Friday, November 28, 2008

Until Death To Us Part: Is Remarriage Biblically Sanctioned After Divorce?

By Finny Kuruvilla
November 6, 2006 (last revised October 29, 2008)


Divorce is perhaps the most painful wound a family can experience. After the initial trauma, its scars run deep and wide. Most of us know several people close to us who have gone through a divorce, even while in their twenties or thirties. The question for examination at present is whether remarriage to another person is biblically permissible after divorce, while the former spouse is living. After surveying the question from historical and biblical perspectives, pastoral implications will be explored.

Historical perspectives

In most of today's churches, the question of "Can remarriage be biblically allowed after divorce?" is met with an overwhelming answer of "Yes." In fact, few have heard or considered the alternative view that remarriage is biblically prohibited after divorce while the former spouse lives.

Because of the dominance of this view today, the historic views of the church surprise most who have not studied this subject. Wenham and Heth in their book Jesus and Divorce offer a helpful survey of the early patristic writings on divorce and remarriage. They note that in the first five centuries of church history, there was essential unanimity of the Greek (Eastern) and Latin (Western) church fathers in viewing remarriage as adultery. Such writers include early Greek fathers such as Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen and later Greek writers such as Basil, Gregory, Nazianzus, Appollinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom. The early Greek writers should be heavily weighed since they knew Koine Greek as their mother tongue and thus understood the nuances of the New Testament language better than anyone could today. Of the early church writers who wrote in Latin, a similar picture exists: Tertullian, Ambrose, Innocent, Jerome, and Augustine concurred that remarriage after divorce is biblically forbidden. Only one writer, Ambrosiaster, who wrote in the late fourth century, disagreed. It has been noted, however, that Ambrosiaster permitted remarriage for innocent men but not women. He also appears to be strongly influenced by Roman law which was quite permissive about remarriage. Yet the overall picture is very clear about the beliefs of the early church, "In all, twenty-five individual writers and two early councils forbid remarriage after divorce" (Wenham and Heth, p. 38).

The contrast in views on remarriage between the early church and most modern churches is therefore stark. Anytime there is a clear disagreement between the modern and early church view, we should pause and proceed with great caution. Ultimately the biblical witness stands as the final arbiter of truth. Yet we must be conscious that we often read the bible through the lens of our own era. One writer notes about Protestants who claim sola scriptura:

For their interpretation is, for the most part, unconsciously, conditioned to a large extent by the Christian education and environment from which they come -- that is, by the tradition (here used in the customary meaning of the word) of their particular denomination. A great part of the differences in exegesis among them is to be explained by different doctrinal presuppositions. 1 Such an insight motivates a careful reading of the church fathers, outside of our own time and culture, lest we be blinded in self-deception. Martin Bucer, one of the leaders of the Reformation in Southern Germany, wrote, "Nothing should be hastily repudiated that is commended to us by holy antiquity or by the public consensus of the faithful during so many centuries." He also wrote, "I judge that those most holy ancient Fathers should be regarded with the highest esteem and singular reverence paid to the doctrines that they taught and the customs that they observed..."2 Lastly, James Dunn offers a valuable hermeneutic principle, "If those closer to the thought world of Paul and closer to the issue... show no inkling of the current interpretation, that interpretation is probably wrong."3 With this contrast between the early and modern views fixed in the background, an examination of the biblical texts is now in order.
Relevant biblical texts

Most of the verses contained in the New Testament appear to be quite plainly opposed to remarriage after divorce. These passages merit careful reading:

And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12)

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18)

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2-3)
Looking at these passages in turn, Mark records a saying of Jesus that is perfectly symmetric: if either the husband or wife divorce and remarry, he or she is guilty of adultery. It should be noted that there is no qualification about the reason for divorce. Luke records a saying with the same first half as Mark, but the saying goes on to note that whoever marries the divorced woman is also guilty of adultery. Luke's additional recording (16:18b) implies that neither spouse may remarry after divorce, neither the "guilty" nor "innocent" party. The gospels of Mark and Luke were written for a predominantly Gentile audience that would have been familiar with Greco-Roman laws. Such laws were quite permissive about divorce: either the husband or wife could initiate divorce for any reason, including sexual immorality. The words against divorce and remarriage from either gospel thus would have been heard as profoundly counter-cultural.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, notes that neither the wife nor husband should initiate divorce or separation. If it had already occurred, the Christian should remain "unmarried or else be reconciled." This is entirely consistent with Mark and Luke, in that all three passages forbid remarriage to another person. The fourth passage in Romans teaches that unless a spouse dies, the marital bond persists.

The gospel of Matthew records Jesus' teachings on this issue in two separate locations:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:9)
Scholars nearly unanimously acknowledge Matthew's gospel to be primarily for a Jewish audience, unlike the gospels of Mark and Luke. Its internal structure, vocabulary, and contextual assumptions presume a reader with a Jewish background and sensibilities. The first text in Matthew given above comes from the Sermon on the Mount, and is similar to the saying that Luke records. The verse is preceded by Jesus' statement that a man who looks at a woman lustfully is considered guilty of adultery. It is remarkable that throughout this section Jesus puts the focus of blame onto the man, especially considering that in the Old Testament, the focus of blame was usually on the woman. In Matthew 5:32a, a new aspect of Jesus' teaching is presented: if the man divorces his wife, then this makes her commit adultery. While not initially obvious why this would be true, this statement almost certainly flows from the assumption that social and economic pressures would force the woman to be remarried. In this case, the man is culpable for the woman's sin by practically forcing her into this adulterous situation. Matthew 5:32b does not qualify the reason for the woman's divorce but simply notes that whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery. The entire passage (Matthew 5:27-32) thus progresses through a crescendo of events: lust in the mind, looking lustfully, sinning with the hands, divorce, adultery by proxy, and finally actual adultery.

Why does Matthew have the phrase, "except for sexual immorality," that Mark and Luke lack? A critical detail of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 revolves around the exception clause containing the Greek word porneia, an umbrella term for sexual immorality and rarely used for adultery.4 The specific term for adultery, moicheia, was not chosen. Two plausible explanations exist for this word choice of porneia (sexual immorality) instead of moicheia (adultery). Both relate to Matthew's Jewish audience:

Explanation 1 - The betrothal view

At the beginning of his gospel Matthew notes that while Joseph and Mary were engaged and Mary was found to be pregnant, Joseph, "being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly" (Matthew 1:19). Because engagement in the biblical period was nearly as profound a commitment as actual marriage, it would have required a divorce for Joseph to break his promise of engagement and not marry. Matthew selected a saying of Jesus with the exception clause which reflects the view that what Joseph pondered doing as a betrothed man would have been lawful. Joseph thought that the unmarried Mary did not commit adultery (moicheia) but immorality (porneia), and hence his decision to divorce would have been acceptable. Proponents of this view believe that Matthew is addressing a situation like the one Joseph thought he was in: premarital sex during the betrothal period. John Piper, a prominent Christian author and teacher, while preaching through the Gospel of Luke, courageously changed his mind from the modern permissive view of remarriage to the view of the early church. Espousing the betrothal view understanding of Matthew's gospel, Piper's sermons on the subject are worthy reading: Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery (January 1, 1986) and A Statement on Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper (July 21, 1986).

Explanation 2 - The rabbinic view (also called the unlawful marriage view or the consanginous marriage view) 

The practice of consanginous or unlawful marriages was banned in the Old Testament (see Leviticus 18:6-18). Tertullian puts the context of Jesus' teaching on divorce with John the Baptist's denunciation of Herod's marriage to Herodias, his brother Philip's wife (Matthew 14:3-4). It is possible that the confrontation that the Pharisees instigated in Matthew 19 was over this very issue (also see Wenham and Heth, p. 157). This usage of the word porneia also perfectly fits Paul's usage of the word in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where a man is described to be sleeping with his father's wife. In this view, the marriage itself was unlawful from the beginning and can be dissolved. Similarly to how John the Baptist urged Herod to not continue to be married to Herodias, proponents of this view state that Jesus was allowing for an unlawful marriage to be terminated.

It is difficult to decide precisely which of the two options to take, as both have clear merits, but either option nicely harmonize with the wider context of Matthew, and with the specifically Jewish character of his audience. It may be that Matthew has both situations in mind. However, in neither case is remarriage ever sanctioned, as the second part of both verses clearly attest. In fact, even if one rejects both explanations, remarriage is still not permitted from the second part of both verses. The qualification "except in the case of sexual immorality" is applied to the first verb (divorce), and not to the entire clause (divorce and marries another).

The second text in Matthew where Jesus addresses this subject (quoted above) comes from a more extended passage on marriage and divorce:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." (Matthew 19:3-12)
Consistent with Matthew's Jewish focus, many commentators view this passage as the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus by forcing him to adjudicate between the views of Hillel and Shammai, two prominent rabbis. Hillel thought that a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all, including for unsatisfactory cooking. Shammai, in contrast, thought that the only reason for divorce was adultery. While this may have been the Pharisees' motivation, Jesus appears to undercut the question altogether by arguing that divorce goes against something far more fundamental, the one flesh union that God himself has forged (19:5-6).

The disciple's astonishment at Jesus' reply bolsters the case for taking the teachings in Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and Romans 7:2-3 at face value: Jesus is teaching that divorce should never be initiated by his followers and that marriage is binding for life. The disciples incredulous reply of "it is better not to marry" makes perfect sense with this context: Jesus was teaching that a person's marital status irrevocably depended on the other spouse's behavior, a seemingly precarious situation. Jesus thus does not side with one Pharasaic school versus another, but stands outside the debate altogether. Matthew includes the same "exception clause" as before in 5:32, which, as above, is best explained by either the betrothal view or the rabbinic (consanginous) view.

There is one last passage that must be addressed before claiming complete coherence amongst texts in the New Testament: the so-called "Pauline privilege" text:

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. (1 Corinthians 7:15)
Several translations such as the NASB, ESV, KJV here translate the negated verb (ou dedoulotai) accurately as "not enslaved" or "not under bondage." Other translations such as the HCSB, NIV, or NRSV use "not bound," which misses the main force of the verb as conveying bondage and slavery. The exact meaning of this word is debated, so it is probably best for neither side to lean on the text too heavily. However, in the context, it appears that Paul is saying that a believer is not held captive to the demands of the nonbeliever after abandonment. Earlier in the chapter Paul argued that normally in marriage, the body of either spouse belonged to the other (1 Corinthians 7:4), language very similar to mutual "slavery." 1 Cor 7:15 thus implies that when the unbelieving spouse leaves, he or she forfeits conjugal rights or any other claim over the abandoned spouse. The abandoned spouse is simply no longer expected to submit to the departed spouse. In contrast, while married, the believing spouse is supposed to submit, precisely as a means to win him to the Lord (see 1 Peter 3:1-2). But after abandonment, a believer should not endure conflict and subjugation but rather live in "peace." The verb douloo (from which dedoulotai comes) is never used in the New Testament to describe a marriage bond, so it is exegetically unwarranted to claim that by being "not enslaved" Paul is now saying that the person is now free to remarry. Paul would have surely used another word in that case, or explicitly stated the freedom to remarry. Especially in the light of verses 10 and 11 where Paul requires either celibacy or reconciliation, this view makes the best sense of the passage. Thus this verse should be taken as a comfort to those who have been abandoned, not to despair but to realize that they are no longer "under bondage."
Putting all the pieces together, we have tight coherence with all the New Testament texts. To summarize thus far:

Marriage is a covenantal relationship that is binding until the death of one of the marriage partners (Romans 7:2-3).
Remarriage after divorce is tantamount to adultery for either spouse (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18).
Given the context, Matthew's exception clause probably refers to either immorality during betrothal, unlawful marriages, or both (Matthew 1:19, 5:32, 14:3-4, 19:9).
Christians are commanded to not separate or divorce; if it has already occurred they should remain celibate or be reconciled (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). If a nonbelieving spouse leaves, the Christian is not obligated to submit again to the departing spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15).
These truths are neatly woven together in most Christian wedding vows, where each spouse promises fidelity until death, a fact that we should not quickly pass over, no matter what the actions of the other person. When I was married, like most, I took a vow that I would stay committed to my wife "as long as we both shall live" and "until death do us part." We should not treat this language as flighty romantic language (few who utter those words at the time do anyway), but as a covenantal, weighty language. Those who have taken this vow before God and before man and do well to honor their word.

Critique of the modern view

The prevailing view that remarriage is biblically permitted if adultery has occurred originated near the time of the Renaissance and is sometimes called the Erasmian view, since Erasmus was the first major writer to advocate the view. Erasmus was responding to excesses in the Catholic understanding of marriage, and many figures of the Reformation rapidly adopted this understanding. This view has percolated down to many modern churches (see Wenham and Heth, chapters 3 and 4, for a historical summary).

The modern view, however, is fraught with problems and inconsistencies. The first major problem is that "he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18b) and "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32b) say, at a bare minimum, that remarriage for at least some people is wrong. This is typically handled by saying that the "guilty" party can never remarry, but that the "innocent" party can. (Sometimes the distinction between guilty and innocent is blurry or disputed, but this remains another issue.) Allowing the innocent party to remarry contradicts the overwhelming evidence in Matthew 5:27-32 that the man is the guilty party and not the "divorced woman." However, even allowing for this error, another major inconsistency arises. If the guilty party cannot remarry without being adulterous because he or she is still united to the former spouse (the only way to plausibly interpret the word "adultery"), then the former spouse must also still be connected to the guilty spouse. If the innocent spouse is free to remarry, then he or she becomes a bigamist after remarriage, because of the persistent bond with the guilty party.

In the New Testament, we learn that that the "two becoming one flesh" is a mystery but actually represents Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-33). The husband, like Christ, represents the head, and the wife, like the church, represents the body. Husbands are called to "love their wives as their own bodies" (Eph 5:28) and wives are called to regard their husband as "head" (Eph 5:22). The bond between husband and wife may be dissolved legally (as Moses permitted), but not in essence. The husband who abuses or cheats on his wife is sinning precisely because the martial bond persists. If adultery dissolved the marital bond, then it could not be called adultery since adultery implies violation of an existing marital relationship. The true marital bond can be dissolved as easily as the head can be removed from the body. Can the head find a new body or the body a new head? The marital union is humanly unbreakable -- only God can sovereignly break it by death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:2-3). This was precisely why Jesus answered the question of the Pharisees in the manner that he did; they entirely misunderstood what they were asking about. Those who teach and practice that the marital bond can be humanly broken contradict the witness of Christ's love for his church, the ultimate unbreakable union: Christ in the church, and the church in Christ.

Thus we are left with the typical modern interpretation of these passages as being slippery, illogical, and out of step with individual verses as well as larger themes of the bible. Only the interpretation of the early church of these verses appears viable: remarriage for either spouse is biblically prohibited. A few modern expositors courageously agree with this interpretation: John Piper, Gordon Wenham, Charles Ryrie, and John Stott are a few well known and respected figures who similarly believe that remarriage is biblically prohibited while the former spouse is still alive. The "no remarriage" position is also the historic and present view of the Catholic Church.

Pastoral application

Based on the biblical witness, those who have experienced a divorce should be counseled to remain single or be reconciled with their former spouse, assuming that the former spouse is still unmarried. This counsel merely follows 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Should reconciliation fail (or be unadvisable as in the case of persistent abuse or the case of the former spouse being remarried), lifelong singleness may seem like a bitter pill, but when wedded to the Lord, it should be an fruitful and joyful time to be in undivided ministry. Andrew Cornes' book on this subject (see the references at the end) is outstanding reading for any in the position of being divorced and now single.

Now we come to the thorny question of how to counsel a person who is already in a second marriage. Many modern advocates of the "no remarriage" view advocate expressing sorrow for the remarriage but then to remain in the marriage that a person now finds himself or herself in. This view is certainly pastorally more palatable than the alternative counsel to view the second marriage as adulterous. However, others state that such an application betrays the very heart of the argument for not remarrying. If the first marriage is binding while both spouses live, then are not any subsequent sexual unions or marriages adulterous against that original marriage? Some reject this application because it seems too extreme and too hard to ask any family to face.

But we should not reject a potential principle of God's word because of its harsh implications, particularly when devout people across diverse traditions throughout church history have practiced those very implications. (For examples from the Reformed as well as Anabaptist traditions, see the references at the end.)

My own heart breaks at writing this section, but I do so out of a genuine concern for those who claim Christ as their Savior and Lord, but may be living in sin. I tremble when contemplating what Paul wrote,

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
My wife recently met at a local church a woman who was married to a man who had been previously married and divorced. After feeling convicted by the Scriptures, and despite many attendant troubles, this woman left her marriage and now lives a single and celibate life. My wife and I were stunned at hearing about this, and I first dismissed it as ludicrous by saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

However, on further reflection, her decision was sensible given this permanent view of marriage argued for above. An analogy illustrates the fallacy of the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument in this setting: Imagine the situation of a gang member. He has pledged loyalty to the gang, which involves sinful acts that he does not initially understand. Sometime later he questions his initial pledge. Is he permitted to leave?

Nearly all would agree that the gang member should break his pledge and leave. In this case, keeping his word would spawn further sinful actions. We are bound to fulfill our promises insofar as our promises are not sinful. Similarly with marriage, uniting with another person while the first spouse lives is a violation of another promise and another union. This would imply that it should be dissolved.

This principle was apparent to Ezra, the great scribe who reformed the Jewish community who returned to Jerusalem after exile. "For Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel" (Ezra 7:10). In Ezra chapters 9-10, he takes part in dissolving the marriages of those Jews who had married with non-Jews. Wenham and Heth write (p. 163):

The situation described in Ezra 9 and 10 is often set forth as the classic example of one in which the lesser of two evils had to be chosen: divorce is a lesser evil than the destruction of the Jewish people. This can only be said, however, if Ezra looked upon these connections as real marriages. All the evidence indicates that he did not. As early as 1890, George Rawlinson observed:
It is quite clear that [Ezra] read the Law as absolutely prohibitive of mixed marriages (Ezra ix. 10-14) -- i.e., as not only forbidding their inception, but their continuance. Strictly speaking, he probably looked upon them as unreal marriages, and so as no better than ordinary illicit connections. For the evils which flow from such unions, those who make them, and not those who break them, are responsible.

In Ezra's eyes this was not a question of breaking up legitimate marriages but of nullifying those which were contrary to the law. This is further suggested by the two Hebrew words Ezra chose to describe these 'marriages' (nasa and yasab) and the 'divorce' terminology he employs. Ezra 'was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses' (Ezra 7:6). He studied, practiced, and taught it in Israel (v. 10). Yet he employs out-of-the-ordinary terminology to describe the 'marrying' ('taking') and the 'divorcing' ('sending away') of these women. Furthermore, how could these Israelites have made a covenant with God (Ezra 10:3) to put away their legal 'wives' if it is true that Scripture portrays marriage as a covenant made between husband and wife in the presence of God? Ezra's prayer seems to indicate further that 'intermarriage' had not yet actually taken place (cf. Ezra 9:2 with 9:14).

The scene in Ezra 10 breaks hearts as families are divided. Yet Ezra led the people of God into a repentance that was more than mere words. He saw this as necessary to restore the Jewish people into right standing with God (see his prayer in Ezra 9:6-15). David Engelsma, professor at Protestant Reformed Seminary, writes about repentance that bears fruit:

There is, to be sure, forgiveness for those who have committed adultery, wickedly divorced, and remarried. But there is forgiveness only in the way of repentance. And true repentance never goes on happily in the sin repented of (e.g. sleeping with another man's wife) but rather breaks with the sin, whatever the cost...

Grace calls and empowers the forgiven sinner to walk in holiness of life. The divorced man may not remarry. Grace will enable him to live a single life. Grace calls those who are already remarried to stop living in that state that Jesus describes in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 as continual adultery. Grace will enable the repentant, pardoned adulterer and adulteress to do this. It is the very nature of the grace of repentance itself that the sinners breaks with the sin that he sorrows over and confesses. The penitent brings forth works worthy of repentance. Only this repentance is genuine. Only this repentance finds forgiveness with God, regardless of what the churches may say. 5 From my perspective, the application of this teaching may be the single most difficult expression of repentance in the entire bible. The following passage surely bears on this application:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37-38) God has lovingly given a special grace to those who have been through a divorce. Matthew notes this grace in the portion of a text examined above:

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it. (Matthew 19:12) 

Jesus notes that some "have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven," probably in reference to those who had experienced divorce (verse 10) and then choose to remain celibate. God can be a husband to the lonely woman, and the source of consolation to the lonely man. I am aware of the children that are implicated in such a situation, and thinking of them may present the greatest temptation to abandon this position of no remarriage. But I also believe that God provides the grace to meet any situation in which we sacrifice in order to obey his word. If done with God's grace, then could this not give children a deeper understanding of the binding nature of marital commitment and of God's love for his church? Moreover, in Christian community and service, the advantages of being single can come to fruition, expressed in a life wedded to the Lord. Ultimately all earthly marriage is transitory (Matthew 22:30), and only the marriage of Christ to his bride endures. May we conduct ourselves in this world in light of that enduring union.

References and additional reading:

On the general subject of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, one can find a "scholarly" book that supports virtually any position one desires. (I wrote this essay while reading several dissenting views by prominent scholars.) My plea to those impacted by this subject is not to necessarily believe status quo in the church today. It was prophesied in the New Testament that savage wolves would come into the flock, and speak "twisted things" to draw people after themselves (Acts 20:29-30). Very few have studied the Greek and historical context to critically evaluate the nuanced readings that various writers have advanced which favor the more permissive stances. But despite the confusion on this issue, God can lead the one who is truly contrite in heart who says, "not my will but yours be done." I hope that any who go against the views of this essay will carefully read the references below (especially the first two) with an open mind. These references stand against the mainstream, but I strongly believe represent the pure teachings of Christ.

Marriage-Divorce-Remarriage: (free online reading; editorials from the Standard Bearer) An impassioned defense from a Reformed perspective of the no remarriage view, by Professor David Engelsma of Protestant Reformed Seminary. Engelsma has also written a book called Marriage: The Mystery of Christ and the Church (Reformed Free Pub. Association, 1998) which details Scriptural reasons for viewing marriage as "unbreakable" and how grace may empower holy living. Reading his essay would be an excellent next step in delving deeper. Engelsma concurs that dissolution of subsequent marriages is the the only cogent biblical expression of repentance of adultery. He is a member of a denomination (Presbyterian Reformed Churches) founded by Herman Hoeksema, who called Reformed churches everywhere to return to the "unbreakable" marriage view he saw taught in Scripture and by the early church fathers.
Much of this work is based on Jesus and divorce by Wenham and Heth, Paternoster press (2002). It is the most detailed defense of the no remarriage view that I have found; I strongly recommend it. This book thoroughly refutes the work of Craig Keener, David Instone-Brewer, and others who allow divorce and remarriage. My essay was also influenced by Wenham's piece in Remarriage and Divorce in Today's Church (2006).
A woman's testimony The online testimony of a woman who repented of a second marriage, why she did so, what she did, and what convinced her to do something so dramatic.
http://www.rodstaff.com/ This website for an Anabaptist publisher has a number of pamphlets and booklets on the subject of divorce and remarriage. The publications argue for the view of no remarriage, with a great deal of practical application. (Conservative Anabaptist churches have preserved the strict "no remarriage" view of the early church in their current practice. They also advocate dissolving subsequent marriages, and believe that this is a salvation issue.)
Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice by Andrew Cornes (1993). Recommended by John Stott as "indispensable reading for everybody who is anxious to develop a Christian mind on these topics," the author is an Anglican vicar who makes a strong case that marriage is indissoluble and that all remarriage is adultery while the former spouse is living. (Cornes therefore calls on the Church of England to change its current practice.) He points out how remarriage is a poor substitute for the singleness God intends for the divorced person. Indeed, singleness can be a state that draws a person closer to God as the person becomes wedded to God. This book has particularly strong pastoral merits.
Footnotes:
E. Flesseman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Van Gorcum's Theologische Bibliotheek 26; Assen, Neth.: Van Gorcum, 1954) 9. Quoted in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 19
D.F. Wright, ed., Common Places of Martin Bucer (Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics 4; Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay, 1972) 40-1. Quoted in Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 21
James Dunn The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Eerdmans (1998), p. 704 quoted in David Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Academic (2003), p. 395.
The word porneia is translated "sexual immorality" (ESV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB), unchastity (RSV, NRSV), or fornication (KJV). Of these, "sexual immorality" is closest to the accepted lexical range of the word. "Unchastity" and "fornication" are not far off the mark, but are a bit unclear. The NIV, however, translates porneia as "marital unfaithfulness," a bold and somewhat misleading interpretation. This has been corrected in the TNIV to be "sexual immorality." As a related point, for any study on marriage it is best not to use the NIV but instead use the ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NET or HCSB due to some faulty translation decisions that the NIV committee made. The NIV makes at least two other important translation errors in New Testament marriage texts. First, it translates "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:12) as "others have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." This interprets the Greek in a sense that seems to address remaining celibate for life, while the actual sentence is about becoming celibate after not being celibate. Second, it translates, "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Cor 7:1, NASB) as "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry." "Touch a woman" represents a euphemism for sexual relations (cf the ESV), and thus the NIV wrongly translates this as involving marriage. This mistranslation leads to misinterpretation of Paul's argument in the early part of the chapter.
David Engelsma, Marriage: The Mystery of Christ and the Church. Reformed Free Publishing Association: Grandville, MI (1998), p. 206 and 228.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.