When does Scripture permit divorce, and may a divorced person remarry?

When Pharisees came to test Jesus, this was their question:

Jesus answered from creation itself, quoting these very words of Genesis (Matthew 19:4-5), and then said:

This is a command: people are not to separate what God has joined. It is not a prediction that divorce will never happen.

Through the prophet Malachi, the LORD speaks of the wife of a man's youth:

So divorce is never a neutral convenience. And because violence and treachery are named in the same breath, this passage cannot be used to make the marriage bond a cover for violent treachery either.

Two other passages quote Genesis 2. One applies it to husbands and wives:

The other uses it in a warning:

Becoming one body in that physical sense does not make a sexual union righteous.

Marriage is a joining by God, and people are commanded to keep it. Scripture teaches this.

The Pharisees pressed Jesus with Moses' law. He did not deny what Moses had allowed. He gave its reason, and set it against how things were at the beginning:

Later, in the house, the disciples asked Him again:

The warning reaches the husband and the wife alike. Faithfulness in marriage is not one duty for men and a different one for women.

Luke records the same teaching. It was spoken to Pharisees who were mocking Jesus, straight after He rebuked people for justifying themselves and said the law would stand:

Jesus' teaching rules out divorce for every cause, and it rules out a new marriage based on nothing more than having put a spouse away. This binds husbands and wives alike. Scripture teaches this.

Some say Jesus only condemned sending a wife away without a divorce certificate. That is ruled out by the words He chose. In Matthew 5 He first names the certificate, and then limits divorce in the very next sentence:

Matthew 19:7-9 and Mark 10:4-12 likewise set the Mosaic certificate right beside Jesus' reply. A certificate does not make every divorce acceptable, and it does not make every later marriage acceptable. This is not what Scripture teaches.

The law given through Moses did allow divorce, and it allowed the divorced woman to marry again:

Verse 2 is a real permission. It is not just a report that some woman happened to remarry. Verse 4 is a real prohibition: once she had married another man, her first husband could not take her back, even if that second husband died.

Jesus does not call this law wrong:

Scripture itself explains this provision, in Matthew 19:8. Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, and it was not so from the beginning. That explanation governs how the concession is used to answer this question today. Nobody may appeal to Moses for divorce for every cause, because Jesus Himself answered that appeal.

Some say Scripture has never permitted divorce, or marriage after divorce, anywhere. As a statement about the whole of Scripture, Deuteronomy 24:1-2 makes that false. This is not what Scripture teaches. Keep this separate from a different question, taken up below: whether a person may remarry under Jesus' teaching while the former spouse is still alive.

Two more notes on this law. First, the word translated "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 is used elsewhere for nakedness: of a body (Genesis 9:23), of a land in a spying accusation (Genesis 42:9), in forbidden sexual relations (Leviticus 18:6, 18:8, 18:16, 18:20), and of unclean things in the camp (Deuteronomy 23:14). Those uses cannot pin its meaning down, either as anything at all he dislikes or as adultery alone. The reading did not settle exactly how far that ground reached. This changes neither the plain permission in verse 2 nor Jesus' explanation in Matthew 19:8. Second, the same law forbade a man ever to put his wife away in certain particular cases (Deuteronomy 22:19, 22:29). It also set death, not divorce, as the penalty for adultery under that law (Deuteronomy 22:22). These are separate commands in separate settings. None of them replaces another.

Matthew 5:32 (quoted above) gives the same exception.

Jesus was asked whether divorce was lawful, and in His answer fornication stands as an express exception. Jeremiah 3:8 (below) also pictures a putting away for adultery. So it is right to speak of a sexual ground for divorce.

Scripture permits this; it does not require it. The exception does not say that a wronged spouse must divorce. Elsewhere, in a different and particular setting, the LORD gave Hosea the opposite kind of command, as a sign of His own love:

Hosea's command is not a rule for every marriage, and neither is a requirement to divorce. So the claim that sexual wrongdoing obliges divorce in every case turns a permission into a command. This is not what Scripture teaches.

The exception is not a way to buy freedom by committing sexual sin. It names the cause for which a spouse may be put away.

What "fornication" means here

Scripture's own uses show that fornication means unlawful sexual conduct:

The same chapter places this abstaining within bodily holiness, set against sexual lust (1 Thessalonians 4:5, 4:7). First Corinthians 6 ties fornication to a harlot and to the body (6:13-18). And in Revelation:

Several narrower or wider meanings have been proposed, and each fails:

• That it means only sex between two people who have never married. A man having his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1) is called fornication. Revelation 2:20-22 joins fornication with committing adultery. Then there is this list:

  Matthew 15:19

  "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" (Matthew 15:19)

  Naming two items separately in a list does not prove they never overlap. As a definition of the word, this proposal falls.

• That Matthew's exception covers only a broken engagement before the couple came together. Matthew 1 does show that "husband", "wife" and "put away" can all be used at that stage:

  Matthew 1:18 1:19 1:20

  "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 1:18)

  "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." (Matthew 1:19)

  "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 1:20)

  But showing that the language can be used in that setting does not make it the only setting. Matthew 19 speaks of the one-flesh couple and of actual divorce under Moses, and names no before-coming-together limit. Matthew 1 also says plainly that Mary's pregnancy was of the Holy Ghost, not of any sin. Joseph's intention was never carried out, so it is neither a completed divorce nor a general command. Matthew's fulfilment citation in that chapter was checked in Isaiah:

  Isaiah 7:14

  "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

• That it means only marriages within forbidden family degrees. Some unions are unlawful even though the words "wife" and "married" are used of them:

  Leviticus 18:8

  "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness." (Leviticus 18:8)

  But nothing in Leviticus 18 and 20, Deuteronomy 22 or Mark 6 ties Matthew's exception to those cases alone. And First Corinthians 6 uses the word of a harlot (6:15-16), which keeps it from being narrowed to incest.

• That it means any incompatibility, unbelief, any sin, or any failure in the marriage. No passage the reading opened supports that. Every opened use concerns sexual wrong. Making unbelief the ground would directly contradict 1 Corinthians 7:12-13 (below). And a prophetic picture of idolatry cannot be blended with bodily sexual sin into a rule that any sin permits divorce. This is not what Scripture teaches.

The reading also compared other places where Jesus' word for "except" and Matthew 5's word for "saving" appear (Acts 26:29, 2 Corinthians 11:28, Matthew 15:24, 2 Corinthians 12:13). They confirm that the exception is a real exclusion. They do not decide which acts it allows.

Fornication, meaning unlawful sexual conduct, is the ground Jesus names, as a permission and not a command. Scripture teaches this. How far that exception reaches into remarriage is a separate question, taken up below.

Malachi says the LORD hates putting away (2:16). Jeremiah pictures the LORD Himself putting away faithless Israel:

Some say that because God hates putting away, no putting away anywhere in Scripture could ever be righteous. That would leave the LORD's own action in Jeremiah 3:8 impossible to describe as righteous. It would also ignore the reasons Malachi gives, which are treachery and violence. This is not what Scripture teaches. The two fit together like this: Malachi condemns treachery against a covenant wife, and Jesus names a real sexual exception. Neither passage cancels the other. Malachi does not say that every putting away, on every occasion, has the same reason or the same guilt.

The prophets' marriage language is a likeness of God and His people. It is not a full code for human divorce. Jeremiah applies the picture to idolatry (Jeremiah 3:9) and to Israel's dealing with God:

He then calls them back, still in the language of marriage:

Isaiah ties the same picture to sin and to God's power to redeem:

Ezekiel compares Jerusalem to an unfaithful wife, and then speaks of covenant:

Hosea 1-3 and Isaiah 62:5 also use marriage for God and His people. These passages show God's faithfulness and the seriousness of unfaithfulness. They do not hand every prophetic act on as a command for every marriage, and they do not permit divorce for every wrong.

Paul says plainly that this instruction is his own and not a direct word of the Lord's:

So unbelief alone is not a ground for leaving a spouse who wants to stay. The reason given is the sanctifying of the household and the children. Staying married does not defile the believer.

But when the unbelieving spouse leaves, the direction changes:

The believer is told to let that spouse go, and is not under bondage in such cases. The reason given is peace. Verse 16 promises nothing about the departing spouse being saved. It also lays no duty on the believer to secure that. The verse does not tell anyone to engineer a departure, to leave first, or to declare an unwilling spouse an unbeliever.

Two opposite claims fall here:

• That conversion, or having an unbelieving spouse, requires divorcing a spouse who wants to stay. First Corinthians 7:12-13 rules this out directly. This is not what Scripture teaches. Some point to Ezra, where separation was commanded:

  Ezra 10:11

  "Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives." (Ezra 10:11)

  That was a real command in its own setting. Those marriages broke the law's ban on marrying into the surrounding nations, and the law gave this reason for the ban:

  Deuteronomy 7:3 7:4

  "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son." (Deuteronomy 7:3)

  "For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." (Deuteronomy 7:4)

  (See also Exodus 34:16 and Nehemiah 13, which cites the law in the same kind of situation.) What links Ezra to Deuteronomy is that prohibition and its danger of being turned to other gods. It does not equate every foreign person with every unbelieving spouse. Turning Ezra into a command for every believer to divorce an unbeliever would make 1 Corinthians 7:12-13 false.

• That a believer must stop an unbelieving spouse from leaving, whatever happens. First Corinthians 7:15 tells the believer to let that spouse depart. This is not what Scripture teaches.

First Peter speaks to wives whose husbands do not obey the word:

That hope of winning a husband is not a guarantee that it will happen. It does not cancel the instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:15 to let the unbelieving spouse depart. Nor does it make every failure of care into the departure that verse describes.

The original word translated "depart" in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11 and 15 is the word behind "put asunder" in Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9. The same word is also used for leaving a place (Acts 18:1-2) and for being away for a season (Philemon 1:15). So it is not a technical term for ending a marriage bond.

Do not leave an unbelieving spouse who is content to stay. If the unbelieving spouse leaves, let them go: the believer is not under bondage in such cases. Scripture teaches this. Whether that release by itself permits another marriage is a separate question, taken up below.

This instruction is given as the Lord's own command:

The command is not to separate. If a separation happens anyway, two paths are given: stay unmarried, or be reconciled. Notice that she is called "unmarried" while the man is still called "her husband". Being called unmarried does not, by itself, prove that someone is free to marry another.

Some say that if a separation has happened, that proves it was allowed, and proves remarriage is allowed. Verse 11's "if" tells what to do when a departure has happened. It does not approve starting one. This is not what Scripture teaches.

A separation does not in itself give permission to remarry. The direction in this case is to remain unmarried or be reconciled. Scripture teaches this.

Some other passages deal with release in particular situations. They must not be left out just because their settings differ. They must not be stretched into rules for everyone either.

The betrothed servant woman. The law protected a daughter sold as a servant and betrothed to her master or his son:

This is a real protection and a real release, and it shows that the woman's needs mattered, not only the man's wishes. Because her marriage duty is named, it bears on marriage and not only on wages. But the same chapter keeps release from servitude separate from release from marriage:

Exodus 21:11 does not mention her marrying another man. It does not set up a rule giving every husband and wife divorce and remarriage for every failure of care. Applying it to a present-day case of serious neglect would mean first showing how that arrangement and its protection apply, and no such case was given here.

Ezra's separation is covered above.

Priests. Special limits applied to priests' marriages:

These limits name priests. Leviticus 21:14 forbids the high priest to marry a widow too, so it cannot be widened into a rule for everyone without contradicting 1 Corinthians 7:39 (below). Elsewhere the law recognises a divorced woman's return to her father's house (Leviticus 22:13) and her vows (Numbers 30:9), without granting a general right to remarry.

So the sexual ground and the release when an unbeliever leaves should not be presented as a complete list covering every situation. The reading did not set out to make such a list. It does not declare a universal present-day right to divorce and remarry for every unmet duty. It does not rule on any case of mistreatment that has not been described.

Not just because they are divorced

Jesus' warnings speak of the one who divorces and marries another, and also of the one who marries a divorced person: Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18. First Corinthians 7:11 tells a separated wife to remain unmarried or be reconciled, and still calls the man her husband.

Some say any divorce, any certificate, losing a spouse's favour, or simply being unmarried makes a new marriage lawful. Those verses rule this out. This is not what Scripture teaches.

Some say the "unmarried" and the "loosed" in 1 Corinthians 7 include every separated person whose spouse is still alive. The chapter says:

Stretching these to every separated person, with no further distinction, would have the same chapter command a separated wife to stay unmarried (7:11) and then allow the opposite on no further condition. This is not what Scripture teaches.

Some say a wedding, or the word "wife", makes any union lawful. Scripture records a real marriage that was still unlawful:

This is not what Scripture teaches. The law behind John's words said:

That law has to be stated with the case the law itself sets beside it:

That case comes after a brother's death and gives no permission to take a living brother's wife. It shows again that the conditions Scripture states must be kept, not flattened into rules without exceptions.

After a spouse has died: yes, only in the Lord

Romans 7 explains the same release:

Paul uses this to illustrate something else:

Some say that because Romans 7 is an illustration, what it says about marriage can be set aside. But the illustration rests on something it states as true about marriage, and 1 Corinthians 7:39 repeats that truth as direct instruction about marriage. This is not what Scripture teaches.

Scripture also records Abigail marrying David after her husband Nabal had died:

That is an example after a death. It does not show that an unhappy or harsh home permits remarriage while the spouse lives.

After a spouse's death, marrying another is plainly permitted, only in the Lord. Scripture teaches this. This does not depend on either of the open questions below.

Under Moses, and the question of returning

As shown above, Deuteronomy 24:2 allowed a divorced woman to become another man's wife, and 24:4 forbade her first husband to take her back after that marriage.

Some say every divorced person must go back to the first spouse, even after marrying someone else. Deuteronomy 24:4 makes that false as a command without limits. The call to be reconciled in 1 Corinthians 7:11 cannot be applied to histories nobody has described while that prohibition is ignored. This is not what Scripture teaches. And nothing here tells anyone already remarried to break up their home on the strength of a history that has not been told.

Scripture also records the history of Michal:

The second household was real, and Phaltiel's grief is recorded. But a king's demand on record does not overturn Deuteronomy 24:4. The account gives no divorce by David that would make this the same case. It is history, not a command to restore first marriages. Similarly, a genealogy records a sending away without making a rule of it:

Loosed from a wife

Paul introduces this part as his judgment, not a command of the Lord, given for the present distress (1 Corinthians 7:25-26). Verse 28 is a real permission: for someone truly loosed, marrying is not sin. So the advice not to seek a wife cannot be made into a ban on marrying for everyone who has been loosed. Nor can "loosed" be limited to people who have never married, because 1 Corinthians 7:39 plainly releases a widow to marry. But verse 28 does not say which situations count as being loosed. Death certainly does (1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2-3). The chapter does not list every other case, and verse 28 cannot by itself decide which disputed divorces end the bond.

The reading also looked at how the original words for "bound" and "loosed" are used elsewhere. In Luke 13, for example, an animal is untied and a woman is set free from a bond:

In each case the setting decides what the person or thing is loosed from. The words alone do not define every divorce as a loosing, and they do not limit loosing to the never-married.

Two questions still matter for remarriage while a former spouse is alive. On each, both readings keep every verse true, and the answer is different under each. So both are set out here, with the texts that support each.

1. After a divorce for fornication, may the faithful spouse remarry while the former spouse lives?

The broad idea that any divorced person may remarry has already been ruled out. This narrower question turns on how far the exception in Matthew 19:9 reaches.

One reading: the exception covers the whole act of divorcing and marrying another. Its support is where the exception sits, inside that very sentence, and the question of lawfulness it answers. This reading takes Mark 10 and Luke 16 as the general rule and Matthew as naming one exception to it. It takes the verse's last clause, about whoever marries the divorced woman, as still speaking of divorces that do not meet the exception. It takes the lifelong-bond verses as speaking of a marriage not rightly ended. On this reading, when a divorce truly falls under the exception, the faithful spouse may remarry. It gives no automatic permission to the spouse who was sexually unfaithful. It gives none for marrying someone who is still bound to another. It gives none on a false accusation.

The other reading: the exception lifts a divorce for fornication out of the first condemnation, but does not go further and give permission to marry again. Its support is the unlimited last clause in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32, both halves of Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, the lifelong-bond verses (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39), and the separated wife whose husband is still called her husband (1 Corinthians 7:11). On this reading, such a divorce may be permitted, but remarriage waits until the former spouse has died.

Neither reading may erase a clause. The first has to limit the last clause and the lifelong-bond verses. Matthew's first clause gives it a reason to, but the later clauses do not repeat that limit. The second has to let the exception keep its real force in the first sentence. It cannot claim that the first clause itself condemns the faithful spouse's remarriage, because that condemnation comes only from the other clauses.

An exception is more than an "if", and the legal setting is real support for the first reading. Even so, lifting a case out of one condemnation does not automatically permit everything else, especially when the same verse goes on to condemn marrying a divorced woman. The passages gathered clearly establish the general prohibition and the express exception. They do not say outright how far the exception carries into the last clause or the lifelong-bond verses. The reading weighed both and did not find, in the passages it gathered, words that decide between them. So this answer presents neither as settled: not a blanket permission for this case, and not a blanket prohibition. This is not a claim that Scripture contradicts itself, or that the question has no answer.

2. If an unbelieving spouse leaves, may the believer remarry?

Letting the spouse go is established (1 Corinthians 7:15). Whether that release by itself allows another marriage is a further question. Verse 15 itself does not use the words "marry" or "another".

One reading: the release in verse 15 frees the believer from the obligations of a marriage the unbeliever has abandoned. That makes the believer someone truly loosed, covered by 7:28's statement that marrying is not sin. Its support is the contrast between the duty to keep a willing mixed marriage (7:12-13) and the plain release when the unbeliever leaves (7:15), spoken alike to brother and sister. It takes 7:39 as describing a wife whose bond still stands. On this reading, the abandoned believer may remarry.

The other reading: the release frees the believer from having to stop the departure or force a shared life, while the bar on another marriage remains. Its support is the command to remain unmarried in 7:11, the man still called "her husband" there, the lifelong bond in 7:39, and the absence of any word about marrying in 7:15. It gives the release the purpose the verse names: letting the unbeliever go, and the call to peace. On this reading, the believer remains unmarried, or is reconciled if that becomes possible.

Both readings keep 7:16: there is no guarantee that the departing spouse will be saved, and no duty to make it happen. The original word behind "bondage" is used elsewhere for being a servant or being under subjection, as in:

It is used that way in Romans 6:18 and 6:22, Galatians 4:3, Titus 2:3 and 2 Peter 2:19 as well. Those uses show subjection or service. They do not, on their own, decide for either reading, and they do not prove the word cannot describe release from marriage duties here. A different original word is used for the marriage "bound" in 7:27, 7:39 and Romans 7:2. A different word alone proves neither a different kind of obligation nor the same consequences. First Corinthians 7:27-28 says marrying is not sin for the truly loosed, but does not say that this departure is the kind of loosing meant. The reading established letting the unbeliever go. It did not establish which of these further scopes is meant, and this answer presents neither as settled.

"A divorced person" can mean someone who was wronged. It can also mean someone whose own past includes sexual sin. Scripture speaks to the second plainly:

When the woman taken in adultery was brought to Jesus, He both withheld condemnation and commanded her to sin no more:

That passage does not tell of a divorce or give her a new marriage. Later in the same chapter, the word fornication comes up in a separate argument about fatherhood:

That separate use does not limit the word to sex before marriage.

So claiming that past sexual sin can never be cleansed would make 1 Corinthians 6:11 false. This is not what Scripture teaches. First John 1:9 is a promise, and it is stated here as a promise. Whether any particular person has been forgiven is not ours to know, and this answer makes no such judgment.

But cleansing and new life are not, in themselves, the test of whether a marriage has ended:

These verses speak of living for Christ, who died and rose (2 Corinthians 5:15), of being reconciled to God (5:18), and of gently restoring those who fall (Galatians 6:1). They do not say that a former spouse counts as dead, or that every earlier marriage is dissolved. Some say new life in Christ automatically cancels all earlier marriages, or that forgiveness permits whatever marriage is wanted next. That would overturn the command to believers in mixed marriages to stay (1 Corinthians 7:12-13). This is not what Scripture teaches.

Forgiveness is real, and forgiveness is not the same thing as release from a marriage. Scripture teaches this. Nothing here tells anyone who has already remarried to dismantle their home on the strength of a history that has not been told.

Scripture's call to keep a marriage comes with commands about how husbands and wives treat each other:

These commands support keeping a marriage and caring for it. They also mean that staying married can never be read as approval of mistreatment. They do not, on their own, give permission for another marriage. No danger was described in this question, so nothing here tells anyone to stay under harm.

Paul also wrote that the time is short:

Read with the lines around it, this does not dissolve any marriage or cancel the duties of 7:3-5.

Finally, 1 Corinthians 7 marks out three kinds of instruction: the Lord's command (7:10), the writer's own word to the rest (7:12), and his judgment for the present distress (7:25). Those distinctions stand. But they do not let readers reverse the commands given to mixed households:

Applying all this to a real life depends on what actually happened. It depends on something we don't know yet. If a particular decision is in view, this is the one question that matters:

What happened in the divorce or separation, is the former spouse still alive, has either of you married again, and is there a particular marriage now being considered?

Your answer would be taken as your account. No judgment would be made about an absent spouse's heart or salvation.

The reading did not open every passage in Scripture, or every passage its searches listed. Those unopened passages are not counted for or against anything here, and nothing in this answer claims that Scripture is silent on any point. No dictionary, commentary, church tradition, history of marriage or civil law was used. Scripture was read alongside Scripture. The exact reach of "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 was not settled. As noted above, that changes neither the permission in Deuteronomy 24:2 nor Jesus' explanation in Matthew 19:8. The two open questions above rest on how far the passages that were read reach. They do not rest on any claim that Scripture says nothing.