incidents concern the
same person or not. They indicate general principles of discipline and restoration that apply to
any sin. Still, 2 Cor. 2 is more directly applicable to our interests if the older view is correct, and
it deserves a hearing even though the tide of scholarly opinion is currently against it.
The question turns on the identification of two events that Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians, a
painful visit that he earlier paid the Corinthians and a harsh letter that he wrote them in
connection with that visit.
• Acts records only two visits of Paul to Corinth, one in Acts 18 when he plants the
church there, and the other in Acts 20 on his way back to Jerusalem and arrest. He
twice anticipates the Acts 20 visit in 2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1, but calls it his third visit,
indicating that there must be another visit, unmentioned by Acts, between Acts 18 and
Acts 20. In 2 Cor. 2:1, Paul indicates that he previously visited them on an errand of
sorrow. This description hardly applies to the initial evangelization of the city in Acts
18, and so must describe the intermediate mystery visit.
• In describing the painful visit, Paul mentions a letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 2:3).
This letter concerned the disobedient man (2 Cor. 2:9), and apparently exhorted them to
the discipline that led to his repentance. He mentions the letter again in 2 Cor. 7:8,12,
emphasizing the sorrow that it brought to them.
The older view identifies the letter mentioned in 2 Cor. 2:3; 7:8,12 with 1 Corinthians. The
offender is the man described in 1 Cor. 5. On this view, the painful visit must occur between
Paul's first departure from Corinth in Acts 18:18 and the writing of 1 Corinthians, which was
probably sent from Ephesus by the hand of Timothy in Acts 19:22 (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10). The
early part of Acts 19 covers two years (Acts 19:10), which is certainly long enough for Paul to
visit the Greek churches, especially if he has learned of some problem requiring his intervention.
Bernard [1967]:3-6 offers an able defense of the older view.
The newer view finds 1 Corinthians too mild for the description in 2 Cor. 7:8, and
hypothesizes that the painful visit occurs after the writing of 1 Corinthians, in connection with a
serious challenge to Paul's apostolic authority. On this view, the earlier letter has probably been
lost. The new view is accessible in Bruce 1977:273-279.
Three points urge us to give the older view a serious hearing.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 1. It is the simpler view, since it does not require us to hypothesize the existence of a
missing letter.
2. It is misleading to speak baldly, as the newer view often does, of "the stern letter." The
description of sorrow in 2 Corinthians applies not to the letter, but to its effect on the
readers. Perhaps only a part of the letter made people sorrowful. In the first six chapters
of 1 Corinthians, Paul rebukes the Corinthians rather bluntly for several errors--their
party spirit (chapter 1), their immaturity (chapter 3), their tolerance of fornication
(chapter 5), their lawsuits and harlotry (chapter 6). He speaks to shame them (6:5), and
warns that he will shortly come to them with a rod if they do not straighten out (4:21).
These chapters certainly are stern enough to cause the reaction described in 2
Corinthians.
3. 2 Cor. 7:12 suggests that the offense was not against Paul (as the newer view requires)
but against someone else (the father of the immoral man, according to the older theory).
The Corinthian epistles teach the same principles of discipline and restoration whether we
understand them to describe the same offense or two different ones. These brief observations
show that it is by no means impossible that they describe the same case, as I suggest in this
chapter.

15.6 Other Explanations of “One-Woman Man”

Several different explanations have been proposed for the phrase "one-woman man" that Paul
uses in 1 Tim. 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6 to describe those who serve officially in the church.
• Perhaps Paul is talking about people who are divorced and remarried.
• Some people think the terms refer to polygamy or marital infidelity.
• Another view disqualifies people who have remarried after the death of a spouse.
Arguments rage long and furious over which of these Paul means. The confusion arises because,
apparently, Paul is not using a common idiom for a particular marital situation, but rather is
constructing the phrase on the spot. Thus we cannot appeal to other occurrences of the phrase to
learn its precise meaning.
Because we cannot pin down the term on the basis of usage, it is unwise to use it to
determine Paul's attitude toward divorce, or polygamy, or remarriage after a spouse dies. We
must determine these attitudes from other texts. From the rest of the New Testament, we can
conclude that Paul forbids divorce and remarriage, and also polygamy and outright adultery, but
that he allows and even encourages remarriage for widows and widowers. So the first two
interpretations of the phrase seem reasonable, while the third is unlikely.
Because the phrase is ambiguous, I have not used it in examining whether remarriage is right
or wrong. I make this decision on the grounds of other passages. I do cite the "one-woman man"
texts, though, in exploring the implications of a person's marital status for certain types of public
ministry.
Advocates of the remarriage interpretation frequently try to show that polygamy was rare in
the first century, so that Paul must be referring to remarriage. In response, people who allow
remarriage under some circumstances try to document cases of polygamy in the first century, as
though that could exclude divorce from Paul's reference. Both claims are largely beside the point.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
Precisely because Paul's expression is ambiguous and without clear parallel, we should not
restrict its meaning only to remarriage, or only to polygamy. Paul could have made either of
these explicit, had he wished. He does not, and we should be careful not to say more than he
does.
The simplest position, and the one I take, is that the "one-woman man" requirement excludes
any form of infidelity. The Scriptures permit remarriage after death, so it does not exclude a man
from leadership. They condemn polygamy, adultery, and remarriage after divorce, so these
conditions do disqualify a man.
In other words, the phrase is a generic description, not a technical term for remarriage,
polygamy, or adultery. Because it is generic, we cannot use it to learn Paul's view on any one of
these conditions. But if we know from other passages that he condemns a certain form of
multiple marriage, we can conclude from this text that people who have been in such a marriage
are excluded from church leadership.

15.7 Ezekiel 44:22

Jay Adams 1980:85 cites Ezek. 44:22 as evidence that the Old Testament permits remarriage
after divorce.
But a widow or a divorced woman they shall not take to themselves as wives, but virgins of the seed
of the house of Israel, or that widow who shall be a priest's widow, shall they take.
He remarks,
The whole force of the verse is to specify requirements peculiar to priests. If no one was
allowed to marry a divorced person anyway, the prohibition would be pointless. Only if the
practice was generally acceptable is the verse of significance, since only then would it mark
out an exception to the general rule.
The verse occurs in the part of Ezekiel that anticipates the restoration of temple worship in
Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity. Like much of this part of Ezekiel, the verse echoes a
provision of the Mosaic Law, in this case Lev. 21:7,13,14:
A harlot woman, or one defiled, they shall not take; and a woman divorced from her husband they
shall not take, for he is holy unto his God. … He shall take a woman in her virginity. A widow, or a
divorcee, or one defiled, a harlot: these he shall not take, but a virgin from his people shall he take as
wife.
By Adams' argument, these verses indicate that the Law permits laymen to marry harlots, as well
as widows and divorcees. On the contrary, the Law decrees that a girl who plays the harlot in her
father's house is to be stoned (Deut. 22:21). Stoning, not marriage, is the lawful treatment of a
harlot.
The legislation of Ezek. 44:22 and Lev. 21:7-14 forbids priests to marry divorcees and
harlots, not because it is lawful for ordinary people to marry them, but because it is common for
ordinary people to marry them. Unfortunately, the periods when God's people live completely
according to his law are few and far between. The Law sometimes makes provision for man's sin
by describing what to do next after the sin takes place, or by emphasizing contexts in which the
sin is especially abhorrent. It is a mistake to argue from such passages that the sin really isn't sin

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
after all, just as it is a mistake to argue from the law of divorce in Deuteronomy 24 that the Law
of Moses sanctions divorce. The passages in Ezekiel and Leviticus show that marriage of
divorcees is not unknown, and that it is specifically forbidden to priests. They do not show that
God approves of it for anybody else.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 16
PHYSICAL ABUSE AND DIVORCE

Violence often mars modern homes. We hear of husbands who batter their wives or molest their
children. The older caricature of the angry wife throwing dishes and brandishing a butcher knife
or a rolling pin at her cowering husband still corresponds to much unhappy reality as well. Many
believers who reject divorce for any other cause feel that they must accept it in cases of physical
abuse.
Domestic violence is a great problem, and demands divine strength and love for its solution.
The Bible does not solve the problem by divorce. It does give hope in other directions. We will
see:
• Domestic violence is wrong;
• The threat of physical harm is no grounds for divorce;
• Other means of protection may be available.

16.1 Domestic Violence is Wrong

The strongest biblical warnings against domestic violence condemn the underlying problem of
strife. There can be no violence between two people who live in loving harmony. When there is
violence, one or both have disobeyed the biblical warnings against strife.
16.1.1 Strife is Wrong
The Bible condemns strife among people. Strife is one characteristic of the "reprobate mind" to
which God has abandoned the pagan world (Rom. 1:29, where the AV translates the word
"debate"). It marks the unsaved man (1 Cor. 3:3). Paul ranks it with the "works of the flesh" and
says that "those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19,20).
Believers are to "walk becomingly, as in the day, ~el not in strife" (Rom. 13:13), and Paul warns
the Corinthians that such behavior will incur his rebuke when he visits them (2 Cor. 12:20).
None of these warnings is restricted to the home. Bitterness and discord are wrong wherever
they occur — in the family, in churches, in the workplace, between nations.
16.1.2 Wives Against Husbands
Wives should not strive with their husbands. God has burdened the man with the responsibility
of leading the woman:
The head of woman is the man" (1 Cor. 11:3);
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For man is the head of woman, just
as Christ is head of the church, and he is savior of the body. But as the church submits itself to Christ,
so should the wives to their own husbands in everything" (Eph. 5:22-24).
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord" (Col. 3:18).
"ives, submit yourselves to your own husbands. … Let [your adorning] be … a meek and quiet spirit"
(1 Pet. 3:1, 3-4).
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
A Christian wife who is exercising "a meek and quiet spirit" by "submitting" to her husband
cannot be striving with him, much less chasing him out of the house amid a hail of pottery.
16.1.3 Husbands Against Wives
Husbands should not strive with their wives.
Man is the head of woman, just as Christ is head of the church, and he is savior of the body. …
Husbands, love your own wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. … Men ought
to love their own wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself. For no
one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church" (Eph.
5:23,25,28-29).
Husbands, love your wives, and do not be bitter against them" (Col. 3:19).
Husbands, dwell together [with your wives] according to knowledge, rendering honor to the wife as to
a weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7).
As Christ saved his body, the church, so Christian husbands should protect and defend their
wives, not seek to harm them.
Some husbands perversely imagine that they can justify chastising their wives because God
sometimes chastises the believer. This error confuses the role of a brother with that of a father.
Believers are the brethren of the Lord Jesus (John 20:17; Rom. 8:29), and the Bible never
describes him as chastising them. It is God the Father who chastises his children (Heb. 12:5-11).
The Bible compares the relation of husband and wife to the relation of Christ and his brethren,
but never to the relation of God and his children. Husbands have no biblical basis for chastising
their wives.
16.1.4 Parents Against Children
Parents are to chastise their children, but this duty does not justify domestic violence. The
warnings against strife and discord apply to parents and children as well as other relationships. A
father or mother who strikes a child in a spirit of anger or bitterness displays the works of the
flesh, not parental responsibility. Strife and discord on the part of a parent lead directly to wrath
in the child, and the Bible warns parents, "Do not provoke your children to wrath" (Eph. 6:4).

16.2 Violence is Not Grounds for Divorce.

Domestic violence is wrong. Christians sometimes propose to solve the problem through divorce.
They are right to try to help, but their suggestion is misguided, for three reasons.
1. The Bible never says that domestic violence authorizes divorce.
2. Physical violence is not the only way one person can hurt another. If violence justifies
divorce, so do many other offenses, and the universal biblical teaching against divorce
becomes an unrealistic ideal.
3. If we make a special case out of violence, we ignore the "one flesh" nature of the
marriage bond.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
16.2.1 Divorce for Violence in the Bible
The problem of domestic violence must have been around in biblical times. The abundant
warnings against strife in the New Testament show that people then were prone to the same
emotional failings as we are today. It is naive to assume that the ancient home was immune to
discord and the physical violence that sometimes erupts from it. Yet the Bible does not authorize
divorce because of violence. Paul does not even mention the possibility when he discusses
marital separation in 1 Corinthians 7. He allows separation from bed and board for those deserted
by an unbeliever, but there is not a whisper about dividing a marriage because of domestic
violence.
We cannot explain the Bible's silence on the matter by claiming that it is chauvinistic. Our
culture emphasizes violence of men against women, but violence of women against men is just
as wrong, and just as likely to happen, given the perversity of the human heart, yet the Bible
makes no special provision for a husband to free himself from such a mate. Domestic violence
flows in two directions, and the Bible sanctions neither one as an excuse for divorce.
16.2.2 Violence: The Camel's Nose
If the church permits divorce for violence, it does so without any biblical foundation. Is violence
such a serious problem that it warrants this special treatment? A person's body is sacred. Perhaps
harming it is far worse than other offenses, and merits exceptional action.
The argument sounds convincing, until we try to identify "other offenses" that make violence
seem exceptional.
• A man who snarls at his wife may give her bleeding ulcers. Does snarling come within
the scope of "domestic violence," and justify divorce?
• A parent who is addicted to tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs will have children who are
prone to a variety of physical ailments. Furthermore, second-hand smoke may
aggravate a spouse's asthma or emphysema. Is smoking grounds for divorce?
• A lazy breadwinner may not provide an adequate income for his family, and they may
suffer malnutrition. Should he be divorced?
• A cook with a lust for rich pastries and red meat may subject other members of the
family to heart disease or intestinal cancer. Should we put away a spouse for being a
gourmet?
Harming another person's body is a serious offense. But our physical well-being is so
intertwined with our habits of life and our psychological environment that almost any fault can
bring physical harm to the immediate family. If we allow divorce for beating, we should also
allow it for snarling, backbiting, or nagging.
An ancient Arabic proverb warns the Bedouin not to let the camel put his nose in the tent, or
the rest of him will follow. Among excuses for divorce, domestic violence is the camel's nose. If
we accept it, we must also accept other excuses, and then we can hardly claim to take the Bible's
strict stance against divorce seriously.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
16.2.3 Violence and the "One Flesh" Relationship
Physical abuse seems to sound a special chord of sympathy. It represents the ultimate intrusion
of one person into the life of another. This sense of violation, more than anything else, may
account for the exceptions that people want to make to God's marriage law to allow divorce for
domestic violence.
Ironically, marriage is the only human relationship in which violence is not an intrusion of
one person into the life of another. As he enters the world's first marriage, Adam realizes, "[My
wife] is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (Gen. 2:23), and the narrator confirms,
"They shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). The Hebrew idiom "one flesh" emphasizes not just sexual
union, but the merging of two people into one. We can almost translate it, "one person." A man
and his wife are one entity before God.
A wife who kicks her husband is not violating another person. She is kicking a part of
herself. A husband who beats his wife is beating a part of himself. We would not suggest cutting
off the hand of an insane man to keep him from flogging himself. It is equally out of place to
suggest that we divide the one flesh of man and wife to stop it from hurting itself.
When two people become one, they make themselves completely vulnerable to one another.
The intimacy of being one allows marriage to satisfy the loneliness of celibacy, and gives it its
proverbial capacity for unbounded joy. Sadly, that same vulnerability means that if one spouse is
demented, the other shares in the consequences. The husband's problems are the wife's, and the
wife's, the husband's. Neither can say, "That's the other's problem, not mine." They are one flesh
until parted by death.
Some Christians persevere in the face of intense domestic violence, with the thought that
death is not the ultimate tragedy, but the "far better" state of being with Christ (Phil. 1:23).
However, they draw the line when a spouse abuses their children, and seek a divorce to protect
the little ones.
The Bible does not prohibit separating children from a violent or perverted parent for their own
protection. Children and parents are not "one flesh," as man and wife are. Moving out is tragic
for a spouse, but the natural end of child rearing. Sometimes children must be separated from a
violent parent, but that is no excuse for separating the parents from one another. A believing
parent should protect children by housing them with relatives or in a foster home, or even giving
them up for adoption, before seeking to put asunder what God has joined together. Biblically, the
bond between husband and wife is far stronger than that between parent and child. To break
either is tragic, but to break the stronger in order to preserve the weaker is perverse and contrary
to the Scriptures.

16.3 Remedies for Domestic Violence

The previous two sections pose a dilemma. Violence in the home is sinful and inexcusable. Yet
the marriage bond is so strong that even this sin does not dissolve it before God. Should we stand
quietly by while one partner destroys the other?
There are alternatives. God governs his people through three institutions: the family, the
church, and the civil magistrate. None of these authorities is autonomous. All are subject to the
law of God. If one goes astray, the believer should seek help from the other two.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
16.3.1 Help from the Church
The home is not independent of the church. 1 Timothy 5:8 gives an example of church
jurisdiction over the home.
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Paul is discussing the care of Christian widows. A man with widowed relatives should support
them. Otherwise, the church should reckon him an apostate. Matthew 18:15-17 shows that this
discipline takes effect only after the church repeatedly tries to correct him.
Within the home, "the man is head of woman" (1 Cor. 11:3), whether she is his wife or a
widowed aunt for whom he is caring. Yet by giving the church jurisdiction over the care of
widows, Paul opens the way for a widow to come to the church if her nephew is not providing
for her. She is not rebelling against her nephew, but seeking the help of a second authority, the
church, when the first, the home, has failed. If she is out of line, the church will tell her so.
1 Timothy 5:8 condemns a man who neglects, not just his widows, but his family members in
general. A wife has the same recourse to the church that a widow does. If she is being overly
critical of her husband, the church should correct her. Otherwise, it should deal with her
husband.
The church can do more than simply exclude the offender. Violence often results from a
severe psychological or spiritual disturbance that the violent person cannot directly control. The
conduct is still sinful, but it may be treatable. The church should urge not only confession and
repentance, but also appropriate biblical counseling to address the underlying problems.
A woman seeking help from the church should go directly to the elders of the assembly. She
is invoking the church as a mechanism of authority, not just as a source of fellowship, and the
elders bear the responsibility for that authority. If she complains about her husband to the ladies'
prayer group, she may win sympathy and start some juicy gossip, but they do not have the
jurisdiction to decide her case and seek a solution. The rest of the church should not learn of the
problems unless the elders need to make them known so that the church may exercise
appropriate discipline.
16.3.2 Help from the State
The home is not independent of the state when its members break the law. God has established
the civil ruler as his servant, to protect the upright citizen and execute judgment on the unjust
(Rom. 13:3,4). As we discussed in Chapter 8 Ezra's intervention in breaking up families
illustrates the authority of the state to enforce its laws over the family. Assault and battery is a
criminal offense in most western societies, and God intends the civil magistrate to defend those
who are so abused.
Civil administrations differ in the kinds and amount of help they can offer in cases of
domestic violence. The authorities may place a violent spouse in an institution to provide therapy
and protect the rest of the family. Some communities provide safe houses where a battered
spouse may find refuge and counsel. If children are threatened and shelter with relatives is not
available, state social agencies may have both the authority and the resources to place them in
foster homes.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 The state will not share the believer's understanding of the marriage bond, and sometimes
may urge divorce as the easiest solution to the problem. The believer recognizes that this is no
solution, and will not accept it. Just because one authority (the family) is ungodly is no reason to
accept ungodly suggestions from another (the government). One can conceive of a civil
government that declares a marriage dissolved if there is violence or abuse. But the magistrate is
powerless to dissolve a bond that God has forged, and the believer so separated from a spouse
will not consider remarriage unless the other partner dies.
16.3.3 Submission and Seeking Help
A believing wife is not rebelling against her husband in seeking help either from the church or
from the state. The Bible does teach that people should be subject to the authorities that God puts
over them. It also recognizes that these authorities can rebel against the Lord. The Bible does not
ask us to support their rebellion.
For instance, the Bible teaches that believers are to be subject to the church: "Obey those
who have the rule over you, and submit yourselves" (Heb. 13:17). Yet an elder's rule can be
challenged, for Paul tells Timothy how to rebuke an erring elder (1 Tim. 5:19,20).
As another example, believers are to be subject to the civil magistrate: "Let every soul be
subject to the higher powers" (Rom. 13:1). Yet when human leaders command sin, Peter and the
other apostles obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).
A believing wife who seeks the intervention of the church or the state is protecting not only
herself but her spouse as well. In harming her he is harming himself. Her foremost concern ought
to be his welfare. Official intervention may be the only way to show him that he has a problem,
and lead him to seek help.
Domestic violence is a tragic sin. God has provided some channels of help, by establishing
overlapping mechanisms of authority. But he gives us no reason to think that he dissolves the
bond of marriage because of this sin. Societies may offer divorce as a solution, and friends may
urge it, but the believer will recognize that the marriage bond persists until death.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What underlying attitude leads to domestic violence?
2. Please give three biblical references condemning this attitude.
3. Please evaluate this justification by a man for beating his wife: "God has established
me as his representative over my wife. Just as he chastises me when I sin, so I am
responsible for chastising her when she sins."
4. Which relationship is stronger--that between man and wife, or that between parent and
child? Please support your answer with Scripture.
5. Based on your answer to the last question, please evaluate these strategies for
protecting children in cases of domestic violence:
(a) Separate the children from the violent spouse by a divorce, leaving the children in
the care of the nonviolent spouse;
(b) Separate the children from the violent spouse by housing them with relatives or
placing them in a foster home.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
6. What mechanisms has God established to order the life of his people?
7. Please give a biblical example to show that the church has jurisdiction over the affairs
of the home.
8. Please give a biblical example to show that the state has jurisdiction over the affairs of
the home.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 CHAPTER 17
GOD KNOWS THE WAY OUT

Some biblical laws change as we move through the Scriptures. Animal sacrifices come and go.
Patterns of worship change. But the law of marriage is inviolate. The Bible opens in a garden
where man learns that his wife is indivisibly part of him, bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh
(Gen. 2:23). It closes with the vision of a heavenly paradise from which fornicators are excluded
(Rev. 22:15). In between, every witness agrees that divorce is wrong and remarriage is adultery.
Modern people do not like absolutes. We prefer to hang loose, to remain flexible, to keep our
options open. In the face of expanding knowledge about our universe, we have learned to be
cautious about making statements of fact. Our daily lives seem too complex for unvarying rules
of behavior. The wisdom of the day insists, "Never say 'Never.'"
Modern people have good reason for their caution. The more technical skill we gain, the
more ethical dilemmas we face. New weapons, promising security against our enemies, lead to
heightened international tension. The ability to transplant organs from one person to another
unleashes the spectre of letting one individual die to prolong the life of another. We have
developed powerful mechanisms for redistributing wealth, but we can seldom anticipate all the
effects of invoking them. We are like rats in a maze, with no way to see the overall problem. We
must try one route, then another, until we stumble on the solution. We are loathe to accept
absolute rules, lest they lead us to a dead end.
Perhaps, in the light of this modern caution, we should relax the conclusions we have reached
about divorce and remarriage. Can God's Word really be as inflexible as it seems? Have we read
something wrong? Are there really no exceptions, no special cases, no bending of the rules?
God's Law seems unrealistic only if we impose human limits on God himself. In fact, God
created our world, so he stands outside and above its complexity. He sees the problems and
knows the answer. To help us in our dilemma, he speaks to us in the Bible and through his Son
(Heb. 1:1,2). He tells us the way out of the maze.
God not only knows our dilemmas better than we do; he can change them. The Bible
abounds with examples of mazes whose walls shift at the last moment. God's people, to all
appearances trapped beyond hope, suddenly find before them an open door. His enemies, despite
their careful plans, find themselves cut off without recourse.
Once we recognize that God knows the way out, our approach to life takes a very different
direction from that of our contemporaries.
• They believe that man is his own last hope. We believe that man's Creator can and does
help him.
• They value the Bible only as a collection of human wisdom, subject to all the
limitations of man himself. We read on its pages the instructions of the Lord God, who
can see the way out of our dilemmas.
• They view a dead end in the maze of life as the ultimate disaster, the result of making
the wrong choices. We know that God sometimes leads his people into dead ends to
show his power by opening doors in blank walls.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Ahab, king of Israel, is a shrewd man, and in conference with his advisors, determines that
the time is right to mount a military campaign against Syria. They want to recapture Ramoth
Gilead, an Israelite city that Syria conquered years before (1 Kings 22:3). He persuades
Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, to accompany him on the expedition. Jehoshaphat asks that they
first seek the Lord's instruction. A military venture is a maze of the worst sort. The adversary is
intelligent, the payoff is uncertain, and the risks are high. Jehoshaphat wants to know what the
maze looks like from heaven's perspective.
Ahab's court prophets give him the answer he wants:
Go up, and the Lord will give [Ramoth-Gilead] into the king's hand (22:6).
Jehoshaphat suspects their motives, and asks for a second opinion. Through Micaiah the son of
Imlah, God announces that the campaign will end in Ahab's death (22:17-23). The narrator
shows us the accuracy of this prediction, for the king of Syria instructs his commanders,
Do not fight with small or with great, but only with the king of Israel (22:31).
Ahab faces a decision. He can heed God's warning, but then he will insult his court prophets,
and appear frightened before his own army. Such a show of weakness could invite a coup. His
other option is to hope that God's warning is not absolute. Perhaps God only means to point out
the general danger of the mission. Surely, if Ahab takes special precautions, he can escape death.
Ahab chooses to trust in his cleverness rather than in God's Word. He persuades Jehoshaphat
to wear his royal robes into battle, while Ahab himself is disguised to avoid recognition (22:30).
As he hopes, the ruse succeeds in drawing the attack toward Jehoshaphat and away from himself,
at least for a while (22:32,33). It seems that he is successful in navigating the maze by himself.
But a near-sighted Syrian soldier, in the excitement of the battle, shoots off an arrow at random,
and it finds its way between the joints of Ahab's armor, where even the most skilled marksman
would have had trouble guiding it (22:34). By evening, Ahab is dead.
Pity Ahab. His is the way of modern man. His world is complex — too complex, certainly, to
be comprehended by the simple absolute revelations of God. After all, what does the Lord know
about military strategies, or the politics of king and court? He hears God just as much as he
pleases, but no more. Then he makes his own decisions and guides his own fate--or so he thinks,
until the path that seemed to promise a way out of the maze ends with a stray arrow.
How different is the campaign on which Moses leads Israel out of Egypt. Moses is every bit
as human as Ahab, as we see in his reluctance before the burning bush (Exod. 3,4). In the end, he
accepts his commission. God sends him to Pharaoh with a simple command: "Let my people go"
(5:1).
Moses is no stranger to Pharaoh's court. He was raised there, as the son of Pharaoh's
daughter. Surely he knows that outright demands are no way to win favors from an oriental
despot, especially if they cost him all of his slaves. Perhaps Moses should just ask for a few
tribes. And a command from the slaves' God is not likely to motivate the Egyptian king. Moses
would do much better to argue that the barracks are overcrowded. But God's command allows no
such finessing.
You shall say to Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD: Israel is my son, my firstborn. And I say to you, 'Let
my son go, that he may serve me. And if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your son, your
firstborn'" (4:22,23).
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Moses carries the message as God commands, and Pharaoh responds as we might expect. He
not only refuses to grant what he considers an insolent request, but increases the load laid on the
Israelites to distract their minds from any further foolishness. The people complain so bitterly to
Moses that he challenges the Lord,
Lord, why have you done evil to this people? Why have you sent me? Ever since I came to Pharaoh to
speak in your name, he has done evil to this people, and you have not delivered your people at all
(5:22,23).
For all that Moses or the elders of Israel can see, God has driven them into a dead end. But God
patiently responds, "Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh" (6:1). And he proceeds to
unleash the ten plagues on the land of Egypt.
Eventually Pharaoh relents, and the people pack up to leave. The Lord guides them along a
route that leads to the shores of the Red Sea. Then Pharaoh, humiliated at having given in, leads
his army out against the refugees. When the Israelites find the sea before them and the Egyptians
at their heels, they once again complain.
Was it for lack of graves in Egypt that you brought us to die in the wilderness? What is this that you
have done to us, to bring us out of Egypt? Wasn't this the word that we spoke to you in Egypt,
saying, "Let us alone, and we will serve Egypt. For it is better for us to serve Egypt than to die in the
wilderness" (14:11,12).
How they wish Moses hadn't been so dogmatic about God's command. Couldn't he just have
allegorized it into a promise of spiritual freedom? If only he hadn't taken God so literally, they
wouldn't be up against this dead end.
By now, Moses has learned that God leads his people into dead ends to show them his power.
He replies,
Don't be afraid. Take your stand, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will perform for you
today. … The LORD shall fight for you; and as for you, you shall be quiet (14:13,14).
They should hold their tongue. How dare they suggest that he should not follow God's
instruction? God has led them into this dilemma. He will lead them out.
And lead them out he does. Like a door in the wall of a maze, a path opens through the Red
Sea. Israel marches across on dry land, and when the Egyptian host tries to pursue them, God
buries them beneath the waters. To this day, Jew and Christian alike remember the victory at the
Red Sea. It was a great victory. It happened only because Moses was not afraid to let God lead
the nation into a dead end in order to show his power.
Where is the way of Ahab? It surrounds us on every side. There are many who say of God's
marriage law, "That's too absolute, too inflexible. We know a better way." They try to bend
God's revelation, trusting more in their own myopic view of the maze than in the overall
perspective that he gives. They agree that, in general, marriage should be permanent. But they
think they know enough to make some exceptions to God's rules. Sadly, they are not wise
enough to avoid the wayward arrows around which God could have guided them.
Where is the God of Moses? He is still here, too. He still gives his people instructions, as he
did to Moses. Sometimes those instructions seem just as foolish and inflexible as did God's
commission for Moses. Yet that commission led straight into a miracle.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 Marriage abounds with dead ends: a couple who cannot agree on how to manage their
money; a husband who beats his wife; a woman who abandons her believing husband and their
children; a newly-saved divorcee who longs for the fellowship of a Christian home. It seems so
easy to find our way out of the maze ourselves. We allow a divorce here, a remarriage there, not
as violations of the biblical law, but as the "exceptions that prove the rule." Ahab's arrow warns
that this way lies disaster.
In fact, "impossible" problems show that God intends to make us part of a miracle. Just when
the path seems most completely blocked, he says to us, as he said to Moses, "Now you shall see
what I will do." Sometimes he works quickly; sometimes slowly. But he will work, if only we do
not interfere.
Don't be afraid. Take your stand, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will perform for you
today.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations
BAG: W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literatures. Chicago: University of Chicago press,
1957.
Other References
Adams, Jay, 1980. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company.
Bernard, J.H., [1967]. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. In W.R. Nicoll, The Expositor's
Greek Testament. Reprinted Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Bruce, F.F., 1977. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Bullinger, E.W., 1898. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.
Republished Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.
Burton, E., 1898. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark (reprint 1966).
Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds., 1977. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelstiftung.
Erlandsson, S., 1974. "baghadh; beghedh." Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. I.
ed. G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans.
Greenberg, Moshe, 1983. Ezekiel 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday.
Heth, William A., 1982. "An Analysis and Critique of the Evangelical Protestant View of
Divorce and Remarriage." ThM Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX.
__________, and Gordon J. Wenham, 1984. Jesus and Divorce. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Hodges, Z.C., and A.L. Farstad, eds., 1982. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority
Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., 1983. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Killen, R., and Rea, J., 1975. "Covenant." Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, ed. C. Pfeiffer, H. Voss,
and J. Rea. Chicago: Moody.
Kitchen, K.A., 1966. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Chicago: Inter-Varsity.
Laney, J. Carl, 1981. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany House.
Luck, William F., 1987. Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View. San Francisco:
Harper and Row.
Morgenstern, Julian, 1929. “Beena Marriage (Matriarchat) in Ancient Israel and its Historical
Implications." ZAW N.F. 6, 91-110.
__________, 1931. "Additional Notes on Beena Marriage (Matriarchat) in Ancient Israel.'" ZAW
N.F. 8, 46-58.
Moule, C.F.D., 1959. An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: University Press.
Murray, John, 1961. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed.
12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM
Neufeld, E., 1944. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Parunak, H.V.D., 1978. Structural Studies in Ezekiel. PhD Dissertation, Department of Near
Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University. University Microfilm 7918211.
__________, 1981. "Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure." Biblica 62: 153-168.
__________, 1982. "Some Axioms for Literary Architecture." Semitics 8: 1-16.
__________, 1983. "Transitional Techniques in the Bible." Journal of Biblical Literature 102:
525-548.
Paul, S., 1969. "Exod. 21:10 A Threefold Maintenance Clause." Journal of Near Eastern Studies
28: 48-53.
Plautz, W., 1963. "Monogamie und Polygynie im Alten Testament." ZAW 75, 3-27.
Steele, Paul E., and Charles C. Ryrie, 1983. Meant to Last. Wheaton: Victor Books.
Watson, Wilfred G.E., 1984. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Wenham, Gordon, 1979. "The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered." Journal of Jewish Studies
30:36-40.
Williams, R., 1967. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Yamauchi, E.M., 1974. "Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac?" Bibliotheca Sacra 131:320-331.
R. Yaron, 1966. "The Restoration of Marriage," Journal of Jewish Studies 17: 1-11.

12/9/2011 10:32:54 PM