We live in perilous days where majority of marriages end up in divorce. People are as unfaithful as they are sinful. The world is desperately wicked, and this Satanic attack on marriage doesn’t come about for no reason. Lifelong committed and faithful marriage, a solid unbroken home, is the backbone of society, and also happens to be less inhibited or hesitant grounds for receiving the truth and being genuinely converted one day (though this is obviously not an absolute, nor is growing up in a broken home an impossibility for salvation). So obviously Satan will abhor this and attack it from every angle plausible. What compounds the evil behaviour of divorce and remarriage is when Christian people justify divorce and remarriage on the back of De 24:1-4, and a misfit of false division of truth (cf. 2 Tim 2:25).
De 24:1-4 is used as a red herring in defending and tolerating divorce and remarriage. The passage is misinterpreted and not rightly divided, so sin is tolerated and not any sin either. Instead of interpreting the unclear against the clear, just the opposite is occurring. De 24:1-4 is unclear, while Gen 2:24; Mal 2:8-17; Matt 5:32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:3-11; Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 39 are very clear. The (many) clear are muddled by the (one) unclear.
Ignorance to this subject is also rampant today but its mostly willfully so, with many people arrogantly proud and seeking to live after the lusts of their flesh (2 Pet 3:3), so their opinions hold centre stage. Compromising pastors won’t take a stand but find loopholes to allow for divorce and remarriage. If they don’t go to modern Bible perversions (because of omissions in Matt 19:9 and Jn 8:1-11), they will take up their compromise with false division of De 24:1-4.
And that is the position of some, where De 24 is (mis)used by those who argue that divorce and remarriage is actually okay—though its hated by God they say—if its already occurred and for some silly reason you didn't know that it was wrong, as if people live in a vacuum until they come across this truth in Scripture. Everyone. Knows. Divorce. And. Remarriage. Is. Wrong. Everyone the world over. Some of these will exhaust the logical fallacies and excuses out of the main passages on this subject, so De 24:1-4 becomes an escape out of the pigeon hole. This is eisegesis by the way, not exegesis. They might not say its okay, but in their allowance for divorce and remarriage through perversion of De 24:1-4, they are saying its okay. Not only okay, they might argue its a valid course. God didn’t really mean the one flesh covenant was to be one-flesh indeed, as He had established in Gen 2:24, the law of marriage. What He really meant was you could divorce and remarriage as often as you want, since that is what the passage is actually teaching, but you could never return to your former spouse(s), including your first spouse, in their serial divorces. Its unsure where the one-flesh covenant made by the hand of God comes into their world of confusion and heresy, but it doesn’t seem to exist. Plain passages of Scripture are argued away, in place of confusion on the back of De 24:1-4.
Of course all this contradicts what God’s Word actually says and declares to be true, and De 24:1-4 was written for a purpose, as detailed below, not for sinners to justify their lusts or give credence to the adultery that they or a loved one or coffer-filling pew-warming church member find themselves to be in.
An example of this position is found in an article titled “Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View” authored by Thomas D. Ross (TDR), that allows for divorce and remarriage, and absolutely advocates for the error of a remarried person never being permitted to return to their former spouse, and that its an abomination to the Lord in so doing because of the teaching of De 24:1-4.
De 24:1-4 does teach that divorce and remarriage are okay, but that isn’t God’s law of marriage, nor does it stand under the New Covenant. The Lord Jesus Christ actually addressed this passage in Mk 10 and Matt 19, as will be discussed below. So “Christ’s View” is directly and vehemently opposed to what Ross writes in his article, where he claims,
"Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part."
The arguments for his position will be answered below.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is Addressed and Invalidated/Overturned by the Lord Jesus Christ
De 24:1-4 reads:
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. [2] And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. [3] And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; [4] Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”
De 24:1-4 in light of the rest of Scripture, including the NT:
1. De 24:1-3 completely contradicts the rest of scripture on the subject of divorce and remarriage, where divorce or separation is disallowed for any reason besides fornication (Matt 19:9) or one spouse is unsaved (1 Cor 7:12-13, which is more like separation, not divorce), the latter because of what 2 Cor 6:14-17 teaches, and where remarriage is absolutely never allowed anywhere in Scripture; it is always recognized as adultery (Matt 19:3-9; Mk 10:2-12; Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39) and of course continues to be adultery—i.e. sin—until the remarriage is dissolved (and thus stopping the adultery, since the remarriage is adultery), just like any other sin.
De 24:1-3 not only condones divorce, it also allows for remarriage, and almost appears to encourage it, if a man doesn't like his wedded wife after all, or has found uncleanness in her. As noted for instance in vv. 1-2, quoted here again:
“...then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.”
Anyone that has eyes to see knows that De 24:1-4 completely contradicts Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:20-21, 39 and the rest of the NT passages spoken by the Lord (Matt 5, 19; Mk 10; Lk 16). This is extremely plainful in the text of De 24.
What Jesus declared in Mk 10:2-9 completely opposes De 24:1-4,
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away [De 24:1-4]. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female [Gen 2:24]. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh [Gen 2:24; Mal 2:13-16]. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
It obviously wasn’t of God. It was the precept of Moses (Matt 19; Mk 10). It contradicted God’s will as noted in Gen 2:24 and later alluded to by God the Son in Matt 19 and Mk 10,
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
So right off the bat, the plain words of De 24 and what it approves, are ignored or denied, like much of the rest of Scripture on the subject, especially Christ invalidating De 24 in Matt 5, 19, Lk 16 and Mk 10.
2. De 24:1-4 gives cause for divorce that are not given elsewhere, i.e. “unclean” (v. 1) and “hatred” (v. 3). This would essentially encompass any and all excuses, since "hatred" is always a major instigator of divorce — thus allowance for divorce is entirely open. No restrictions. These allowances were given because of the wicked, unsaved nature of the Israelites to whom Moses was giving this precept. This new rule concerning marriage was given as a precept of Moses, not as the will of God, which God the Son makes abundantly clear in Matt 19, Mk 10, and Lk 16, and Paul as well in Rom 7 and 1 Cor 7. God’s will is found in Gen 2:24 and consistently reiterated throughout Scripture. That leads to the next point.
3. De 24:1-4 was given to a people that were extremely sinful and wicked, though they professed to be God’s covenant people. They wanted freedom to live in sin, because of the “hardness of their hearts” (Mk 10:2-3 -- which are always unsaved people), so God gave them over to their sinful desires — but with consequences. He knew they would fill the alter with tears as they transgressed against the wife of their youth by divorcing her, putting her away (Mal 2), but seeing as it were that they weren't interested on being faithful to their covenant wife (Gen 2:24) and instead endeavoured to go a whoring after the lusts of their flesh, this precept would not allow them to return to their actual, true, covenant wife, since they had made themselves unclean with other women. They weren't going to be free to divorce and remarry and then return to the spouse they heartlessly and coldly cast out. Of course true Biblical conversion would have changed the acceptance of the precept, because God's covenant of one-flesh in marriage has never been paused or nullified and the true born again believer follows God's Word and law — so the regenerate Jew would desire to fulfill God's will from a new heart, and not from worldly sorrow. He wouldn't even desire to follow Moses precept any longer.
4. De 24:1-4 is not in operation anymore. God makes one flesh between a man and women, unbreakable except for death, a law that has always existed but was rejected by the Israelites because of their sinful lusts. The Lord Jesus makes this extremely clear in Matt 19 and Mk 10, and so does Paul (Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39). De 24:1-4 is long done. It doesn't apply. It had a time and purpose, but it wasn't according to God's law.
Jesus makes this clear in Mk 10:2-9,
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away [De 24:1-4]. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female [Gen 2:24]. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh [Gen 2:24; Mal 2:13-16]. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
5. As for the argument that De 24:1-4 must stand because God never nullifies his prescribed abominations, that is a red herring. Its a false argument because God has indeed voided abominations that once stood. For instance, the abomination of eating unclean animals (Lev 11:10-13, 10, 23, 41-42) has been rendered invalid in Ac 10:12-15. This is not an abomination to the Egyptians, as Ross has claimed.
Obviously the abomination of returning to a divorced wife (De 24:4) has been lifted, since Jesus directly alludes to the nullification of Moses precept (De 24:1-3) in Matt 5, 19 and Mk 10. The abomination doesn't exist any longer. So its certainly not an abomination to return to your covenant wife or husband since Jesus nullified De 24; Moses precept doesn't stand any longer, so naturally the abomination doesn't remain in effect. Later the Apostle Paul would invoke the same truth:
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” (1 Cor 7:10-11, 39)
God's law of marriage makes it very plain that De 24:1-3 is in contradiction to it.
There are two choices for the divorced person according to the commandment of the Lord, regardless of who they're shacked up with (which is adultery), and regardless if children involved (something never brought into the equation by God's Word, because it doesn't matter--more on that next point):
Remain unmarried, or
Be reconciled to her husband.
Very plain. Very simple.
Only those that are seeking to justify divorce and remarriage, will complicate the truth.
6. Jesus addressed De 24 in Matt 19 and Mk 10. The Pharisees asked Him about De 24 in Matt 19:3-9 and Mk 10:2-4 and Jesus says it was suffered by Moses to allow this precept for a nation of unsaved people (v. 5, “hardness of heart”) but it wasn’t God’s will (vv. 5-6) which will was already recorded in Gen 2:24 (vv. 6-9), which is one flesh covenant for life, unbreakable except for death.
I'll use Marks account in Mk 10. The Pharisees asked Jesus:
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him." (v. 2)
Jesus responded with a question of His own:
"What did Moses command you?" (v. 3)
They said,
"Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away." (v. 4)
They are referring to De 24.
Moses precept allowed for both divorce and remarriage. Let that sink in as you read what the NT and passages of the OT teach on this subject.
Jesus then goes on to overturn, or invalidate what Moses said. He actually does two things: (a) He explains why and how that precept existed, and then (b) explains the law of God which stands, and always has, and invalidates Moses precept:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (vv. 5-9).
God the Son completely opposes what Moses precept was, found in De 24:1-4. What He says is completely opposite to what De 24:1-4 proclaims. They are two opposing positions.
7. Words just couldn't be any clearer. De 24 was a precept of Moses. God permitted it for a time and people, but it surely wasn't His will or law. His law is allowance of NO remarriage, which is adultery, chronic adultery until the act is dissolved, which Matt 19; Mk 10; Rom 7; 1 Cor 7 make very, very clear. Sleeping with a woman or man that is not your covenant spouse, is adultery and continues to be adultery until the sin is truly repented of, which involves actually turning from and forsaking the sin.
I mean this is extremely clear. A lot of damage has to be done to skirt this obvious truth. Only death breaks the law of marriage (Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:39).
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” (1 Cor 7:10-11, 39)
“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Rom 7:2-3)
The principle of adultery applies equally to both man and woman.
This was not Pauls opinion. It was a command of the Lord. Marriage is for life in all situations. The law (Gen 2:24), again, binds the relationship and only death dissolves it. One flesh is non-breakable, lest a spouse passes away. Absolutely everything we read in these passages contradicts what De 24:1-4 is proclaiming, and its not muddled either. Its crystal clear. Claiming to believe Scripture out of the NT on this doctrine, or Gen 2:24 and Mal 2:14-16 out of the OT, while embracing De 24:1-4, is the hallmark of a double-minded man, one that is falsely dividing the Scriptures so that he can live after his own lusts (2 Pet 3:3).
Only one position is right and can be right:
(a) Moses Precept: De 24:1-4, or
(b) The LORD's Law: Gen 2:24; Mal 2:13-16; Matt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39.
When you read the whole of Scripture, its not difficult to understand which position is true. But people deny and ignore the obvious for the complicated and invalidated—for whatever reason—but 2 Pet 3:3 tells us the reason people do this, and that is so they can live after their own lusts.
When someone claims to be against divorce and remarriage but embraces De 24:1-4, they are being dishonest. Such a position becomes a farce because De 24:1-4 opposes the doctrine of no divorce and remarriage; it allows for adultery. The two positions are inconsistent, which means they are not being honest. They can’t have it both ways. Either you allow for all divorce and remarriage or you allow for none. There is no in-between road here, no grey area. And those who give allowance, well their criteria for divorce keeps expanding and expanding, until there is no restrictions, like we see everywhere in the world today. Then De 24 fits right in like hand in glove, because it has no criteria either ("hate" is open season). The truth of the matter is, upon further questioning it becomes obvious that they don't actually hold to no divorce and remarriage, only a corrupted version of it, where its acceptable as long as one sheds crocodile tears of "repentance."
You simply can’t have it both ways, because both ways are in complete opposition. Choose you this day which side you are, but as for me and my house, we will stick to the Lord’s side.
8. For someone to usurp De 24:1-4 over the rest of the Bible on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, is to intentionally falsely divide the Word of truth, in contradiction to 2 Tim 2:15, which then ultimately will lead to wresting the remainder of the Bible on the subject, including the critical aspect of the covenant marriage, where two become one flesh.
It no mystery why most who take this position on De 24:1-4 (the allowance of divorce and remarriage while not permitting a spouse to return to the spouse of their one-flesh covenant made by God), do not typically address Rom 7:1-3 and 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39 — because these passages contradict their position. And the rare moment they do, they end up eisegetically corrupting these passages and twisting them into some other meaning besides what they so plainly mean. This also they myst do with Mk 10:2-12, which says the very opposite of what they are propagating for false doctrine and practice.
Perverting Scripture does not glorify God.
What Happens if There Are Children Involved?
Children are typically brought into the argument, arguing something along the lines of the divorced party remarries and has children, but then they change their mind, maybe cause of spiritual conversion, and are convicted the adulterous relationship is wrong (which is actually what happens quite often, something I have personally witnessed, and the conviction never goes away), so they will have to break up the marriage and cause turmoil in the offspring they have procreated with their second or third, etc, wife. This is what I am advocating for allegedly, someone holding to what the Scriptures teach. Its close, but there is some opposition to this argument. They will also argue that breaking up an adulterous family that has children involved, turns that family into a disaster. They will claim that one has to just repent of the sin, and then move on for the Lord. Others will claim that the previous divorce and now adulterous remarriage has been forgiven at conversion or at some point of repentance, so time to move forward. Considering these egregious arguments and the involvement of children, it appears peradventure one is caught somewhere between a rock and a hard place. But thankfully we have the Word of God, which we are commanded to obey, and it is not confusing or contradictory, but it does count on suffering and sacrifice for faithful followers. The born again believers responsibility is to obey the Word of God, regardless of the consequences, regardless of personal feelings. Thereby God is glorified.
1. Firstly of all, remarriage is always adultery, but for someone to confess the sin of adultery and then continue in their sin, this is not pleasing to the Lord but sinful and reflective of an unregenerate, adulterous heart. The Bible is clear about that,
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, . . . nor adulterers, . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10)
An adulterer or adulteress stops being an adulterer or adulteress when the adultery has been repented of, i.e. stopped. Actually stopped, like any other sin.
“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” (Pr 28:13)
How does Biblical repentance apply to this egregious position or "repentance" that seemingly allows for ongoing sin? When someone truly repents, is it mere lip service and then continuation of their sin? Of course not. When a murderer truly repents, does he continue in his murdering behaviour? When a thief truly repents, does he actually stop stealing? When an adulteress or adulterer truly repents, do they stop the adultery, which is the act of remarriage (Mk 10:11-12)?
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” (Mk 10:11-12)
Why does adultery get a special pass with the ‘certain divorce and remarriage’ crowd? If remarriage is adultery (and it surely is), and adultery is sin (and it surely is), then stopping the sin of adultery would naturally stop the act of sinning. Or this is a new teaching where you can “repent” and even really, really mean it, but get a free pass and continue being an adulterer? Its the act of remarriage that makes it adultery, so as long as the remarriage exists, it continues to be adultery. This is self evident.
Adultery isn’t some special sin that gets a free pass or get out of jail free card. Sin is sin, and adultery isn't in its own class of sin and get special treatment. Repenting of sin means actually turning from and stopping the sin by the grace of God. Period. That is true repentance.
Approval of or tolerating any form of divorce and remarriage becomes a chess game of mental gymnastics for those who play mind games and twist scripture to justify certain adulterous relationships. None are allowed by God. All attempt to break the one-flesh covenant that God has made, while no covenant can ever be broken except by God. And He says how is that covenant nullified? There is only one means, and it isn’t remarriage and then false repentance.
The arguers of divorce and remarriage on the back of De 24, conveniently ignore what Rom 7:1-3, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39, Matt 5:31-32, 19:3-9, Lk 16:18, and Mk 10:2-12 are so plaining teaching. The law of God states very plainly that marriage is set in stone until death voids it. The covenant that God makes isn’t cancelled because you cry some tears of repentance. It stands and continues to stand as long as both spouses live. There is only one legit husband and one legit wife, no matter how many times you remarry, but the remarriage is the commission of adultery, and thats punishable in eternal hell fire (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:21-23 — Since it is impossible for a truly saved sinner to lose their salvation, these professors of Christianity are obviously unsaved.) Hence the discourse between Jesus and the Samaritan women at the well (Jn 4). She had five husbands but Jesus says “Go, call thy husband” (singular), and “whom thou now hast is not thy husband:” Pretty obvious who is her husband, since God the Son is referring to one specific "husband" in the bunch, and it ain't the one she allegedly has now, and He is the One who made her and her true husband into one flesh (Gen 2:24).
2. Secondly, the example falls under experiential, bringing children into the argument, as if children somehow supersede truth. De 24 doesn’t say anything about children, even though its practically guaranteed that children are produced in some of those marriages. What about the children from the first marriage? In De 24 fashion, they can’t be back with their real father or mother.
Children or not, makes no difference. God doesn’t use children as a measuring stick for what is right and true, or give allowance for sin, to wink at. God slew every first born child of the Egyptians (Ex. 11:5-6; 12:29-30) while sparing the children of the Israelites (Ex. 11:7). Fast forward to the birth of God the Son, which brought about the wrath of king Herod and resulted in every child aged two and under being murdered in Bethlehem and surrounding area. God didn't stop it, and it came about because of the birth of God the Son (Matt. 2:16-18), and God of course knew this would occur, even being prophesied by Jeremiah. How did God deal with the children that mocked Elisha because of his bald head (2 Ki. 2:23-24)? Firstly, Elisha “cursed them in the name of the LORD,” and then God sent two she bears who tore forty two of the children to shreds. It wasn’t pretty.
God does love the children but they aren’t above truth, neither can they be used as instruments of unrighteousness.
The truth of the matter is, when God is obeyed in accordance to His Word, the children will Biblically understand, vs witnessing the hypocrisy of those who say they are believers but continue on in an adulterous relationship — since the law of God is written in their heart (Rom 2), and through even just a cursory, superficial examination of Scripture passages that refer to the subject. And God will take care of those who unfortunately do not have a father or mother, like He did with Ishmael, like He promises in Proverbs.
3. Thirdly, Mal 2:14-16 shows us the purpose for the one-flesh covenant to continue till death, for marriage faithfulness and the LORD's desire for godly seed, which can come out of a one-flesh marriage. This passage also shows NO divorce and remarriage is allowed, because of the one-flesh covenant:
“And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between THEE AND THE WIFE OF THY YOUTH, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: YET IS SHE THY COMPANION, AND THE WIFE OF THY COVENANT. AND DID NOT HE MAKE ONE? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. AND WHEREFORE ONE? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that HE HATETH PUTTING AWAY: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”
4. Fourthly, if there has been divorce and remarriage, it'll never be easy even in obeying the Scriptures. There is a right position and the Bible tells us what that position is. Newsflash: it isn't De 24:1-4. When the sinner is saved, he or she will leave the adulterous relationship and either seek to be reconciled to his or her spouse, or remain unmarried. Those are the ONLY two choices: 1 Cor 7:10-11, There might be some turmoil if children are involved, but there will always be blessing in the end. And there are still ways for children to have bother a mother and father present, without the need for the parents to be involved adulterously.
Adultery: a Special Sin that Isn't Ongoing if One Doesn't Stop?
Ross also argues against adultery being continual in the act of remarriage. If remarriage is adultery (and it surely is), and adultery is sin (and it surely is), then stopping the sin of adultery would stop the act of sinning. Surely. Or is there a new teaching that opposes this truth found everywhere in scripture? No, there is not. Neither is this rocket science, but it becomes a game of mental gymnastics for those who play mind games and corrupt scripture to prove their point and keep the sinful relationships going.
Again, adultery doesn't get to have its own little class of sin, where you can "repent" but then continue living in the sin. Yikes. Many neo-evangelicals make the same fallacious argument, but on the back of the children, as such the previous example. Repenting of sin means actually turning from and stopping the sin. Period. That is what repentance is. But not in this world where adultery is justified on the back of De 24, where those who fall into the special class of "Adultery-Sin" get to continue living in the sin, as long as they gave some kind of lip service to "repentance," since it doesn't allegedly have to be expressed in a physical, tangible manner as fruit. 'Just don't to it again!' (even though they are still living in the sin!). But why not? Because now, at this sudden, enlightening present point of their life, it has become a "wicked sin of adultery", but it wasn't before! Apparently it wasn't before, because they supposedly didn't know; or it wasn't taught to them by some man, so somehow the person didn't know that it was wrong, but now it is because now they know! So it only becomes sinful and applicable when they find out about it, when they come to know, even though every person in the entire world with a functioning mental capacity of a child knows its wrong, whether they have a biblical background or not, the Bible makes that abundantly clear, the law of God written on their hearts (Rom 2). Yes even a child that has never been taught this truth, knows that divorce and remarriage is wrong, something I have personally witnessed on many occasions. But now the remarriage stands and they get to continue to live in adultery, because somehow they didn't know, and ignorance is par for forgiveness. There you go. A brand new heresy invented out of the sands of Egypt. Imagine if we applied this philosophy to all other sins!
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" (Ac 17:30)
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" (Rom 2:14-15)
This heresy won't and doesn't stand the test of God's fire.
Remarriages are adultery because God says they are (Matt 19:9; Mk 10:11-12). Obviously its adultery until the remarriage is nullified, duh 🙄. This simplicity should be an offence to anyones intelligence. God also declares no "adulterer" will ever "inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) — words couldn't be any clearer. Remarriage is adultery, and it continues to be adultery until true repentance, which involves forsaking the sin. When Jesus called the unsaved masses of Israelites (who were following Him, Lk 14:25), to salvation, He declared His standard of repentance: "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." (Lk 14:33). That forsaking would include turning from and forsaking the sin of adultery, which is remarriage. It is a continual act of adultery, remarriage is ("Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mk 10:11-12), so its only by the act of stopping the remarriage that stops the sin of adultery, since remarriage is adultery.
This really isn't deep theological stuff. Its quite simple, maybe one of the simplest doctrines in all of Scripture. But understanding requires submission to God's Word and not submission to presuppositions based upon personal lusts and corruption of Scripture and toleration of the experiential.
Remarriage is Ongoing Adulterous Sin — It Doesn't Stop Until the False Marriage is Annulled, Which Marriage Has Never Been Validated by God because He Made One Flesh of Twain, and this Marriage Isn't It
In the aforementioned quote, Ross had stated:
"Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part."
When he says ""Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery," in light of embracing De 24:1-4, he is completely contradicting that Scripture. De 24:1-4 approves of remarriage, so why is he calling it "the wicked sin of adultery"? De 24 doesn't call it that, but approves of it ("let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife."). The language is perspicuously plain and its approved, not wicked. So where is he getting that idea from, that remarriage is wicked adultery? It has to be either Matt 5, 19, Lk 16, Mk 10, Rom 7, or 1 Cor 7, for it doesn't show up in De 24. So he holds to no remarriage which is adultery, while embracing passages of Scripture that approve of divorce and remarriage. This is confusion and evident of a double-minded man.
Furthermore, Ross is advocating for adultery when he says the remarried spouse should remain in their adulterous relationship. He is promoting the very opposite of what Paul writes here:
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. . . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”
Two options for ALL separations: (1) remain unmarried, separated, or (2) reconcile to their spouse.
No option of remaining married to a person that isn't your spouse.
And even further, he completely contradicts himself in that sentence. He calls "Remarriage while a spouse is alive" as a "wicked sin of adultery," but then follows with stating "but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part." So remarriage is wicked adultery, but if you are remarried you are bound to that spouse unto death separates them. Does he not see the blatant contradiction? The remarriage that such person finds himself in is just as much the "wicked sin of adultery" as any other remarriage, and so long as it continues, it is the "wicked sin of adultery."
God does NOT recognize any marriage besides the first one (lest one dies), which is why John the Baptist said it was against Gods law (cf. Gen 2:24; Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39) for Herod to have another man’s wife (Mk 6:17-18) or why Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well that “Go, call thy husband [singular], and come hither.” (Jn 4:16). The woman said she had “no husband” (v. 17) and Jesus responds with “Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.” (vv. 17b-18). Jesus asked her to call “her husband” (singular), even though she had “five husbands” (plural) — did Jesus not know this? Of course He did! But she had ONLY one husband and the one she had now, was “not [her] husband” — all of which makes zero sense if it weren't true that God sees ONLY one husband in her life and thats the man she married and He Himself made a one-flesh covenant between them, just like He says He does with every single genuine, non-adulterous marriage:
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife [singular]: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen 2:24).
No man or pope or church or false divorce system of our present world can nullify that one-flesh covenant. Only God can do that and its by death alone.
When someone "marries" another person while their spouse is yet living, that marriage is not legit in the eyes of the Lord. It cannot be, because only death breaks the one-flesh covenant between a husband and wife. Furthermore, that person is living in adultery, just like Scripture teaches:
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen 2:24).
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mk 10:6-9).
"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt 19:4-6)
Another contradictory position that is required when taking the position that Ross does, is not allowing a man that has been divorced and remarried to be pastor. I am likewise against that because God makes this clear (1 Tim 3:12; Ti 1:6) in less passages than He does with NO divorce and remarriage, but his position isn’t consistent with this Biblical command concerning the pastor. Why not allow the man to pastor, if his divorce and remarriage has been approved of by God (as is clearly the case when one reads De 24:1-3, and Rosses statement above) and his previous marriages don’t exist or apply anymore, since its been forgiven by God, as his position declares? Such a man is not the husband of more than one wife. He has only one wife according to Ross or De 24, because allegedly God has forgiven the sin of adultery they are presently living in, and then blessed the remarriage, and no longer sees the man as committing adultery against his previous wife whom God had made a one-flesh covenant with.
If De 24 is true and it continues to stand today, then it wouldn’t matter whether the man had been “married” before. But if one take the position that it matters, well, one is not getting that doctrine from De 24 but from somewhere else. And if they are getting it from somewhere else, then they hold to two contradictory positions, because De 24:1-4 is one position, and everything else in Scripture on marriage, divorce and remarriage is another position. Thats crystal clear.
God's Law of Marriage
God makes one flesh between a man and women, and no man can make it asunder. As noted above, but also Gen 2:24, when He made man:
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
The person that divorces and remarries, is not officially married to that person in God's eyes. He only makes one flesh covenant between a (singular) man and (singular) woman, breakable only by death.
Marriage breakage while both spouses live, again, leaves ONLY two choices: (1) remain unmarried, separated, or (2) reconcile to your spouse.
Give heed to plain and perspicuous truth without presupposed purposeful, eisegetical twisting of Scripture, especially considering the seriousness of the subject on hand:
“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Romans 7:1-3)
The law of marriage binds a man and women for life. Obviously its referring to the first marriage. I want to say “duh” again. The law binds them as long as they are alive. Do you get that? Lifelong. Only death nullifies that law. Anyone that remarries while their original spouse is yet alive, is an adulterer. Period. It applies to EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the world, for every passage on marriage, divorce and remarriage in Scripture is equally applicable to both saved and unsaved alike.
“Marriage is honourable in ALL” (Heb 13:4a).
“Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.” (Pr 18:22)
I know not of one divorce and remarriage that has been blessed of the Lord, and that relates to what Scripture teaches on this sin. Here is the rest of Heb 13:4,
"but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Heb 13:4b)
In the context of where this is said, its clearly referring to marriage that hasn't been honoured, and this relates to what Jesus said in Matt 5, 19, Lk 16 and Mk 10, and Paul in Rom 7:1-3 and 1 Cor 7:39. Divorce and remarriage is dishonourable and adultery and that is exactly the meaning of Heb 13:4.
Its worth nothing that for all intends and purposes, practically all remarriages end up in divorce again and that is simply because the remarriage is ongoing adultery and cursed of God. ZERO blessing there. They are almost entirely homes of conflict, turmoil and disaster. On the other hand, I know of a number that returned to there true spouse after they were converted to Christ, the Word of God making it clear for them to do so (Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39), the spouse of their covenant marriage of one flesh the LORD God had made just like Scripture plainly proclaims, and these have been abundantly blessed of the Lord, which of course harmonizes with all of Scripture.
Pr 18:22,
“Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.”
Notice “a wife” is singular here in Pr 18 like everywhere else, not plural. It’s referring to one wife for life, a foundational truth to scripture that doesn’t even require explanation. Even the Song of Solomon reflects this plain truth, written by a man to his wife (singular), his bride (singular), a man who had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Ki 11:3). The entire book speaks quite clearly of one particular woman, and its VERY obviously the one whom God made a one-flesh covenant with, binding and knitting their love together, as He does every marriage. God doesn’t bless multiply wives or multiple husbands, which is exactly what is occurring when someone divorces and remarries. His blessing, and it’s great, is when people submit to His rule of marriage, and correct sinful marriages, like adulterous remarriages. To the one who believes that De 24 is God's will, please do tell which one of Solomon's 700 wives was the recipient of his love letter? Oh, 'all of them'? So polygamy is approved and sanctioned by the Lord?
What Ross and others holding to the De 24 position are teaching and propagating is the product of falsely dividing the word of truth, and its extremely destructive. It doesn't benefit anyone, but continues the pathway of destruction, and actually gives credence to divorce and remarriage, continuing the snowball effect. There is only one marriage where God makes one flesh covenant and that is the first marriage. Scripture is very clear, crystal clear, on that. Any other teaching brings great confusion and inconsistency to this subject. The use of De 24:1-4 to advance a corrupted view of marriage is in itself an abomination and it completely contradicts Gen 2:24: Mk 10:2-12, Rom 7:1-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39. It needs to be very strongly opposed, for its the very opposite of what these passages are teaching, and gainsays God’s law of marriage, and produces ungodly seed.
To embrace this heretical position of divorce and remarriage on the back of De 24, is to ignore, deny, reject and even scoff at what Jesus Christ is so clearly proclaiming in Matt 5, 19, Mk 10 and Lk 18, so that they can continue to propagate the damnable heresy of adultery and full their own lusts (2 Pet 3:3).
It’s a tragedy all around, a greatly destructive and soul-damning one, since it keeps the wickedness of divorce and remarriage rolling, instead of putting a cap on it, as the Bible so clearly demands, which then greatly hinders the “godly seed” that God seeks after (Mal 2:15), instead creating wicked, God-hating, bitter and wrathful children. And it'll completely degrade and destroy a nation, as we see happening before our very eyes. This is one of its causes.
For further reading on this subject, please see Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage.