There are several passages in the New Testament in which Jesus Christ seems to indicate that, with only one exception, it is a sin (i.e., adultery) to marry after divorce.  We will consider four of these passages.  [Note:  When we quote Scripture in this article, we use the wording in the New King James (NKJ) version of the Bible, unless noted otherwise.] 

In Matthew 5:32, Christ declares, “But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

Except as noted, the next three biblical passages are similar to Matthew 5:32.

In Matthew 19:9, Christ asserts, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Likewise, in Luke 16:18, Christ says, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.”  Unlike the two previously mentioned passages in Matthew, no exception is made for sexual immorality by the wife, but otherwise this passage is very similar.

And, in Mark 10:11-12, Christ states, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.  And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”  Like Luke 16:18, this passage makes no exception for sexual immorality by the wife.  More significantly, this passage differs from all three of the previous passages in that it specifically mentions that a woman commits adultery if she initiates a divorce from her husband – apparently, for any reason – and subsequently remarries.

Most of the commentaries about the four preceding scripture passages offer only very brief explanations and little helpful insight as to the meaning of the passages.  One of the better explanations about any of the passages is provided in The Fourfold Gospel by J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton with specific regard to Matthew 5:32.  This commentary states,

The law of divorce will be found at Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus explains that this law was given by Moses on account of the hardness of the people's heart [sic]. . . . The law permitted the husband to put away the wife when he found "some unseemly thing in her" (Genesis 24:1). [Note:  This reference is incorrect.  It should be Deuteronomy 24:1.]  But Jesus here limits the right of divorce to cases of unchastity, and if there be a divorce on any other ground, neither the man nor the woman can marry again without committing adultery (Matthew 19:9). Such is Jesus' modification of the Old Testament law, and in no part of the New Testament is there any relaxation as to the law here set forth. It is implied that divorce for unchastity breaks the marriage bond, and it is therefore held almost universally, both by commentators and moralists, that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the guilty party could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong.

Seemingly, Jesus Christ deemed most cases of remarrying after divorce to be adultery, with only the one exception mentioned in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.  However, there is uncertainty as to what is the precise nature of the exception, because of differences in the interpretation of the Greek word moichao that is translated as “adultery” in some translations and “sexual immorality” in others.  Some commentaries take the position that the Greek word regarding the exception pertains to infidelity after marriage.  Other commentaries indicate that the Greek word may refer not only to infidelity after marriage, but also to sexual relations before marriage with someone other than a person’s future spouse. 

However, we believe that the key factor in understanding the meaning of the preceding scripture passages is not what constitutes the exception, but instead the meaning of the Greek word apoluo that is translated as “divorce” in most of the newer translations of the Bible.  According to Strong’s Concordance, apoluo can mean to set free, to let go (dismiss), or to let go free (release); it does not always refer to divorce. 

The following excerpts from an article entitled “Divorce and Remarriage” by Stephen Gola provide additional perspective regarding the meaning of apoluo:

When two people are leaving each other there is a “separation.” Apoluo is a separation in general, which does not involve the “legal” aspect of a permanent separation like a divorce. . . . The Greek word apoluo doesn’t have a legal aspect to it. It’s just a common word that means, “I’m going to go” or, “away from, to separate.” Because of our wrong beliefs about divorce, this key word was purposely translated (incorrectly) so it would not conflict with our beliefs.

When used concerning a marriage it means a separation and NOT a divorce. If a spouse separates intending never to return, then the next step comes into play; the spouse obtains a “certificate of divorce.” This is what the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees (the religious lawyers of His day) was about in Matthew 19:3-12. The legal question was, “Do you just separate, OR do you separate AND give a certificate of divorce?” The Greek word used for divorce in these Scriptures means, to “send away” or separate from, NOT a finalized legal divorce.

When a husband just leaves his wife for another woman without ever giving her a certificate of divorce, this keeps the wife in limbo. She could not go back to her husband because he doesn’t want her; and she couldn’t “go and become another man’s wife” as Moses commanded because she is not legally divorced (See Deuteronomy 24:1-2). If she did remarry without a legal divorce, she and the man who married her would be committing adultery. This is why Jesus said, “...whoever separates (apoluo) from his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is [just] separated (apoluo) commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9, My Translation.

Because the Pharisees’ hearts were so hard “They said to Him [Jesus], ‘WHY then did Moses COMMAND to give a certificate of divorce AND to put her away [separate]?’” (Matthew 19:7). They agreed with the part of the law that said that you could leave your wife, but they didn’t understand that it was not right to keep their wives from getting remarried. A spouse with a hardened heart will not give the other spouse a divorce. They will want to control the person. A person who truly loves unconditionally will always give you a way out: an option not to love.

Jesus said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, PERMITTED you to divorce [separate from] your wives, but from the beginning IT [being separated without a divorce] WAS NOT SO” (Matthew 19:8). Notice in verse seven that Moses COMMANDED them to give a certificate of divorce AND to separate (put away) their wives. But in verse eight, because their hearts were so hardened against their spouse, Moses PERMITTED them to just separate without the husband giving the wife a certificate of divorce. The reason Moses commanded that a certificate of divorce be given was to guarantee that the wife could get remarried. Simply, Moses commanded to give a certificate of divorce AND to separate. But because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses permitted them to separate only. The permission to separate and remarry without a divorce was limited to sexual immorality. If the wife was unfaithful, the husband could leave without ever being “officially divorced” — by giving her a certificate of divorcement, and go take another woman as his wife. But if there was no sexual immorality involved, the husband could NOT separate from his wife without getting a divorce first. If he didn’t get a divorce and went to live with another woman or got remarried, they were committing adultery.

Now, let’s consider a scripture passage that further supports the premise that the Greek word apoluo does not necessarily refer to divorce.  Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, but knowing that he had not had sexual intercourse with her, he was trying to decide what he should do.  Matthew 1:19 says, “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.”  We know from verse 18 that Joseph and Mary were not married; they were espoused or betrothed (i.e., engaged to be married).  Since they were not married, there was no need for a formal divorce; Joseph could just “put her away” (i.e., employ a separation, not a divorce).

Given that the Greek word apoluo does not necessarily refer to divorce, let’s take another look at Matthew 5:32.  This verse immediately follows Jesus Christ’s paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 24:1 (in Matthew 5:31).  And, the first several words He spoke in verse 32 were: “But I say to you. . . .”  This indicates that Jesus was about to say something that amplified on the passage in Deuteronomy.  [Note:  In light of the declaration by Jesus in Matthew 5:17 that He had not come to destroy the Old Testament Law, but to fulfill it (i.e., make it complete), it is reasonable to conclude that He would not contradict what was stated in Deuteronomy 24:1.]

According to most translations of Matthew 5:32, Jesus said that when a man divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality, doing so causes the man’s former wife to commit adultery.  However, this verse does not make sense unless Jesus actually was referring to situations in which a husband puts his wife away (i.e., separates from her), rather than divorcing her.  Why would a man divorcing his wife cause her to commit adultery only if she was not guilty of having been sexually immoral? 

We believe that it is much more likely that Jesus was referring to putting a wife away, not to divorcing her.  Thus, He was saying that if a wife has not been sexually immoral, just putting her away is not sufficient to terminate the relationship, and doing so will cause her to commit adultery.  Therefore, a divorce was necessary to prevent her (and, if she remarried, her future husband) from being guilty of adultery.  On the other hand, if a man’s wife had been sexually immoral, it didn’t matter insofar as she was concerned if he put her away or divorced her – she was already guilty of adultery.

Essentially the same conclusion is applicable to the other three passages cited above, which in most translations seem to incorrectly indicate that it is a sin (i.e., adultery) for a person to marry after divorce, unless he (or she) does so because their spouse has been sexually immoral.

In light of the foregoing considerations, it is reasonable to believe the Bible does not teach that most divorced people are adulterers if they divorce their spouse for a reason other than their spouse’s sexual immorality.  On the other hand, anyone who is sexually immoral during the time they are married is guilty of adultery.