Remarriage After Divorce is Adultery - Matthew 5:31-32 - Vine Abiders

Divorce, Remarriage, and the Teaching of Jesus

Welcome back to Vine Abiders. In our study through the Sermon on the Mount, we’ve come to Matthew 5:31–32—the words of Jesus on divorce and remarriage. It’s not an easy passage. In fact, this subject has followed me in a unique way.

Last year I wrote a book on it—Remarriage After Divorce: A Biblical Defense of the Traditional Christian View. I didn’t publish it under my full name but under C.A. White, because I was hesitant to make it public. It’s a hard teaching. In America, almost everyone knows someone who has been divorced and remarried. Writing about it feels like a direct challenge to people we love.

But the Sermon on the Mount won’t let us skip difficult words. Jesus’ next subject is divorce and remarriage, so today I’m going to walk through the main arguments of that book and summarize what Scripture and church history actually say.

Three Views Within Evangelical Christianity

There are three main positions in the church today:

* The Permissive ViewDivorce is allowed in cases such as fornication or abandonment, and remarriage is permitted in those cases. This is common in modern evangelicalism.

* The No-Divorce ViewDivorce is never allowed for any reason, and remarriage is only possible after the death of a spouse. This is relatively new and niche, though it has modern proponents.

* The Traditional ViewDivorce may be permitted in limited cases, but remarriage while the former spouse lives is always adultery. This was the view of the early church and is the position I defend.

The Witness of the Early Church

For most of church history, the consensus was clear: divorce might be tolerated in some situations, but remarriage was forbidden as long as the spouse was alive.

William Heth and Gordon Wenham’s Jesus and Divorce puts it bluntly:

“To list those who hold that remarriage after divorce is contrary to the gospel teaching is to call a roll of the best-known early Christian theologians… in all, 25 individual writers and two early councils forbid remarriage after divorce.”

This wasn’t fringe. It was universal. The change came with the Reformation.

How the Reformation Changed Everything

Erasmus, an early reformer, was among the first to suggest that remarriage might be a “social good.” His reasoning wasn’t biblical but pragmatic—remarriage, he thought, could relieve social pressures and emotional pain.

Luther went further. He argued that adultery was a capital offense in Old Testament law. Since adulterers “deserved death,” they could be considered dead in God’s eyes, and the innocent spouse was therefore free to remarry.

Ironically, the same Luther who often dismissed the Old Testament as binding on Christians leaned on Old Testament stoning laws to justify remarriage. From there, Protestant teaching began to diverge from the early church.

What Jesus Actually Said

When we read all of Jesus’ statements together, three related sins emerge:

* Divorcing a spouse and marrying another is adultery. (Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18; Matthew 19:9)

* Marrying someone who has been divorced is adultery. (Luke 16:18; Matthew 5:32)

* Improperly divorcing someone makes them guilty of adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

This isn’t just about divorce. The real issue is remarriage.

Take Luke 16:18:

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Notice the universality: “everyone.” There is no exception clause for remarriage.

Or Mark 10:11–12:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

This passage makes clear that the sin applies to both sexes. Whether husband or wife initiates, remarriage is adultery.

Matthew 5 and Matthew 19

Matthew 5:31–32 is, in my view, the Rosetta Stone for understanding Matthew 19:9.

In Matthew 5, Jesus says that improper divorce causes the innocent spouse to commit adultery when they inevitably remarry. The exception clause (“except for immorality”) protects the innocent party from being guilty of causing that sin. But it says nothing about remarriage being allowed.

When we get to Matthew 19, the grammar is more difficult:

“Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

Does the exception apply to divorce only, or also to remarriage? The early church, whose native language was Greek, interpreted it to apply only to divorce. They never read it as permission to remarry.

The disciples’ shocked reaction confirms this. They said, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Their extreme response only makes sense if Jesus was teaching that remarriage after divorce is never permitted.

Paul’s Summary

Paul echoes this perfectly in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11:

“But to the married I give instructions (not I, but the Lord), that the wife should not leave her husband—but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.”

Divorce? Possible.Remarriage? Not permitted.Reconciliation? Encouraged.

That’s the consistent pattern of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 24 and the Logic Puzzle

Much of the modern debate about divorce and remarriage really comes back to Deuteronomy 24:1–4. This passage is the starting point for the Pharisees’ question to Jesus in Matthew 19, and it’s also where we see how easy it is to miss the original point. At first glance, the text seems to assume that divorce will happen — it takes for granted that a husband might write his wife a certificate of divorce if he finds “some indecency” in her. But the real emphasis is on what happens next: if she marries another man and that marriage ends (either by divorce or by death), she may not return to her first husband, “since she has been defiled.”

The crucial detail is that the woman’s defilement comes not from the divorce itself, but from the remarriage. That is what renders her “defiled.” Some modern pastors try to argue that the defilement is tied to the first divorce or to the idea of returning to a former spouse, but that doesn’t make sense of the structure. The law is written like a logic puzzle: no matter how you trace the “if” statements, you end up at the same conclusion — it is the remarriage that introduces defilement.

And notice how airtight this is. Even if the second husband dies (which would normally make remarriage permissible), the text still says she is defiled. The inspired conclusion is unavoidable: yes, divorce happens, but remarriage while the original spouse lives is prohibited.

Did Divorce Always Imply Remarriage?

This brings us to a critical modern question: does the right to divorce inherently include the right to remarry? Many scholars sympathetic to remarriage argue that it does. They suggest that in Jewish practice, a writ of divorce automatically carried with it permission to remarry — otherwise, what would be the point?

But when we examine the actual evidence, that case falls apart. The scholar David Instone-Brewer is often cited as proving that ancient divorce certificates included the right to remarry. But in fact, only about one-third of the surviving documents say anything about remarriage. What do they all mention? The return of the dowry. That was the central legal function of the writ: ensuring that a woman’s inheritance was not stolen from her when she was sent away.

So why do some certificates add a remarriage clause? Likely because, by Jesus’ day, remarriage had become the cultural assumption — even though it contradicted the law’s deeper logic. Writing “you are free to marry another” into a minority divorce documents was not proof that God had sanctioned it. It was a human addition, reflecting the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ permissive mindset.

And this is where the Essenes provide an important counterpoint. This Jewish sect — likely the one John the Baptist was associated with — taught that while divorce could occur, remarriage was not lawful. Their conclusion matched the plain logic of Deuteronomy 24. So, contrary to the “universal consensus” that Instone-Brewer claims, at least some Jewish voices in the Second Temple period stood firmly against remarriage after divorce.

The Disciples’ Shock and the Eunuch Teaching

All of this context helps explain the disciples’ stunned reaction in Matthew 19. Jesus is not merely weighing in on whether “indecency” meant adultery or something trivial like burnt food. He is cutting through the Pharisees’ favorite debate and returning to the real point of Deuteronomy 24: divorce may happen, but remarriage is adultery.

That is why the disciples respond, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” They realized the stakes: once married, you are bound unless your spouse dies. Divorce does not open the door to a new marriage. And this is why Jesus immediately shifts into the teaching about eunuchs — a teaching that only makes sense if His point was that some people will have to remain single for the sake of the kingdom.

The Hardest Question

This leads to the most difficult issue: what about those who are already remarried while their first spouse lives?

John Piper, who holds the same traditional view, argues that such people should repent in heart but remain in the remarriage, honoring their current vows. Others make similar arguments.

But I struggle with this. Would we give the same counsel to someone in a homosexual marriage? Or to someone who made vows in a cult? Why should adultery be treated differently?

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. This is why I hesitated to even release the book. I fear both saying too much and saying too little. But we cannot simply presume upon God’s mercy when His Word is this clear.

Why It Matters

Paul warns in Galatians 5 that “adultery, fornication, and uncleanness” are works of the flesh—and that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. This isn’t academic. It’s eternal.

The early church took Jesus’ words at face value. The Reformers shifted the standard. And now we live in a time when the permissive view is almost assumed. But Jesus hasn’t changed. His words still stand.

Closing Thoughts

I don’t share this lightly. I know the pain it causes, the personal stories it touches, the lives it unsettles. But faithfulness requires us to look at what Jesus actually said and not twist His words to fit our desires.

If you want to go deeper, my book Remarriage After Divorce is available on Amazon, but I’ve also made the PDF and audiobook available for free on YouTube. Not because I want to profit from it, but because I believe this conversation is too important to hide.

As always, I invite you to wrestle with Scripture, pray deeply, and abide in the Vine—even when His words are hard.

Show Notes:

Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Remarriage-after-Divorce-Traditional-Christian/dp/B0DPNBMLDB

Free PDF of Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White:

Free audiobook on Youtube Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com