Jesus was anti divorce

JESUS WAS ANTI DIVORCE
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
LUKE 16:18 18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and
marries anotherwoman commits adultery, and the
man who marries a divorcedwoman commits
adultery.
BIBLEHUB COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(18) Whosoeverputteth away his wife.—Onthe specialpoints involved, see
Notes on Matthew 5:31-32;Matthew 19:3-9. Here, again, the explanation that
has been given of the parable of the Unjust Steward, offers the only
satisfactoryexplanationof the introduction of a topic apparently so irrelevant.
The doctrine and discipline of divorce which the Pharisees taught, lowering
the sacredness ofthe life of home, and ministering to the growing laxity of
men’s morals, was preciselywhat was meant by the steward’s bidding the
debtors take their bill and write fifty, or fourscore measures, insteadof the
hundred. (See Note on Luke 16:6-7).
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

16:13-18 To this parable our Lord added a solemn warning. Ye cannot serve
God and the world, so divided are the two interests. When our Lord spoke
thus, the covetous Phariseestreatedhis instructions with contempt. But he
warned them, that what they contended for as the law, was a wresting of its
meaning: this our Lord showedin a case respecting divorce. There are many
covetous sticklers forthe forms of godliness, who are the bitterest enemies to
its power, and try to setothers againstthe truth.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
See the notes at Matthew 5:32. These verses occurin Matthew in a different
order, and it is not improbable that they were spokenby our Saviour at
different times. The design, here, seems to be to reprove the Pharisees fornot
observing the law of Moses,notwithstanding their great pretensions to
external righteousness, andto show them that they had "really" departed
from the law.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
18. putteth awayhis wife, &c.—(Seeon[1680]Mt19:3-9). Far from intending
to weakenthe force of the law, in these allusions to a new economy, our Lord,
in this unexpected way, sends home its high requirements with a pungency
which the Pharisees wouldnot fail to feel.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
See Poole on"Matthew 5:32", where this is expounded; also, See Poole on
"Matthew 19:9", and See Poole on "Mark 10:11".
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Whosoeverputteth awayhis wife,.... Forany other cause than for adultery, as
the Jews usedto do upon every trifling occasion, and for every little disgust:
by which instance our Lord shows, how the Jews abusedand depraved the
law, and as much as in them lay, causedit to fail; and how he, on the other
hand, was so far from destroying and making it of none effect, that he
maintained the purity and spirituality of it; putting them in mind of what he

had formerly said, and of many other things of the like kind along with it;
how that if a man divorces his wife, for any thing else but the defiling his bed,
and marrieth another, committeth adultery: with her that he marries: because
his marriage with the former still continues, and cannotbe made void by, such
a divorce:
and whosoevermarrieth her that is put awayfrom her husband; the phrase
"from her husband", is omitted in the Syriac and Persic versions:
committeth adultery; with her that he marries, because notwithstanding her
husband's divorce of her, and his after marriage with her, she still remains his
lawful and proper wife; See Gill on Matthew 5:32. The Ethiopic version reads
this lastclause, quite different from all others, thus, "and whosoeverputs
awayher husband, and joins to another, commits adultery", agreeablyto See
Gill on Mark 10:12.
Geneva Study Bible
Whosoeverputteth awayhis wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and whosoevermarrieth her {g} that is put awayfrom her husband
committeth adultery.
(g) They that gather by this passagethat a man cannotbe married againafter
he has divorced his wife for adultery, while she lives, reasonincorrectly: for
Christ speaksofthose divorces which the Jews hadwhich were not because of
adultery, for adulterers were put to death by the law.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary

Luke 16:18. See on Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9. Of what Christ has just said
of the continual obligation of the law he now gives an isolatedexample, as
Luke found it here alreadyin his original source. Forthe choice ofthis place
(not the original one) a specialinducement must have been conceivedof,
which Luke does not mention; perhaps only, in general, the remembrance of
the varieties of doctrine prevailing at that time on the question of divorce (see
on Matthew 19:3); perhaps, also, the thought that among those Pharisees were
such as had done that which the verse mentions (comp. Euthymius
Zigabenus).
The saying, however, in the mind of Jesus, serves as a voucher for the
obligation of the law without exception, on the ground of Genesis 2:24. See on
Matthew 19:4 ff.; Mark 16:6 ff. Olshausenexplains this of spiritual
fornication,[205]that what God had joined together(i.e. the law according to
its everlasting significance, Luke 16:17), the Phariseeshad arbitrarily loosed
(in that they loved money and wealth more than God), and that which God
had loosed(i.e. the Old Testamenttheocracyin its temporary aspect, Luke
16:16), they wished to maintain as obligatory, and had thus practised a
twofold spiritual adultery. How arbitrary, without the slightesthint in the
text! The supposedmeaning of the secondmember would be altogether
without correspondenceto the expressions, andthe Pharisees might have used
the first member directly for their justification, in order to confirm their
prohibition of any accessionto the Gospel. As to the obviousness ofthe
exceptionwhich adultery makes in reference to the prohibition of divorce, see
on Matthew 5:32.
[205]Comp. also H. Bauer, op. cit. p. 544, who thinks the meaning is that
Israelis not to separate himself from the Mosaic law, and not to urge it upon
the heathens.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges

18. Whosoeverputteth awayhis wife] At first sight this verse (which also
occurs with an important limitation in Matthew 5:32) appears so loosely
connectedwith the former as to lead the Dutch theologianVan der Palm to
suppose that St Luke was merely utilising a spare fragment on the page by
inserting isolatedwords of Christ. But compressedas the discourse is, we see
that this verse illustrates, no less than the others, the spirit of the Pharisees.
They professedto reverence the Law and the Prophets, yet divorce (so alien to
the primitive institution of marriage)was so shamefully lax among them that
greatRabbis in the Talmud practicallyabolished all the sacrednessof
marriage in direct contradictionto Malachi2:15-16. EvenHillel said a man
might divorce his wife if she over-saltedhis soup. They made the whole
discussionturn, not on eternal truths, but on a mere narrow verbal
disquisition about the meaning of two words ervath dabhar, ‘some
uncleanness’(lit. ‘matter of nakedness’), in Deuteronomy24:1-2. Not only
Hillel, but even the son of Sirach (Sir 25:26) and Josephus (Anil. iv. 8, § 23),
interpreted this to mean ‘for any or every cause.’(Matthew 19:3-12;Mark
10:2-12.)Besides this shameful laxity the Pharisees had never had the courage
to denounce the adulterous marriage and disgracefuldivorce of which Herod
Antipas had been guilty.
Bengel's Gnomen
Luke 16:18. Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων, every one who putteth away) The cause also of
divorce either on the part of him who put awayhis wife, or on the part of the
Pharisees andJudges, may have been “covetousness,”Luke 16:14, for the
sake ofthe gain derived from the writing of divorcement. This abuse at that
time prevailed to a greatdegree. [The express exception[174](Matthew 5:32;
Matthew 19:9) in the case ofone put awayon accountof adultery did not
belong to this place:for in that case itis not the husband but the unfaithful
party (wife) who by the very act separatesher own selffrom him.—V. g.]
[174]The Ed. Tert. Tubing. 1835, has ‘deserta,’evidently a misprint for
‘diserta,’ as the Germ. Vers. has ausdrückliche.—E.and T.
Pulpit Commentary

Verse 18. - Whosoeverputteth awayhis wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery: and whosoevermarrieth her that is put awayfrom her
husband, committeth adultery. The teaching of the rabbis in the time of our
Lord on the question of the marriage he was exceedinglylax, and tended to
grave immorality in the family life. In the late unlawful marriage of Herod
Antipas with Herodias, in which so many sacredand family ties were rudely
torn asunder, no rabbi or doctorin Israel but one had raisedhis voice in
indignant protest, and that one was the friend and connectionof Jesus of
Nazareth, the prophet John the Baptist. Divorce for the most trivial causes
was sanctionedby the rabbis, and even such men as Hillel, the grandfather of
that Gamalielwhom tradition speaks ofas the rabbi whose lectures were
listened to by the Boy Jesus, taughtthat a man might divorce his wife if in the
cooking she burnt his dinner or even over salted his soup (see Talmud, treatise
'Gittin,' 9:10). SS. Luke and Paul, different to the greatmasters of profane
history, like Thucydides, or Livy, or Xenophon, were evidently at no pains to
round off their narratives. They give us the accountof the Lord's words and
works very much as they had them from the first listeners and eye-witnesses.
When the notes and memories were very scantand fragmentary, as appear to
have been the case in the Lord's discourse which St. Luke interposes between
the parable of the stewardand that of Dives and Lazarus, the fragmentary
notes are reproduced without any attempt to round off the condensed, and at
first sight apparently disconnected, utterances.So here, directly after the
fragmentary report of certain sayings of Jesus, the greatparable of Lazarus
and Dives is introduced with somewhatstartling abruptness; nothing of St.
Luke's is added - simply the original report as Luke or Paul receivedit is
reproduced. The following is probably the connectionin which the famous
parable was spoken. Whenthe Lord spoke the parable-story of the unjust
steward, he pressedhome to the listeners, as its greatlesson, the necessityof
providing againstthe day of death, and he showedhow, by the practice of
kindness here towards the poor, the weak, and the suffering, they would make
to themselves friends who would in their turn be of use to them - who would,
in their hour of sore need, when death sweptthem out of this life, receive them
into everlasting habitations. We believe that the Master, as he spoke these
things, purposed - either on that very occasion, orvery shortly after, when his
listeners were againgathered together - supplementing this important

teaching by another parable, in which the goodof having friends in the world
to come should be clearly shown. The parable of Lazarus as Dives, then, may
be regarded as a piece of teaching following on to and closelyconnectedwith
the parable of the unjust steward. Nine verses, however, as we have seenare
inserted betweenthe two parables. Of these, vers. 10-13 are simply some
reflections of the Masteron the parable of the stewardjust spoken. Then
comes ver. 14 - a scornful interruption on the part of the Pharisee listeners.
Our Lord replies to this (vers. 15-18), and then goes on, either then or very
soonafter, to the same auditory, with the parable of Lazarus and Dives, which
is, in fact, a direct sequelto the parable of the unjust steward, and which St.
Luke proceeds to relate without any further preamble.
STUDYLIGHT RESOURCES
Home / Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary / Luke / Chapter 16
Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Luke 16:18
Luke 16:17
Luke 16 Luke 16:19
"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and
he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
Adam Clarke Commentary
Putteth away(or divorceth) his wife - See on Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32;
(note); Matthew 19:9, Matthew 19:10;(note); Mark 10:12;(note); where the
question concerning divorce is consideredat large. These verses,from the
13th to the 18th inclusive, appearto be part of our Lord's sermon on the

mount; and stand in a much better connectionthere than they do here; unless
we suppose our Lord delivered the same discourse at different times and
places, which is very probable.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "The Adam Clarke
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/luke-
16.html. 1832.
Return to Jump List return to 'Jump List'
Albert Barnes'Notes onthe Whole Bible
See the notes at Matthew 5:32. These verses occurin Matthew in a different
order, and it is not improbable that they were spokenby our Saviour at
different times. The design, here, seems to be to reprove the Pharisees fornot
observing the law of Moses,notwithstanding their greatpretensions to
external righteousness, andto show them that they had “really” departed
from the law.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography

Barnes, Albert. "Commentaryon Luke 16:18". "Barnes'Notesonthe Whole
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/luke-16.html.
1870.
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
Every one that putteth awayhis wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put awayfrom her husband
Jesus'purpose in the introduction of this saying was clearlythat of
condemning the Pharisaicalperversionof God's law; and, in context, there
was no necessityfor Jesus to note the exception, as in Matthew 19:9. This
verse affords the most positive proof that one cannot ever know what Jesus
taught unless he shall take into accountALL THAT JESUS SAID, whether
reported by one evangelistor another. Geldenhuys spoke ofthe "absolute
impossibility of basing detailed rules ... upon isolatedsayings of Christ."[34]
There can be no excuse for scholars and theologians premising whole systems
of thought on portions of the Gospels, orupon one Gospel, as distinguished
from other Gospels. One hardly enters the New Testamentuntil the words of
Jesus thunder from the sacredpage: "Manshall not live by bread alone, but
by EVERY WORD that proceedethout of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).
That principle, laid down by Jesus, is alone sufficient grounds for rejecting
the basic assumption underlying a greatdeal of modern criticalexegesis.God
gave his people four Gospels;and in that gift is the certainty that one cannot
understand the whole corpus of truth unless he shall take all of them into
consideration.
Ryle caught the implication of Jesus'words in this verse, thus: "With all your
boastedreverence for the law, you are yourselves breakers ofit in the law of

marriage. You have loweredthe standard of the law of divorce."Luke 2p.
211.">[35]Barclayalso discernedthe connectionbetweenthis and the
preceding verse, saying that "As an illustration of the law that would never
pass away, Jesus took the law of chastity."[36]
For further discussionof Jesus'teaching on marriage and divorce, see my
Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:1-10.
[34] NorvalGeldenhuys, op. cit., p. 423.
Luke 2p. 211.">[35]J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), Vol. Luke 2p. 211.
[36] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 219.
Copyright Statement
James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved.
Bibliography
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "Coffman
Commentaries on the Old and New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/luke-16.html. Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
Whosoeverputteth awayhis wife,.... Forany other cause than for adultery, as
the Jews usedto do upon every trifling occasion, and for every little disgust:
by which instance our Lord shows, how the Jews abusedand depraved the
law, and as much as in them lay, causedit to fail; and how he, on the other
hand, was so far from destroying and making it of none effect, that he
maintained the purity and spirituality of it; putting them in mind of what he
had formerly said, and of many other things of the like kind along with it;
how that if a man divorces his wife, for any thing else but the defiling his bed,
and marrieth another, committeth adultery: with her that he marries: because
his marriage with the former still continues, and cannotbe made void by, such
a divorce:
and whosoevermarrieth her that is put awayfrom her husband; the phrase
"from her husband", is omitted in the Syriac and Persic versions:
committeth adultery; with her that he marries, because notwithstanding her
husband's divorce of her, and his after marriage with her, she still remains his
lawful and proper wife; See Gill on Matthew 5:32. The Ethiopic version reads
this lastclause, quite different from all others, thus, "and whosoeverputs
awayher husband, and joins to another, commits adultery", agreeablyto See
Gill on Mark 10:12.
Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernisedand adapted
for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rightes Reserved,
Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.

A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard
Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855
Bibliography
Gill, John. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "The New JohnGill Exposition of
the Entire Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/luke-
16.html. 1999.
Geneva Study Bible
adultery: and whosoevermarrieth her g that is put awayfrom [her] husband
(g) They that gather by this passagethat a man cannotbe married againafter
he has divorced his wife for adultery, while she lives, reasonincorrectly: for
Christ speaksofthose divorces which the Jews hadwhich were not because of
adultery, for adulterers were put to death by the law.
Copyright Statement
Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Beza, Theodore. "Commentaryon Luke 16:18". "The 1599 Geneva Study
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gsb/luke-16.html.
1599-1645.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
putteth awayhis wife, etc. — (See on Matthew 19:3-9). Far from intending to
weakenthe force of the law, in these allusions to a new economy, our Lord, in
this unexpected way, sends home its high requirements with a pungency
which the Pharisees wouldnot fail to feel.
Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text
scannedby Woodside Bible Fellowship.
This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-BrownCommentary is in the
public domain and may be freely used and distributed.
Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Luke 16:18". "CommentaryCritical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/luke-16.html. 1871-8.
People's New Testament
Every one that putteth awayhis wife. See note on Matthew 5:31.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website.

Original work done by Ernie Stefanik. First published online in 1996 atThe
RestorationMovementPages.
Bibliography
Johnson, BartonW. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "People's New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pnt/luke-
16.html. 1891.
Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
Committeth adultery (μοιχευει — moicheuei). Another repeatedsaying of
Christ (Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:11.; Matthew 19:9.). Adultery remains
adultery, divorce or no divorce, remarriage or no marriage.
Copyright Statement
The Robertson's WordPictures of the New Testament. Copyright �
Broadman Press 1932,33,Renewal1960. All rights reserved. Used by
permission of Broadman Press (Southern BaptistSunday SchoolBoard)
Bibliography
Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "Robertson's WordPictures
of the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/luke-16.html. Broadman
Press 1932,33. Renewal1960.

Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
adultery: and whosoevermarrieth her that is put awayfrom her husband
But ye do; particularly in this notorious instance. Matthew 5:31; 19:7.
Copyright Statement
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website.
Bibliography
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "JohnWesley's Explanatory
Notes on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wen/luke-16.html. 1765.
The Fourfold Gospel
Every one that putteth awayhis wife, and marrieth another1, committeth
adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put awayfrom a husband
Every one that putteth awayhis wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery, etc. This precept is inserted here as an illustration of a
flagrant violation of the law of God, both countenancedand practicedby these
Pharisees.See .
Copyright Statement

is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website. These files
were made available by Mr. Ernie Stefanik. First published online in 1996 at
The RestorationMovementPages.
Bibliography
J. W. McGarveyand Philip Y. Pendleton. "Commentaryon Luke 16:18".
"The Fourfold Gospel".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tfg/luke-16.html. Standard
Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1914.
Abbott's Illustrated New Testament
Putteth awayhis wife; that is, for ordinary causes.(Matthew 19:9.)
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Abbott, John S. C. & Abbott, Jacob. "Commentaryon Luke 16:18".
"Abbott's Illustrated New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ain/luke-16.html. 1878.
John Trapp Complete Commentary

18 Whosoeverputteth awayhis wife, and marrieth another, committeth
Ver. 18. See Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:5;
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Trapp, John. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". John Trapp Complete
Commentary. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/luke-
16.html. 1865-1868.
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament
Luke 16:18. See on Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9. Of what Christ has just said
of the continual obligation of the law he now gives an isolatedexample, as
Luke found it here alreadyin his original source. Forthe choice ofthis place
(not the original one) a specialinducement must have been conceivedof,
which Luke does not mention; perhaps only, in general, the remembrance of
the varieties of doctrine prevailing at that time on the question of divorce (see
on Matthew 19:3); perhaps, also, the thought that among those Pharisees were
such as had done that which the verse mentions (comp. Euthymius
Zigabenus).

The saying, however, in the mind of Jesus, serves as a voucher for the
obligation of the law without exception, on the ground of Genesis 2:24. See on
Matthew 19:4 ff.; Mark 16:6 ff. Olshausenexplains this of spiritual
fornication,(205)that what God had joined together(i.e. the law according to
its everlasting significance, Luke 16:17), the Phariseeshad arbitrarily loosed
(in that they loved money and wealthmore than God), and that which God
had loosed(i.e. the Old Testamenttheocracyin its temporary aspect, Luke
16:16), they wished to maintain as obligatory, and had thus practised a
twofold spiritual adultery. How arbitrary, without the slightesthint in the
text! The supposedmeaning of the secondmember would be altogether
without correspondenceto the expressions, andthe Pharisees might have used
the first member directly for their justification, in order to confirm their
prohibition of any accessionto the Gospel. As to the obviousness ofthe
exceptionwhich adultery makes in reference to the prohibition of divorce, see
on Matthew 5:32.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". Heinrich Meyer's Critical
and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/luke-16.html. 1832.
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament

Luke 16:18. πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων, every one who putteth away)The cause also of
divorce either on the part of him who put awayhis wife, or on the part of the
Pharisees andJudges, may have been “covetousness,”Luke 16:14, for the
sake ofthe gain derived from the writing of divorcement. This abuse at that
time prevailed to a greatdegree. [The express exception(174)(Matthew 5:32;
Matthew 19:9) in the case ofone put awayon accountof adultery did not
belong to this place:for in that case itis not the husband but the unfaithful
party (wife) who by the very act separatesher own selffrom him.—V. g.]
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Bengel, JohannAlbrecht. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". Johann Albrecht
Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jab/luke-16.html. 1897.
Matthew Poole's EnglishAnnotations on the Holy Bible
See Poole on"Matthew 5:32", where this is expounded; also, See Poole on
"Matthew 19:9", and See Poole on "Mark 10:11".
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Poole, Matthew, "Commentaryon Luke 16:18". Matthew Poole's English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/luke-16.html. 1685.
Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
Putteth awayhis wife, and married another; the Saviour here connects
covetousness withlicentiousness, both being sins of the Pharisees growing out
of the common root of worldliness, and both excluding men from the kingdom
of heaven.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Edwards, Justin. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "Family Bible New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/fam/luke-
16.html. American TractSociety. 1851.
Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools andColleges

18. ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. At first sight this verse (which also occurs
with an important limitation in Matthew 5:32) appears so looselyconnected
with the former as to lead the Dutch theologianVan der Palm to suppose that
St Luke was merely utilising a spare fragment on the page by inserting
isolatedwords of Christ. But compressedas the discourse is, we see that this
verse illustrates, no less than the others, the spirit of the Pharisees. They
professedto reverence the Law and the Prophets, yet divorce (so alien to the
primitive institution of marriage) was so shamefully lax among them that
greatRabbis in the Talmud practicallyabolished all the sacrednessof
marriage in direct contradictionto Malachi2:15-16. EvenHillel said a man
might divorce his wife if she over-saltedhis soup. They made the whole
discussionturn, not on eternal truths, but on a mere narrow verbal
disquisition about the meaning of two words ervath dabhar, ‘some
uncleanness’(lit. ‘matter of nakedness’), in Deuteronomy24:1-2. Not only
Hillel, but even the son of Sirach (Sirach25:26) and Josephus (Antt. IV. 8, §
23), interpreted this to mean ‘for any or every cause.’(Matthew 19:3-12;
Mark 10:2-12.)Besides this shameful laxity the Phariseeshad never had the
courage to denounce the adulterous marriage and disgracefuldivorce of
which Herod Antipas had been guilty.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
"Commentary on Luke 16:18". "Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools
and Colleges".https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/luke-
16.html. 1896.

PeterPett's Commentary on the Bible
“Every one who puts awayhis wife, and marries another, commits adultery,
and he who marries one who is put awayfrom a husband commits adultery.”
For God’s Instruction says that every man who puts awayhis wife and
marries another commits adultery. And that anyone who marries a divorced
person commits adultery. This is because,as Genesis 2:23-24makes clear,
when a man and a woman marry they become ‘one flesh’. That is why Jesus
elsewhere declares,‘whatGod has joined together let not man put asunder’
(Mark 10:9; Matthew 19:6). So having become one flesh they are inseparable,
and to break that oneness in any way can only bring them under the
displeasure of God. This means that when a man puts awayhis wife and
marries another he commits adultery. He falsely breaks the tie that binds him
to his first wife.
The particular addition of the secondpart of the verse, ‘he who marries one
who is put awayfrom a husband commits adultery’, may indicate a
propensity on the part of Pharisees to marry wives who have been divorced.
Perhaps they saw themselves as obtaining merit through it, or perhaps there
were particularly outstanding cases thatJesus has in mind.
This particular example was a goodone to use as easydivorce causedsuch
clearand open distress to innocent women. It very much revealedthe worst
side of the Phariseeswho had a contempt for women. All listening would
recognise the point, for on the whole the Rabbis had wateredthis Law down
so much that divorce was allowedfor the most trivial of reasons.By a misuse
of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 they had made void the Law through their traditions.
Hillel alloweda man to divorce his wife if she burned the dinner, or if she
talkedto a strange man, or if she talked disrespectfullyabout his relations in
his presence, andAkiba allowedit if a man found someone prettier than his
wife. Thus was the sacrednessofmarriage, establishedat creation(Genesis

2:24), treatedwith mockery. On the other hand a woman was not allowedto
initiate divorce for any reasonwhatsoever. All this was a scandalous
treatment of the Law and made a mockeryof it. But it epitomised the whole
Pharisaic attitude to the Law and to women. In one sense they treated the Law
very reverently, but by their manipulation of it they often made a fool of it.
So the Pharisees,having mockedJesus becauseofHis teaching on riches, have
suddenly had the tables turned on them. He has demonstrated not only that
they cannot ‘see the Kingly Rule of God’ (compare John 3:2), but also how
they misuse the Law in even what is most basic to a satisfactoryfamily life.
They are seenas totally unreliable guides, and as destroying what lies at the
very root of a stable society. Ratherthan simply argue with them about riches
He has totally laid bare the bankruptcy of their whole lives and teaching.
The dual thoughts of the use of riches, and the validity of the Law and the
prophets now lead into the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This
commences with the false behaviour of a rich man and ends with an appeal to
the Law and the prophets, that Law which, if given its Scriptural
interpretation (‘the prophets’) rather than its Pharisaic interpretation, will, if
men heed it, prevent them taking the downward path. But, as he has already
stressed, the Pharisees have manipulated that Law to suit their own ideas, and
it has therefore for them lostits effectiveness. And He will now also make
clearthat it is preciselybecause the rich man, like the Pharisees, has
manipulated the Law of Moses andthe prophets, and has in his case withheld
help from the poor, that he ends up as he does.
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "PeterPett's Commentaryon the
Bible ". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/luke-16.html.
2013.
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
18. Marrieth her—Our Lord calls no names, but there was no hearer but
made the application. Herod Antipas had married the wife of his brother, as
all the nation knew. See notes on Matthew 14:1-4. The part these guardians of
the nation’s morals had actedwould rise up to every man’s mind to their
confusionas deriders of Jesus. Thus did this first reply of Jesus serve to show
them how little they were making the mammon of unrighteousness the
genuine friend of their highestinterest.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Whedon, Daniel. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "Whedon's Commentary on
the Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/whe/luke-16.html.
1874-1909.
Expository Notes ofDr. Thomas Constable

Jesus next cited an example of the continuing validity of the Old Testament
and the Pharisees"disregardof it. Godstill expectedand expects submission
to His Word. The Phariseesdid not condone adultery, though they permitted
divorce ( Deuteronomy24:1-4). Some Pharisees permitted a man to divorce
his wife and then remarry another woman, though most of them did not grant
women the same privilege. [Note: Marshall, The Gospel. . ., p631.]Jesus
condemned such conduct as a violation of the seventh commandment. This
was an example of the Pharisees justifying themselves in the eyes of men but
not being just before God ( Luke 16:15). Jesus both affirmed and clarified the
Old Testamentrevelation. Therefore for the Pharisees to disregardHis
teaching about money was equivalent to rejecting other divine revelation.
This teaching on divorce supplements other statements that Jesus made on the
same subject on other occasions (cf. Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark
10:11). Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11 evidently recordone teaching incident.
Matthew 5:32 occurs in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Luke"s
reference reflects a third context. As in Mark 10:11, Jesus omitted the
exceptionclause here (cf. Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9). He evidently did not
want to draw attention to the exceptionalcase because to do so would weaken
His main point, namely, that people should not divorce. Matthew included
Jesus" permissionto divorce for fornication because the subject of how to
deal with divorce casesinvolving marital unfaithfulness was of particular
interest to the Jews.
"The basic application to this small unit is to respond with obedience to the
kingdom demand for ethicalintegrity, whether it be in how we deal with our
resources orhow we approachour marriages." [Note:Bock, Luke , p429.]
Copyright Statement

Bibliography
Constable, Thomas. DD. "Commentaryon Luke 16:18". "ExpositoryNotes of
Dr. Thomas Constable".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcc/luke-16.html. 2012.
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Luke 16:18. Every one who putteth awayhis wife, etc. The law remains valid
on a point about which many of the Pharisees were altogetherwrong (comp.
Matthew 19:3-9). If, as we believe, the verse occurs in its proper connection,
there was in the opinions of the Phariseespresentsome occasionfor referring
to this matter. Very shortly afterwards this class tempted Him in regardto the
question of divorce. An allusion to Herod’s conductis unlikely, since his case
was different. Any reference to spiritual adultery (the service of mammon)
seems far-fetched. On the principle here laid down, see on Matthew 5:31-32.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Schaff, Philip. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "Schaff's Popular
Commentary on the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/scn/luke-16.html. 1879-90.

BridgewayBible Commentary
108. Questions aboutdivorce (Matthew 19:1-12;Mark 10:1-12;Luke 16:18)
Again the Pharisees triedto trap Jesus into saying something that would give
them grounds to accuse him of error. This time they chose the subject of
divorce, where different viewpoints among Jewishteachers oftencaused
arguments. Jesus referred them back to God's original standard, which was
that a man and a womanlive together, independent of parents, in a
permanent union (Matthew 19:1-6). Moses setoutlaws to limit divorce and
introduce some order into a very disorderly community. He permitted divorce
not because he approved of it, but because people had createdproblems
through their disobedience. Under normal circumstances divorce should not
be allowedat all, though there may be an exceptionin the case ofadultery
(Matthew 19:7-9; Matthew 5:31-32).
The disciples thought that if a man had to be bound to his wife in such a way,
maybe it would be safer not to marry. Jesus repliedthat marriage was the
normal pattern for adult life, though not necessarilythe pattern for everyone.
Some may choose notto marry, possibly because ofphysical defects or
possibly because they want to serve God without the hindrances that may be
createdby family responsibilities (Matthew 19:10-12).
Copyright Statement
Bibliography

Flemming, Donald C. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "BridewayBible
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bbc/luke-
16.html. 2005.
E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
Whosoever, &c. This verse is not "looselyconnected",or"out of any
connexion" with what precedes, as alleged. The Structure above shows its true
place, in C1, how the Phariseesmade void the law (as to divorce); and C2,
how they made void the prophets (verses:Luke 16:16, Luke 16:17)and the
rest of Scripture as to the dead (verses:19-23).
putteth away, &c. The Rabbis made void the law and the prophets by their
traditions, evading Deuteronomy 22:22, and their "scandalous licence"
regarding Deuteronomy24:1. See JohnLightfoot, Works (1658), J. R.
Pitman"s edn. (1823), vol. xi, pp. 116-21 forthe many frivolous grounds for
divorce.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "E.W.
Bullinger's Companion bible Notes".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/luke-16.html. 1909-1922.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
committeth adultery. See the notes at Matthew 19:3-9. Farfrom intending to
weakenthe force of the law, by these allusions to a new economy, our Lord
only sends home, in this unexpected way, its high requirements with a
pungency which the Pharisees wouldnot fail to feel.
This parable, being preciselythe converse ofthe former, was evidently spoken
immediately after it, and designedto complete the lessonof The Right Use of
Riches. As the stewardmade himself friends out of the mammon of
unrighteousness, so this rich man made himself, out of the same mammon, an
enemy-in the person of Lazarus-of a kind to make the ears of every one that
heareth it to tingle. As, by acting for eternity, in the spirit of this stewardfor
time, the friends we thus make will on our removal from this scene "receive us
into everlasting habitations," so by acting, even while professing to be
Christians, in the spirit of this rich man, the enemies we thus make will rise up
to shut us out for everfrom the mansions of the blest. Such is the striking
connectionbetweenthese two parables. This last one, however, is altogetherof
a higher order and deepersignificance than the former. The thin veil-of
exclusionfrom one earthly home only to be followedby admission into others
equally earthly-is thrown off; and the awful bearing of the use we now make
of the mammon of unrighteousness upon our eternalstate is presented before
the eye in the light of the eternalflames, insomuch that the lurid glare of the
scene abides with even the most cursory reader.

Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Luke 16:18". "CommentaryCritical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible -
Unabridged". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/luke-
16.html. 1871-8.
The Bible Study New Testament
Any man who divorcee his wife. Marriage meant little to the Pharisees. See
notes on Matthew 19:1-9.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Ice, Rhoderick D. "Commentary on Luke 16:18". "The Bible Study New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ice/luke-16.html.
College Press, Joplin, MO. 1974.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(18) Whosoeverputteth away his wife.—Onthe specialpoints involved, see
Notes on Matthew 5:31-32;Matthew 19:3-9. Here, again, the explanation that
has been given of the parable of the Unjust Steward, offers the only
satisfactoryexplanationof the introduction of a topic apparently so irrelevant.
The doctrine and discipline of divorce which the Pharisees taught, lowering
the sacredness ofthe life of home, and ministering to the growing laxity of
men’s morals, was preciselywhat was meant by the steward’s bidding the
debtors take their bill and write fifty, or fourscore measures, insteadof the
hundred. (See Note on Luke 16:6-7).
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits
adultery.
KJV Luke 16:18 Whosoeverputteth awayhis wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery: and whosoevermarrieth her that is put awayfrom her
husband committeth adultery.
Everyone who divorces his wife Mt 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11,12;1 Cor7:4,10-
12
Luke 16 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
Luke 16:14-18 Scoffing or Submitting? - StevenCole
Luke 16:16-18 Why False TeachersMockthe Truth, Part 3 - John MacArthur

JESUS'OFFERS AN EXAMPLE
OF THE BINDING NATURE OF THE LAW
Note that Jesus is not giving us an all inclusive teaching on divorce. For
answers to specific questions on divorce and remarriage see the related
resources atthe end of this verse note. In context this statement on divorce
and remarriage is an example of one stroke of the Law which the Pharisees
tended to minimize but which was still valid. The fact that the Pharisees
misused the OT teaching on divorce is simply another illustration of the
hypocrisy of their attention to the most minute details of the Law (to which
they added their traditions).
Brian Bell says that Lk 16:18 is "Notprimarily a teaching on divorce. It is an
example demonstrating that the Torah and the Prophets continue to have
authoritative force." (Highway to Hell)
Mattoon- Jesus was dealing with the issue of Covetousnessin reference to the
scribes and Pharisees. He continued to deal with this issue in the matter of
coveting after women. In that time, as well as now, men were dumping their
wives to marry other women. (Ed: This in essence makesa mockeryof God's
Law. )
Leon Morris adds that "This saying (ON DIVORCE) finds its place here
apparently because it helps us see from another angle the place of the Law."
(TNTC)
Guzik writes that "the law concerning marriage is still binding—no matter
how some Rabbis tried to explain it away. Some Rabbis taught that if a
woman burned her husbands breakfast, it was grounds for divorce. Others

consideredfinding a prettier woman was an acceptable reasonto
divorce....SinceJesus alsotaught that sexual immorality was acceptable
grounds for divorce (Matthew 5:31–32, 19:7–9)and later the Apostle Paul
added that desertion by an unbelieving spouse was also an acceptable reason
(1 Corinthians 7:15). Becauseofthose two clearallowances, we must regard
Jesus’command here to refer to the one who divorces his wife without
Biblical cause and marries another; that this one commits adultery. Again,
Jesus emphasizedthe point: Under the new covenant(since the ministry of
John the Baptist), God still cares aboutHis law and our obedience."
William Heth - In NT times, and perhaps alreadyby the time the Greek
translation (REFERRING TO THE GREEKSEPTUAGINT)was made,
Jewishteachers (INCLUDING THE PHARISEES)had latched on to a
potentially ambiguous reading of Dt 24:1 and establisheda tradition of
reading it as a command. This is a keyaspectof the Pharisees’marriage and
divorce practices that Jesus cannotcondone. (Divorce and Remarriage:The
Searchfor An EvangelicalHermeneutic)(Although the Pharisees described
divorce as something Mosescommanded, Jesus describedit as something
Moses merelypermitted.)
Judaism 101 (a Jewishwebsite)writes that "Under Jewishlaw, a man can
divorce a woman for any reasonor no reason. The Talmud specificallysays
that a man candivorce a woman because she spoiledhis dinner or simply
because he finds another woman more attractive, and the woman's consentto
the divorce is not required. In fact, Jewishlaw requires divorce in some
circumstances:when the wife commits a sexualtransgression, a man must
divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive her." (Divorce)
RelatedResource:See entry from the Mishnah

William Luck adds "Our Lord’s primary teaching on divorce was in His great
Sermon preachedon a mountain to his disciples (Matthew 5). The focus of
that was that men who treacherouslydivorce their wives in order to marry
other woman or who are a party to breaking up someone else’s marriage in
order to claim the newly releasedwomanare guilty of adultery in the eyes of
His father. Subsequent to that He had an interchange with the Pharisees
(Luke 16) in which He reaffirmed those teachings in an illustration showing to
the religious leaders that they were poor stewards of God’s Law, especiallyas
it related to its divorce teachings.'(The Teaching of Jesus on Divorce —
Matthew 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12)
Henry Alford has an interesting thought on why Jesus uses divorce and
adultery as an example to show that the Law was not destroyed - "As early as
Tertullian, in the third century, it was remarked, that an allusion was meant
here to the adultery of Herod Antipas with his brother Philip’s wife, which the
Pharisees hadtacitly sanctioned, thus allowing an open breachof that law
which Christ came to fulfill."
NET Note explains that "The examples of marriage and divorce show that the
ethical standards of the new era are still faithful to promises made in the
presence ofGod (I.E., THEY HAVE NOT "PASSED AWAY"). To contribute
to the breakup of a marriage, which involved a vow before God, is to commit
adultery. This works whetherone gets a divorce or marries a personwho is
divorced, thus finalizing the breakup of the marriage. Jesus'point concerns
the need for fidelity and ethicalintegrity in the new era." (ED: SOMETHING
THE PHARISEES DID NOT DO ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO
DIVORCE TEACHINGS.)
Steven Cole - The secondsin (of the Pharisees)that Jesus confronts the
Pharisees withwas divorce. God’s Word states that He hates divorce (Mal
2:16-note). He declaredfrom the beginning that a man and his wife become

one flesh, implying a lifelong union. But because ofthe hardness of men’s
hearts, God permitted (not mandated) divorce (Dt 24:1-4 - see What does
Deuteronomy 24 teachabout divorce?). Many of the Pharisees, however, had
takenGod’s permission for divorce in difficult situations and turned it into
virtual approval for divorce for almostany reason. There were two main
Pharisaic schools. RabbiShammai’s schoolheld that divorce was allowable
only on the grounds of immorality. Rabbi Hillel’s schoolalloweddivorce for
many reasons, including something as trivial as a wife burning the meal.
Given the hardness of men’s hearts, it is not surprising that Hillel’s schoolwas
quite popular! But Jesus clearlysided with Shammai’s school. (Scoffing or
Submitting?)
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus declared
“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY (apoluo), LET HIM
GIVE HER A CERTIFICATEOF DIVORCE’(Jesus is quoting Dt 24:1); 32
but I sayto you that everyone who divorces (apoluo) his wife, except for the
reasonof unchastity (porneia), makes her commit adultery (moicheuo); and
whoevermarries a divorced woman commits adultery (moicheuo). (Mt 5:31-
32-note)
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery - Bock
emphasizes that "This saying in Luke is not designedto be a detailed
presentationof Jesus’view of divorce; it merely sets out the most basic
standard as an illustration of the moral tone Jesus desires. More complete
biblical statements on divorce come in Deuteronomy 24:1–4, Malachi2:16,
Matthew 5:30–32, 19:1–12, Mark 10:1–12and1 Corinthians 7:8–16. Jesus’
point here is that he sees the marriage commitment as intended to be
permanent."
Divorces (630)(apoluo from apó = markerof dissociation, implying a rupture
from a former association, separation+ luo = loose)means to dismiss or send

awayfrom. So the idea of divorce is to let a wife go free or release her(Mt
5:31, 32;19:3; husband in Mk 10:12). Apoluo is never used in the marriage
context with the meaning of just to separate (as the term is commonly used
today) or to break an engagement, but always means full fledged divorce.
Commits adultery (3431)(moicheuo from moichós = an adulterer) means to
be unfaithful to one's marriage vows speaking ofsexual intercourse with
someone who is married to another. In some uses moicheuo canalso be a
figure of speech(Re 2:22) as in the Old Testamentwhere "adultery"
describedunfaithfulness to God especiallythrough the practice of idolatry
(which in the NT equates with greedand in essenceis anything that comes
betweenyou and God). Commits adultery is in the presenttense in both of the
uses in Lk 16:18.
Moicheuo - 16x in 13v -
Matt. 5:27; Matt. 5:28; Matt. 5:32; Matt. 19:18; Mk. 10:12; Mk. 10:19;Lk.
16:18;Lk. 18:20;Jn. 8:4; Rom. 2:22; Rom. 13:9; Jas. 2:11;Rev. 2:22
Holman Apologetics Commentaryon the Bible on everyone who divorces his
wife - The Matthean parallels (Mt 5:32; Mt 19:9) include an exception clause
(“exceptfor sexualimmorality”) that both Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 lack.
Are these texts therefore in conflict? Luke’s remark here is brief and offered
as an example of how the Kingdom’s coming in Jesus does not mean a shift in
ethical commitments. Luke gave the basic principle rather than the full
teaching (Arndt 1956, 362). Statedmost simply, the principle says, “do not
divorce.” Divorce violates the three-way covenantbetweenGod, the husband,
and the wife. Jesus’words in Luke are put in absolute terms: divorce leads to
adultery because it is presupposed that a person seeks a divorce because they
have decided they want to marry someone else,in which case the remarriage

itself is an actof unfaithfulness to the original vows (Marshall1978, 631).
Matthew more comprehensively treated divorce and remarriage, and in doing
so mentioned that divorce is allowedin casesofporneia, which could be
unfaithfulness during betrothal, an inter-family marriage that voids the first
marriage (Lev 18:6-19;Lev 20:11-21;Dt 27:20;Ezek 22:10; CD 4.20-5.10), or,
far more likely, any kind of sexualimmorality (BAGD 693;BAA 1389). The
implication of the exceptionclause seems to be that, if divorce is granted
because ofadultery, the faithful partner is free to remarry. Paul, who knew
Jesus’teaching, added that desertion by an unbeliever also permitted a
divorce (1 Cor 7:10-16).
And he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery -
Jesus is essentiallyreiterates the same principle He had just stated. First He
states that the man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery,
and here He says so does the man who marries a divorcee. Herod Antipas (to
whom Jesus may have been indirectly alluding) had divorced the daughter of
Aretas and married the divorcee Herodias, so he was guilty on both counts.
As Cole emphasizes "Jesus is not here giving the full biblical teaching on
divorce. Rather, He is showing His authority by confronting the Pharisees
with an area where they often dodgedGod’s Law through their loopholes,
while proclaiming their faithfulness to it. He is saying that by playing loose
with God’s standard for marriage, they were committing adultery. Even
though they could justify themselves before men, claiming that they were
under the letter of the Mosaic Law, whatthey were doing was detestable in
the eyes of God."
Barclay- In the eyes of Jewishlaw a woman was a thing. She could divorce
her husband only if he became a leper or an apostate orif he sexually
assaulteda virgin. Otherwise a woman had no rights whatever and no redress,
other than that the marriage dowry must be repaid if she was divorced. The
law said, 'A womanmay be divorced with or without her will; a man only
with his will.' The Mosaic law (Deuteronomy24:1) said, 'Suppose a man

enters into marriage with a woman but she does not please him because he
finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of
divorce.' The bill of divorce had to be signed before two witnesses andran,
'Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissaland deed of
liberation, that thou mayest marry whatsoeverman thou wilt.' Divorce was as
simple and easyas that. The matter turned on the interpretation of the phrase
some indecency in the Mosaic regulation. There were two schools ofthought.
The schoolof Shammai said that meant adultery and adultery alone. The
schoolof Hillel said it could mean 'if she spoiled a dish of food; if she spun in
the street;if she talkedto a strange man; if she was guilty of speaking
disrespectfully of her husband's relations in his hearing; if she was a brawling
woman', which was defined as a woman whose voice couldbe heard in the
next house. Rabbi Akiba went so far as to say that a man could divorce his
wife if he found a womanwho was fairer than she. Human nature being what
it is, it was the schoolof Hillel which prevailed, so that in the time of Jesus
things were so bad that women were refusing to marry at all and family life
was in danger. Jesus here lays down the sanctity of the marriage bond. The
saying is repeatedin Matthew 5:31-32 where adultery is made the sole
exceptionto the universal rule. We sometimes think our own generationis
bad, but Jesus lived in a generationwhere things were every bit as bad. If we
destroy family life, we destroy the very basis of the Christian life, and Jesus
here lays down a law which we relax only at our peril. (Daily Study Bible –
The Gospelof Luke)
Here is an entry relatedto the loose rules for divorce from the Mishnah
9:10 A The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife
only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity,
B “since it is said, Becausehe has found in her indecencyin
anything (Dt. 24:).”
C And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish,

D “since it is said, Becausehe has found in her indecencyin
anything.
E R. Aqiba says, “Evenif he found someone else prettierthan she,
F “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes
(Dt. 24:1).”
ILLUSTRATION (Respectfor Authority of Jesus) - In 1881, the wild western
town of Cranberry Gulch, California needed a teacherfor its one-room
school. The last three teachers had not been able to deal with the rowdy
students. One lay in the graveyard, another lost his eye, and the third left
before noon on his first day. A slender-built man named Harry Floto applied
for the job. The person doing the hiring doubted that he would fare much
better than the others, but there wasn’ta flood of applicants, so he gotthe job.
Word spread and the students were relishing how they would getrid of this
new victim.
The first day he showedup carrying a traveling bag. One 18-year-oldtough
jokedthat he came prepared to take off when he found out that they were too
much for him. Ignoring them, Floto went inside. The students followed,
curious to see what he’d do next. He opened his bag, took out a belt, and
buckled it around his waist. Next, he put three Colt revolvers there, and a
Bowie knife. While the students watched, Floto tackeda white card to the wall
opposite his desk. Crossing the room, he drew a revolver from his belt and
fired six bullets into a spot the size of a silver dollar.
While the pop-eyed students stared, the schoolmasterwalkedhalf way across
the room, Bowie knife in hand, wheeled, and threw it so that it stuck,
quivering, in the centerof the card. Leaving it there as a reminder, Floto took
two more knives from his bag and stuck them in his belt. He then reloaded his
smoking revolver. He then ordered the 18-year-oldto ring the bell to signal

the start of class;he did so without a word. After the students were all seated,
Floto cockeda revolver and announced, “We will arrange the classes.”Then
he heard a whisper behind him. Whirling, Floto drew his gun and roared, “No
whispering allowedin here!” “I’ll not do so any more,” the boy said. “See that
you don’t,” Floto barked. “I never give a secondwarning.” Within a month,
Floto put awayhis weapons andhis pupils learned to love as wellas to respect
him. He stayedfor two years. (Reportedin The San Francisco Chronicle,
1881.)
Just as those students learned to respectthe authority of that teacher, so we
need to respectthe absolute authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is God’s
King, and we dare not scoffat Him or His Word that tells us how we should
live. There is an entire movement in the evangelicalcampdevoted to
promoting the nonsense that it is possible to acceptJesus as Savior, and yet
not live under His lordship. I hope that you see that to question Jesus’
authority in any way is a most risky thing to do! He is King; we must submit
to Him, even on the thought level. (Steven Cole)
RelatedQuestions on Divorce:
What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?
Is remarriage after divorce always adultery?
What does Malachi2:16 mean when God says, “Ihate divorce”?
What are biblical grounds for divorce?
Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-Christians?
What does Deuteronomy 24 teachabout divorce?
Does the Bible saythat abandonment is a valid reasonfor divorce and
remarriage?

Why does God hate divorce?
What does the Bible say about remarriage if a divorce occurredbefore
salvation?
Is abuse an acceptable reasonfor divorce?
What does “what God has joined together, let no one separate” mean?
What is the exceptionclause?
I am divorced. Can I remarry according to the Bible?
Does the Bible support the Catholic practice of a marriage annulment?
Questions about Marriage
Can a couple who has gottendivorced getremarried?
Is a man who divorced and remarried before coming to Christ eligible to
pastor a church?
What does the Bible say about prenuptial agreements?
What does the Bible say about an unhappy marriage?
What does the Bible say about a trial separationin a marriage?
Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-Christians?
Christian divorce rate
Question:"Is the divorce rate among Christians truly the same as among non-
Christians?"

Answer: We’ve all heard the claim: “Christians are just as likely to divorce as
non-Christians.” This statementis often attributed to a 2008 study by the
Barna ResearchGroupthat indicated that those who identified as Christian
were just as likely as non-Christians to be divorced. This study was also
broken down into subcategories by religious denomination, showing Baptists
and non-denominational Protestants leading the wayin divorce. The claim
that the divorce rate among Christians equals that of non-Christians builds
upon the common assumption that 50 percent of all marriages end in divorce.
But, according to the latestresearch, those statements aboutthe divorce rate,
among Christians in particular, are untrue.
Harvard-trained socialresearcherand author Shaunti Feldhahn, in her book
The GoodNews About Marriage says that the data reveals a different story
about the divorce rate. Feldhahn states that the “50 percent” figure was not
basedon hard data; rather, the number came from projections of what
researchersthought the divorce rate would become afterstates passedno-
fault divorce laws. “We’ve never hit those numbers. We’ve never gotten
close,”she writes. According to her study, the overalldivorce rate is around
33 percent.
Partnering with George Barna, Feldhahnreexamined the data pertaining to
the divorce rate among Christians and found that the numbers were based on
survey-takers who identified as “Christian” rather than some other religion.
Under that broad classification, respondents were as likely as anyone else to
have been divorced. The “Christian” categoryincluded people who profess a
belief system but do not live a committed lifestyle. However, for those who
were active in their church, the divorce rate was 27 to 50 percent lowerthan
for non-churchgoers. NominalChristians—those who simply call themselves
“Christians” but do not actively engage withthe faith—are actually 20
percent more likely than the generalpopulation to getdivorced.

Dr. Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project, statesthat
“‘active conservative protestants who attend church regularly are actually
35% less likely to divorce than those who have no religious preferences”
(quoted by Stetzer, Ed. “The Exchange.” Christianity Today. “Marriage,
Divorce, and the Church: What do the stats say, and can marriage be
happy?” Feb. 14, 2014. WEB. Oct. 26, 2015). In her studies, Feldhahn found
that 72 percent of all married people were still married to their first spouse.
And of those marriages, four out of five are happy.
Putting it all together, what these findings tell us is that religion itself cannot
insulate us from the stressesthat pull at the fabric of our marriages. But
there’s definite good news regarding divorce rates and Christians: contrary to
what’s been reported for years, the divorce rate is not 50 percent; it’s more
like 30 percent. And then we find that people who keepGod at the centerof
their home and family staymarried at far greaterrates, and even thrive
within those marriages. One of the reasons forthis is that those whose first
commitment is to the lordship of Jesus put fewer expectations upon their
spouses to meet emotional needs that only God canmeet. The lessening of
unrealistic expectations gives marriages a strongerfoundation upon which to
withstand difficult times.
Although 1 Peter 2:7 is speaking of the church in general, the words also echo
the truths revealedin the statistics onChristian marriages:“The stone that
the builders rejectedhas become the cornerstone.”WhenJesus is the
cornerstone ofour homes and marriages, we can weatherthe storms (see
Matthew 7:24).
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-divorce-rate.html

Is remarriage after divorce always adultery?
remarriage adulteryaudio
Question:"Is remarriage after divorce always adultery?"
Answer: Before we even begin to answerthis question, let us reiterate, "God
hates divorce" (Malachi 2:16). The pain, confusion, and frustration most
people experience aftera divorce are surely part of the reasonthat God hates
divorce. Even more difficult, biblically, than the question of divorce, is the
question of remarriage. The vast majority of people who divorce either
remarry or considergetting remarried. What does the Bible say about this?
Matthew 19:9 says, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, exceptfor
marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." See
also Matthew 5:32. These Scriptures clearlystate that remarriage after a
divorce is adultery, exceptin the instance of "marital unfaithfulness." In
regards to this "exceptionclause" andits implications, please read the
following articles:
I am divorced. Can I remarry?
It is our view that there are certain instances in which divorce and remarriage
are permitted without the remarriage being consideredadultery. These
instances would include unrepentant adultery and abandonment of a believing
spouse by an unbelieving spouse. We are not saying that a person under such
circumstances shouldremarry. The Bible definitely encourages remaining
single or reconciliationoverremarriage (1 Corinthians 7:11). At the same
time, it is our view that God offers His mercy and grace to the innocent party
in a divorce and allows that person to remarry.

A person who gets a divorce for a reasonother than the reasons listedabove,
and then gets remarried has committed adultery (Luke 16:18). The question
then becomes, is this remarriage an "act" ofadultery, or a "state" of
adultery. The presenttense of the Greek in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; and Luke
16:18 can indicate a continuous state of adultery. At the same time, the
present tense in Greek does not always indicate continuous action. Sometimes
it simply means that something occurred(Aoristic, Punctiliar, or Gnomic
present). Forexample, the word "divorces" in Matthew 5:32 is present tense,
but divorcing is not a continual action. It is our view that remarriage, no
matter the circumstances, is not a continual state of adultery. Only the act of
getting remarried itself is adultery.
In the Old TestamentLaw, the punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus
20:10). At the same time, Deuteronomy24:1-4 mentions remarriage after a
divorce, does not call it adultery, and does not demand the death penalty for
the remarried spouse. The Bible explicitly says that God hates divorce
(Malachi2:16), but nowhere explicitly states that God hates remarriage. The
Bible nowhere commands a remarried couple to divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1-4
does not describe the remarriage as invalid. Ending a remarriage through
divorce would be just as sinful as ending a first marriage through divorce.
Both would include the breaking of vows before God, betweenthe couple, and
in front of witnesses.
No matter the circumstances,once a couple is remarried, they should strive to
live out their married lives in fidelity, in a God-honoring way, with Christ at
the centerof their marriage. A marriage is a marriage. God does not view the
new marriage as invalid or adulterous. A remarried couple should devote
themselves to God, and to eachother – and honor Him by making their new
marriage a lasting and Christ-centeredone (Ephesians 5:22-33).
https://www.gotquestions.org/remarriage-adultery.html

I am divorced. Can I remarry according to the Bible?
divorced remarryaudio
Question:"I am divorced. Can I remarry according to the Bible?"
Answer: We often receive questions like “I am divorced for such and such a
reason. CanI get remarried?” “I have been divorced twice—the first for
adultery by my spouse, the secondfor incompatibility. I am dating a man who
has been divorced three times—the first for incompatibility, the secondfor
adultery on his part, the third for adultery on his wife’s part. Can we get
married to eachother?” Questions like these are very difficult to answer
because the Bible does not go into great detail regarding the various scenarios
for remarriage aftera divorce.
What we canknow for sure is that it is God’s plan for a married couple to
stay married as long as both spouses are alive (Genesis 2:24;Matthew 19:6).
The only specific allowancefor remarriage aftera divorce is for adultery
(Matthew 19:9), and even this is debated among Christians. Another
possibility is desertion—whenan unbelieving spouse leaves a believing spouse
(1 Corinthians 7:12–15). This passage, though, does not specificallyaddress
remarriage, only being bound to stayin a marriage. Instances ofphysical,
sexual, or severe emotionalabuse would be sufficient cause for separation, but
the Bible does not speak of these sins in the contextof divorce or remarriage.
We know two things for sure. God hates divorce (Malachi2:16), and God is
merciful and forgiving. Every divorce is a result of sin, either on the part of
one spouse or both. Does Godforgive divorce? Absolutely! Divorce is no less
forgivable than any other sin. Forgivenessofall sins is available through faith

in Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:28; Ephesians 1:7). If God forgives the sin of
divorce, does that mean you are free to remarry? Not necessarily. God
sometimes calls people to remain single (1 Corinthians 7:7-8). Being single
should not be viewedas a curse or punishment, but as an opportunity to serve
God wholeheartedly(1 Corinthians 7:32-36). God’s Word does tell us, though,
that it is better to marry than to burn with passion(1 Corinthians 7:9).
Perhaps this sometimes applies to remarriage after a divorce.
So, can you or should you get remarried? We cannot answerthat question.
Ultimately, that is betweenyou, your potential spouse, and, most importantly,
God. The only advice we can give is for you to pray to God for wisdom
regarding what He would have you do (James 1:5). Pray with an open mind
and genuinely ask the Lord to place His desires on your heart (Psalm 37:4).
Seek the Lord’s will (Proverbs 3:5-6) and follow His leading.
https://www.gotquestions.org/divorced-remarry.html
What is the exceptionclause?
exceptionclauseaudio
Question:"What is the exceptionclause?"
Answer: The "exceptionclause" is Jesus’statementin Matthew 5:32 and 19:9
"exceptfor marital unfaithfulness." It gives an "exception" forremarriage
after a divorce being consideredadultery. Matthew 5:32 reads, "But I tell you
that anyone who divorces his wife, exceptfor marital unfaithfulness, causes
her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman
commits adultery." Similarly, Matthew 19:9 reads, "I tell you that anyone
who divorces his wife, exceptfor marital unfaithfulness, and marries another

woman commits adultery." So, what preciselyis "marital unfaithfulness,"
and why is it an exception to Jesus’statementthat remarriage aftera divorce
is adultery?
The meaning of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is clear. If a person gets a divorce and
then remarries, it is consideredadultery unless the exception clause is in
effect. The phrase "marital unfaithfulness" is a translation of the Greek word
porneia, the word from which we get our modern word "pornography." The
essentialmeaning of porneia is "sexualperversion." In Greek literature
around the same time as the New Testament, porneia was used to refer to
adultery, fornication, prostitution, incest, and idolatry. It is used 25 times in
the New Testament, mostoften translated "fornication."
The meaning of porneia in the New Testamentseems to be the generalconcept
of sexual perversion. Other Greek words are used to refer to specific forms of
sexualperversion, such as adultery. With this meaning in mind, according to
the exceptionclause, any participation in sexual perversion/misconductis an
exceptionto Jesus’statementthat remarriage after a divorce is adultery. If
one spouse commits adultery, or any act of sexualperversion, and a divorce
results, the "innocent" spouse is free to remarry without it being considered
adulterous.
Please understand, though, that the exceptionclause is not a command for
divorce and/or remarriage. Jesus is not saying that if marital unfaithfulness
occurs a couple should divorce. Jesus is not saying that if a divorce occurs due
to marital unfaithfulness, the innocent spouse should remarry. At most, Jesus
is giving allowancefor divorce and remarriage to occur. In no sense is Jesus
declaring divorce and remarriage to be the best or only option. Repentance,
forgiveness, counseling,and restorationare God’s desire for marriages
damagedby unfaithfulness. God can and will heal any marriage in which both
spouses are committed to Him and willing to follow His Word.

https://www.gotquestions.org/exception-clause.html
Is abuse an acceptable reasonfor divorce?
412teensabusedivorceaudio
Question:"Is abuse an acceptable reasonfor divorce?"
Answer: The Bible is silent on the issue of spousalabuse as a reasonfor
divorce, although it is obvious what God expects a marriage to look like
(Ephesians 5:22–33), andabuse is contrary to everything godly. Physical
violence againsta spouse is immoral and should not be toleratedby anyone.
No one should remain in an unsafe environment, whether it involves a family
member, friend, employer, caregiver, orstranger. Physicalabuse is also
againstthe law, and civil authorities should be the first ones contactedif abuse
occurs.
A spouse who is being abused should immediately seek a safe place. If there
are children involved, they should also be protectedand removed from the
situation. There is nothing unbiblical about separating from an abuser; in
fact, it is morally right to protect oneselfand one’s children.
The Bible never commands divorce, even in the case ofabuse. The Bible
specifies two acceptable reasons fordivorce: abandonment of a Christian by
an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15) and adultery (Matthew 5:32).
Since the Bible does not list abuse as an acceptable reasonfor divorce, we are
careful to limit our advice to separation.

God allows divorce in the event of abandonment and adultery, but even those
circumstances do not automaticallytrigger divorce proceedings;divorce is
still a lastresort. In the case ofinfidelity, it is better for two Christians to
reconcile than divorce. It is better to extend the forgiveness andlove that God
freely gives us (Colossians 3:13). Reconciliationwith an abuser, however, is
far different. Reconciling with an abusive partner depends completelyon the
abuser proving his or her reliability, which could take years—ifit happens at
all. Separationfrom an abusive spouse is likely to be long-term.
Once separationhas been established, the abuserhas the responsibility to seek
help. First and foremost, he should seek God. “Foreveryone who asks,
receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And the door is opened to everyone who
knocks”(Matthew 7:8). God has powerto heal individuals and relationships.
He must be the Lord of our lives, the Masterof our assets, andthe Head of
our households. Psychologicalaidand legallimitations (restraining orders) on
an abuser are also appropriate, and such tools are important to his or her
process ofchange.
If the abuserdemonstrates verifiable change, independently confirmed, the
relationship may be resumed with much caution. Both husband and wife must
commit themselves to God’s path and develop their relationship with God
through Christ. “Keep me from deceitful ways; be gracious to me and teach
me your law. I have chosenthe way of faithfulness; I have set my heart on
your laws” (Psalm119:29–30). This commitment to God should be
accompaniedby intensive counseling from a trusted pastoror believing
licensedcounselor. The counselling should be takenfirst individually, then as
a couple, and finally as an entire family, as all need help healing. Change is
possible for an abusive personwho truly repents and humbly surrenders to
the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18).

There are a number of “red flags” to look for before entering a permanent
relationship. Unfortunately, these indicators may not be visible until after the
wedding takes place, since many abusers are skilled at hiding their true
natures. However, a short list of things to look out for includes irrational
jealousy, the need to be in control, a quick temper, cruelty toward animals,
attempts to isolate the other personfrom his or her friends and family, drug
or alcoholabuse, and disrespectfor boundaries, privacy, personalspace, or
moral values. If you see any of these warning signs in a person you are
entering a relationship with, please seekadvice from someone familiar with
abusive situations.
If you are in an abusive situation right now, whether the abuser is a spouse,
parent, child, caretaker, teacher, relative, oranyone else, please know that
God does not want you to remain in that situation. It is not God’s will for you
to acceptphysical, sexual, or psychologicalabuse. Leave the situation, find
someone to help you stay safe, and involve law enforcement immediately.
Through it all, pray for God’s guidance and protection.
https://www.gotquestions.org/abuse-divorce.html
What does the Bible say about remarriage if a divorce occurredbefore
salvation?
divorced before salvationaudio
Question:"What does the Bible sayabout remarriage if a divorce occurred
before salvation?"
Answer: This is a very difficult, interesting, and challenging question. Some
would say that since believers in Christ are "new creations" with"all things

made new" (2 Corinthians 5:17), the sin and consequencesofdivorce are
washedaway, allowing a personwho was divorced before becoming a believer
to be remarried. Others would say that while the sin of the divorce was atoned
for by Christ, the consequences ofthe sin are not, and therefore a person who
was divorced before becoming a believer cannotremarry.
Making this question even more difficult is the factthat there are varying
viewpoints on whether Christians can remarry. Please readthe following
articles:
https://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/remarriage-adultery.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/abuse-divorce.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/grounds-for-divorce.html
When the Bible talks about marriage, it does not speak only to
Christians/believers getting married. The biblical principles on marriage are
universal. If an unsaved man and woman get married, they are just as
married in God’s eyes as a Christian man and woman who getmarried. They
are still one flesh (Genesis 2:24). God still hates divorce (Malachi2:16). God
has still joined them together, and He does not want them to be separated
(Matthew 19). While all of our sin—past, present, and future—is forgiven
when we are saved, salvationdoes not wipe awayall the consequencesofthe
sins we committed before we came to faith in Christ or the sins we continue to
commit. Jesus paid the penalty for our sin, but sin still has real and negative
consequences. Itis our belief, then, that, whether pre-salvation or post-
salvation, if the divorce was for unbiblical reasons, there are no grounds for
remarriage.

However, as the articles listed above indicate, we believe in the exception
clause. If a divorce occurredas a result of unrepentant, continual adultery, we
believe the innocent party canremarry. This is equally true if the innocent
party was a believer or unbeliever when the divorce occurred. So, the answer
to this question would depend on the circumstances ofthe divorce. It is our
contention that whether the divorce occurredbefore or after salvationis not
the ultimate deciding factor. Whateverviewpoint a persontakes on this
particular issue, it is important to understand that salvationdoes not free us
or excuse us from all the foolish and sinful decisions we made before coming
to faith in Christ.
https://www.gotquestions.org/divorced-before-salvation.html
Why does God hate divorce?
God hates divorceaudio
Question:"Why does God hate divorce?"
Answer: Malachi 2:16 is the oft-quoted passage thattells how God feels about
divorce. "'I hate divorce,'says the Lord God of Israel." But this passagesays
much more than that. If we back up to verse 13, we read, "You coverthe
Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer
regards the offering or accepts itwith favor from your hand. But you say,
'Why does he not?' Becausethe Lord was witness betweenyou and the wife of
your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion
and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the
Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godlyoffspring. So
guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of
your youth."

We learn severalthings from this passage. First, Goddoes not listen to the
pleas for blessing from those who have broken the covenantof marriage. First
Peter3:7 says, "Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,
showing honor to the woman as the weakervessel, since they are heirs with
you of the grace oflife, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (emphasis
added). There is a direct correlationbetweenthe waya man treats his wife
and the effectiveness ofhis prayers.
God clearly explains His reasons for esteeming marriage so highly. He says it
was He who "made them one" (Malachi2:15). Marriage was God’s idea. If He
designedit, then He gets to define it. Any deviation from His designis
abhorrent to Him. Marriage is not a contract;it is a covenant. Divorce
destroys the whole conceptof covenantthat is so important to God.
In the Bible, God often provides illustrations to teachspiritual realities. When
Abraham offered his sonIsaac on the altar, it was a picture of the day,
hundreds of years later, that the Lord God would offer His only Son (Genesis
22:9; Romans 8:32). When God required blood sacrificesfor the forgiveness
of sin, He was painting a picture of the perfect sacrifice He Himself would
make on the cross (Hebrews 10:10).
Marriage is a picture of the covenantGod has with His people (Hebrews
9:15). A covenantis an unbreakable commitment, and God wants us to
understand how serious it is. When we divorce someone with whom we made
a covenant, it makes a mockeryof the God-createdconceptof covenant
relationship. The Church (those individuals who have receivedJesus as Savior
and Lord) is presented in Scripture as the “Bride of Christ” (2 Corinthians
11:2; Revelation19:7-9). We, as His people, are "married" to Him through a
covenantthat He established. A similar illustration is used in Isaiah 54:5 of
God and Israel.

When God instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, He createdit as a
picture of the greatestunity human beings can know (Genesis 2:24). He
wanted us to understand the unity we canhave with Him through redemption
(1 Corinthians 6:17). When a husband or wife choosesto violate that covenant
of marriage, it mars the picture of God’s covenant with us.
Malachi2:15 gives us another reasonthat God hates divorce. He says He is
"seeking godlyoffspring." God’s design for the family was that one man and
one womancommit themselves to eachother for life and rear children to
understand the conceptof covenantas well. Children reared in a healthy, two-
parent home have a far greaterlikelihood of establishing successfulmarriages
themselves.
When Jesus was askedwhy the Law permitted divorce, He respondedthat
God had only allowedit "becauseofthe hardness of your hearts, but from the
beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). God never intended divorce to be a
part of human experience, and it grieves Him when we harden our hearts and
break a covenant that He created.
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-hates-divorce.html
What are biblical grounds for divorce?
412teensbiblicalgrounds for divorceaudio
Question:"What are biblical grounds for divorce?"

Answer: When discussing whatthe Bible says about divorce, it is important to
keepin mind the words of Malachi2:16, “I hate divorce, says the Lord God.”
Whatevergrounds the Bible possibly gives for divorce, that does not mean
God desires a divorce to occurin those instances. Ratherthan asking “is
______a grounds for divorce,” often the question should be “is _______
grounds for forgiveness,restoration, and/orcounseling?”
The Bible gives two cleargrounds for divorce: (1) sexualimmorality
(Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and (2) abandonment by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians
7:15). Even in these two instances, though, divorce is not required or even
encouraged. The most that can be said is that sexual immorality and
abandonment are grounds (an allowance)fordivorce. Confession, forgiveness,
reconciliation, and restorationare always the first steps. Divorce should only
be viewed as a last resort.
Are there any grounds for divorce beyond what the Bible explicitly says?
Perhaps, but we do not presume upon the Word of God. It is very dangerous
to go beyond what the Bible says (1 Corinthians 4:6). The most frequent
additional grounds for divorce that people inquire about are spousalabuse
(emotional or physical), child abuse, addiction to pornography, drug / alcohol
use, crime / imprisonment, and mismanagementof finances (such as through a
gambling addiction). None of these can be claimed to be explicit biblical
grounds for a divorce.
That does not necessarilymean, though, that none of them are grounds for
divorce which God would approve of. For example, we cannot imagine that it
would be God’s desire for a wife to remain with a husband who physically
abuses her and/or their children. In such an instance, the wife should
definitely separate herselfand the children from the abusive husband.
However, even in such a situation, a time of separationwith the goalof
repentance and restorationshould be the ideal, not necessarilyimmediately

beginning divorce proceedings. Pleaseunderstand, by saying that the above
are not biblical grounds for divorce, we are definitely not saying that a
man/woman whose spouse is engaging in such activities should remain in the
situation. If there is any risk to self or children, separationis a goodand
appropriate step.
Another way to look at this issue is to differentiate betweenbiblical grounds
for divorce and biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. Some interpret
the two biblical grounds for divorce mentioned above as the only grounds for
remarriage after a divorce, but allow for divorce with no remarriage in other
instances. While this is a plausible interpretation, it seems to come too close to
presuming upon the Word of God. Formore information, please read the
following two articles:
https://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html
In summary, what are the biblical grounds for divorce? The answeris sexual
immorality and abandonment. Are there additional grounds for divorce
beyond these two? Possibly. Is divorce ever to be treated lightly or employed
as the first recourse?Absolutely not. God is capable of changing and
reforming any person. God is capable of healing and renewing any marriage.
Divorce should only occur in instances ofrepeated and unrepentant heinous
sin.
https://www.gotquestions.org/grounds-for-divorce.html
What does “what God has joined together, let no one separate” mean?

what God has joined together
Question:"What does ‘what God has joined together, let no one separate’
mean?"
Answer: The command “what God has joined together, let no one separate”
refers to marriage and divorce. It is from Jesus’teaching on marriage and
divorce found in Mark 10:1–12 andMatthew 19:1–12. Onone occasion, the
Pharisees askedJesusif it is legitimate for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus in
essenceanswers, “No”:“Haven’t you read . . . that at the beginning the
Creator‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reasona man will
leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh’? So they are no longertwo, but one flesh. Therefore what God has
joined together, let no one separate”(Matthew 19:4–6;cf. Genesis 1:27;2:24).
Jesus’point is that a married couple is something that “Godhas joined
together.” Marriage is not of human origin—it originatedwith God and is
part of the way that God designedthe human race to live. In saying “let no
one separate”a marriage, Jesus taught that divorce is not God’s plan. Once a
couple is married, they have been joined togetherby God Himself, and the
union is meant to be for life. This principle holds true despite the faith (or lack
thereof) of the couple. When two atheists marry, they have been joined
togetherby God, whether they recognize it or not. If God has joined them
together, then no human being has the right to break that union.
Later, after Jesus says, “WhatGodhas joined together, let no one separate,”
the Phariseespoint out that Mosesalloweddivorce. Jesus agrees, but also
points out that the allowance was made due to “hardness of heart” (Matthew
19:8, NASB), reiterating that divorce was never God’s original plan.

Jesus’command againstseparating what Godhas joined implies that it is
possible for a marriage union to be brokenand for the one flesh to be
separatedby divorce. There is debate among Christians about whether
divorce is ever justified. Many (perhaps most) would allow for divorce in the
case ofunrepentant unfaithfulness on the part of one spouse (basedon
Matthew 19:9) or desertionof a believing spouse by an unbelieving spouse
who no longer wants to be married to a believer (see 1 Corinthians 7:15). In
these cases the marriage bond has been broken by unfaithfulness or
desertion—a severing of something that God has joined together—andit is a
tragic occurrence.
Even if the above exceptions are allowed, our culture and, too often, even the
church seemto regard divorce as something far less serious than it is. If
marriage were simply a human conventionsimilar to a business partnership
or club membership, then people would be free to enter and exit at will.
Divorce is not simply two people deciding to part company; it is one or
perhaps both of the marriage partners deciding that they will actdecisively to
end something that God intended to be permanent. That is a serious thing!
https://www.gotquestions.org/what-God-has-joined-together.html
What does the Bible say about adultery?
Bible adultery
Question:"What does the Bible sayabout adultery?"
Answer: The word adultery is etymologicallyrelated to the word adulterate,
which means “to render something poorerin quality by adding another
substance.” Adultery is the adulteration of marriage by the addition of a third

person. Adultery is voluntary sexual activity betweena married person and
someone otherthan his or her spouse.
The Bible begins its teaching on marriage with the pattern of Adam and Eve:
one man and one woman, husband and wife, united by God (Genesis 2:24,
Mark 10:7–9). Adultery is forbidden by the seventhcommandment: “You
shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). The fact that the prohibition is
simply statedwith no explanation indicates that the meaning of adultery was
well understood at the time Moses gave the law. Scripture is consistentin the
prohibition againstadultery.
In spite of the clarity of the original pattern of marriage and the prohibition
againstadultery, sinful humanity has developed ways to attempt to blur the
lines of morality.
Polygamy is one way the prohibition againstadultery has been to some extent
circumvented. Polygamy is not technically adultery, although it does
adulterate God’s original plan for marriage. In the Old Testament, polygamy
was allowedby God but never endorsedby Him. Polygamy was not
consideredadultery because, althougha third person(or perhaps a fourth,
fifth, etc.)was added to the marriage, the additional women were legally
included in the marriage. A polygamist who engagedin sexual activity with
someone otherthan his legalwives was still committing adultery. Since
polygamy is generallyillegalin modern countries today, no third person can
be legally added to a marriage.
Divorce and remarriage is another waythat the prohibition againstadultery
has been circumvented. If a married man has an affair, he is committing
adultery. However, if he divorces his wife and marries the other woman, then

he maintains his “legal” footing. In most modern societies, this has become the
norm.
Jesus puts both of these “strategies”to rest: “Anyone who divorces his wife
and marries another womancommits adultery” (Luke 16:18). And, “Anyone
who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against
her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits
adultery” (Mark 10:11–12).According to Jesus, divorce does not circumvent
the prohibition againstadultery. If a married man sees anotherwoman,
desires her sexually, divorces his wife, and marries the other woman, he still
commits adultery. Since the marriage bond is intended to lasta lifetime,
divorce does not release one from the responsibility to be faithful to the
original spouse. (On a related note, we recognize that in some cases Scripture
allows divorce, and, when divorce is allowed, remarriage is also allowed
without being consideredadulterous.)
Jesus carriedthe prohibition againstadultery even further than the Mosaic
Law: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I
tell you that anyone who looks ata woman lustfully has alreadycommitted
adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28). So, evenif a man tries to
“legally” avoidadultery by seeking divorce, he is already guilty because ofthe
lust in his heart that drove him to such measures. If a man “legally” brings
another woman into the marriage, making it a polygamous marriage, he is
still guilty of adultery because of the lust in his heart that motivated him to
marry another wife. Even if a man or woman simply indulges in lustful
thoughts (pornography is especiallyproblematic), then he or she is
committing adultery even if no extramarital physical contactevertakes place.
This explanation by Jesus avoids all of the nuances about “how far is too far”
with someone otherthan a spouse, and it avoids the need to define what “sex”
really is. Lust, not sex, is the threshold of adultery.

Proverbs 6 gives some stern warnings againstcommitting adultery, giving
“correctionand instruction . . . keeping you from your neighbor’s wife”
(verses 23–24). Solomonsays,
“Do not lust in your heart after her beauty
or let her captivate you with her eyes. . . .
Another man’s wife preys on your very life.
Can a man scoopfire into his lap
without his clothes being burned?
Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?
So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife;
no one who touches her will go unpunished” (verses 25–29).
Adultery is deadly serious and brings God’s consequences. “Aman who
commits adultery has no sense;whoeverdoes so destroys himself” (Proverbs
6:32; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:18 and Hebrews 13:4).
A person who lives in adultery gives evidence that he or she has not truly
come to know Christ. But adultery is not unforgiveable, either. Any sin that a
Christian commits canbe forgiven when the Christian repents, and any sin
committed by an unbeliever can be forgiven when that person comes to Christ
in faith. “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived:Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
adulterers . . . will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you
were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians
6:9–11). Notice that in the Corinthian church there were former adulterers,
but they had been washedcleanfrom their sin, sanctified, and justified.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-adultery.html
dot blogvideodivorce and remarriageaudio
Question:"What does the Bible sayabout divorce and remarriage?"
Answer: First of all, no matter what view one takes on the issue of divorce, it
is important to remember Malachi2:16: “I hate divorce, says the LORD God
of Israel.” According to the Bible, marriage is a lifetime commitment. “So
they are no longertwo, but one. Therefore whatGod has joined together, let
man not separate”(Matthew 19:6). God realizes, though, that, since
marriages involve two sinful human beings, divorces are going to occur. In the
Old Testament, He laid down some laws in order to protect the rights of
divorcées, especiallywomen(Deuteronomy 24:1–4). Jesus pointed out that
these laws were given because ofthe hardness of people’s hearts, not because
such laws were God’s desire (Matthew 19:8).
The controversyover whether divorce and remarriage is allowedaccording to
the Bible revolves primarily around Jesus’words in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
The phrase “exceptfor marital unfaithfulness” is the only thing in Scripture
that possibly gives God’s permission for divorce and remarriage. Many
interpreters understand this “exceptionclause” as referring to “marital
unfaithfulness” during the “betrothal” period. In Jewish custom, a man and a
woman were consideredmarried even while they were still engagedor

Jesus was anti divorce

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Similar to Jesus was anti divorce

Similar to Jesus was anti divorce (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was anti divorce