What do you think?
Rate this book
Divorce
An analysis of both Old and New Testament teachings concerning divorce, providing a more holistic view of the subject by setting the issue in a broader spectrum of God's relationship with his people. Case studies are presented to demonstrate that the Bible continues to be applicable to modern situations.
128 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1961
4 people are currently reading
111 people want to read
About the author
John Murray
33 books74 followersJohn Murray was a Scottish-born Calvinist theologian who taught at Princeton Seminary and then left to help found Westminster Theological Seminary, where he taught for many years.
Murray was born in the croft of Badbea, near Bonar Bridge, in Sutherland county, Scotland. Following service in the British Army in the First World War (during which he lost an eye, serving in the famous Black Watch regiment) he studied at the University of Glasgow. Following his acceptance as a theological student of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland he pursued further studies at Princeton Theological Seminary under J. Gresham Machen and Geerhardus Vos, but broke with the Free Presbyterian Church in 1930 over that Church's treatment of the Chesley, Ontario congregation. He taught at Princeton for a year and then lectured in systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary to generations of students from 1930 to 1966, and was an early trustee of the Banner of Truth Trust. Besides the material in the four-volume Collected Writings, his primary published works are a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (previously included in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series but now superseded by Douglas J. Moo's commentary), Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Principles of Conduct, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, Baptism, and Divorce.
Murray preached at Chesley and Lochalsh from time to time until his retirement from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1968. He married Valerie Knowlton 7 December 1967 and retired to Scotland where he was connected with the Free Church of Scotland. Writing after a communion season at Lochalsh, Murray said, “I think I feel most at home here and at Chesley of all the places I visit.” There had been some consideration that upon leaving the seminary, Murray might take a pastorate in the newly formed Presbyterian Reformed Church, but the infirmity of his aged sisters at the home place necessitated his return to Ross-shire, Scotland.
Murray was born in the croft of Badbea, near Bonar Bridge, in Sutherland county, Scotland. Following service in the British Army in the First World War (during which he lost an eye, serving in the famous Black Watch regiment) he studied at the University of Glasgow. Following his acceptance as a theological student of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland he pursued further studies at Princeton Theological Seminary under J. Gresham Machen and Geerhardus Vos, but broke with the Free Presbyterian Church in 1930 over that Church's treatment of the Chesley, Ontario congregation. He taught at Princeton for a year and then lectured in systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary to generations of students from 1930 to 1966, and was an early trustee of the Banner of Truth Trust. Besides the material in the four-volume Collected Writings, his primary published works are a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (previously included in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series but now superseded by Douglas J. Moo's commentary), Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Principles of Conduct, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, Baptism, and Divorce.
Murray preached at Chesley and Lochalsh from time to time until his retirement from Westminster Theological Seminary in 1968. He married Valerie Knowlton 7 December 1967 and retired to Scotland where he was connected with the Free Church of Scotland. Writing after a communion season at Lochalsh, Murray said, “I think I feel most at home here and at Chesley of all the places I visit.” There had been some consideration that upon leaving the seminary, Murray might take a pastorate in the newly formed Presbyterian Reformed Church, but the infirmity of his aged sisters at the home place necessitated his return to Ross-shire, Scotland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
May 11, 2021
Exceptionally thorough as to all the arguments and implications from scripture.
Exceptionally difficult to read because it is quite technical.
More like 3.5 stars.
Exceptionally difficult to read because it is quite technical.
More like 3.5 stars.
January 8, 2013
John Murray is rarely an easy read and this book is no exception. He is an exegete of the highest caliber, which often requires some digging by the reader to get at his meaning. But it is always worth it. I found his exegesis of the key passages on divorce to be excellent. He discusses immediate context, as well less-immediate contexts. He explains the various Hebrew and Greek words. He walks the reader through why this particular option is right and such and such an option cannot be right. Overall I found him convincing on the exception clause Matthew, as well his take on I Corinthians 7.
Jay Adams mentions that Murray’s conclusions are too tentative in places. I did not come away feeling the same way. I think Murray is clear on what he believes the text is saying. His views on divorce are very conservative, but he does feel that divorce and remarriage are valid in certain circumstances. I agree with him on this point.
I would add that one of the areas of greatest disagreement among Christians is remarriage. I did not think this was adequately addressed, though he talk about it. Maybe it is only as the divorce culture has become entrenched in our society that remarriage has become a bigger issue.
Jay Adams mentions that Murray’s conclusions are too tentative in places. I did not come away feeling the same way. I think Murray is clear on what he believes the text is saying. His views on divorce are very conservative, but he does feel that divorce and remarriage are valid in certain circumstances. I agree with him on this point.
I would add that one of the areas of greatest disagreement among Christians is remarriage. I did not think this was adequately addressed, though he talk about it. Maybe it is only as the divorce culture has become entrenched in our society that remarriage has become a bigger issue.
October 22, 2025
I would hate to be on the opposing end of an issue against John Murray. The man did his homework and knew how to present an argument well. Divorce is messy and painful, and often times we may want to pursue ease and the path of “perceived” least resistance. In his treatment on divorce, Murray offers exegetical insights from Scripture into the nature and gravity of marriage and divorce.
Murray works through the original languages in the passages on divorce: Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10-15; and Rom. 7:1-3. After working through each of these passages one by one, he shows how each passage compliments one another and does not contradict. Murray also engages with modern Roman Catholic teaching that says divorce does not allow for remarriage, except in two specific situations. After exegeting the passages, Murray shows how the RC position inconsistently applies Rom. 7:1-3. The passage appealed to, they would argue shows that marriage is binding until the death of an ex-spouse and thus, neither are permitted to re-marry as long as the ex-spouse is alive. So if marriage is indissoluble on the basis of Rom. 7:1-3, it’s inconsistent for RCs to then make provision for remarriage based on annulment and/or papal permission, disregarding the finality of Rom. 7:1-3 they had just appealed to earlier. This is not a large focus of the book but something I found the be helpful in seeing various interpretations of Scripture.
The primary takeaway from this book, there is an immense gravity to the divine union that has been formed when two people marry. Murray argues that aside from death and adultery, both of which allow for remarriage on part of the living or innocent spouse, 1 Cor. 7 offers an exception as well. Unique to this passage, the assumption is that the marriage was made up with two unbelievers at one time, and one of the spouses has since become a Christian. If an unbelieving spouse chooses to abandon the marriage, the believing spouse may be allowed to treat this as full dissolution of marriage and remarry. The believing spouse, however, is not permitted to seek or encourage divorce from an unbelieving spouse. If Christians are afraid to stay married or have children with an unbelieving spouse, Paul reminds them that grace triumphs over nature. There is a special grace by God given to the unbelieving spouse and children of these mixed marriages. Murray also suggests Christians greatly abuse this passage in dealing with divorce; we must be careful not to take careless liberty and extend Paul’s exception to circumstances beyond the context of which Paul addressed.
Anyone who may be in a position to offer counsel to someone considering divorce, or even in a position to offer counsel to someone considering marriage, would greatly benefit from this book. It is a brief read under 120 pages, and provides valuable insights into what Scripture has to say about the union of man and woman in marriage. Murray removes the emotional element from the situation so that the reader can remove as much bias when engaging with the Scriptural text. Other reviewers commented on this being a dry read; for the topic being handled, I think dry might be one of the better ways to present this material.
Murray also offers practical case studies at the end of the book which the reader may find helpful in navigating certain situation. There are questions I have still left unanswered, but this is an excellent place to start and wrestle with basics.
Murray works through the original languages in the passages on divorce: Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk. 10:2-12; Lk. 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10-15; and Rom. 7:1-3. After working through each of these passages one by one, he shows how each passage compliments one another and does not contradict. Murray also engages with modern Roman Catholic teaching that says divorce does not allow for remarriage, except in two specific situations. After exegeting the passages, Murray shows how the RC position inconsistently applies Rom. 7:1-3. The passage appealed to, they would argue shows that marriage is binding until the death of an ex-spouse and thus, neither are permitted to re-marry as long as the ex-spouse is alive. So if marriage is indissoluble on the basis of Rom. 7:1-3, it’s inconsistent for RCs to then make provision for remarriage based on annulment and/or papal permission, disregarding the finality of Rom. 7:1-3 they had just appealed to earlier. This is not a large focus of the book but something I found the be helpful in seeing various interpretations of Scripture.
The primary takeaway from this book, there is an immense gravity to the divine union that has been formed when two people marry. Murray argues that aside from death and adultery, both of which allow for remarriage on part of the living or innocent spouse, 1 Cor. 7 offers an exception as well. Unique to this passage, the assumption is that the marriage was made up with two unbelievers at one time, and one of the spouses has since become a Christian. If an unbelieving spouse chooses to abandon the marriage, the believing spouse may be allowed to treat this as full dissolution of marriage and remarry. The believing spouse, however, is not permitted to seek or encourage divorce from an unbelieving spouse. If Christians are afraid to stay married or have children with an unbelieving spouse, Paul reminds them that grace triumphs over nature. There is a special grace by God given to the unbelieving spouse and children of these mixed marriages. Murray also suggests Christians greatly abuse this passage in dealing with divorce; we must be careful not to take careless liberty and extend Paul’s exception to circumstances beyond the context of which Paul addressed.
Anyone who may be in a position to offer counsel to someone considering divorce, or even in a position to offer counsel to someone considering marriage, would greatly benefit from this book. It is a brief read under 120 pages, and provides valuable insights into what Scripture has to say about the union of man and woman in marriage. Murray removes the emotional element from the situation so that the reader can remove as much bias when engaging with the Scriptural text. Other reviewers commented on this being a dry read; for the topic being handled, I think dry might be one of the better ways to present this material.
Murray also offers practical case studies at the end of the book which the reader may find helpful in navigating certain situation. There are questions I have still left unanswered, but this is an excellent place to start and wrestle with basics.
November 24, 2018
Some parts quite good, but the book suffers from some major flaws, among them these:
Murray claims that Deuteronomy 24 is not speaking about adultery but about … well, he’s not sure, but some sort of shameful sexual conduct. He thinks the bill of divorce in Deuteronomy 24 vindicated the wife, though the Bible says nothing of the sort and neither do the actual bills of divorce that we have.
He claims without adequate argument, that Jesus abrogated Deuteronomy 24, taking away the grounds that Moses gave there, though Murray doesn’t know what they were, and limiting the grounds for divorce to adultery only.
He seems to think 1 Corinthians 7 is speaking about what we call "separation" today and does not recognize that in the Greco-Roman context "separation" just is divorce, so that Paul can say that a woman who has left her husband is "unmarried."
Murray also does not see any right of a deserted spouse to divorce unless the deserter is a non-Christian. Moreover, he says that we cannot say that the remarriage of the guilty, adulterous spouse is illegitimate but we also may not say that it’s legitimate. This is far more tentative than we need to be.
In short, though there are some good things here and a pastor could benefit from working through it, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
Murray claims that Deuteronomy 24 is not speaking about adultery but about … well, he’s not sure, but some sort of shameful sexual conduct. He thinks the bill of divorce in Deuteronomy 24 vindicated the wife, though the Bible says nothing of the sort and neither do the actual bills of divorce that we have.
He claims without adequate argument, that Jesus abrogated Deuteronomy 24, taking away the grounds that Moses gave there, though Murray doesn’t know what they were, and limiting the grounds for divorce to adultery only.
He seems to think 1 Corinthians 7 is speaking about what we call "separation" today and does not recognize that in the Greco-Roman context "separation" just is divorce, so that Paul can say that a woman who has left her husband is "unmarried."
Murray also does not see any right of a deserted spouse to divorce unless the deserter is a non-Christian. Moreover, he says that we cannot say that the remarriage of the guilty, adulterous spouse is illegitimate but we also may not say that it’s legitimate. This is far more tentative than we need to be.
In short, though there are some good things here and a pastor could benefit from working through it, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
April 11, 2024
An exegetical tour de force. Any subsequent writing on divorce must wrestle with Murray's work. Dense and scholarly at points, but useful as Murray walks through each of the biblical texts addressing divorce. I will need to compare other writing on divorce side by side with Murray for his arguments to stick with me. Definitely required reading, but not the only reading you should do. Jay Adam's "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage" was intended to be a more practical and popular level followup to Murray.
August 16, 2018
Good info and even finishes with real life example. Therefore it is very practical and an excellent tool. Very dry though. Beginning of the book is quite wordy. Excellent outline and not a lot of jumping around.
April 30, 2024
Exegetical look at divorce.
Murray is only interested in what the Bible teaches about divorce. He considers the key texts laying down his principles and position he concludes from it. Some parts are quite technical but the overall argument is not too hard to follow.
Murray is only interested in what the Bible teaches about divorce. He considers the key texts laying down his principles and position he concludes from it. Some parts are quite technical but the overall argument is not too hard to follow.
November 26, 2024
Murray is worth reading, but this is a hard read. Quite technical in many sections. Material will certainly make you think and examine Scripture. You won’t agree with everything, but he is definitely one should read.
April 13, 2019
I found Jay Adams much more helpful.
June 15, 2019
Murray is fair, careful and judicious. Not entirely convincing for me, particularly on 1 Cor 7 and 'wilful desertion'. Nonetheless an excellent defence of the classic Reformed position.
January 25, 2025
Thoughtful and thorough, as would be expected from Murray. If only more Christians would think through this topic biblically.
August 15, 2025
Helpful defense of the classic reformed understanding of Divorce and Remarriage.
Technical exegesis but not without immediate relevance.
Technical exegesis but not without immediate relevance.
December 29, 2025
An excellent book. Beware when it comes to recommending, as it is a more theologically technical book than it is a popular-level guide.
November 18, 2013
EXCEPTIONAL
Essential reading for anyone wrestling with the question of divorce-remarriage.
Murray delves into all the key texts (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2,3 and 1 Corinthians 7) and does a sterling job giving possible interpretations, even looking at textual variants. This book is dense and highly technical with huge footnotes which often dwarf the main text, but it is incredibly concise given how complex this subject is.
I hope I do Murray justice when I summarise his view thus:
1. The rule: Divorce-remarriage is adultery (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2,3)
2. Exception 1: Adultery (Matthew 19:9)
3. Exception 2: Willful desertion by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15)
He shows how divorce-remarriage is adultery for two believers who separate on grounds other than adultery (Matthew 5:32; 1 Corinthians 7:10,11).
I have spent about a year studying this and have read a great deal. This book has been the most helpful thus far and is the only one that really faces the apparent discrepancy between Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:15 head-on, as well as giving a fair treatment of the Permanence View.
I had arrived at Murray's basic position before I read this book, and he helped confirmed this view, though I am still open-minded to further illumination. May the God of peace grant us loving obedience and healing compassion as we navigate this war-torn landscape of marriage, divorce and remarriage.
Essential reading for anyone wrestling with the question of divorce-remarriage.
Murray delves into all the key texts (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2,3 and 1 Corinthians 7) and does a sterling job giving possible interpretations, even looking at textual variants. This book is dense and highly technical with huge footnotes which often dwarf the main text, but it is incredibly concise given how complex this subject is.
I hope I do Murray justice when I summarise his view thus:
1. The rule: Divorce-remarriage is adultery (Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2,3)
2. Exception 1: Adultery (Matthew 19:9)
3. Exception 2: Willful desertion by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15)
He shows how divorce-remarriage is adultery for two believers who separate on grounds other than adultery (Matthew 5:32; 1 Corinthians 7:10,11).
I have spent about a year studying this and have read a great deal. This book has been the most helpful thus far and is the only one that really faces the apparent discrepancy between Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:15 head-on, as well as giving a fair treatment of the Permanence View.
I had arrived at Murray's basic position before I read this book, and he helped confirmed this view, though I am still open-minded to further illumination. May the God of peace grant us loving obedience and healing compassion as we navigate this war-torn landscape of marriage, divorce and remarriage.
January 15, 2016
This is a pretty technical book, so I would certainly not recommend it to many people. For example, he on occasion will use Hebrew or Greek and leave it untranslated, making his argument obscure for those who can't read the language. He also has a pretty elevated writing style that is occasionally so stilted that it is hard to follow.
Still, I appreciate his tenacity when it comes to exegesis. He is committed to following where he believes the biblical texts point and has no qualms about this. He ends up in a relatively unique position (so far as I can tell) of seeing adultery as the only biblical reason for dissolving the marriage bond, so separation referenced in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not reason for separation. His final chapter is very helpful in seeing how his conclusions would work out in various case studies.
My biggest critique is probably one that has more to do with the time the book was written (1961) than anything. Murray spends pages dealing with the "Romish" (by which he means the Roman Catholic Church) interpretation of marriage, but does not spend much time dealing with people who would fall to the left of his interpretation. Had the book been written in the last decade or two, he would need to address questions of abuse, for example, which he does not touch on at all in his book.
Overall, a helpful book in its very detailed exegesis and showing how he applies the biblical texts, but thinking about applying this today will require some other readings.
Still, I appreciate his tenacity when it comes to exegesis. He is committed to following where he believes the biblical texts point and has no qualms about this. He ends up in a relatively unique position (so far as I can tell) of seeing adultery as the only biblical reason for dissolving the marriage bond, so separation referenced in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is not reason for separation. His final chapter is very helpful in seeing how his conclusions would work out in various case studies.
My biggest critique is probably one that has more to do with the time the book was written (1961) than anything. Murray spends pages dealing with the "Romish" (by which he means the Roman Catholic Church) interpretation of marriage, but does not spend much time dealing with people who would fall to the left of his interpretation. Had the book been written in the last decade or two, he would need to address questions of abuse, for example, which he does not touch on at all in his book.
Overall, a helpful book in its very detailed exegesis and showing how he applies the biblical texts, but thinking about applying this today will require some other readings.
May 11, 2014
Ok book on divorce. Murray does a pretty good job surveying the biblical teaching on divorce and sticks to a pretty literally understanding of Jesus' and Paul's commands. He was a little confusing in explaining the different implications of each teaching on divorce in the gospels.
I wish he would address Malachi 2 in his discourse on the Old Testament to incorporate the idea that "The Lord your God hates divorce" to present divorce as something that is never pleasing to the Lord, even when given scriptural warrant.
This was written in the 1950's, but I also wish for more addressing of contemporary issues like domestic abuse and practical ways the New Testament's teaching on divorce applies to that.
I wish he would address Malachi 2 in his discourse on the Old Testament to incorporate the idea that "The Lord your God hates divorce" to present divorce as something that is never pleasing to the Lord, even when given scriptural warrant.
This was written in the 1950's, but I also wish for more addressing of contemporary issues like domestic abuse and practical ways the New Testament's teaching on divorce applies to that.
November 27, 2012
Murray, though he may be one of the more inaccessible authors on the subject, does have a pastor's heart in dealing with this subject. One can sense the heartbreak and gravity that he writes with as he addresses the people of God. Good stuff overall. Worthy of reading... definitely so, even though I do take issue with his understanding of the "exception" clauses, I do believe this is a very, very important book that should not just be owned but also read and studied. For that matter, almost anything he has written is worthy of engaging. Murray walked with God in a way that few others in his camp can only dream of. This was not only evidenced in his writings but also his personal life.
January 21, 2023
This was a re-reading for me. But it's been decades since I have read it, and so, in someways, a first reading again.
Murray is painfully careful to follow the Word of God, and to go no further. He is extremely careful in his exegesis. There are times when he allows that another competing opinion could be valid, but he still gives his reasons for why he disagrees.
One point he makes that is a point of dispute among Reformed theologians: that the ideal would be that state laws follow God's law. I agree with Murray.
Murray is painfully careful to follow the Word of God, and to go no further. He is extremely careful in his exegesis. There are times when he allows that another competing opinion could be valid, but he still gives his reasons for why he disagrees.
One point he makes that is a point of dispute among Reformed theologians: that the ideal would be that state laws follow God's law. I agree with Murray.
July 7, 2012
Solid, but dated.
September 25, 2014
Love John Murray. But he's missing the "boat" here!
March 30, 2017
This isn't an easy read; it's not as clear as it could be. I needed to reread several passages to follow Murray's explanations. He made some points that I haven't read in other material on the topic of remarriage after divorce. I like that he quotes the original Greek, though I can't read it.
Summary
Divorce is biblical in cases of adultery (illicit sex) and when an unbelieving spouse abandons a believer over religious conflict. Remarriage is biblical when both spouses were previously unmarried or biblically divorced. In case of divorce for adultery, Mt 19:9 shows remarriage of innocent party is legitimate. However, there's no biblical evidence that remarriage of guilty party is legitimate.
Murray's position on remarriage after divorce is essentially the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, except that he believes the allowance for remarriage after divorce in the case of willful desertion applies only when the deserting spouse is an unbeliever.
Notes
Preface
Gen 2:23-24 and Jesus' comments show that marriage bond is originally and ideally indissoluble. Divorce is conceivable only because of rupture of divine-human relations in the Fall.
Cardinal passages: Deut 24:1-4; Matt 5:31-32, 19:3-12; Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:15; Rom 7:1-3.
The Old Testament Provision (Deut 24:1-4)
Deut 24:1-4 doesn't authorize or sanction divorce. It simply says that if a man divorces his wife and she marries another, the former husband can't take her back. However, divorce was practiced, was tolerated and permitted, and was valid under certain circumstances (see Lev 21:7, 14, 22:13; Num 30:9-10; Deut 11:19, 29; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:1; Ezek 44:22).
The bond between the woman and first husband is so sacred that, although divorce may be given and certain freedom granted to divorced persons, and unobliterable relationship appears in the form of unobliterable separation between woman and 1st husband when woman is remarried.
Remarriage itself isn't adultery, and woman isn't called adulteress. Woman and 2nd husband aren't put to death as Pentateuch required for adultery. But remarriage may involve defilement.
What prevents woman from marrying 1st husband isn't that she was subsequently married to another, but that she'd been divorced from 1st husband.
Teaching of Our Lord
Matt 5:31-32
When Jesus in Sermon on Mount says, "it was said … but I say to you," He isn't opposing OT law or abrogating it (Mt 5:17-20). He's contrasting the true intent of OT law with Pharisaical distortions.
Mt 5:31-32 says illicit sex is the only legitimate ground for divorce.
When man divorces for reasons other than illicit sex, woman is illegitimately divorced, and if another man marries her, she and new husband commit adultery.
Only reason 2nd marriage is considered adulterous is because 1st marriage isn't dissolved by illegitimate divorce.
Divorcing husband can't remarry either, because bond isn't broken.
Last part of v 32 refers to woman divorced without legitimate cause, not to all divorced.
This passage doesn't explicitly say whether persons divorced with legitimate cause may remarry.
Jesus abrogated Mosaic death penalty for adultery and legitimized divorce for adultery. Jesus abrogated reasons for divorce given in Deut 24:1-4, tolerated under Mosaic jurisprudence.
Matt 19:3-8
Jesus says that the Mosaic economy permitted or tolerated divorce because of the Israelites' desecration of the divine creation ordinance of marriage, but from the beginning (Creation) there was no such permission.
Matt 19:9
This is only NT passage that combines exceptive clause and remarriage clause.
Matt 19:9 and 5:32 deal with marriage, not betrothal, because they refer to Deut 24:1-4, which deal with marriage.
The man who divorces his wife (except for illicit sex) and marries another is called an adulterer.
Position that remarriage of innocent party is forbidden is held by Roman Catholic Church, Augustine, canon law of Church of England.
Exceptive clause applies to divorce and remarriage, because subject is divorce and remarriage in coordination.
The divorce permitted under the Mosaic economy dissolved the marriage bond. This Mosaic permission is referred to in context of Mt 19:9, 5:31, and Mk 10:2-12, so the divorce described in those places also breaks marriage bond.
What is abrogated is not divorce or its dissolution of marriage bond, but all grounds for divorce except adultery (illicit sex).
If divorce doesn't dissolve marriage bond, then man is putting away his one-flesh wife and failing to perform marital obligations, which is unscriptural.
Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18
Jesus' emphasis in Mt 19:3-9 and Mk 10:2-12 is abrogation of permission to divorce for reasons other than adultery, and creating a provision for divorce for reason of adultery.
The fact that Mark and Luke don't mention right of man to divorce wife for adultery doesn't deny that right, nor right for that man to remarry. Since they don't mention right to divorce, it makes sense they also wouldn't mention right to remarry.
Mark and Luke focus on abrogation of Mosaic provisions for divorce, not on situation of adultery. That situation is covered in Matt.
The Teaching of Paul
1 Cor 7:10-15
1 Cor 7:10-11 forbids not only divorce, but even separation of bed and board. But since Mt 5:31 and 19:9 clearly grant right of divorce in case of adultery, 1 Cor 7:10-11 can't intend to ban remarriage after divorce in case of adultery.
Paul's purpose is to show that marriage prevents fornication, and to plead for purity in marriage. In this passage he's not concerned about explaining the rules that apply when marriage is desecrated. Case of adultery is beyond scope of passage.
1 Cor 7:11 propounds no right of separation of dismissal. It can't be used to defend right of separation without dissolution of marriage.
1 Cor 7:11 is saying, "If separation has taken place, let the breach be healed. Failing that, neither party may remarry."
Prior to v 12, Paul is dealing with marriages of 2 Christian spouses. Starting in v 12, he's dealing with mixed marriages of Christian and non-Christian.
V 12-13 say that believing spouse may not leave or put away unbelieving spouse.
V 15 says if the unbelieving spouse departs, the believing spouse is not obligated to pursue, and is freed from all marital debts and duties.
V 15 shows marriage is dissolved. This doesn't conflict with Jesus' teachings because Jesus spoke to question of putting away, but v 15 speaks to willful desertion. Jesus spoke to marriages between believers, but v 15 speaks to mixed marriages. V 10-11 (about 2 Christians) say no remarriage, but v 15 (about mixed marriage) doesn't.
V 15 shows marriage bond is dissolved; the statement is much more decisive and final than v 10-11. Word for "bond" in v 15 is as strong as or stronger than "bound" in 1 Cor 7:27, 39 and Rom 7:2, and in those places it refers to marriage bond.
Position that v 15 shows dissolution of marriage bond isn't the only feasible interpretation.
Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't limit desertion to unbeliever, but it should, to fit 1 Cor 7:15.
Rom 7:1-3
Paul isn't dealing expressly with question of marriage and separation; he's just using marriage as illustration.
This passage gives basic law for marriage: woman is bound to husband as long as he lives. However, if husband desecrates marriage bond by adultery, her relationship to husband is so radically altered without any infringement on her part that she is released from law of husband, and that doesn't violate principle on her part.
For Paul to bring up contingency of adultery would be contrary to principle he's asserting; it would perplex the reader.
Right of dissolution on ground of adultery isn't exception to principle Paul is stating; divorce in case of adultery doesn't violate principle; it introduces new set of conditions under which principle no longer applies to innocent spouse.
The above explanation for Rom 7:2-3 also applies to 1 Cor 7:39.
Practical Cases
There's no biblical warrant for saying a person divorced for adultery (whether innocent or guilty party) commits another act of adultery when remarrying, because the divorce for adultery dissolved marriage bond.
In case of divorce for adultery, Mt 19:9 shows remarriage of innocent party is legitimate. However, there's no biblical evidence that remarriage of guilty party is legitimate. In case of guilty party, although 2nd marriage can't be called illegitimate and adulterous, it also can't be called legitimate because it's not expressly allowed by Scripture.
Murray takes position that when a person remarries after an unbiblical divorce, although 2nd marriage is adulterous and illegitimate, it's a real marriage and binding. However, has "a great deal of respect" for position that in this case, the remarriage is invalid, null and void, and the person should be separated from the 2nd spouse and return to the 1st.
Summary
Divorce is biblical in cases of adultery (illicit sex) and when an unbelieving spouse abandons a believer over religious conflict. Remarriage is biblical when both spouses were previously unmarried or biblically divorced. In case of divorce for adultery, Mt 19:9 shows remarriage of innocent party is legitimate. However, there's no biblical evidence that remarriage of guilty party is legitimate.
Murray's position on remarriage after divorce is essentially the position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, except that he believes the allowance for remarriage after divorce in the case of willful desertion applies only when the deserting spouse is an unbeliever.
Notes
Preface
Gen 2:23-24 and Jesus' comments show that marriage bond is originally and ideally indissoluble. Divorce is conceivable only because of rupture of divine-human relations in the Fall.
Cardinal passages: Deut 24:1-4; Matt 5:31-32, 19:3-12; Mk 10:2-12; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:15; Rom 7:1-3.
The Old Testament Provision (Deut 24:1-4)
Deut 24:1-4 doesn't authorize or sanction divorce. It simply says that if a man divorces his wife and she marries another, the former husband can't take her back. However, divorce was practiced, was tolerated and permitted, and was valid under certain circumstances (see Lev 21:7, 14, 22:13; Num 30:9-10; Deut 11:19, 29; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:1; Ezek 44:22).
The bond between the woman and first husband is so sacred that, although divorce may be given and certain freedom granted to divorced persons, and unobliterable relationship appears in the form of unobliterable separation between woman and 1st husband when woman is remarried.
Remarriage itself isn't adultery, and woman isn't called adulteress. Woman and 2nd husband aren't put to death as Pentateuch required for adultery. But remarriage may involve defilement.
What prevents woman from marrying 1st husband isn't that she was subsequently married to another, but that she'd been divorced from 1st husband.
Teaching of Our Lord
Matt 5:31-32
When Jesus in Sermon on Mount says, "it was said … but I say to you," He isn't opposing OT law or abrogating it (Mt 5:17-20). He's contrasting the true intent of OT law with Pharisaical distortions.
Mt 5:31-32 says illicit sex is the only legitimate ground for divorce.
When man divorces for reasons other than illicit sex, woman is illegitimately divorced, and if another man marries her, she and new husband commit adultery.
Only reason 2nd marriage is considered adulterous is because 1st marriage isn't dissolved by illegitimate divorce.
Divorcing husband can't remarry either, because bond isn't broken.
Last part of v 32 refers to woman divorced without legitimate cause, not to all divorced.
This passage doesn't explicitly say whether persons divorced with legitimate cause may remarry.
Jesus abrogated Mosaic death penalty for adultery and legitimized divorce for adultery. Jesus abrogated reasons for divorce given in Deut 24:1-4, tolerated under Mosaic jurisprudence.
Matt 19:3-8
Jesus says that the Mosaic economy permitted or tolerated divorce because of the Israelites' desecration of the divine creation ordinance of marriage, but from the beginning (Creation) there was no such permission.
Matt 19:9
This is only NT passage that combines exceptive clause and remarriage clause.
Matt 19:9 and 5:32 deal with marriage, not betrothal, because they refer to Deut 24:1-4, which deal with marriage.
The man who divorces his wife (except for illicit sex) and marries another is called an adulterer.
Position that remarriage of innocent party is forbidden is held by Roman Catholic Church, Augustine, canon law of Church of England.
Exceptive clause applies to divorce and remarriage, because subject is divorce and remarriage in coordination.
The divorce permitted under the Mosaic economy dissolved the marriage bond. This Mosaic permission is referred to in context of Mt 19:9, 5:31, and Mk 10:2-12, so the divorce described in those places also breaks marriage bond.
What is abrogated is not divorce or its dissolution of marriage bond, but all grounds for divorce except adultery (illicit sex).
If divorce doesn't dissolve marriage bond, then man is putting away his one-flesh wife and failing to perform marital obligations, which is unscriptural.
Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18
Jesus' emphasis in Mt 19:3-9 and Mk 10:2-12 is abrogation of permission to divorce for reasons other than adultery, and creating a provision for divorce for reason of adultery.
The fact that Mark and Luke don't mention right of man to divorce wife for adultery doesn't deny that right, nor right for that man to remarry. Since they don't mention right to divorce, it makes sense they also wouldn't mention right to remarry.
Mark and Luke focus on abrogation of Mosaic provisions for divorce, not on situation of adultery. That situation is covered in Matt.
The Teaching of Paul
1 Cor 7:10-15
1 Cor 7:10-11 forbids not only divorce, but even separation of bed and board. But since Mt 5:31 and 19:9 clearly grant right of divorce in case of adultery, 1 Cor 7:10-11 can't intend to ban remarriage after divorce in case of adultery.
Paul's purpose is to show that marriage prevents fornication, and to plead for purity in marriage. In this passage he's not concerned about explaining the rules that apply when marriage is desecrated. Case of adultery is beyond scope of passage.
1 Cor 7:11 propounds no right of separation of dismissal. It can't be used to defend right of separation without dissolution of marriage.
1 Cor 7:11 is saying, "If separation has taken place, let the breach be healed. Failing that, neither party may remarry."
Prior to v 12, Paul is dealing with marriages of 2 Christian spouses. Starting in v 12, he's dealing with mixed marriages of Christian and non-Christian.
V 12-13 say that believing spouse may not leave or put away unbelieving spouse.
V 15 says if the unbelieving spouse departs, the believing spouse is not obligated to pursue, and is freed from all marital debts and duties.
V 15 shows marriage is dissolved. This doesn't conflict with Jesus' teachings because Jesus spoke to question of putting away, but v 15 speaks to willful desertion. Jesus spoke to marriages between believers, but v 15 speaks to mixed marriages. V 10-11 (about 2 Christians) say no remarriage, but v 15 (about mixed marriage) doesn't.
V 15 shows marriage bond is dissolved; the statement is much more decisive and final than v 10-11. Word for "bond" in v 15 is as strong as or stronger than "bound" in 1 Cor 7:27, 39 and Rom 7:2, and in those places it refers to marriage bond.
Position that v 15 shows dissolution of marriage bond isn't the only feasible interpretation.
Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't limit desertion to unbeliever, but it should, to fit 1 Cor 7:15.
Rom 7:1-3
Paul isn't dealing expressly with question of marriage and separation; he's just using marriage as illustration.
This passage gives basic law for marriage: woman is bound to husband as long as he lives. However, if husband desecrates marriage bond by adultery, her relationship to husband is so radically altered without any infringement on her part that she is released from law of husband, and that doesn't violate principle on her part.
For Paul to bring up contingency of adultery would be contrary to principle he's asserting; it would perplex the reader.
Right of dissolution on ground of adultery isn't exception to principle Paul is stating; divorce in case of adultery doesn't violate principle; it introduces new set of conditions under which principle no longer applies to innocent spouse.
The above explanation for Rom 7:2-3 also applies to 1 Cor 7:39.
Practical Cases
There's no biblical warrant for saying a person divorced for adultery (whether innocent or guilty party) commits another act of adultery when remarrying, because the divorce for adultery dissolved marriage bond.
In case of divorce for adultery, Mt 19:9 shows remarriage of innocent party is legitimate. However, there's no biblical evidence that remarriage of guilty party is legitimate. In case of guilty party, although 2nd marriage can't be called illegitimate and adulterous, it also can't be called legitimate because it's not expressly allowed by Scripture.
Murray takes position that when a person remarries after an unbiblical divorce, although 2nd marriage is adulterous and illegitimate, it's a real marriage and binding. However, has "a great deal of respect" for position that in this case, the remarriage is invalid, null and void, and the person should be separated from the 2nd spouse and return to the 1st.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews