In a third of all Christian marriages in the United States at least one of the partners is remarrying. However, in the New Testament remarriage is adultery and the first Christian authors prior to the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) were unanimous in relaying this prohibition of remarriage.
See also Remarriage in Early Christianity (Eerdmans, 2024).
By A. Andrew Das
Department of Religious Studies
Elmhurst University
August 2024
In a third of all Christian marriages in the U.S., at least one of the partners is remarrying. Protestants have historically accepted remarriage for the innocent party of a divorce, as have the Orthodox. Roman Catholics have been urging more sensitive pastoral care for the remarried since the 2016 Amoris Laetitia. Likewise, the ancient world—whether Greco-Roman or Jewish—granted remarriage after divorce. A 1400 BC Middle Assyrian divorce certificate parallels those in the first-century world of Jesus: “[The wife] has received her freedom, and in the future I [the husband] will make no demand on her.” The ca. 200 CE Jewish Mishnah’s prescribed wording for these certificates, required already in the Torah (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), sounded much like the Greek and Roman certificates of the day: “Lo, you are a freedwoman; lo, you belong to yourself.” Divorce entailed a corresponding “freedom” to remarry.
Surprisingly, Augustine in AD 410, in his Faith and Works, says the Lord declares “such marriages [of the divorced] … not marriages but adulteries.” This counter-cultural perspective may be traced to the biblical gospels. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus proclaims: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. Also, if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Christian Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted). For both men and women, to divorce and remarry is categorically adulterous. These shocking verses are embedded within a section of the gospel about the characteristics of discipleship, a section bookended by the healing of two blind men, who in different ways function as stand-ins for the disciples. Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage takes place inside a house, Mark’s way of emphasizing the teaching. (On such private, “secret” teaching of the disciples, see, e.g., Mark 4:11, 34). Living by such teaching will, admittedly, be hard, but God will enable the life of discipleship (Mark 10:26).
In Luke 16:18 Jesus says: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and everyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” For men to divorce and remarry is adulterous, and to marry a divorced woman is adulterous. Jesus does not qualify his teaching for an innocent party. This verse represents emphatic teaching for Luke, who sees the command against adultery as exemplifying what it means to observe the moral strictures of the Law in the new era with Christ; not one stroke of the Law will pass away (Luke 16:16-17; cf. the prominence of the command against adultery in Luke 18:11, 19). The Apostle Paul conveys the same teaching of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: “To the married I give this command—not I, but the Lord—a wife is not to leave her husband. But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband is not to divorce his wife.” (“Leaving” in antiquity would be divorce by separation.) For both men and women, to divorce is to violate the Lord’s command. Jesus nevertheless envisions it happening, in which case a divorced woman is not to remarry, unless to be reconciled to the former spouse. Jesus says nothing about an innocent party in what Paul stresses is the Lord’s command (not Paul’s usual “the Lord says”).
The apostle grants that remarriage is permissible in one instance. Echoing the “freedom” language of the divorce certificates, he writes: “A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to anyone she wants—only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39). The woman enjoying such “freedom” must be a widow. Similarly in Romans 7:2-3: “A married woman is legally bound to her husband while he lives. But if her husband dies, she is released from the law regarding the husband. So then, if she is married to another man while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law. Then, if she is married to another man, she is not an adulteress.” Divorce, again, is prohibited, as is remarriage—as long as the husband lives. Once the husband dies, the wife is (finally) “free.” In their world, the Romans hearing this would have immediately objected that a death is not required, only a divorce. No, says Paul, a death must take place.
Matthew’s Gospel has Jesus (thankfully) offering an exception: “It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce. But I tell you, everyone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (5:31-32). In the Jewish world, men could be considered complicit were they to leave a wife’s adultery unaddressed (for some Jews, divorce was required in these situations), and there was the lively question of a dowry’s potential return. Jesus permits divorce when the wife is adulterous. Otherwise, a husband in divorce would be causing a non-adulterous wife to commit adultery. (“Commit adultery” is how this word in this form is always used in ancient Greek literature.) Why she would be committing adultery is clear by the second half of the verse when Jesus turns to remarriage, a requirement for most divorced women’s survival. Jesus says that to marry a divorced woman is adultery, whether she is innocent or not, divorce certificate in hand or not. No remarriage is permitted. Jesus does not even mention an aggrieved husband’s remarrying. Consequently, in contemplating divorcing his betrothed, Joseph remained a righteous man (Matthew 1:19-25). The Greek word porneia casts the net wider than adultery to include also sexual sin in the betrothal period.
Matthew provides another exception in 19:9 (assuming those ancient texts that have this reading; many good ones do not): “I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” Once again, divorce is adulterous unless the wife is guilty of sexual sin. Does the exception also apply to remarriage? Is remarriage permitted for the innocent party? The exception clause is between the verbs “divorce” and “marry” in an ambiguous construction. Many excellent Matthean commentators have concluded that the exception clause applies only to the stricture against divorce, but not to remarrying (e.g., Donald Hagner, Ulrich Luz, Charles Talbert, Warren Carter, Robert Gundry). All the indicators point to a modification of just the first verb. The placement of the exception clause between the two verbs points as well to a modification of only the first. (A placement after both verbs would indicate applicability to both.) All Matthew’s other exception clauses modify what precedes, as also every instance of a negated preposition. Four out of every five prepositional phrases modify what precede. The understood verb for the exception clause would be what immediately preceded and not also what follows. Matthew could have worded 5:32 differently: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another, except for sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery.” He did not. As a second instance of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage, a Matthean “doublet,” 19:9 parallels Matthew 5:32, which had permitted divorce but not remarriage. Matthean doublets restate the content of the earlier instance or shorten the teaching (e.g., 3:2//4:17; 3:10//7:19; 13:12//25:29; 5:29-30//18:8-9). They do not offer new or different teaching, and thus the exception clause modifies only the first verb. Matthew 19:9 would be consistent with the teaching against remarriage elsewhere in the gospels and Paul, with an exception permitting divorce for sexual sin in Matthew 5:32 and another exception for divorce but not for remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16.
The disciples react in Matthew 19:10: If all this is true, it would be better not to marry. They thought the teaching too difficult, which would be the case if Jesus was not providing for remarriage. Jesus responds to their incredulity: “Not everyone can accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given.” In Matthew 13:11: “To you [the disciples!] it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [on the outside] it has not been given.” In other words, Jesus’s disciples are “given”—they have been empowered to accept this saying in a way that those outside are not. God must give this ability (because of its difficulty!). Jesus will say in the very next (closely-related) paragraph: “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (19:26). Jesus concludes his teaching on divorce and remarriage in 19:12: “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs who were made by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept it should accept it.” Those who have been divorced may not remarry. They have been “made” eunuchs in divorce, but the Lord gives his own the ability to serve him fully as single people. The Apostle Paul will even recommend the single state over marriage in 1 Corinthians 7.
Paul counsels people to satisfy their sexual desires in a marital setting, where spouses are not to deprive each other (1 Corinthians 7:1-6). He does not claim, however, that a divorced spouse may remarry. One man and one woman in marriage have become “one flesh” before God (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16). If a divorce takes place, in view of the Lord’s command in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul would direct the sexually deprived back to their former spouses.
In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 Paul seems, at first, to be permitting remarriage: “I say to the unmarried and to widows: It is good for them if they remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, they should marry, since it is better to marry than to burn with desire.” If the “unmarried” includes the divorced, then the flames of passion and the need for self-control would presumably require them to marry again. This reading, however, is unlikely. Paired with “widow”—and since there was no corresponding word for “widower” in this era of Greek—the word translated here as “unmarried” would be “widowers.” A “widows and widowers” pairing neatly matches the other parallel mutual relations all through vv. 1-16, Remarriage in Early Christianity.
Verse 2 – a man has his own wife, and a wife her husband
Verse 3 – the husband allows conjugal rights to the wife, and vice versa
Verse 4 – the husband has rights over the wife’s body and vice versa
Verses 10-11 – the wife does not separate from the husband and vice versa
Verses 12-13 – the believing husband does not divorce his wife nor the believing wife her husband
Verse 14-15 – the unbelieving husband is made holy by the believing wife as the unbelieving wife by the believing husband.
Verse 16 – the believing wife might save her husband, and believing husband his wife
Thus in vv. 8-9 the same situation is in view: widows and widowers. Roman society put tremendous pressure on both widows and widowers to remarry. Emperor Augustus’s marital legislation restricted the right of inheritance for men who had not married or had children. Widowers between the ages of 25 and 60 were required to remarry at once. A reference to widowers alongside widows would also avoid inconsistencies with the rest of the chapter, especially with vv. 10-11 that require singleness after divorce. Paul does not mention the betrothed/engaged “unmarried” until v. 36. When Paul does explicitly discuss remarriage, he allows it for widows in v. 39.
Advocates of remarriage point especially to what is called the “Pauline Permission” in 1 Corinthians 7:15: “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. God has called you to live in peace.” In these instances, the believer is “not bound.” Many have concluded that not being bound entails a corresponding freedom to remarry, but is that conclusion justified? Often unnoticed goes the fact that Paul never even mentions remarriage in vv. 12-16. He does not actually use the words “not bound” as he does for a wife’s permission to marry again in v. 39 and in Romans 7:2-3 in instances where the husband has died. Had Paul used “not bound” in 7:15, thus echoing 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3, such language would have rendered more likely a permission to remarry. Nor does Paul use the distinctive “freedom” language of the divorce certificates (unlike for the widow in 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3). In other words, Paul’s not using “bound” and “free” appears to be a deliberate avoidance of the very language necessary for the conclusion many moderns are making. Paul is not contradicting in his opinion what the Lord commanded in vv. 10-11: divorced spouses are to remain single. No freedom to remarry should be assumed.
Instead, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:15 that the believer is not “enslaved.” “Enslaved” to what? Elsewhere Paul describes being enslaved under Moses’s Law. Here, he describes another law-like command: not to divorce. Note the repeated emphasis throughout vv. 10-15:
To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—a wife is not to leave [divorce] her husband. But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband is not to divorce his wife. But I (not the Lord) say to the rest: If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce her husband. FOR…” [why there is to be no divorce]. … But if the unbeliever leaves.…
The repeated “command” here sounds like those of Moses’s Law. Paul then says in v. 15 that the believer is “not enslaved,” clearly to the repeated command not to divorce. If the unbeliever insists, God’s call is to peace. The believer is to let the unbeliever divorce. Paul offers no provision for remarriage. For that matter, the Stoics and Cynics of Paul’s day would use slavery language to describe the marital relationship as they advocated for an unencumbered state. In view of that cultural background, to leave an enslaved state behind would be better than to enter a new enslaved state. All one has in vv. 12-16 is permission to let the unbeliever follow through with the divorce. In vv. 10-11 Jesus had forbidden divorce but envisioned it nevertheless taking place, in which case there is no provision to remarriage. Paul forbids divorce but envisions it when the unbeliever insists. He too does not provide for remarriage. Jesus and Paul agree.
Some have found permission for remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28: “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. [28] However, if you do get married, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.” Is this “release” from a wife, i.e., in a divorce, followed by a potential remarriage? That conclusion too is problematic. First, Paul signals a new topic in v. 25, the betrothed/engaged and not divorce/remarriage. Second, Paul says in v. 25 that he does not have a command of the Lord about the matters he is writing about, but the Lord did forbid remarriage in vv. 10-11 (the topic here must be different). Third, the language of “bound” was normal for betrothal contracts, another hint that these verses pertain to the betrothed and not the divorced. Fourth, “loosed” or “released” was never used in antiquity for divorce. Fifth, Paul continues his balanced pairings even in the latter half of 1 Corinthians 7 (with two necessary exceptions). Thus the virgin who marries is balanced by a never-married man marrying in the first part of v. 28, and not a divorced man assumed from v. 27. Verse 28 would make no sense had v. 27 been about divorce. In a paragraph about virgins (v. 25), these verses are about whether a man engaged to a woman should follow through with the marriage or be released from it. If he marries her, it is not a sin; and if the virgin (!) marries, she has not sinned.
Perhaps the “unmarried woman” may be distinguished from the “virgin” in v. 34 as someone formerly married (widows are not until v. 39). Is Paul telling the divorced that to marry again is not a sin? More likely, he is distinguishing the unmarried virgins from betrothed virgins, as per the topic introduced in v. 25, or he could be modifying or even identifying the “unmarried woman” as virginal. Paul therefore contrasts the married and unmarried states but does not permit remarriage. He will turn to a permission to marry in vv. 36-38, for the engaged man with his betrothed. He allows remarriage in v. 39, but only for the widow.
Paul says that people are to stay as they are, wherever they find themselves. He then explicitly says where people may change their circumstances: A Christian may allow the unbelieving partner’s divorce to proceed (1 Corinthians 7:12-16). A slave may accept freedom if it is offered (1 Corinthians 7:17-24). An engaged man may marry his betrothed (7:32-35). A widow may remarry (7:39). Paul does not provide a corresponding permission for the divorced to remarry. All that remains is the Lord’s emphatic “command” to remain single or be reconciled.
To conclude, divorce is adulterous sin in the NT unless the spouse is already guilty of adultery or is insisting on divorce as an unbeliever (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15). Remarriage is adultery (Mark 10:10-11; Luke 16:18; Matthew 5:32). Matthew 19:9 offers a possible exception to remarriage as adultery in cases of a partner’s sexual sin, but the grammatical indicators all point otherwise. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 7 sanctions remarriage as Paul conveys the Lord’s command against it. The first Christian authors prior to Nicaea were unanimous in relaying this prohibition of remarriage.