Introduction
Let me cut to the chase and give my interpretation of Jesus’ teachings regarding divorce and remarriage that will redefine what it means to be a Christian man in the year 2026 AD. This topic must take top priority in theological discussions among Protestants and there needs to be a unanimous consensus in interpretation across the Christendom.
My current interpretation is this:
- God made a concession and tolerated divorce under the Mosiac laws. When Jesus was asked on his opinion on divorce, he bluntly redefined Marriage on the basis of Genesis 2:24.
- Jesus’ new definition is as follows: God made man and woman from the beginning. A man leaves his parents to cling to his wife and two become one flesh; let no man separate what God has joined together.
- Jesus then issued new laws to PREVENT separation and ENFORCE unions; Both participants of a marriage commit adultery against either of their living divorced spouses
- Remarriage (when one’s ex-spouse is alive) is a perpetual state of sin
- Adultery is a sin that if left unrepentant, would leave someone unable to inherit the kingdom of heaven
- The most difficult point to grasp is that NEITHER adultery NOR abandonment that dissolved the previous marriage exonerates your remarriage from sin
- Therefore we must have a clear understanding of how a marriage is formed, REDEFINE DIVORCE to work within Jesus’ restrictions, we must IMPLEMENT an “Ecclesiastical” COURT to moderate romance and maintain divorcees’ ability to reconcile with their ex spouses, and we MUST NOT TOLERATE remarriages among those with living ex-spouses.
The last point cannot be stressed enough; designing an accountability layer in the form of a Christian judicial system to moderate marital woes so that couples are given the space to separate if needed but maintain the opportunity to reconcile and prevent others from interfering. However, to get to this point, we need to be on the same page that remarriage is a grave sin against the living spouse and need to recognize that we humans do not have the authority to dissolve marriages once they’ve been formed. I include this last part ("once they’re formed) because in the book of Matthew, there’s a single exception clause Jesus gives to dissolve a marriage and allow both parties to remarry without consequence which gives a little bit of wiggle room within the strictness of marriage.
This article is a onestop shop for an overview of the discussion of remarriage and Jesus’ laws. While not all things will be discussed, there are numerous links and sources to cover what is not covered in this article.
I recommend reading through the article first before reading through the sources.
I will first kick off the article with some relevant verses on divorce from the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition and copied over from https://www.biblegateway.com/ which admittedly paints the verses in favor of my interpretation (Specifically Matthew 19:9). I will also post the King James Version copied over from the Selah application for MacOS. But I will address other translations’ discrepancies later in this essay.
Relevant Verses To Be Analyzed
Genesis 2:24 King James Version
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
===============
Matthew 5:31-32 RSVCE
<31> “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ <32> But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity,[h] makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Footnotes:
h. 5.32 unchastity: The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages that were not legally marriages because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev 18.6-16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase “except on the ground of unchastity” does not occur in the parallel passage in Lk 16.18. See also Mt 19.9 (Mk 10.11-12), and especially 1 Cor 7.10-11 which shows that the prohibition is unconditional.
Matthew 5:31-32 King James Version
<31> It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: <32> But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
===============
Matthew 19:3-12 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
<3> And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” <4> He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, <5> and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? <6> So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” <7> They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” <8> He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. <9> And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,[a] and marries another, commits adultery.”[b]
<10> The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” <11> But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. <12> 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. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
Footnotes
a. Matthew 19:9 Other ancient authorities, after unchastity, read
makes her commit adultery
b. Matthew 19:9 Other ancient authorities insertand he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery
Matthew 19:3-12 King James Version
<3> The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? <4> And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, <5> And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? <6> Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. <7> They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? <8> He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. <9> And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
<10> His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. <11> But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. <12> For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
===============
Mark 10:2-12 RSVCE
<2> And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” <3> He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” <4> They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” <5> But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. <6> But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ <7> ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,[a] <8> and the two shall become one.’[b] So they are no longer two but one.[c] <9> What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
<10> And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. <11> And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; <12> and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Footnotes
a. Mark 10:7 Other ancient authorities omit
and be joined to his wife
b. Mark 10:8 Greekone flesh
c. Mark 10:8 Greekone flesh
Mark 10:2-12 King James Version
<2> And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. <3> And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? <4> And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. <5> And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. <6> But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. <7> For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; <8> And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. <9> What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. <10> And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. <11> And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. <12> And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
===============
Luke 16:18 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Luke 16:18 King James Version
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
===============
1 Corinthians 7:8-16 RSVCE
<8> To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. <9> But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
<10> To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)—and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
<12> To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. <13> If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. <14> For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. <15> But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us[b] to peace. <16> Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
Footnotes
a. 1 Corinthians 7:15 Other ancient authorities read
you
1 Corinthians 7:8-16 King James Version
<8> I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. <9> But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. <10> And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: <11> But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. <12> But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. <13> And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. <14> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. <15> But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. <16> For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
===============
Romans 7:1-3 RSVCE
<1> Do you not know, brethren—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during his life? <2> Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. <3> 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 7:1-3 King James Version
<1> 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? <2> 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. <3> So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Quick Thoughts on the verses
In verse 9 for Matthew 19, save for this “unchastity” clause or “fornication” clause in the King James version which will be addressed later in this essay, Jesus makes it clear that if you divorce your wife and remarry, you commit adultery. What? Is he insane? If a woman marries an abusive man and another man rescues her from the relationship and they have a happily ever after story, God will condemn him AND her? Even his own disciples were so shocked that they concluded that you might as well not get married at all.
And Matthew 5:32 verse took place in a sermon on a mountain in a previous chapter prior to his teachings with the Pharisees. Is it possible that the disciples thought he was exaggerating at the sermon of the mount and didn’t realize he was being serious?
The verses for Matthew regarding the unchastity clause are translated in other versions as “sexual immoraliy” for a number of biblical scholars and theologians to cling to hope of being able to dissolve a marriage because of adultery. They are wrong. They also reference the verses in 1 Corinthians to justify remarriage if someone departs from the Christian religion. They are wrong.
Cultural Context on the Argument with the Pharisees
The Pharisees asked Jesus about valid reasons to divorce as there were two major schools of thought within the culture, the Hillel and Shammai. First and foremost, only the wife could commit adultery against the husband. The opposite simply didn’t exist. Now Shammaites followed the instruction that it’s permissible to divorce one’s wife upon finding “indecency”, essentially adultery. Hillelites were far more liberal where one could divorce his wife over food, failing to uphold a vow, or even speaking to another man in public.
Gravity of the Need For Discourse on Divorce and Remarriage
I have zero credentials to my name, I have not read the Bible in its entirety nor do I know any Greek and as of writing this essay, I only began returning to a protestant church in the Spring of 2025. However, I speak with conviction and demand everyone who participates in this discourse follow suit as this topic moves beyond the mortal realm of life and death and into matters concerning one’s fate to HEAVEN OR HELL. If you disagree with my conclusion, stake your life on your interpretation.
If I am wrong but my interpretation is the default Christian stance, I’ll look like a bigoted fool and have wrecked havoc on 2 or 3 generations of households, persons giving up on Christianity for ruining their families, but perhaps Christians will adapt to such strict standards of marriage that I still believe will ultimately be for the better. If I am right and remarriage still is a common practice among Christians, they will lose their inheritance in the kingdom of heaven and if YOU vouched and supported a false interpretation that led to remarriages, you’ll lose yours too. Jesus says there will be people who cast out demons and perform miracles in his name but still fail to enter the kingdom of heaven due to practicing lawlessness in Matthew 7:21-23.
<21> “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. <22> On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ <23> And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’
With the stakes being this high, I am perfectly content with my position in this gamble.
If you don’t have any confidence on either side, ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION. Take the general scriptural consensus of Jesus’ teachings at face value and reconsider what your second+ marriage is in his eyes. If you are an unbeliever purely curious on this controversial discourse, I will paint to you the image of what Jesus is trying to convey of what it means to be a Christian man in a later section.
Quick Arguments For And Against Remarriage I Have Found
I’ve compiled a few links to get started on research but continue this essay first before clicking on the links.
- John Piper - Argues against Remarriage under any circumstance… but.
Notable modern theologian John Piper gives his views in the below links on marriage. He explains the “unchastity” clause in the passages in Matthew is designed for unsanctioned marriages according to the Torah’s established rules and also to protect Joseph who intended to divorce Mary when he suspected her of fornication as they were still in the engagement phase of their marriage. John Piper ultimately argues that remarriage is not permissible but in the video, he is part of the recurring trend of failing to put into practice the clear teachings when it comes to those who already are already remarried and hear of this teaching now. He argues those who are remarried not break their current marriage; thereby contradicting his entire sermon to protect the feelings and well being of the remarried couples. What about their salvation?
- Gordon Wenham - Argues against Remarriage under any circumstance
book source: https://annas-archive.gl/md5/d417ee76811dbb471aad8ef476963c4b
In the book "Remarriage After Divorce in Today’s Church: 3 Views (Counterpoints: Church Life), you’ll find quick and concise arguments for the views of No Remarriage made by Gordon J. Wenham, Remarriage only in cases of Abandonment and Adultery by William A. Heth, and Remarriage exceptions beyond those cases by Craig. S Keener. I will only discuss the first two views because Keener was tasked to find other exceptions to achieve the titular 3 view case while Heth’s arguments for remarriage in the event of adultery and abandonment don’t address Wenham’s points.
First and foremost, none of the three first and foremost argue for annulment of current remarriages in practice.
Wenham’s arguments on why remarriage is not permissible after divorce:
The argument of "First 5 centuries of Christian writers unanimously (save for one) condemned remarriage after divorce.
Not a single Christian writer interpreted the New Testament allowed remarriages after a divorce in the first 3 centuries of the Christian era. This immediately shuts down any argument that appeals to the Greek language reinterpretation regarding the fornication/unchastity/sexual immorality exception clause in Matthew 19:3-12 to include adultery and any argument that reinterprets Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 7:8-16 to include abandonment. One can reasonably assume Christian writers of the first 3 centuries understood Greek better than persons in modern times (in the 1900’s and beyond). For the first 5 centuries all Greek writers universally condemned remarriage and only one Latin Christian writer allowed remarriage in the 4th century but his views were wholly ignored by other writers in the 5th century. To reinterpret the case of adultery or abandonment as acceptable reasons for remarriage requires addressing why this early church condemnation.
The argument of Jesus’ typical teaching style involves attacking the foundation of someone’s belief and doubling down on his redefinition.
In a typical debate pattern in the Gospel, 1) someone asks Jesus a question, 2) Jesus attacks the foundation of his opponent’s position, 3) they refute on a scriptural basis, 3) he dismisses the rebuttal. 4) The disciples gives their sentiment of bewilderment or attempt to challenge it. 5) Jesus doubles down on the teaching and refuses to compromise on his position. The interrogation with the Pharisees follows this format.
- Daniel R. Jennings - Argues against Remarriage under any circumstance
In Daniel R. Jennings’ free book “Except for Fornication”, he goes over the greek word “porneia”, the word that is translated to fornication in the exception clause for the verses in Matthew, in how it was always used separately from adultery in the New Testament. He even finds cases in the Old Testament where one could argue that it was used in a context to include adultery but he disproves those points by offering different interpretations on why “adultery” would not be relevant in those instances.
Interestingly, he demonstrates how it’s a natural law to marry to a virgin bride, as evident in various cultures creating laws and traditions to pair a man with a virgin bride and implementing penalties and measures of recompensation for when the bride is demonstrated to have fornicated previously. In addition, he traces the origin of “covenant” where it is derived from the hebrew word of dividing or cutting or splitting and showcases the various covenants enacted through the Bible stories always included cutting and spilling blood. From Abraham sacrificing lambs to God, Abraham’s descendants being circumcised establish a relationship with God, Noah sacrificing a turtledove, God instructing Moses on sacrifices in the book of Exodus, and ultimately Jesus’ flaying and crucifixion to complete the rite of the New Covenant. Marriage, a union between a man and woman who make lifelong vows, follows the same framework of other covenants in the spilling of blood during the consummation of the marriage, should prior fornication be abstained by the bride. One will inevitably speculate on the validity of marriages formed with a non virgin bride, but thankfully Jesus has not issued any laws against this union. This discussion does help give insight on the “except for fornication” clause you see in the relevant verses in the book of Matthew.
Continuing further, Jennings shows the consistency of church fathers from the Apostolic times to the 1900’s of condemnation of remarriages while the ex-spouse is alive and argues that the weakening of the strictness of marriages has led to the acceptance of gay marriage.
- Mike Winger - Argues for Remarriage on the basis of abandonment and adultery
Pastor Mike Winger in a 3 Hour video argues for remarriage in the case of adultery and abandonment. I included this piece since it is quite comprehensive on the research but also to showcase liberties being taken to make these exceptions. I will address few arguments later on in this article.
My Argument On Why Remarriage is Sinful Unless You are a Widow(er)
As mentioned before, I speak with no academic background, but I have yet to see anyone connect the ideas I have. I will also draw from the mentioned theologians. But first, I need to establish definitions, and the general framework of Christianity. This is important to give a perspective on how utterly destructive and contradictory it is to believe adultery permits remarriage before I explain what the unchastity/fornication clause in the verses from Matthew.
Definition 0: The Priority of the Most Important Commandments
The most important commandments as taught by Jesus is to “love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength” and to “love thy neighbor as thyself”. What’s notable is the order, or the priority, of the commandments; loving God takes priority over loving your neighbor. If we are to love God above all others, we must obey God before all others. Why is it that we must love our Father more than our fellow brothers and sisters?
If we are of the belief that God is omniscient and the embodiment of just, goodness, and love, then it would be behoove us to believe that loving God is the best way to love our neighbors. In other words, he will teach us to love our neighbors better than we can teach ourselves. To give a quick example, refer to the age old debate between someone of an older generation chastising a newer generation for going into debt for college. “I paid my way through college. If I can do it, you can too!”. This sentiment of pulling one’s self up by their own bootstraps isn’t said with spite or maliciousness, but on the sentiment of equality. However, receiving a degree in the early 1970’s verses the 2020’s is night and day. For starters, someone can work a part time job to pay for college in the 1970’s. Nowadays, there’s a massive government backed economy of putting persons into seemingly perpetual debt to pay for college with a culture designed to foster the necessity and motivation to incur the costs for one’s career. So to use “I did it back in my day, so you can too” is a flawed sentiment. Would God have come up with the belief “I did it back in my day, so you can too”? He is most certainly aware of all changes of the times as well as the current obstacles people would face in financing their education that most others wouldn’t think of.
I use this college debt analogy to make the point that when you read through the bible, specifically Jesus’ teachings, you should have humility and apply generosity to teachings or findings you don’t understand or don’t agree with. When designing laws, God is designing them not just for you but also your brothers and sisters in an unbiased and fair way. Straying away from his laws will have the consequence of impeding on someone else.
Definition 1: Science Confirming the Scripture of “Becoming One Flesh”
“Becoming one flesh” is a somewhat literal but not totally figurative but slightly hyperbolic interpretation of the physiological effects of coitus. Firstly, during the act you are pair bonding; there’s a release of oxytocin, vasopressin and dopamine to bond you to your partner, where the male becomes more protective of the gal and the female becomes more attracted to the guy and overall generate more trust between the two. With this effect of “pair bonding” maintain its strength among 3 partners? 5? 10?
The far more grave aspect that women absolutely must come to terms with is the concept of “male microchimerism”. If you look this up right now, you’ll find studies of pregnant women who have evidence of male DNA permanently imprinted in them through their sons in the womb. But there’s another way that they’re not explicit about as seen in a study titled “Microchimerism of male origin in a cohort of Danish girls”.
They found in cases for the older ones, where a girl has no older brother, there was still a presence male microchimerism. How do you think she got it? Doing the tango. In other words, when two “become one flesh”, the man permanently imprints his DNA in the girl when he climaxes. If you truly love your neighbor as yourself, is it okay if you go around imprinting your DNA on various girls you’re not going to commit to? Should a gal carry the DNA of a bunch of men before she find a guy to marry? This matters because this inevitably affect the subject of the next definition (aka a form of telegony). This is also plays a role in a number of reasons for Mary’s perpetual virginity as the Ark of the New Covenant, a sentiment deduced and theorized by early church fathers.
Definition 2: Greatest Among Us To Enter The Kingdom Of Heaven: A Child
Matthew 18:1-6 King James Version
<1> At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? <2> And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, <3> And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. <4> Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. <5> And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. <6> But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea
Matthew 19:13-16 King James Version
<13> Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. <14> But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. <15> And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
The application of these verses are among the most revolutionary of Christian influences but the point of these verses is to demonstrate the inherent greater value than a man children have in the eyes of the Lord. A preacher leading any regular Christian to sin is certainly unbecoming but a preacher leading a Christian child to sin is worthy of death. Hence the gravity of the need for the essay’s center topic to be addressed so that we can course correct. Rest assured I bear no ill will and forgiveness is always warranted. I am just relaying my interpretation of the scripture.
Definition 3: Marriage in the New Testament and the Origin of the Covenant.
The church redesigned marriage as a covenant to symbolize and mirror Christ’s relationship with the church. Where the man mirrors Christ in his undying forgiveness, instruction, love and guidance and the woman mirrors the church in their requited love and obedience. And this union is broken upon death; till death do you part.
