The topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage is a controversial issue among brethren. There are several different views regarding the Bible teaching on this subject. There has been much writing and debate recently – particularly over the rights of an innocent put-away spouse. Debates (whether written or oral) can be useful in presenting two sides of an issue for an audience to more easily compare the teachings with Scripture. However, when one goes to study the subject, the amount of material available may seem overwhelming. The purpose of this study is to clear up some of the confusion so we can more easily see the truth contained in God’s word.
Divorce is a great problem in our society today. It is so common that there are many different “scenarios” in which people may find themselves. The reality is that the New Testament simply does not address every possible divorce scenario. Does this mean the Bible is insufficient? Of course not! What are we to do then? Should we take the consequences of one scenario and apply it to all of them? Some do this. Or should we take all the principles and precepts of God’s word and apply them to each scenario? Clearly, the latter should be our course. After all, this is what we do with every other Bible topic. So let us examine the principles and precepts of Scripture as they relate to the current controversy.
Defining the Controversy
Whenever questions arise that relate to Bible teaching, there are three things we must do. First, we must understand the question. Second, we must determine everything that God has said in His word that pertains to the question. Third, we must then answer the question based solely on what we have found the word of God to teach.
Basically, the question is this: Can the innocent spouse put away his mate for fornication and remarry after his mate put him away for just any cause?
Let us use an illustration to show how this can happen. Joe is married to Sally. [For the purpose of the illustration, we will assume they both have the right to be married to each other.] After they are married for a period of time, Joe decides to put away his wife Sally. She has not committed fornication. He is putting her away for just any cause. After this is done, Joe marries Lisa. Whether or not he divorced Sally for the purpose of marrying Lisa is irrelevant. Joe is now married to someone to whom he has no right to be married. He should be with Sally. So here is the question: Can Sally put away Joe and remarry?
Throughout the controversy that has surrounded this question, certain terms have come up that have most likely hindered the discussion by prejudicing the minds of some against certain brethren before any study has been done. Terms like “mental divorce,” “the waiting game,” “second putting away,” and others have been thrown around. Before we start using these terms, we need to properly understand the question. Then we need to see what the Bible teaches. After that, we need to use the teachings of Scripture to answer the question. After we do that, then we can then see if such terms are profitable. More than likely, we will find they are not. But even if they are, they must be used carefully and with the proper understanding.
We also need to understand what this controversy is not about. This is not about whether one may put away his mate for a cause other than fornication, wait for his mate to commit fornication, then put her away again, this time for fornication. The Scriptures plainly prohibits this (Matthew 5:32). This is also not about whether a couple can agree to a divorce, put each other away, then whoever is the first to commit fornication, the other then has the right to remarry. This concept is not supported by Scripture either (Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
So again, let us first be sure we understand the question that is at the heart of this current controversy. Can the innocent spouse put away his mate for fornication and remarry after his mate puts him away for just any cause? Understanding now what the issue is, let us look at the principles and precepts of Scripture that may relate to this topic.
God’s Universal Marriage Law
As we previously noticed, the current controversy has to do with the right, or lack thereof, of one in a particular situation to put away his spouse and remarry. Before we can really get into what the Scriptures teach about divorce and remarriage, we must first lay a foundation by showing what the Bible teaches regarding marriage.
Marriage Is a Divine Institution
Jesus said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6). Marriage was established and, therefore, is also regulated by God. It was put in place at the beginning. After creating Eve to be a “helper” (Genesis 2:18) for Adam, the text says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). God’s rules regarding marriage were established long before any culture, society, or government. Therefore, none of those affect the divine institution of marriage.
A misunderstanding of the role of civil government accounts for many of the disagreements among God’s people today over the subject of marriage, divorce, and remarriage – particularly relating to our question under consideration here. Like marriage, civil government is an institution that has been “established by God” (Romans 13:1). Civil authorities are given certain responsibilities by God. They are to keep order “so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life” (1 Timothy 2:1-3) and deal out punishment to “the one who practices evil” (Romans 13:4); but nowhere in Scripture do we find where God gave civil governments any role or authority with regard to marriage.
In our present day United States, civil government does record and recognize marriages. However, what they choose to recognize as marriage is not always what God has determined is a marriage. In some places (and sadly, this will probably spread to more and more places), the civil government will recognize the union of two men or two women as a marriage. Many times, the government will permit marriage between two people when one or both of those people are still bound by God’s marriage law to a previous mate. What the laws of man choose to recognize does not change God’s law.
As Christians who realize that we are governed by God’s law, we need to respect that law when it comes to marriage. His law is unchanged by the courts and cultures of men. Those courts and cultures can choose whether or not they will recognize those whom God has bound together as being married. But regardless of who they view as married or unmarried, God’s marriage law determines who is or is not bound in marriage.
God Will Join Two Who Are Eligible to Marry
As was already stated, just because a society or government recognizes a couple as being married does not mean that God has bound them to each other in marriage. God will only join two who are eligible to marry. When Jesus was asked by the Pharisees if a man could “divorce his wife for any reason at all,” He went back to the beginning and explained God’s universal marriage law: “And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4). God’s design for marriage involves one man and one woman. He will not join two men or two women in the bond of marriage, regardless of what society recognizes.
However, God will not join every man-woman couple who wish to marry. He will only join those who have the right to marry. Of course, one who has never been bound in marriage has the right to marry. This was the situation for both Adam and Eve when God established marriage in the beginning. Also, when one has been married and his spouse dies, he has the right to marry again (Romans 7:2-3). Lastly, the innocent spouse who puts away his mate who is guilty of fornication has the right to marry (Matthew 19:9). According to what the Bible teaches regarding marriage, individuals in one of these three categories have the right to marry another who also falls into one of these categories.
Marriage Is a Life-Long Relationship
The rampant divorce rate in our country and in many places around the world is a mockery of God’s plan for marriage. God’s intent is for marriage to last a lifetime. There are only two exceptions given in Scripture that give one who was previously bound in marriage the right to remarry. If one’s spouse dies, he is released from his marriage bond (Romans 7:2). If the innocent spouse puts away his mate for fornication, he is released from his bond and is free to remarry (Matthew 19:9).
To demonstrate the permanency of the marriage bond, we can see examples in Scripture of those who were still bound by God’s marriage law to one while being recognized by men as being married to another. Herod is said to have married Herodias, who was previously his brother Philip’s wife (Mark 6:17). John had opportunity to teach Herod and told him, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). Herod and Herodias were seen by men as being married; but John, the prophet of God, knew God’s marriage law. Herodias was still bound to Philip. That is why he could still call her Philip’s wife. The marriage bond remains intact, even after an unlawful divorce and remarriage.
Another example is found in Jesus’ teaching on marriage: “And He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her’” (Mark 10:11). When a man remarries without the right to remarry, that second marriage constitutes adultery against his original wife. Some have argued that “against” should be translated “with,” even though the vast majority of translators (experts in the Greek language) have translated the word as “against.” Regardless, whether the Greek word epi should be translated as “against” or “with,” the meaning is the same. He commits adultery with the second wife against his first wife. Adultery is defined as “willful sexual intercourse with someone other than one’s husband or wife” (Nelson’s Bible Dictionary). The fact that Jesus called this second marriage adultery shows that this man was still bound in marriage to his first wife. His divorce and subsequent marriage did not change that.
Summary
When the Pharisees came to Jesus in Matthew 19, they asked Him if a man could “divorce his wife for any reason at all” (Matthew 19:3). Before answering their question, He set forth the truth of God’s law regarding marriage. This needs to be established before teaching on divorce and remarriage will be of any profit. Today we have controversy over whether or not one can put away his spouse for fornication after his spouse put him away for some other cause. Before we can answer that question, we need to first understand God’s marriage law. Marriage is established by God, not man. God joins two in marriage who have the right to marry. Once He joins them in the bond of marriage, unless one of the two exceptions that we noticed earlier occurs, they are expected to remain in that relationship. This law applies to all men of all time, regardless of society or culture.
God’s Law Regarding Divorce
As we noticed previously, God established marriage and designed it to be a life-long relationship between a man and woman. Sadly, our society – as well as many around the world – does not view marriage this way. Many see marriage as a temporary arrangement that we can get out of as easily as we got into it. Divorces occur everyday for almost any reason. People give no thought to God’s precepts and attitude toward divorce.
God Hates Divorce
God expressed His attitude toward divorce very plainly through the prophet Malachi: “‘For I hate divorce,’ says the Lord, the God of Israel” (Malachi 2:16). We cannot misunderstand this and we must let this sink in. It does not matter how common divorce is. It does not matter who we know that has been divorced. God hates divorce. [It is important to note that the context is about a divorce in which one deals “treacherously” against their spouse (Malachi 2:14). Though it can be argued that the principle extends beyond this, at least to some degree.]
Why does God hate divorce? First of all, it goes against His marriage law – one man and one woman for life. This has been the rule since the beginning. This is why Jesus made His appeal to the beginning when He was questioned about divorce. The Pharisees wondered if it was “lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Matthew 19:3). Jesus answered their question by pointing them to the beginning. A man and woman were to “leave…father and mother and be joined” to one another (Matthew 19:5). Romans 7:2-3 teaches us that God intends this relationship to last until death. When a divorce occurs, this intention is not realized.
A second reason why God hates divorce is that it demonstrates that one or both of the parties have disregarded His will. Again, God’s intention for marriage is for it to last a lifetime. Whenever a divorce occurs, sin is present. It may be that both parties involved are guilty of sin in the breakup of the marriage. It is possible that one is innocent and has in no way contributed or consented to the divorce and the fault lies solely with the other spouse. Regardless, every divorce indicates the presence of sin, thus a disregard for God’s will.
Another reason why God hates divorce is because it breaks up the home. The home is a fundamental institution upon which other things are built or are reliant. It is the foundation of society. The more prevalent divorce is, the more of a negative effect there is on society. But divorce also has an effect on the church. When Christians are involved, divorce upsets not only the unity in the home, but also the unity in the local church. Divorce causes strife and friction that extends beyond the couple who are separating.
But what about a Scriptural divorce? First, what do we mean by a “Scriptural divorce”? This simply means a divorce that is authorized by God. God permits one to put away his bound mate for one reason – fornication (Matthew 19:9). Even though God allows Scriptural divorces, they share some characteristics with the unscriptural divorces that God hates. Even in a Scriptural divorce, there is no longer the one man and one woman for life relationship that God intended. There is also the fact that one has disregarded God will in committing sin – fornication. It also breaks up the home. This affects those in the home, society, and – in the case of Christians – the church. So even though God allows divorce for a certain cause and the innocent spouse who puts away his mate for fornication commits no sin, God still hates divorce.
Using the Bible to Define “Putting Away”
One thing that is of vital importance in this issue is defining terms properly. Words mean things, but depending upon their usage and context can mean different things. What does the Bible mean when it speaks of “putting away”?
The Greek word apoluo is the word that is translated “put away” or “divorce.” Often when people hear the term divorce, they think of it in relation to our present society with its civil procedures and laws. This is not inherent in the meaning of the original Greek word. In relation to marriage, the word simply means a rejection or repudiation of one’s mate.
In order to demonstrate this, let us look at how the Greek word apoluo is used in the New Testament. This word is used many times in which it is translated as something other than “put away” or “divorce.” We can learn a lot about the definition of apoluo by observing the various translations of the word. So let us list the different ways this word is translated. Note that all translations here are taken from the King James Version. Different versions may translate a few of these words differently, but this will certainly help us establish the meaning of apoluo.
- To put away – translated this way 14 times (Matthew 1:19; 5:31, 32; 19:3, 7, 8, 9 [twice]; Mark 10:2, 4, 11, 12; Luke 16:18 [twice]). Every time this translation is used it is in reference to marriage.
- To divorce – translated this way 1 time (Matthew 5:32). It is interesting, in spite of the common use of this term today, this is the only time the Greek word is so translated in the King James Version. It may also be interesting to note that the American Standard Version translates this word in this verse “put away,” not “divorce.”
- To send away – translated this way 12 times (Matthew 14:15, 22, 23; 15:32, 39; Mark 6:36, 45; 8:3, 9; Luke 8:38; 9:12; Acts 13:3).
- To loose – translated this way 2 times (Matthew 18:27; Luke 13:12).
- To release – translated this way 16 times (Matthew 27:15, 17, 26; Mark 15:6, 9, 11, 15; Luke 23:16, 17, 18, 20, 25; John 18:39 [twice]; 19:10, 12).
- To let depart/let go – translated this way 15 times (Luke 2:29; 14:4; 22:68; 23:22; John 19:12; Acts 3:13; 4:21, 23; 5:40; 15:33; 16:35, 36; 17:9; 23:22; 28:18).
- To forgive – translated this way 2 times (Luke 6:37 [twice]).
- To dismiss – translated this way 2 times (Acts 15:30; 19:41).
- To set at liberty – translated this way 2 times (Acts 26:32; Hebrews 13:23).
- To depart – translated this way 1 time (Acts 28:25).
What can we learn from the various translations of this Greek word? First of all, it should be clear that no civil procedure of any kind is inherent in the definition of the word. Jesus did not need to file court papers in order to send the multitudes away (Matthew 14:22-23; et al.). The Antioch church did not need to obtain some sort of legal license to be able to send men out to preach (Acts 13:3). And one certainly does not need to go through man’s judicial system in order to forgive his brother’s sins (Luke 6:37). Any who read Jesus teaching about “putting away” and automatically think of a legal process need to overcome this mental roadblock so their thinking will be more in harmony with Scripture.
We also get a picture from these translations as to what one does in putting away a mate. Again, no civil procedure is implied. So what is involved in the repudiation or rejection of a mate? A lot depends on the particular circumstance. If the spouse is still in the home, he can be sent away (Matthew 15:39) or dismissed (Acts 19:41). If he is in the home and refuses to leave, the other can depart (Acts 28:25). If he is wishing to leave, he can be set at liberty or be freed to leave (Acts 26:32) – the other spouse can let him go. Looking at these various translations helps us get a more comprehensive picture as to what the Greek word apoluo – translated as “put away” in reference to marriage – involves.
When people think of putting away, they usually think of “divorce.” As was already stated, the use of this term often brings with it the connotation of a civil procedure and legal process. Yet we noticed that this is not implied by Scripture. As we have seen, the King James Version uses the English word “divorce” only once in translating apoluo. In contrast, the word is translated “to send away,” “to release,” and “to let depart,” or “let go” a combined 43 times. Let us speak of Bible terms in Bible ways. Civil procedure is not implied by apoluo.
Accepting the Exception
Matthew 19 records an instance when a group of Pharisees came to Jesus to test Him. They did this on many occasions. This particular time, they asked Him about divorce: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Matthew 19:3). Some believed that a man could put away his wife for just any reason. Others believed the only lawful cause for divorce was adultery. They wanted to see which side of the controversy Jesus would take.
Jesus, in answering their question, appealed to God’s universal marriage law that was established “from the beginning” (Matthew 19:4). He explained that God’s design for marriage was one man and one woman for life (Matthew 19:5). When two eligible people enter into this covenant, God would join them together (Matthew 19:6). This made the dissolution of the marriage bond out of man’s hands. It could only be done by God if and when His terms for severing the marriage bond were met.
So “is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” In essence, the answer Jesus gave was “no.” This is not an absolute rule since there was an exception given. But generally speaking, it is not lawful for a man to put away his wife and remarry. So we find a rule established by this truth. Remarriage following a divorce constitutes adultery (Matthew 19:9). This teaching is plain. Man cannot change this divine rule. The only thing that can change this divinely given rule is a divinely given exception. Jesus gave such an exception – “except for immorality (fornication, KJV).” When fornication occurs, the conditions of the exception are met so the rule may be revoked. Again, this is done by God, not man. A divinely given rule can only be negated by a divinely given exception.
When we look at the exception that allows one to remarry after putting away his mate, we see by way of inference another divinely given rule. An innocent spouse may put away his bound mate for fornication and remarry without committing adultery. Jesus taught this by implication in Matthew 19:9. This rule is established by the exception clause to His divorce law.
As I have already stated, God’s rules can only be nullified by an exception He has given. A rule is absolute when an exception is not given. God’s rule that remarriage following divorce constitutes adultery is not absolute since there are exceptions given (Matthew 19:9; Romans 7:2-3). The fact that this law is not absolute does not lessen the weight of it to any degree. If His exceptions are not met, His rule remains firm.
But the rule derived from the exception is different. This rule states that an innocent spouse may put away his bound mate for fornication and remarry without committing adultery. It is absolute because God has given no exception to it. Again, a divinely given rule can only be negated by a divinely given exception. The innocent spouse may put away his mate for fornication and remarry. Scripture gives no exception to this rule.
Summary
The Bible is very clear when it comes to God’s law about divorce. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). It goes against His intention for marriage and has a negative effect on other institutions He has established. God has given only one cause that allows one the permission to put away his spouse and remarry – fornication (Matthew 19:9). God’s law regarding divorce is simple. An innocent spouse may put away his mate for fornication and remarry without committing adultery.
Divorce Scenarios Addressed in the New Testament
As we noticed early in this study, the current controversy revolves around a certain divorce scenario. Can one put away his spouse for fornication and remarry after his spouse puts him away for just any cause? The New Testament addresses a few different scenarios. Let us take a look at these and see if any match the question of this controversy.
Scenario #1 – A man puts away his wife for fornication – This is mentioned in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. This is the only scenario that allows the one putting away his mate to marry another without committing adultery (Matthew 19:9).
Scenario #2 – A man puts away his wife for a cause other than fornication – This is mentioned in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; and Luke 16:18. Without fornication on the part of his wife, this man sins in putting her away. If he remarries, he compounds his sin by now committing adultery. Matthew 5:32 also teaches that he is guilty of leading her into adultery if she remarries. Why is her subsequent marriage in this context labeled as adultery? It is because she did not put her husband away for fornication per Matthew 19:9 and is, therefore, still bound to him.
Scenario #3 – A woman puts away her husband for a cause other than fornication – This is mentioned in Mark 10:12 and would be included in the situation described in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Most of the passages that speak of one putting away a mate speak of the husband putting away the wife. But these two passages describe the wife doing the putting away. If a woman puts away her husband for a cause other than fornication, she commits adultery upon remarriage just the same as a man would who put away his wife for just any cause. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches us the woman who has left her husband has two options. Either she can go back and be reconciled to him, or she can remain unmarried. She does not have the option of marrying another. [Note that 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 describes a situation in which a woman leaves her husband. This does not necessarily mean she puts him away, but it certainly would include that.]
Do We Have a Match?
Does the question of our current controversy match any of the divorce scenarios described in the New Testament? The controversy has to do with an innocent spouse putting away his mate for fornication after his mate put him away for another cause and then be able to remarry. Do we see this described in any of the scenarios? No. In the scenarios in which one puts away his spouse for fornication, he had not previously been put away (if they were, it is not specifically stated). In the scenarios that described one who had been previously put away, no mention is made of this person putting away his mate for fornication. Thus, adultery is committed upon remarriage.
Let us be sure we understand this. In the scenarios described, the ones putting away their spouse for fornication had never been put away themselves. Also, the ones who had been put away did not put away their mate for fornication. But in our question, the one putting away his mate for fornication had already been put away for some other cause. The scenarios are not the same.
Some try and use the scenario in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 to say that the woman who has been put away has two options – be reconciled or remain unmarried. This is not what the text says. These are the options given to the woman who leaves her husband, not the one who is put away by her husband. This scenario is not parallel either.
What shall we say then? Is the Bible insufficient to address this question? Certainly not! While it is true that the scenario described in the question that is at the heart of this controversy is not found in the New Testament, we can still ascertain God’s will regarding it. Without specific examples or described scenarios, we must look at the principles that God’s word sets forth about marriage, divorce, and remarriage. When we do this with an open heart, I believe we can all come to an understanding of the truth.
Using Bible Principles to Address the Controversy
Once again, the question is this: Can an innocent spouse put away his mate for fornication and remarry after his mate put him away for just any cause? We noticed earlier that this particular scenario is not specifically addressed in Scripture. Without a parallel example, we must look at the principles and precepts of God’s word to determine the truth. So let us take a look at what we know from the word of God.
- Marriage is a divine institution – God established marriage in the beginning (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Since God established it, His laws are what govern it. He is the one who determines who has a right to marry and who has a right to put away his mate. Nothing man says or does can change the mandate of God.
- Marriage is a life-long relationship – The marriage bond that is formed when two eligible people enter the covenant of marriage lasts as long as they are both living (Romans 7:2-3). God never intended for people to be able to get out of marriage for just any reason (Matthew 19:8).
- There is only one cause that authorizes one to put away his spouse and remarry – Jesus only gave one exception to the rule that one was not to put away his spouse. This exception was fornication on the part of his spouse (Matthew 19:9). When this occurred, the innocent spouse (the one against whom the adultery was committed) was extended the permission to put away his mate and remarry if he chose to do so.
- Putting away for another cause does not result in the dissolution of the marriage bond – Most of the time when one puts away his mate, he does so for a reason other than fornication. The majority of times putting away is mentioned or alluded to in Scripture, fornication is not involved. God does not authorize such actions, no matter how common they may be. The Scriptures teach that even after one puts away his spouse for just any cause, he is still bound to that mate (Mark 6:17-18; 10:11; Romans 7:3).
- Jesus addressed divorce cause, not procedure or timing – The Pharisees asked Jesus about a lawful cause for divorce (Matthew 19:3) and Jesus answered their question. He explained that one could only put away his mate for fornication (Matthew 19:9). The Pharisees did not ask Jesus about lawful procedure or lawful timing (sequence of events or a time limit in which an innocent spouse may put away a fornicator mate). Hence, Jesus’ answer did not address procedure or timing. He addressed their question – the lawful cause for divorce. Additionally, we do not find any other New Testament writings that deal with divorce procedure or timing either.
These are the things we know from Scripture. We know that God instituted and thus regulates marriage. We know that marriage is a life-long relationship. We know fornication is the only lawful cause for divorce. We know that a couple is still bound following an unlawful divorce. And we know that the New Testament specifies divorce cause, but not procedure or timing.
So back to our question: Can an innocent spouse put away his mate for fornication and remarry after his mate puts him away for just any cause? Let us examine this question by looking at the five points we just reviewed.
- God makes the rules for marriage – Therefore, the permission for or restriction against remarriage for this person will have to be found in God’s word, not in the opinions of men.
- God’s intention was for these two people to remain married for life.
- The only cause that allows one to put away his mate and remarry is fornication – The one in this question is said to be putting away his mate for fornication.
- The marriage bond is intact following an unlawful divorce – This one’s spouse previously put him away. Since it was done for a cause other than fornication, this couple was still bound in marriage.
- Jesus specified the cause for divorce, not procedure or timing – In this case, fornication (the cause) was committed.
Based on what the Scriptures teach, can an innocent spouse put away his mate for fornication and remarry after his mate puts him away for just any cause? Yes! In this situation, we have an innocent spouse putting away his bound mate for fornication. Jesus taught that one who does this has the right to remarry (Matthew 19:9).
Objections & Misconceptions
The reality is that not everyone believes what the Scriptures teach in this matter. This teaching is passionately and zealously opposed by some and swiftly and thoughtlessly disregarded by many. Why? Let us look at some of the reasons why some brethren say that the innocent spouse cannot put away his mate for fornication and remarry following an unlawful divorce.
The “Put-Away” Status
A common belief brethren have is that no put away person can remarry. This is so common and so often stated that you could almost be led to believe that those words were actually found in Scripture – “no put away person can remarry.” This phrase is not in the Bible. Furthermore, it is not taught in the Bible.
This phrase is worded in such a way as to make it an absolute. That is, the rule that no put away person can remarry is without exception. Those who promote this idea are being quite misleading (perhaps unwittingly) by this statement. Even they do not believe this is an absolute. Why? It is because even they acknowledge the New Testament gives exceptions to this. One who is put away can remarry if his spouse dies (Romans 7:2-3). Also, one who is put away can remarry his original mate (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Those who oppose the teaching set forth in this study – for the most part – believe these are exceptions to the “no put away person can remarry” rule. Yet they teach it anyway as being absolute. Why? Perhaps they see it as a convenient way to oppose this perceived heresy and deceive people into joining their opposition of it. Maybe they teach this in ignorance. The Lord knows their heart. I will not attempt to pass judgment on their motives.
What is the intended use of this rule? It is to prohibit one from putting away his mate for fornication and remarrying simply because his mate has already put him away. The passage that is used to make this prohibition is Matthew 19:9b – “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (KJV). Does this teach that no put away person can remarry?
Notice first that Jesus said, “Her which is put away.” He does not say, “One which is put away.” This is not an absolute prohibition against remarriage on the part of one who has been put away. We saw that earlier. So who is the “her” of this passage? It is essential we understand this because Jesus did not say “no put away person can remarry.” He said this woman cannot remarry.
In Matthew 19:9, Jesus presented two hypothetical scenarios. First, a man puts away his wife for fornication. Second, a man puts away his wife for just any cause. In the first case, the woman is the guilty fornicator. We all agree that one who commits adultery has no right to remarry. In the second case, the woman is put away for a cause other than fornication. Can she remarry? No. Why not? She has not put away her husband for fornication (Matthew 19:9). Until and unless she does that, she has no right to remarry so long as her husband lives.
Do the Scriptures teach then that a put away person can remarry? In some circumstances, yes; but not every put away person is given this permission by God. Those whose spouse has died (Romans 7:2-3), those who are being reconciled to their bound mate (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), and those who are innocent and have put away their mate for fornication (Matthew 19:9) can marry, even after being put away.
Civil Procedure
Another reason why some fail to accept what the Bible teaches on this issue is their understanding of the role of civil government in marriage and divorce. They do not understand how one can put away his mate when he has already been civilly divorced. After all, he can no longer go down to the courthouse and file for divorce against his spouse. What is left for him to do? He can no longer follow the civil divorce procedure to put away his mate.
First of all, Jesus never specified any sort of procedure for one to use in putting away his mate. Second, we need to remember that marriage is a divine institution. It is regulated by the laws of God. Nowhere does the New Testament give civil authorities any role in establishing marriages and divorces.
After hearing this point, some are quick to respond with the fact that Christians are to obey the civil authorities. This is absolutely true. Paul clearly taught that we are to “be in subjection to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1). We have the responsibility to do this so long as the laws imposed by those authorities do not conflict with God’s law (Acts 5:29). Like marriage, civil government is an institution ordained by God. The authorities are in place to carry out certain responsibilities. But one would search in vain to find any verse in Romans 13 or elsewhere that gives civil authority any role in establishing marriages and divorces.
Civil governments may choose to recognize or record marriages and divorces. This is what the government does in our country. Since the governing authorities choose to do this, Christians should follow whatever it is they deem necessary to recognize and record marriages and divorces per the instructions in Romans 13.
But what about one who would put away his spouse? Can he put away his spouse by filing for divorce in the court of law? Certainly. This can be an expedient way for one to put away his mate. But is this the only way? For this to be the only way, we would have to see one of two things in Scripture. Either Jesus had to specify a civil procedure as the way for one to put away his spouse or the New Testament has to teach that the civil authorities play a role in establishing marriages and divorces. Jesus specified no procedure, civil or otherwise. And civil authorities have been given no role by God in establishing marriages and divorces.
Therefore, one may put away his mate, even if the civil procedure is unavailable (as is typically the case when one has already been put away by his mate).
Second Putting-Away
Some oppose this teaching because they say it advocates a “second putting-away.” The argument is that since the Scriptures nowhere speak of a “second putting-away,” there is no authority for it. Therefore, once one has been put away, even if his spouse later commits fornication, he is “hung.” Is this a legitimate argument?
A parallel can be made on this point with the Lord’s Supper. Controversy has arisen among brethren about whether or not we have authority for a second serving of the Lord’s Supper on Sunday evening. Those who oppose a second serving use the fact that we cannot read of a second serving in the New Testament as one reason why it is wrong to offer it. While it is true that a second serving of the Lord’s Supper is not specifically mentioned, we can certainly find authority for it in the teachings of the New Testament. Christians are commanded to partake of the Lord’s Supper in the assembly on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 11:23-33; Acts 20:7). Provided there is an assembly and it is the first day of the week, one has the right to fulfill this command.
The same is true with regard to this issue. Provided that one has been faithful to his marriage vows (Matthew 5:32) and his spouse has committed fornication (Matthew 19:9), he has the right to put his spouse away and remarry. Does it matter that it is a “second putting-away”? No! Remember, Jesus specified divorce cause, not timing. We do not have to be able to read of a “second putting-away” in Scripture for it to be authorized any more than we have to read of a second serving of the Lord’s Supper for that to be authorized. The New Testament teaches that the innocent spouse has the right to put away his mate for fornication and remarry. The fact that the guilty fornicator has already put away the innocent spouse is irrelevant.
Mental Divorce
The common name used for the doctrine presented here by those who oppose it is “mental divorce.” One who advocates this view is labeled as a “mental divorcer.” What is “mental divorce”? By the title, one might think it refers to a doctrine which holds that the only action involved in putting away a mate is mental action. Instead of putting away a mate, one would think them away. To my knowledge, no one in this controversy believes that Biblical putting away is a mere mental act.
So what is meant by the term “mental divorce” if it does not describe a doctrine that teaches putting away is merely a mental act? The answer can be found by looking at the doctrine of the opponents of “mental divorce.” Since the term is simply an invention of theirs to describe the doctrine they oppose, we know it has to describe something they do not teach. What do they teach? They teach all or some of the following – no put away person can remarry, one must use a civil procedure to put away his mate, and no “second putting away” is authorized in Scripture. Those who do not teach such are considered “mental divorcers.”
Remember in Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked about a lawful cause for divorce. He answered that the only cause that extended the permission for one to put away his spouse was fornication. We all agree on that point. But we also need to remember that Jesus was not asked about – nor did He address – procedure or timing. To oppose “mental divorce” is a subtle way of binding what they believe to be the proper procedure or timing.
Opponents of “mental divorce” cannot seem to grasp this point. They wonder how one can possibly put away his mate without their procedure and timing. So anyone who believes one can put away their mate without using the procedure and timing they deem necessary, must believe in “mental divorce.” After all, following an unlawful divorce, according to their reasoning, there is nothing left to put away. But there most certainly is something left to be put away – one’s bound mate. Jesus said one could do this for fornication and remarry.
What would one do to put away his spouse after he has already been put away. Basically, he would do the opposite of what he did in order to be married. In marriage, one vows. In putting away, one disavows. In marriage, one promises to fulfill marital responsibilities. In putting away, one says he will no longer fulfill these responsibilities. In marriage, one accepts the other as his mate. In putting away, one rejects the other as his mate. In marriage, one enters into a life-long covenant. In putting away, one releases himself (with God’s permission in the case of fornication) from the marriage covenant.
The fact is that no one advocates true “mental divorce.” It is simply a prejudicial term used by some to label any who will not accept their binding of a divorce procedure or timing. Jesus never bound a certain procedure or timing with regard to putting away. If we “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11, KJV), we will not, either.
The Waiting Game
Often times, those who teach the doctrine professed in this study are said to believe in the “waiting game.” What is the “waiting game”?
The “waiting game” describes the scenario in which a couple puts each other away. Then, whoever is able to “wait” the longest without committing fornication has the right to remarry. That is, they simply wait until their spouse commits fornication and then they put them away again and remarry. Basically, this teaching says one can put away his spouse for a cause other than fornication, wait for his spouse to eventually commit fornication, then put his spouse away again and remarry.
The New Testament clearly condemns the “waiting game” concept. Matthew 5:32 teaches that one is guilty of causing his mate to commit adultery when he puts his spouse away for a cause other than fornication. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that when one leaves, he has two options – “remain unmarried, or else be reconciled.” There is no third option of waiting until the other spouse commits fornication and then putting him away again.
It is simply a false misrepresentation to claim that anyone who advocates the teachings in this material believes in the “waiting game.” The doctrines are not synonymous. The “waiting game” holds that one may put away his spouse for just any cause, wait for his spouse to commit fornication, then put his spouse away again, this time for fornication. This is not taught in the Bible. Instead, the Bible teaches that only the innocent spouse may put away his mate for fornication and remarry. There is no innocent spouse when two people put each other away.
A Matter of Faith or Conscience?
Romans 14 provides instructions regarding matters of personal liberty. Paul used the examples of eating meats and observing days to show that we can and should continue in fellowship with those we differ with on matters of conscience. Some were eating meat and others were eating only vegetables (Romans 14:2). Some were observing certain days while others were regarding each day alike (Romans 14:5). These people were to accept each other. Why? It is because God had accepted all of them (Romans 14:3). Their differences were with regard to personal conscience, not faith.
Some brethren try and use Romans 14 to justify ongoing fellowship with those who differ with them in matters of faith. To do so is to pervert the Scriptures. Romans 14 deals with personal liberty, not matters of faith in which God has legislated. If no sin is committed by either position, then Romans 14 applies. The matter should not be a test of fellowship. However, if sin is involved, fellowship cannot be maintained. Since “God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5), we cannot have “fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness” (Ephesians 5:11, KJV) and expect to remain in God’s favor.
Should This Issue Be a Test of Fellowship?
On the one hand, we have those who recognize that while the Scriptures specify the lawful cause for divorce, they never specify a procedure or timing. On the other hand, there are those who believe that, in addition to the lawful cause, one must also follow a certain procedure in putting away his mate or do so within a certain time limit. Is sin involved when either of these views is put into practice? No. In both cases, one puts away his mate for fornication and then has the right to remarry. No sin is committed by doing this. Since either position can be applied without sin being committed, this matter belongs in Romans 14. Fellowship among brethren should not be disrupted over this issue.
The “Safe” Side
Some who believe that they must follow a certain procedure or timing in order to put away a mate view this as the “safe” position. Actually, if both positions are void of sin, both are safe. But if in their mind they see this as the “safe” position, and believe it for that reason, fine.
Likewise, in Romans 14:2, we could say the one who only ate vegetables was holding the “safe” position. They were not convinced they could eat meat, so they abstained from it. There was nothing wrong with this. However, this person was described as “weak.” Why? It is because the more we grow as Christians in the knowledge of God’s word, the more we understand what He permits and restricts. God’s word permits one to eat meat. Those who were weak in the faith would lean toward the “safe” side and eat only vegetables.
The same is true with this issue. God’s word permits one to put away his mate for fornication and remarry. The procedure and timing are not addressed in Scripture and are, therefore, a matter of conscience and not faith. But those who are weaker (at least in relation to this topic) may lean toward what they view as the “safe” side and not put away a mate for fornication if they cannot do so a certain way.
There is no problem when one leans toward this “safe” side as a matter of personal choice. The problem comes whenever they try and impose their “safe” rule upon others. Romans 14:3 prohibits this: “The one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.” The connection is made in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 between those who advocate eating no meat and those who “forbid marriage” from those who have a right to marry. Both are said to have fallen “away from the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1). When one tries to bind additional requirements on God’s people, he is no longer merely “weak in faith” (Romans 14:1), he is now guilty of sin.
Should this issue be a test of fellowship? Again, no. But have some made it a test of fellowship? Sadly, yes. When one teaches that in order for someone to be able to put away his spouse for fornication and remarry, he must put his spouse away in a certain manner, he has gone beyond what is written. Nowhere in the New Testament is any putting away procedure or timing specified. Yet some impose their scruple upon others and make a matter of conscience into a test of fellowship, thus causing division in the body of Christ. The “safe” side is only safe when it is kept to oneself. Stirring up strife over the issue is not safe, for God’s word says that those who are guilty of such will not inherit the kingdom (Galatians 5:19-21) and are deserving of death (Romans 1:29, 32).
A Non-Binding Position
While some will make rules as to what procedure must be used or the timing in place for one to put away his mate, the Scriptures make no such rules. Therefore, if we wish to follow what the Bible teaches and “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11, KJV), we will refrain from making rules in these matters as well. The Scriptures teach that one may put away his mate for fornication and remarry. This permission includes one who has previously been put away by his spouse for some other cause. This is the scenario we have been examining. The only way that anyone can prohibit the one in our scenario from putting away his mate and remarrying is by binding additional rules that are not found in Scripture.
The position advocated here is a non-binding position. That simply means that since the word of God does not require putting away be done in a certain way or time frame, we cannot require such either. Therefore, the innocent spouse may put away his mate for fornication and remarry even after his mate puts him away for some other cause.
Some may wonder if I believe the person in this scenario has a right to remarry, would I encourage one in that situation to remarry? No, I would not encourage them to remarry. However, I would not discourage them from remarrying either. Why? Whether they remarry or remain unmarried, they commit no sin. Again, we have no right to bind anything upon others that is not taught in God’s word. Therefore, no one has the right to require that one to marry and no one has the right to require they remain unmarried.
Conclusion
There has been much controversy in recent years regarding Biblical putting away. The question at the heart of the issue is this: Can one put away his spouse for fornication and remarry after his spouse puts him away for just any cause? As we have turned to the Scriptures, we have seen that one in the situation described is given permission by God to put away his spouse and remarry. How did we arrive at that conclusion?
A Review
The situation described in our question is not specifically addressed in Scripture. The situations in the New Testament in which certain ones put away their mate for fornication contain no mention of them having been previously put away by their mate. The situations described that resulted in the one who was put away committing adultery do not have that one putting away his mate for fornication. In our question, in innocent spouse puts away his mate for fornication after having already been put away by his mate. Without a parallel situation, we must look to the principles and precepts of God’s word to answer the question.
Marriage is a divine institution governed by His laws. The word of God teaches us that He intends marriage to be for life. There is only one cause that will prompt God to grant one the permission to put away his mate and remarry. That cause is fornication. If one puts away his mate for a cause other than fornication, the two are still bound to each other by God’s marriage law. And with regard to putting away, Jesus addressed the lawful cause. Neither He, nor anyone else in the New Testament, specified any lawful procedure or timing.
Based on those truths from God’s word, we must conclude that the innocent spouse who puts away his mate for fornication – regardless of what procedure he uses or timing of the action – has the right to remarry. The one in our question fits into this category. He puts away his mate for fornication and remarries. Jesus said this is permitted in Matthew 19:9.
Who Is Adding to the Word of God?
Many reject the conclusions stated here. They call it “mental divorce.” Not that it is truly “mental divorce” where putting away involves no action, merely thinking. It is just that it does not fit into their definition of putting away. They advocate that a certain procedure and/or timing must be used or else one does not have a right to put away his mate for fornication and remarry. They say there is no “second putting away” in the Bible. They say we have to obey the civil authorities in order to have the right to remarry. They make broad generalizations and declare that “no put away person can remarry.” We have discussed these claims already.
Remember that Jesus spoke of the lawful cause for one to put away his mate and be able to remarry. He did not address procedure or timing. Nowhere else in the New Testament are these addressed either. But those who oppose the teaching here must do so on the basis of either procedure or timing.
Let us say one denies that the innocent spouse has the right to put away his mate for fornication and remarry after his mate puts him away for some other cause because “no put away person can remarry.” To what are they appealing? We know they do not truly believe that statement (most anyway), because they would say the one whose spouse has died and the one who would be reconciled to his mate can marry (Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11). But if they argue that one cannot put away his mate for fornication and remarry simply because he has been previously put away, they are making their case on the basis of timing.
When someone says that one must follow the civil divorce procedure in order to put away his mate, they are appealing to procedure.
When someone says that the innocent spouse cannot put away his bound mate for fornication after his mate put him away because there is no “second putting away,” they are making an argument based on timing.
When someone denies that the innocent spouse can put away the guilty fornicator simply because he is the put away person and claim this would be nothing more than “mental divorce,” they are being misleading. This is not “mental divorce.” It is just putting away that does not fit their contrived definition. It does not follow the procedure or timing they advocate.
Can an innocent spouse put away his mate for fornication and remarry after his mate puts him away for just any cause? Those who answer no must do so on the basis of procedure and/or timing because the cause of fornication is there. Jesus addressed the lawful cause for divorce. Yet some are insistent upon adding extra stipulations.
All Christians need to be careful that they do not impose their opinions and scruples upon others. To do so elevates – at least in their minds – their wisdom to the level of God’s. The two are not in any way comparable (Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 1:25). One may have his opinions provided he does not bind them upon others. One may choose to follow what he believes to be “safe,” but errs when he condemns those who do not also follow his “safe” way.
The Scriptures teach that one who has been faithful to his marriage vows can put away his mate for fornication and remarry (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). No procedure or timing is ever specified. Those who teach that a certain procedure must be used and/or place a time limit on when the innocent spouse can do this need to reexamine their teaching in light of what the Scriptures actually teach. We should not let our opinions carry the same weight as Scripture. Remember the words of the proverb: “Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6).
Additional materials on this topic are available on Tim Haile’s Bible Banner website – The “Putting-Away” Controversy
