Concerning Divorce and the Continuing Bond of Marriage

Brethren, when we consider marriage, divorce, and remarriage, we must distinguish between ending life together and ending the marriage bond before God.

A husband or wife may leave. They may obtain a civil divorce. But does that mean they are free before God to marry someone else?

My conviction is that a lawful marriage binds husband and wife while both live. Separation, abandonment, or civil divorce may end their shared life, but does not release them from that bond.

This does not mean that a spouse must remain in danger or continue sharing a home regardless of circumstances. Protection from harm and freedom to remarry are different questions. A person may need safety, distance, and practical support without those measures themselves determining whether the marriage bond has ended.

I consider Matthew’s exception through two possible readings: a sexually unlawful union and sexual unfaithfulness during betrothal, before the couple comes together. These concern different circumstances, but both offer ways of understanding the exception without concluding that Jesus permits the dissolution of an established, lawful marriage followed by marriage to another.

Christians differ over these passages. I want to explain why I hold this position, distinguishing what Scripture expressly states from the conclusions I draw when reading the passages together.

Jesus begins with creation

In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees ask whether a man may divorce his wife for any reason.

Jesus answers by returning to creation. God made humanity male and female. A man leaves his father and mother, joins his wife, and the two become one flesh:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” — Matthew 19:4–6 (NKJV)

Jesus begins with what God established. Before addressing the circumstances under which people wish to leave, He directs them to the nature of the union they have entered.

He does not restrict this principle to marriages between believers. In 1 Corinthians 7:12–13, Paul recognizes marriages between believers and unbelievers. Where the unbelieving spouse is willing to continue married life, the believer must not initiate the breakup:

But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. — 1 Corinthians 7:12–13 (NKJV)

Unbelief does not, by itself, invalidate a marriage. The unbelieving spouse remains a husband or wife.

Moses’ concession and the return to the beginning

The Pharisees respond by asking why Moses provided for a divorce certificate and the dismissal of a wife.

Jesus explains that Moses permitted divorce because of their hardness of heart, but that this was not the pattern established from the beginning:

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” — Matthew 19:7–8 (NKJV)

Deuteronomy 24:1–4 concerns marriage, divorce, an intervening marriage, and the prohibition against returning to the first husband afterward. I do not claim that this provision concerned only relationships unlawful from their beginning.

My point is that Jesus distinguishes the Mosaic concession from God’s original intention. He acknowledges what Moses permitted, but directs His hearers back to creation.

That is the setting in which I read the exception that follows.

Did God join them together?

Jesus’ words require us to consider whether the relationship under discussion is a union Scripture permits.

A ceremony, civil recognition, or the use of the words “husband” and “wife” does not, by itself, establish that a relationship is lawful before God.

Yet this question must be answered from Scripture. Disappointment, incompatibility, unbelief, or later wrongdoing does not establish that God never joined a couple. We must not turn “God did not join us” into a personal judgment made because a marriage has become painful.

Three questions therefore need separate answers:

• Was this a lawful marriage?
• Does its marriage bond still exist?
• Does Scripture give these particular people freedom to marry another?

Permission to live separately does not necessarily answer the third question. Neither does ending a prohibited relationship release someone from an existing lawful spouse.

Divorce and freedom to remarry

Jesus says:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. — Mark 10:11–12 (NKJV)

Luke likewise identifies divorce followed by marriage to another, and marriage to a divorced woman, as adultery:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery. — Luke 16:18 (NKJV)

The divorce has occurred, yet Jesus calls the subsequent marriage adultery. In Mark, He specifically describes the husband’s act as adultery against his wife.

I understand this as evidence that putting away a spouse does not, by itself, remove the obligation of marital faithfulness. Their shared life may have ended while the marriage bond continues before God.

The decisive question is therefore not simply whether someone may leave. It is whether that person is free to marry another.

Death ends the obligation of a lawful marriage

In Romans 7:2–3, Paul explains that a married woman is bound to her husband during his lifetime. His death releases her from that obligation:

For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. — Romans 7:2–3 (NKJV)

Paul uses marriage there to explain a broader point about the law. His illustration is not a complete discussion of every question concerning divorce. Nevertheless, it rests on the continuing obligation during the husband’s lifetime and release through his death.

In his direct teaching concerning marriage, he writes:

A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. — 1 Corinthians 7:39 (NKJV)

Death does not mean that God never joined the couple. Their marriage may have been lawful, faithful, and good. Death brings the lifetime obligation to its end.

I therefore distinguish a marriage that was never lawful from a lawful marriage whose obligation has ended through death. I do not understand civil divorce as bringing the same release.

Matthew’s exception and its Jewish setting

Jesus says:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. — Matthew 19:9 (NKJV)

The expression translated “sexual immorality” represents the Greek word porneia.

Among the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ divorce teaching, Matthew alone records this exception, in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Mark and Luke give the warnings against divorce and remarriage without it.

Matthew is commonly understood as addressing a readership with a strong Jewish Christian character. His frequent appeals to Israel’s Scriptures, the law, and the fulfilment of prophecy make that setting important. This does not mean that every reader was Jewish or that his Gospel was intended only for Jews.

Readers familiar with Israel’s Scriptures and marriage customs would have recognized both the prohibitions against certain sexual relationships and the obligations associated with betrothal. These provide the two lenses through which I consider the exception.

That background makes these readings relevant. It does not prove either one. Their strength must be assessed alongside Jesus’ words and the other passages concerning marriage.

The first lens: a sexually unlawful union

The first reading concerns a relationship whose sexual union is itself forbidden.

Leviticus 18:6–18 identifies prohibited sexual relationships within a family. Verse 20 prohibits intercourse with another man’s wife. Calling such a relationship marriage cannot remove the prohibition against it.

Paul supplies a relevant New Testament example in 1 Corinthians 5:1. He describes a man’s relationship with his father’s wife as porneia. The word can therefore describe an ongoing prohibited relationship:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! — 1 Corinthians 5:1 (NKJV)

The account of Herod and Herodias makes the distinction particularly clear. Mark 6:17 states that Herod had married her, yet John confronted him:

For it is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife. — Mark 6:18 (NKJV)

He had married her, yet it was unlawful for him to have her.

On this reading, Matthew’s exception concerns ending a relationship that should not have been regarded as a lawful marriage. Ending it would not separate a marriage God lawfully joined.

This differs from adultery committed within an otherwise lawful marriage. Later unfaithfulness does not mean that the original union was prohibited from its beginning.

These examples establish that unlawful unions exist and that porneia can describe them. They do not establish that this is its exclusive meaning in Matthew. I find the reading persuasive because it allows the exception to be understood consistently with Jesus’ opening appeal to what God has joined.

The second lens: sexual unfaithfulness during betrothal

The second reading concerns sexual unfaithfulness during betrothal, before the couple comes together.

Matthew introduces this setting at the beginning of his Gospel:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” — Matthew 1:18–20 (NKJV)

Notice the language. They have not yet come together, yet Joseph is called her husband and Mary is called his wife. Ending the betrothal is described using divorce language.

Mary had committed no sexual sin. The relevance of the account is Joseph’s contemplated response before the explanation was given, within a betrothal relationship.

Matthew 1:24–25 records his obedience:

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. — Matthew 1:24–25 (NKJV)

The account shows that marriage and divorce language could be used before consummation. On the betrothal reading, Matthew’s exception concerns unfaithfulness during that stage, rather than permission to dissolve an established marriage after the couple has come together.

However, betrothal was not a casual promise without binding obligations. Deuteronomy 22:23–24 describes a betrothed woman as another man’s wife. Lack of consummation therefore does not, by itself, establish that God recognized no binding relationship. These passages also do not supply a universal definition of the precise moment at which every lifelong marriage bond begins.

Matthew does not expressly identify Joseph’s situation as the explanation of the exception in chapter 19. The connection is interpretive: the same Gospel presents both the betrothal account and the exception.

I therefore keep the two readings distinct. One concerns a union prohibited in itself. The other concerns whether the exception addresses unfaithfulness during betrothal. I regard them as possible explanations consistent with my conviction, not as two exceptions Jesus explicitly lists.

Why the concluding warning matters

Matthew 5:32 addresses the person divorcing a spouse and then the person marrying someone who has been divorced:

But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. — Matthew 5:32 (NKJV)

Her divorced status does not, by itself, make marriage to her lawful.

The NKJV wording of Matthew 19:9 also concludes with a warning against marrying a divorced woman. The corresponding warning is present in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18.

My position therefore rests on more than the absence of a separate statement saying that an innocent spouse may remarry. It rests also on Jesus’ positive warning concerning marriage after divorce.

The strongest opposing reading understands the exception as qualifying both divorce and remarriage. On that understanding, adultery does not automatically dissolve the marriage, but it permits a divorce that releases the innocent spouse.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 24, expressly adopts that position concerning adultery. I therefore do not dismiss the opposing interpretation as merely confusing a civil decree with God’s judgment. Its proponents believe Scripture authorizes the release.

My disagreement concerns whether the passages grant it.

The placement of the exception alone cannot settle the question. I read Matthew alongside Jesus’ warnings in Mark and Luke, Paul’s instruction to remain unmarried or reconcile, and the connection between the marriage obligation and the spouse’s lifetime. Taken together, these lead me to understand the exception without treating it as permission to dissolve an established lawful marriage and marry another.

Sin within a lawful marriage

If a husband commits adultery, he sins against his wife. His wrongdoing does not mean that marrying her was unlawful from the beginning. The same applies to a wife who commits adultery.

I do not minimize the betrayal or suffering involved. I distinguish the violation of the covenant from release from its obligations.

In Matthew 5:28, Jesus also condemns deliberate lust as adultery in the heart:

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. — Matthew 5:28 (NKJV)

His teaching calls for inward purity as well as outward faithfulness. It does not say that a lustful thought dissolves a marriage or requires divorce.

Permission is not a command, and inward guilt does not necessarily carry every consequence associated with an outward act. I therefore do not use this passage as proof of the meaning of Matthew’s exception.

The continuing bond must never become an excuse for treating betrayal lightly or leaving a suffering spouse without help. Accountability, protection, and practical care remain necessary.

Paul’s instruction after separation

In 1 Corinthians 7:10–11, Paul instructs the wife not to separate from her husband. If separation occurs, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to him. He also instructs the husband not to divorce his wife:

Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. — 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 (NKJV)

Paul acknowledges separation, but directs the separated wife toward singleness or reconciliation. He still calls the man her husband.

This is not merely his preference for singleness. It belongs to the instruction he introduces as coming from the Lord.

I understand this as consistent with Jesus’ warnings: separation has occurred, but it has not created freedom to enter another marriage.

Reconciliation must also be treated seriously. It is more than returning to the same address. Where there has been betrayal or harm, restored life together calls for truth, repentance, accountability, and the rebuilding of trust.

What does “not under bondage” release the believer from?

In 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul permits the departure of an unbelieving spouse and states that the believing brother or sister is not under bondage in such circumstances. He connects this instruction with God’s call to peace:

But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. — 1 Corinthians 7:15 (NKJV)

Some understand this as a specific provision releasing an abandoned believer from the marriage bond, including freedom to remarry.

I read it differently because of the immediate situation Paul describes. In verses 12–13, the unbelieving spouse is willing to continue married life, and the believer must not initiate the breakup. In verse 15, the unbeliever insists on leaving, and the believer may accept the departure.

I understand the freedom granted as freedom from an obligation to compel the continuation of life together.

Others distinguish this mixed marriage from the situation in verses 10–11. My conclusion is that the circumstance changes the believer’s responsibility concerning departure without establishing a different rule about the duration of the marriage bond.

The absence of an express reference to remarriage is not, by itself, my proof. I read verse 15 alongside the instruction to remain unmarried or reconcile in verse 11 and the statement about being bound while the husband lives in verse 39.

Paul’s preference in verse 40 concerns the widow, who has already been permitted to marry. It must not be confused with his instruction after separation.

Reading the rest of the chapter

First Corinthians 7:27–28 also deserves attention. Paul speaks of being bound to or free from a wife and then says that marrying is not sinful:

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you. — 1 Corinthians 7:27–28 (NKJV)

The question is whom he includes among those free to marry. The discussion beginning in verse 25 concerns virgins or the betrothed, depending on the translation, and the circumstances in which they should marry.

I do not understand verses 27–28 as a general authorization for every divorced person to remarry. I read the permission in the light of the chapter’s distinction between those free to marry and those instructed to remain unmarried or reconcile.

I recognize that the scope of these verses is debated. My reading does not depend on treating the expression “free from a wife” as an unmistakable reference to one group. It depends on understanding Paul’s permission to marry consistently with his express instructions elsewhere in the chapter.

God’s prophetic marriage imagery

Jeremiah 3:8 describes God putting Israel away and giving her a divorce certificate because of her unfaithfulness:

Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. — Jeremiah 3:8 (NKJV)

The chapter draws on the Mosaic divorce framework. I do not claim that God’s covenant with Israel was unlawful. Israel betrayed a covenant God had genuinely established.

Yet judgment is followed by a call to return. In Jeremiah 3:14, God calls His unfaithful people back:

“Return, O backsliding children,” says the Lord; “for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.” — Jeremiah 3:14 (NKJV)

The chapter brings judgment and continuing covenant appeal together. We must take the rupture seriously without assuming that God has exhausted His commitment to His people.

Hosea likewise moves from repudiation toward renewed betrothal and restoration:

“I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me In righteousness and justice, In lovingkindness and mercy; I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness, And you shall know the Lord.” — Hosea 2:19–20 (NKJV)

These prophetic passages reveal the seriousness of covenant unfaithfulness and the depth of God’s mercy.

They do not, by themselves, settle the scope of Matthew’s exception or provide a complete code for human marriage. I read them in their covenant setting and look chiefly to Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s instructions when considering freedom to remarry.

Consummation and the lawfulness of a union

Sexual intercourse does not, by itself, establish a marriage God approves.

In 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul applies one-flesh language to intercourse with a prostitute while condemning the relationship:

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” — 1 Corinthians 6:16 (NKJV)

The reality of sexual union must therefore be distinguished from the legitimacy of marriage.

Consummation cannot make a forbidden relationship lawful. Equally, the absence of consummation does not automatically establish that no binding obligation exists.

The question must remain grounded in Scripture rather than in a single ceremony, physical act, or personal judgment.

The creation pattern and its implications

I understand Jesus’ appeal to creation as establishing marriage between one man and one woman in an exclusive covenant.

On that basis, I do not regard taking additional concurrent spouses as establishing further lawful marriages alongside the first. Nor, in my reading, does civil divorce make a subsequent union lawful while a covenant spouse lives.

This does not condemn every marriage that happens to be someone’s second marriage. Scripture expressly permits marriage after a spouse’s death. The issue is whether an existing lawful bond remains.

The Old Testament records and regulates plural marriages. My Christian position rests on Jesus’ return to the creation pattern, rather than a claim that every Old Testament passage explicitly declares those unions invalid.

I also understand the male-and-female foundation according to God’s created order. A union lacking that foundation does not meet the definition of marriage I am defending. These are applications of my reading of creation, rather than relationship categories individually named in Matthew’s exception.

Ending an unlawful union does not automatically free everyone involved to marry. Any continuing lawful marriage bond must still be honored.

Remaining unmarried for the kingdom’s sake

After Jesus’ teaching, the disciples remark that, if this is the situation between husband and wife, it is better not to marry.

Jesus responds by speaking of eunuchs, including those who forgo marriage for the kingdom of heaven’s sake:

For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it. — Matthew 19:12 (NKJV)

This passage does not specifically identify divorced people, and Paul does not explicitly quote it in 1 Corinthians 7:11. Nevertheless, it recognizes a life without marriage for the kingdom’s sake.

The difficulty of remaining unmarried does not itself establish permission to marry another. But those who teach this must take that difficulty seriously. The church should offer friendship, belonging, and practical support to those living alone. We must not give an instruction and then leave people to carry its weight without help.

The conviction I hold

I remain persuaded that a lawful marriage binds husband and wife while both live. Separation, abandonment, or civil divorce may end their shared life, but does not grant freedom before God to marry another.

My consideration of Matthew’s exception through the unlawful-union and betrothal readings belongs within that wider understanding. I acknowledge the interpretive questions involved; my conviction rests on the combined witness of Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s instructions.

A lawful marriage wounded by sin remains different from a union forbidden by God. A binding betrothal must also be considered on its own terms.

“Did God join them together?” must therefore be answered from Scripture. So must the further question: “Has Scripture identified a release from that bond?”

For those separated from a lawful spouse, I understand the instruction to remain: remain unmarried or be reconciled. Where a spouse has died, Scripture expressly grants freedom to marry, only in the Lord.

A word to those carrying the pain

Brethren, these questions concern people, not merely arguments. Some have been betrayed. Some have been abandoned. Some are raising children alone. Others are looking back on decisions made with limited understanding, conflicting counsel, or deep distress.

I do not write to make light of that suffering. Every divorce has its own history, and responsibility must not be assigned without listening carefully and establishing the truth.

Neither should anyone conclude that the history of their marriage places them beyond the mercy of Christ. The Lord calls us to truth and repentance, and He receives those who come to Him. His forgiveness is real, and His grace equips us to walk in obedience.

Complicated circumstances deserve patient examination, honest counsel, and care for everyone affected, especially children. A general article cannot responsibly determine every particular case.

My conviction about marriage remains firm. So does my conviction that those teaching it must bear the burdens of the people hearing it. We must speak truth without contempt, offer help without evasion, and walk patiently with those seeking to order their lives before God.

Your Brother in Christ,

Dr. Tunde Caleb Agboola

Bible Teacher and Servant of Christ

Dtransfer Fellowship

Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.