# Do biblical literalists think divorce and remarriage is a sin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419 "2002-11-28T23:54:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/41 "2002-11-30T23:21:56Z")
> [@](#): > > I also have this quaint notion that God is present at all marriages, Quaint, yes. Legally binding, no. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/42 "2002-12-01T07:39:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HubZilla \* > \*\*I recall from my church days that a man and woman become “one” in heaven if they’re married. What happens if I die at a young age, and my wife remarries a decade later? > > How happy will I be in heaven knowing the love of my life is now with someone else? And that I longer will be waiting for her in heaven? \*\* Matthew 22:23-30. Not an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/43 "2002-12-01T19:35:28Z")
I have two questions that I wonder if anyone could answer. First, in the passages from Matthew that **MEBuckner** posts, Jesus refers to “marital unfaithfulness” as the basis for divorce; otherwise, a subsequent marriage would be “adultery.” Is there any significance to the different terms used? Is “marital unfaithfulness” a broader term than “adultery” or are they interchangeable? Any idea what the original text reads? The reason I ask is that I wonder if “marital unfaithfulness” can be read more broadly than adultery, supporting a broader view of the basis for divorce than simple sexual infidelity. Second, what where the rules governing divorce at that time under Jewish law, which is what I assume Jesus is referring to? Was it a unilateral action by the husband, or was it akin to modern divorce, where either party had to get the approval of a court? A legal concept has to be understood in its context, and I wonder if these statements can be seen as a comment on a power imbalance between the husband and the wife. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/44 "2002-12-01T20:05:35Z")
It’s worth noting that the original texts that formed the Bible were written in Greek, and that it’s a good bet that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, so we have one layer of potential translation error in there already. The original word in Matthew 19:9 transliterates as “porneia”; my _Classical_ Greek dictionary defines that as “fornication; idolatry”. I don’t have a New Testament Greek reference, and the language did evolve between those time periods; however, I suspect that this may provide useful targeting information for interpretation. The word used for adultery transliterates as “moikhatai”; I _think_ this is the middle voice form of “moikheuo” – third person middle voice verbs end in -etai, and that’s not much of a vowel shift for period or verb stem effects. (For the grammar-curious, “middle voice” is another form like “active voice” or “passive voice”; where active voice would be “he does it” and passive “it is done by him”, middle voice generally means “he does it for his own purposes”. There are exceptions, but the vagaries of Classical Greek grammar are probably far afield of this topic, and that’s enough for a loose translation.) It’s possible that the active verb for “to commit adultery” was lost between the Classical Greek period and the New Testament Greek period, leaving only “to commit adultery for one’s own gratification”, the middle voice form, so it’s possible that the nuance that might be expressed in choosing middle over active is entirely illusory. It’s also entirely possible that I’m talking out my ear. **Disclaimer** : I am not a New Testament Greek scholar. I’m not even really a Classical Greek scholar. I just play one on the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/45 "2002-12-01T22:58:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dreamer \* > His x-wife is the one who decided to leave him… Cut her some slack. She had to use her powers to help defeat Magneto. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/46 "2002-12-02T01:23:36Z")
Does anyone know what Jack Chick says about divorce? I’d check it out myself, but I’m a sensitive guy. I deal with murderers and thieves much more readily than I deal with looking at Chick tracts. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/47 "2002-12-02T02:32:35Z")
I’ll try to get the above answered in GQ ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/48 "2002-12-02T14:17:52Z")
There is more to the debate about divorce and remarriage than simply the verses already cited. > [@](#): > > (Jesus said)"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another, commits adultery. > > The disciples said to Him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” > > Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it is given. For some are eunuchs from birth, some are made eunuchs by man, and others for the kingdom of God. Let anyone who is capable, accept this.” - Matthew 19:9-12 Apparently the prohibition against divorce and remarriage is not across the board. My interpretation is that divorce is a bad thing, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. Obviously everyone thinks their own divorce is justified, and it is not my place to judge whether it is or not. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/49 "2002-12-02T18:00:28Z")
Ok, here’s what I think: Yes, divorce is bad. Divorce for any reason other than adultery is sin, and remarriage after any divorce for other than adultery is in itself adultery. Translation: Don’t get divorced unless your spouse has cheated on you. Regarding abuse - I believe that if you’re able to stay in the marriage and tolerate the abuse, living your life as an example to your abusive spouse, then you should. If not, there are, as Jesus said himself, times when obeying the letter of the command can be contrary to the spirit of the command. This, I believe, is one of those circumstances. > [@](#): > > (Mat 12:2-8 NIV) When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” {3} He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? {4} He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread–which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. {5} Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? {6} I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. {7} If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. {8} For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” Jesus said that divorce is, as Shodan said, sometimes a necessary evil. That God did not ever intend for marriages to be broken, but that divorce was given as a concession to the hardness of heart and sinfulness of mankind: > [@](#): > > (Mat 5:31-32 NIV) "It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ {32} But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. > [@](#): > > (Mat 19:3-12 NIV) Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” {4} **“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ {5} and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? {6} So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”** {7} “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” {8} Jesus replied, **“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. {9} I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”** {10} The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” {11} Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. {12} For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Note that Jesus says here the same thing that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7 - that if you are able to, it is good to forego marriage and dedicate yourself to God and to His kingdom, but that not many are able to do this, and it’s a suggestion, not a command. Here’s more relevant writing on marriage by Paul: > [@](#): > > (1 Cor 7 NIV) Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. {2} But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. {3} The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. {4} The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. {5} Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. {6} I say this as a concession, not as a command. {7} I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. {8} Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. {9} But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. {10} To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): **A wife must not separate from her husband. {11} But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.** {12} To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. {13} And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. {14} For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. {15} But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. {16} How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? {17} **Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches** … {39} **A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. {40} In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is–and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.** So the Bible is pretty clear that even though divorce is bad, there are circumstances that warrant it (though it should never be undertaken lightly), and also that following divorce for other than adultery (though I’m not sure on this one. The text seems to say that remarriage after a divorce for adultery is permitted, but there’s a pretty strong statement made against divorce at all), you must remain unmarried. **HOWEVER…** Sin can be forgiven. All sin. Any sin. Even adultery committed by remarriage after a divorce for unlawful reasons (adultery). And it is even more wrong to compound your sin by dissolving a second marriage because of the first one. So if some person has been married and divorced several times, then he or she has committed sin in doing it. But to divorce their current spouse, or to refuse to perform as wife or husband (remain celibate) is heaping sin on top of sin, and making it even worse. You can’t dishonor your current marriage in order to make up for past wrongs. The only way that celibacy inside marriage is right is by mutual consent, and for the cause of worshipping and paying honor to God. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/50 "2002-12-02T18:53:40Z")
Thank you, **Joe** for your thoughtful response. But I must admit I still do not see how you get from the biblical quotes to this: > [@](#): > > it is even more wrong to compound your sin by dissolving a second marriage because of the first one. So if some person has been married and divorced several times, then he or she has committed sin in doing it. But to divorce their current spouse, or to refuse to perform as wife or husband (remain celibate) is heaping sin on top of sin, and making it even worse. You can’t dishonor your current marriage in order to make up for past wrongs. How is the sin of adultery _not_ perpetuated on a regular basis, if the individuals in the subsequent marriages continue to have sexual relationships? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/51 "2002-12-02T21:32:56Z")
**cjhoworth** , I agree with you completely (and not for the first time). The more I read your posts, the more I’m convinced that _I_ would want to marry you. SIZE=1]Except, you see, I’m already married…[/SIZE] ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/52 "2002-12-02T21:57:00Z")
Nice try, J\_C. Too bad what you’ve quoted above has absolustely nothing to do with adultery. Jesus did not define _circumstance **s** _. He defined one _circumstance_. Y’all have been beating folks upside the head with a literalist view of scripture and when it turns out to not be so fun for yourselves, you get rather creative in no longer being a literalist. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/53 "2002-12-02T22:18:06Z")
Actually, **Monty** , Jesus did define circumstances. Apparently there are people to whom the restrictions on divorce do not apply - those who cannot accept His word on the subject. If you are one of those people, or in those circumstances, wherein you _cannot_ follow the strict teaching, Jesus gives an out. Or at least, so I would expect a literalist to argue. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/54 "2002-12-02T22:56:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan \* > \*\*Thank you, **Joe** for your thoughtful response. But I must admit I still do not see how you get from the biblical quotes to this: > > How is the sin of adultery _not_ perpetuated on a regular basis, if the individuals in the subsequent marriages continue to have sexual relationships? \*\* Interesting question, but I don’t see the point. How does dissolving a subsequent marriage make up for the wrong in leaving a previous one? Once you’ve taken vows, you’re bound by them. The fact that you broke earlier vows doesn’t mean that it’s ok to break more of them. **Monty** , nice try as well. But I’ve never said I’m a literalist. That’s what you all have decided. And of course if that’s what you says, then them must be the facts, right? Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/55 "2002-12-02T23:03:38Z")
**Joe** : Good answer. I see nothing to disagree with in it. On the Pizza Parlor, I had this to say (to a mutual friend, as it happens) on the subject: > [@](#): > > There’s a lot to be said on this issue, and I’m just going to touch the surface. > > First, Jesus is fairly explicit on divorce – no man is to put away his wife and take another one, the sole exception he allows being adultery on her part. (One assumes that this applies in precise reverse to a woman, who would not be allowed to put away her husband and take another unless he were guilty of adultery.) Paul makes one other exception, based on circumstances – if an unbeliever puts away his/her converted spouse, the spouse is to consider him/herself free of the marriage and able to remarry. > > The key point is that you’ve made a lifelong commitment to another, and personal choice is not a reason to break that vow before God. > > Second, it’s been the experience of the Church in trying to apply these rules to human lives over the past 2000 years that circumstances alter cases. I once summarized this idea in the words that one should treat a marriage like a person – it has a right to life, it should be cherished and nurtured, if injured it should be healed, if dying it should be revived – but if dead, it should be taken out and buried. Some marriages just will not work, and should never have been entered into. Some will die with the changes time makes in people. > > Bottom line to me is that God’s Law incorporates both justice and mercy, and I think your present marriage is blessed and that you have made, if not the ideal choices, the right choices for the times and places you found yourself, and have nothing about your marriages for which to repent. I’d be very interested in your and others’ reactions to that. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/56 "2002-12-02T23:25:07Z")
My reaction? Sounds pretty similar to what I said. I think we finally found a subject where we agree. How about that? haha ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/57 "2002-12-03T00:58:13Z")
Actually, Shodan, the Big Guy defined the one circumstance in which a (literalist) believer could initiate divorce. Paul defined the other circumstances in which the believer could accept it. Not the same thing at all. J\_C: You hedge badly. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/58 "2002-12-03T01:18:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe\_Cool \* > \*\* I’ve never said I’m a literalist. \*\* Ok, now I understand how you can reason thus on the topic of divorce and remarriage. And that is _not_ meant to be a slur. But I still am interested in hearing how a biblical literalist could justify divorce and remarriage in a setting where there was no adultery in the initial marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/59 "2002-12-03T02:40:46Z")
**Joe** , you said about being able to stand abuse-and that person should stay in a marriage? How could one “stand” for abuse? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419/60 "2002-12-03T04:06:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan \* > \*\*Ok, now I understand how you can reason thus on the topic of divorce and remarriage. And that is _not_ meant to be a slur. > > But I still am interested in hearing how a biblical literalist could justify divorce and remarriage in a setting where there was no adultery in the initial marriage. \*\* I guess I’m not sure which part of my reasoning you’re unclear on. Can you elaborate a bit, and I’ll try to give a more clear answer? While I don’t think every word in the bible is meant to be taken absolutely literally (there are, as Polycarp said when summarizing my thoughts, things that are obviously poetic and things that are obviously metaphorical) I believe those parts that are in plain language generally mean what they say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-biblical-literalists-think-divorce-and-remarriage-is-a-sin/139419.md?page=4)