What Does the Bible Say About Remarriage?

Less than we hope, it turns out, when it comes to remarriage after a divorce

The Bible affirms that widows and widowers can remarry after the death of their spouse (Rom 7:3; 1 Cor 7:39; Gen 25:1; Deut 25:5–10). Scripture says much less, however, about remarriage after divorce while a spouse still lives. For this reason, Christians have differed over the question of remarriage.

Some argue that remarriage is only allowed when a spouse dies (e.g., John Piper, A. Andrew Das), while others reason that if someone undergoes a just divorce, then that person can justifiably remarry (e.g., Craig Keener). While the Bible says even less about the guilty party in divorce (i.e., the adulterer), some Christians argue that someone who broke a marriage covenant by adultery can remarry since adultery and a subsequent divorce dissolved that prior marriage (e.g., Martin Bucer).

For my part, I do not believe that the Bible provides extensive teaching on remarriage, and so I will argue that we need to take each divorce on a case-by-case basis, using Christian wisdom to understand how the Bible and God-given reason inform the situation. In other words, discussing remarriage after divorce requires prudential reasoning on the basis of certain first principles.

Recent Discussions on Remarriage

Until 1519, Christians almost universally forbade remarriage after divorce (widows could remarry, though). In 1519, Erasmus argued that some divorces were just and that the innocent party in a just divorce could remarry. Reformed theologians followed Erasmus’s arguments, especially his category of an innocent party in a divorce.

Martin Bucer, for example, completed his work De Regno Christi in 1550 (it was first printed in 1557 in Basel). In it, he followed Erasmus’s argument in 1519 that an innocent party may remarry. And he also added that the guilty party in a divorce may remarry after repentance. Not only that, he also notes various grounds for divorce beyond the two commonly given (adultery and abandonment). Later, similar, although less permissive views, appeared in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF §24). Protestants in contrast to their Romanist cousins had a much more permissive view of divorce and remarriage.

During the 20^th century, most evangelicals continued to hold a permissive view of divorce and remarriage—at least permissive from the perspective of church history. Most evangelicals held that Jesus permitted divorce for adultery, while Paul allowed a spouse to divorce in the case of abandonment. The implication here was that remarriage was also valid for the innocent partner in each case.

But in 1984, Gordon Wenham and William Heth published Jesus and Divorce, which A. Andrew Das says rocked the evangelical world (2024: 1). Wenham and Heth argued that the Bible forbids remarriage if the former spouse remains alive since divorce does not dissolve a marriage. They claim no one until Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1519 permitted the remarriage of the innocent party in a divorce.

[William A. Heth, who co-authored Jesus and Divorce with Wenham, later recanted his view. Gordon Wenham remains convinced that remarriage is not permitted while the former spouse remains alive.]

It is obvious that their work raised a lot of eyebrows, and so pastors, churches, and writers re-considered biblical teaching and responded to Wenham and Heth.

Craig Keener responded to this work in 1991 with his And Marries Another, where he looks at the early church’s view of remarriage and builds a compassionate argument, allowing for remarriage. Key to his argument is the principle: “If the divorce is valid, so is the remarriage” (And Marries Another, 1991: 44).

Probably the most significant response came in 2002 with David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. (I remember reading this book thoroughly twenty years ago at university, finding it utterly fascinating for its deep historical work). Instone-Brewer argues that in the first century, divorce and remarriage were common. So while the New Testament does not say much about remarriage, it seems reasonable to assume that remarriage is permitted in most cases.

Wayne Grudem published Divorce and Remarriage in 2021 in which he allows for many grounds for divorce and remarriage. Given his influence among evangelicals, he probably represents the mainstream of evangelical thought on divorce and remarriage today.

That said, the no remarriage view remains around today as a minority position. Pastor John Piper holds to the indissolubility of marriage view (i.e., remarriage is not allowed). Likewise, A. Andrew Das, a New Testament scholar argued in his 2024 Remarriage in Early Christianity that both the New Testament and the early church forbid remarriage while the former spouse still lives. Das argues, “Jesus, Paul, and the first Christians were opposed to remarriage” and “The New Testament's fierce, repeated claim that apart from death of a spouse remarriage is adulterous certainly raises the stakes” (2024: 292).

So I think the primary question we need to ask is: does the Bible permit remarriage after divorce? If so, under what conditions? And if not, how should we understand its silence?

I will conclude that the New Testament permits remarriage for widows and widowers but says little explicitly about remarrying after a divorce while one’s former spouse still lives. In my view, this near silence means that the question around remarriage after divorce centres on pastoral wisdom that requires prudential reasoning based on first principles.

Paul on Remarriage for Widows

Paul affirms the goodness of second marriages when it comes to widows.

“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” (1 Cor 7:39).

And

“For 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” (Rom 7:2–3).

• Paul affirms that wives are bound to marriages unless their husbands die in accordance with the teaching of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10–11).

• Paul affirms that wives may marry another after the death of their husbands because death ends the law's binding force upon a marriage.

Jesus on Remarriage After Divorce

Jesus forbids remarriage in the Gospel books because remarriage makes one an adulterer, makes one commit adultery against another, and makes another person an adulterer (Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11–12; Matt 5:32; 19:9).

• 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)

• 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)

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

• And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matt 19:9).

Each passage reinforces the others and expands the scope of the sin of adultery.

• Remarriage after divorce makes one an adulterer (Luke 16:18; Mark 10:12).

• Remarriage to a divorced woman makes one commit adultery (Luke 16:18; Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9).

• Remarriage to a woman commits adultery against the first wife (Mark 10:11).

The key question is whether Jesus’s words “except for sexual immorality” in Matthew 19:9 imply not only a just divorce but also a just remarriage after a divorce.^[1]

Against this view, Jesus in Matthew 5:32 clearly forbids remarriage to a divorced woman and only applies the exception clause to divorce. Further, the grammar of Matthew 19:9 may favour the view that the exception clause only refers to divorce and not remarriage (So Das 2024: 170–8).

Second, text-critical questions surround this text. As I wrote elsewhere, “Some manuscripts including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and a significant family of manuscripts (f¹) add, “makes her commit adultery” when one remarries. This version of Matthew 19:9 would parallel Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 5:32: “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (source). If this was the original reading, then Jesus would more clearly forbid remarriage.

Third, early Christians almost (and perhaps) universally forbade remarriage after divorce (Luz, Matthew 8–20, 493). These Greek speaking Christians would have known what Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew and elsewhere (and what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7). Yet they felt confident in their view that the Bible prohibited remarriage after divorce.

While these arguments are strong, Erasmus, Protestants, and Orthodox interpreters have generally seen Jesus as permitting remarriage. Roman Catholics have not. Which communion rightly interprets the text? In my view, the question is not that simple. Ulrich Luz rightly comments, “The wording of v. 9* offers no basis for a decision one way or the other” (Matthew 8–20, 493).

Protestants often argue that Scripture interprets Scripture, and a clear passage should clarify the meaning of a less clear passage. In this reasoning, Matthew 5:32 clearly prohibits remarriage after divorce while Matthew 19:9 less clearly speaks to the issue. Further, the positive teaching of Jesus on marriage is that it is an enduring bond that God forms (Matt 19:6). If we take this as a first principle of moral reasoning, we might say:

• Premise 1: God unites two people in marriage into one flesh (Matt 19:6; Gen 2:24).

• Premise 2: Remarriage after divorce means two people separating in marriage and remarrying another, which Jesus regularly calls adulterous (Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11–12; Matt 5:32; 19:9).

• Conclusion: Therefore, a marital union endures while both spouses still live, and remarriage constitutes adultery.

While this practical syllogism may satisfy some, most agree that Jesus also says that divorce ends a marriage. So we might say:

• Premise 1: God permits divorce in cases of sexual immorality

• Premise 2: My spouse committed sexual immorality, and I divorced my wife.

• Conclusion: Since my divorce justly ended my marriage, I can justly remarry another.

This practical syllogism accounts for how most Protestants interpret this passage. Craig Keener, for example, argues that if a divorce is just, so is a remarriage. David Instone-Brewer adds to this view that remarriage would be assumed where a divorce was valid since this was the norm in the ancient world.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 contributes to the question of divorce and remarriage and may help us answer the question of whether the Bible allows for remarriage after divorce.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 on Remarriage After Divorce

First Corinthians 7 is not an easy passage to interpret. Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner explain, “The chapter throws up some formidable exegetical challenges. It is not always clear to whom the apostle is speaking, and at several key junctures his language is ambiguous, at least for those who, unlike the original readers, experience the disadvantage of reading at a temporal and cultural distance” (1 Corinthians 267). Due to the difficulties of interpreting the chapter, I will provide a brief overview of the chapter.

First, Paul answers two questions that the Corinthians had, which he notes in 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 25:

• “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’”

• “Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.”

The two major topics are thus sex and marriage.

Second, the structure of the passage advances through practical advice on the topics of sex, marriage, singleness, and remarriage:

• 1 Corinthians 7:1–7: Paul advises married couples to “not deprive one another” sexually to avoid temptation.

• 1 Corinthians 7:8–9: Paul advises widowers (or simply unmarried ones) and widows to remain single, although they may marry if they lack self-control.

• 1 Corinthians 7:10–11: Paul summarizes Jesus’s teaching on divorce: do not divorce; Paul concedes that an unbeliever may abandon a believing spouse in which case the believing spouse may either remain unmarried or reconcile.

• 1 Corinthians 7:12–16: Paul explains that if an unbelieving spouse abandons a believing spouse, the believing spouse is not bound to that marriage.

• 1 Corinthians 7:17–24: Paul generalizes his argument by saying that whatever state a believer finds themselves in, they should generally remain in that state (circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free [although Paul grants that getting freedom is a good goal]); the implication seems to be that the unmarried should remain unmarried, widows unmarried, or married as married—“whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.”

• So far, Paul has argued that (1) married couples should continue having sex; (2) widowers and widows should remain single; (3) married couples should not divorce but if an unbeliever abandons a believer, the believer should remain single or reconcile; (4) of the betrothed, he will say, “it is good for a person to remain as he is” (1 Cor 7:26). The remain theme unlocks Paul’s reasoning throughout the chapter.

• 1 Corinthians 7:25–31: Paul speaks on the benefits of singleness.

• 1 Corinthians 7:32–35: Paul gives general principles on marriage.

• 1 Corinthians 7:36–38: Paul concedes that betrothed men and women may marry, although he prefers singleness: “he who refrains from marriage will do even better” (7:38)

• 1 Corinthians 7:39–40: Paul argues that widows are free to remarry in the Lord.

Within this passage, interpreters often point to two passages on remarriage: 1 Corinthians 7:15 and 39.

1 Corinthians 7:39

Paul says, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

• Paul envisions marriage as an enduring bond that terminates only at the death of a spouse.

• Paul says that if a spouse dies, then a widow “is free” to marry a second time.

• Paul notes that Christians may not marry unbelievers but may marry “only in the Lord.”

The language of being “free to be married” alludes to common language in divorce contrasts in the Ancient world. For example, the Mishnah says, “A woman is acquired [as a wife] in three ways, and acquires [freedom for] herself [to be a free agent] in two ways" (m. Qid. 1:1 A).

Elsewhere in the Mishnah, a writ of divorce is described again with the language of being free or liberated to remarry:

“The text of the writ of divorce [is as follows]: “Lo, you are permitted to any man.” R. Judah says, “[In Aramaic]: Let this be from me your writ of divorce, letter of dismissal, and deed of liberation, that you may marry anyone you want.” The text of a writ of emancipation [is as follows] “Lo, you are a free girl, lo, you are your own [possession]” [cf. Dt. 21:14].” (m. Giṭ. 9:3)

This writ of divorce matters because without it a woman was not legally free to remarry. Consider how Josephus explains Jewish Laws of remarriage when he recounts Salome divorcing her husband:

“But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away.” (Antiq. 15.10)

According to Josephus, Jewish law required a husband to put his wife away (i.e. divorce) before she could marry another. This would have meant writing a writ of divorce in ways similar to the one the Mishnah described above. Hence, A. Andrew Das comments, “The parallels between this verse and Jewish divorce bills are hard to miss: ‘Lo, thou art free to marry any man. … Lo, thou art a freedwoman: lo, thou belongest to thyself’ (m. Giṭ. 9:3)” (Remarriage, 224).

Paul also uses the same language in Romans 7:2–3 when he describes divorce and remarriage in connection to Deuteronomy 24:1–3:

“For 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.”

• Paul notes that the Law requires a lifelong bond of marriage between two people that only terminates in death (see Gen 2:24 and Matt 19:4-6).

• Paul agrees with Jesus that divorcing a wife and remarrying another makes one an adulteress.

• Paul grants that marriage ends at death, and so “if her husband dies, she is free” to marry a second time.

The language of freedom in 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:3 grants widows the right to marry a second time (cf. 1 Cor 7:8).

1 Corinthians 7:15

The second relevant passage is 1 Corinthians 7:15 where Paul states, “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.”

• Paul speaks of an unbelieving spouse separating, a synonym for divorce; there was no distinction between separation and divorce; they are synonyms (1 Cor 7:10–11).

• Paul allows a believing spouse to let an unbelieving spouse divorce them since there is nothing one can do in this case except: “remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor 7:11), which is precisely what Paul advises in 1 Corinthians 7:15b–16).

While Paul may imply permission to remarry in 1 Corinthians 7:15, he does not use the language of “freedom” as he does in 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:3. He also does not speak of remarriage but only of remaining “unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor 7:11) because God has called us to be peacemakers which would allow the unrepentant spouse to repent by remaining single (1 Cor 7:15b–16).

In other words, Paul may imply that after a just divorce, one may remarry. But unlike 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul does not make that clear through his use of the freedom to remarry language that was common in his day.

Ancient Views

Most extant early Christian writers prohibited remarriage, although often they simply do not discuss it. This restrictive view remains the position of the Roman Catholic church, although Protestants since the time of Erasmus (1519) have, along with Eastern Orthodox Christians, had a more permissive view of remarriage.

To illustrate why early Christians prohibited remarriage after divorce, I discuss two important Christian writings from the 100s: The Shepherd of Hermas and a treatise by Athenagoras. Hermas demonstrates a close reading of 1 Corinthians 7, and he concludes that remarriage is not permitted. Athenagoras interprets Matthew 19:9 as also forbidding remarriage.

Since 1 Corinthians 7:15 and Matthew 19:9 are the two most important New Testament passages on remarriage, reflecting on these two early Greek speaking Christians helps to understand why early Christians saw the Bible as forbidding remarriage after divorce.

Shepherd of Hermas

I take a credulous view of the dating and authorship of the Shepherd of Hermas. While some parts of it may have been written in the 140s, it seems reasonable to assume that Hermas wrote in Rome between AD 70 to AD 100. Even the most suspicious of scholars have to admit that he wrote in the early to mid 100s because both Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon mention Hermas.

In his fourth commandment, Hermas relays a scenario where a man finds out his wife has committed adultery (29:4). The angel speaking to Hermas explains that if the wife does not repent and continues to adulterate, her husband should divorce her (29:5). The scenario here involves the husband doing everything he can to reconcile and bring her to repentance, but she refuses. At this point, divorce is the only option.

The angel says:

“Let him divorce her … and let the husband live by himself. But if after divorcing his wife he should marry another, then he too commits adultery” (29:6).

• Hermas teaches that the innocent husband should live by himself and not remarry.

• Hermas also teaches that even if his divorced wife remarries, the husband still may not remarry.

Why? The answer seems to be for the sake of saving his wife. Hermas asks the angel about what happens if the wife eventually repents. Should the husband take her back?

“Certainly …. If the husband does not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself. In fact, the one who has sinned and repented must be taken back. But not repeatedly: for there is only one repentance, the husband ought not to marry. This procedure applies to wife and husband.” (29:8).

• Hermas matches the logic of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10–16 because a believing spouse should either remain single or reconcile as Paul also says. Hermas makes this precise point in 29:10: “This is why you are commanded to remain single, whether husband or wife, for in such cases repentance is possible.”

• Hermas adds that one cannot live with a serial adulterer which releases the innocent spouse from an endless and torturous marriage with an unrepentant spouse. [Hermas also draws on the language of 1 Corinthians 6 in Hermas 29:6 to justify why a holy spouse cannot live forever with an unrepentant spouse, namely, because it pollutes the flesh.]

• Hermas notes that this procedure works for both husband and wife.

Hermas allows for remarriage when a spouse dies but commends the single life as being a better state than remarriage as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 7:8:

“That one does not sin” who remarries after a spouse dies “but if the survivor remains single, one gains for oneself greater honor and great glory with the Lord; but even if does remarry, one does not sin” (32:2).

• Hermas follows Paul’s logic in Romans 7:2–3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 by allowing widows to remarry.

• Hermas commends the single life as Paul does as well in 1 Corinthians 7:8 and 7:25–38. Hermas virtually quotes Paul who says, “But if you do marry, you have not sinned” (1 Cor 7:28).

The evidence suggests that Hermas not only knew of 1 Corinthians but had also studied it closely. Moreover, Hermas mentions a certain Clement in Hermas 9:3. If this is Clement of Rome, then he would be the one who authored 1 Clement, which itself is a letter to the Corinthian church. In that letter, Clement is fully aware of Paul’s writings to the Corinthians. Given this historical connection, it is reasonable not only on literary but also on historical grounds to see Hermas as expressing deep knowledge of Paul’s writings.

Interestingly enough, Hermas does not mention Matthew 19:9 as allowing remarriage after divorce. If that passage did indeed grant remarriage after divorce, one would think that Hermas would mention it. But he does not do so. Given his knowledge of 1 Corinthians, Hermas also conspicuously does not mention 1 Corinthians 7:15 as a passage about remarriage. Evidently, the logic that if a divorce is just, then so is the remarriage does not seem persuasive or obvious to Hermas.

In conclusion, Hermas agrees with Paul that marriage is an enduring bond that terminates at death. Hermas allows remarriage only for widows (Rom 7:2–3; 1 Cor 7:39). He notes that a spouse should remain single after a divorce so that the cheating spouse may repent (1 Cor 7:11, 15–16). However, the spouse who does not cheat should only allow repentance one time, and not consent to live with a serial adulterer because that would pollute the flesh (1 Cor 6). In other words, in a divorce, one must either remain single or reconcile (1 Cor 7:11) to allow the adulterating spouse a place for repentance (1 Cor 7:15–16). If that repentance comes, good; if not, one must remain single.

Whether or not an innocent spouse may remarry after allowing for “only one repentance,” Hermas does not say. However, the weight of his argument seems to imply that in such a case, one must stay single until death.

Athenagoras (133 to 190 AD)

Hermas sees Paul as forbidding remarriage after divorce in 1 Corinthians 7, and Athenagorus takes the same view on the basis of Jesus’s teaching in his Plea for Christians (ch. 33). In an extended discussion on chastity, Athenagorus first speaks about marriage before speaking about divorce and remarriage:

“Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children. For as the husbandman throwing the seed into the ground awaits the harvest, not sowing more upon it, so to us the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.”

• Athenagoras explains why Christians marry and remain married: for the sake of procreation.

Athenagoras then contrasts marriage with virginity and being a “eunuch” which almost certainly alludes to Matthew 19:12 where Jesus speaks of eunuchs for the kingdom's sake.

“Nay, you would find many among us, both men and women, growing old unmarried, in hope of living in closer communion with God. But if the remaining in virginity and in the state of an eunuch brings nearer to God, while the indulgence of carnal thought and desire leads away from Him, in those cases in which we shun the thoughts, much more do we reject the deeds.”

• Similar to Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:32–35, Athenagoras sees the single life as a pursuit of God.

• Athenagoras likely alludes to Matthew 19:12 where Jesus speaks of being made a eunuch by choice (i.e., by remaining a virgin or single after a just divorce/death) and those who have been made eunuchs (by someone divorcing them unjustly/spousal death).

Finally, Athenagoras may allude to 1 Corinthians 7 but clearly interprets Jesus’s teaching on divorce in the Gospel Books. Given his citation of eunuchs above and the form of his argument, it seems likely that Matthew 19 is in mind here:

“For we bestow our attention; not on the study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of actions,--that a person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. "For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;" not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.” (Plea Ch 33).

• Athenagoras says that one “should either remain as he was born” (i.e. a virgin) as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7; or “be content with one marriage.”

• Athenagoras explains that “a second marriage is only a specious adultery.” While he could have cited Jesus’s words in Matthew 19:9 in such a way as to allow remarriage, he does not and instead quotes Jesus as saying: "For whosoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery."

• Athenagoras even restricts remarriage after death, calling such a person “a cloaked adulterer” because marriages’s one flesh union. While it is possible that he was unaware of 1 Corinthians 7:39, Athenagoras seems to contradict Paul directly at this point.

In Greek, the form of Athenagoras’s citation of Jesus matches exactly Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11, although he does not include qualifying information from both verses.

• Plea 33:5: Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται

• Matthew 19:9: ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται

• Mark 10:11: Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπʼ αὐτήν

Given the citation of eunuchs, Athenagoras likely has in mind Matthew 19:9. If so, he removes the qualifying information about divorce—“except for sexual immorality”—and simplifies the verse to simply say remarriage means one commits adultery. If he cites Mark 10:11, he would omit Jesus’s words about committing adultery “against her,” that is, against a man’s wife. But since Athenagoras thinks about the divorcer as the one who commits adultery, as Matthew 19:9 does, then he must be citing Matthew 19:9.

Athenagoras believes that Jesus in Matthew 19:9 does not allow for a second marriage after divorce. Furthermore, although Athenagoras forbids all remarriage even after death, it is worth noting that he does so on the basis of his reading of Genesis 2 and the one flesh union there of male and female (Gen 2:24). Jesus cites this passage as a keystone in his teaching on marriage in Matthew 19:5.

Concluding Thoughts on Hermas and Athenagoras

Both Hermas and Athenagoras prohibit remarriage after divorce. They match a common trend in other early authors such as Tertullian, Irenaeus, Novation, and Origen. Athenagoras goes beyond most others by disallowing remarriage even after death. Some divergent opinions did exist. For example, Origen of Alexandria in his Commentary on Matthew notes that people within his era (early to mid 200s) did allow remarriage after divorce, but he censures them for laxness.

It is fascinating that the two passages most associated with permitting remarriage after divorce, 1 Corinthians 7:15 and Matthew 19:9, are interpreted by two early Greek-speaking Christians as evidently not permitting such remarriages.

Prudential Reasoning

The Bible does not in express words allow for remarriage after divorce (it does after death). In what sense then can we say that remarrying after divorce is biblical? If we are honest, we will admit that such conclusions take prudential reasoning whose conclusions can sometimes be influenced by ecclesial communions. A. Andrew Das recounts a story that illustrates the point well:

John Meier, a Roman Catholic historical Jesus researcher, recalled a telling incident: "I remember with a smile how, after discussing the possible celibacy of Jesus during a lecture at the University of California, San Diego, the wife of my professor-host told me that the best proof that Jesus was celibate was that he totally forbade divorce—something no married man would ever have done." Reflecting on her comment, Meier remarked on how celibate Catholic bishops and priests tend to teach that divorce and remarriage are not permitted while Protestant clergy, although frowning on the divorce rate, generally allow divorce and remarriage in their churches. (Das, Remarriage, 2024: 9).

Notice that Meier (or Das) shows how one’s starting point will influence one’s conclusion. While I do not think such conclusions are hopefully subjective, it reminds us that we that our prudential reasoning must move from first principles to conclusions that are sound and valid. If we begin with principles that are not, we will find our conclusions invalid and unsound too.

For example, I could argue:

• Premise 1: The Bible does not speak about brain surgery

• Premise 2: I need brain surgery from a brain surgeon to live

• Conclusion: It is unbiblical to get surgery from a brain surgeon.

Obviously, this argument is absurd. But I wanted to illustrate my point in a clear way.

A more common argument works like this:

• The Bible does not mention remarriage after divorce in express language

• I want to remarry another woman after my divorce

• I cannot remarry because the Bible lacks explicit permission to do so.

Such an argument does not allow for right and necessary consequences such as: since the Bible claims that Father, Son, and Spirit created all things, and only God can create all things, then it follows that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the triune God.

Notice how the Westminster Confession of Faith makes the argument for remarriage:

“Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.” (24.5)

• Major premise: When a spouse commits adultery, “it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce,” which ends a marriage.

• Minor premise: A justly divorced person may remarry since it is “as if the offending party were dead.”

• Conclusion: Remarriage after a just divorce is allowed.

Speaking of the claim “as if the offending party were dead,” Chad Van Dixhoorn notes, “Adultery is often a mortal wound for a marriage” (Confessing the Faith, 330). In this case, sometimes adultery mortally wounds and kills a marriage, and thus it is “as if the offending party were dead.” The argument is sound. It also seems prudent to allow for the “innocent party” to remarry (Erasmus's category that the WCF 24 replicates).

I admit, however, that the Bible is more or less silent on remarriage after divorce (not after death, however). Paul uses “free” in 1 Cor 7:39 to indicate his knowledge of divorce and remarriage practices in the Greek world (free was the common term used). But he does not use it earlier in the chapter but instead uses “bound” or “enslaved” to refer to a divorce where an unbeliever leaves. Paul does not use the common language of free to speak about remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15, which he could have given 1 Corinthians 7:39. Likewise, Jesus does not give unambiguous permission to remarry after divorce in Matthew 19:9.

For these reasons, we have to use pastoral wisdom to discern the best way forward that honours Scripture and uses God-given reason. I believe following the Westminster Confession of Faith (and other statements like it) is pastorally prudent. I also believe that sometimes pastors should counsel, just as Paul does, that divorced persons should remain single.

A Final Note to Christian Readers

I in no way want to discourage anyone from following their conscience. My goal is to state what the Bible says about remarriage. Given my conclusion that remarriage requires pastoral wisdom, I would recommend always consulting your pastor(s) on your specific situation.

A Very Final Note on Why I Am Not Including a Discussion of the Old Testament

Simply put, it would be too much. The Old Testament agrees that marriage lasts until death, at which point, remarriage is permitted. Its Divine drama and prophetic teaching in books like Hosea show us that reconciliation to a former spouse is possible. The Old Testament does not envision remarriage after divorce as a moral good, although passages like Exodus 21:10–11 may imply that some remarriages may be morally permitted. That is a discussion for another time and place. But suffice it to say, Jesus (and thus Paul) seem to correct the permissive views that Moses granted due to Israel’s hardness of hearts (Deut 24:1–4; Matt 19:8). So one must carefully interpret the relevant Old Testament texts. I hope to write a short article on the Old Testament because its witness matters.

Further Resources

Read my article, “What The Bible Says About Divorce” here.

Read my article, “Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai on Divorce in Matthew 19?” here.

John Piper, “Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper.”

---

^[1] Das notes that even if Matthew 19:9 allowed the innocent party to remarry in the case of porneia, it would not allow the innocent party to remarry without perneia (2024: 171).