What do you think?
Rate this book
Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View
Bible-believing Christians agree that it is essential to act on Jesus' words while the present storm of marital unfaithfulness and divorce swirls around us. Yet there is uncertainty about Jesus' commands concerning divorce and remarriage. Do we truly understand the words of Christ (and Paul)?
- GenresMarriage
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
2 people are currently reading
19 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 11, 2025
This book presented a well-formulated belief on the permanence view of marriage. Many of the ideas presented were things I already believed but hadn't really dug into. It was encouraging to have Scripture and logical reasoning presented to support these beliefs. I won't say I agreed with the authors on everything details (divorced men serving as elders for example), but overall this is an excellent read and I would recommend it for anyone.
December 4, 2024
I’m still not convinced on the permanence view, but this was a very well argued case.
The only big question I have is why the line of divorce permissibility is drawn by the authors at the consummation of the marriage when Deut 22 (a text they appeal to in order to explain the exception clause) seems to describe a post-consummation divorce
The only big question I have is why the line of divorce permissibility is drawn by the authors at the consummation of the marriage when Deut 22 (a text they appeal to in order to explain the exception clause) seems to describe a post-consummation divorce
August 22, 2022
Although the book is basically on the right track and gets to about the right conclusion, it deals with the key texts quite poorly and it displays a poor clarity of thought and legal analysis.
The authors wrongly state "Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' question was an unqualified "No"" (p 15). It is obvious that Lord's words were qualified by the important phrase "those God has joined together." No one thinks that the Lord's restriction on divorce applies to those God has not joined together, for example, adulterous remarriages and unlawful marriages. It is also agreed by everyone, ancient and modern, Jewish and Christian, that there is no restriction on divorcing one's betrothed wife or husband when the marriage has not been consummated.
The authors state that the prohibition on divorce is unqualified, but then proceed to introduce their own qualifications anyway. But they never analyse nor properly justify their qualifications.
I think everyone agrees that the terms on the left side of the equation are qualified:
marriage + divorce + remarriage to another person = adultery.
The marriage in the equation has to be one that "God has joined together" as a "one flesh" union. What exactly this means bears much thought, study and analysis, which the authors neglect.
The divorce in the equation has to be unlawful but also ineffective. The real issue of debate is which divorces are unlawful and ineffective, and why. The Lord's teaching seems the most appropriate answer: any divorce purporting to terminate a marriage that God has joined together as a one-flesh union.
The remarriage to another in the equation also bears qualification. If the former spouse has since died, the authors correctly state that there is no marriage that one can then commit adultery against by remarrying someone else. Whether the remarriage has to be consummated is an interesting question: the Lord's ruling doesn't say that it only applies to consummated remarriages and it is arguable that it can be taken quite literally as the entering into a marriage contract (in violation of the former) rather than only having sexual intercourse with the new spouse.
The authors fail to work through the cultural and legal background and customs well enough to correctly interpret the biblical texts referring to them. When a man "marries" a woman, he "takes" her as his wife by contracting a marriage to her. In the cultural context this was by securing the agreement of the woman and her father and paying the bride price. From this point the spouses were married, but they also had the special status of being betrothed. At this point, if the woman has sexual relations with someone else, that is adultery, not pre-marital sex, since she is now married. Thus, it is wrong to say that if the man divorces his wife for her sexual relations with someone else during the betrothal period this is porneia and not adultery. It is adultery, not porneia! During the betrothal period, whether for adultery or porneia (sex with someone else before the betrothal) he can divorce her by mere notice: he gives her a notice of divorce and by means of that, she is legally moved out of his "house" (Deut. 24:1-4). Contrary to the claims of the authors, there is no court proceeding here, no charge and no proof of anything to anyone. This is no-fault divorce. The man may have his reasons, probably good reasons given he is likely not to get back the bride price, but they are his reasons, and if they are good enough for him they are good enough to terminate the marriage by divorce. And both parties are free to marry anyone they wish (including each other again).
The porneia case in Mat. 5:32 is "logos porneia" i.e. the porneia law or the porneia case. Logos in Matthew never means conduct, it always means an authoritative and binding pronouncement of a person, a judgement, here the judgement of Moses in Deut. 22:13-21, the only divorce law in the Torah referring to the woman who was "whoring in her father's house" i.e. sexually active with someone else before she was betrothed, and not during the betrothal period. Although in that case the man forfeited his divorce remedy by his own misconduct, the essence of his case to impeach the validity and finality of his marriage to his wife is to prove that she was not a virgin at the time she was betrothed to him, not on the wedding consummation. This is a difficult burden, and the man has to prove that it was not him who took her virginity during the betrothal period (which is difficult to prove) and that she didn't fail to bleed on the wedding consummation for any other reason (i.e. he has to prove she had sexual relations with another man before he was betrothed to him). The policy of the law is to restrict virginity claims against brides raised after the wedding consummation. In other words, the law and its policy is that the wedding ceremony and the wedding consummation all but makes a marriage unimpeachable. The brides of Israel are not to be challenged on that point unless the man can a) avoid any misconduct on his own part and b) the man has actual proof that he was defrauded in this way from the time of the betrothal itself. This is the opposite of what the authors claim: that if the woman didn't bleed on the wedding consummation then the man had the right (perhaps the obligation) to declare his marriage defective and terminated.
The Lord introduced the exception clause in Mat. 5:32 and 19:9 not to address divorcing one's betrothed wife before the wedding, but to address the exceptional case of divorcing one's wife after the wedding consummation. The authors of the book have missed this context and the linguistic clues and the Mosaic background of the porneia law. This case and scenario is totally different from betrothal period divorce which requires no proof of anything and which no one, ancient or modern, Jewish or Christian, ever objected to.
The authors wrongly state "Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' question was an unqualified "No"" (p 15). It is obvious that Lord's words were qualified by the important phrase "those God has joined together." No one thinks that the Lord's restriction on divorce applies to those God has not joined together, for example, adulterous remarriages and unlawful marriages. It is also agreed by everyone, ancient and modern, Jewish and Christian, that there is no restriction on divorcing one's betrothed wife or husband when the marriage has not been consummated.
The authors state that the prohibition on divorce is unqualified, but then proceed to introduce their own qualifications anyway. But they never analyse nor properly justify their qualifications.
I think everyone agrees that the terms on the left side of the equation are qualified:
marriage + divorce + remarriage to another person = adultery.
The marriage in the equation has to be one that "God has joined together" as a "one flesh" union. What exactly this means bears much thought, study and analysis, which the authors neglect.
The divorce in the equation has to be unlawful but also ineffective. The real issue of debate is which divorces are unlawful and ineffective, and why. The Lord's teaching seems the most appropriate answer: any divorce purporting to terminate a marriage that God has joined together as a one-flesh union.
The remarriage to another in the equation also bears qualification. If the former spouse has since died, the authors correctly state that there is no marriage that one can then commit adultery against by remarrying someone else. Whether the remarriage has to be consummated is an interesting question: the Lord's ruling doesn't say that it only applies to consummated remarriages and it is arguable that it can be taken quite literally as the entering into a marriage contract (in violation of the former) rather than only having sexual intercourse with the new spouse.
The authors fail to work through the cultural and legal background and customs well enough to correctly interpret the biblical texts referring to them. When a man "marries" a woman, he "takes" her as his wife by contracting a marriage to her. In the cultural context this was by securing the agreement of the woman and her father and paying the bride price. From this point the spouses were married, but they also had the special status of being betrothed. At this point, if the woman has sexual relations with someone else, that is adultery, not pre-marital sex, since she is now married. Thus, it is wrong to say that if the man divorces his wife for her sexual relations with someone else during the betrothal period this is porneia and not adultery. It is adultery, not porneia! During the betrothal period, whether for adultery or porneia (sex with someone else before the betrothal) he can divorce her by mere notice: he gives her a notice of divorce and by means of that, she is legally moved out of his "house" (Deut. 24:1-4). Contrary to the claims of the authors, there is no court proceeding here, no charge and no proof of anything to anyone. This is no-fault divorce. The man may have his reasons, probably good reasons given he is likely not to get back the bride price, but they are his reasons, and if they are good enough for him they are good enough to terminate the marriage by divorce. And both parties are free to marry anyone they wish (including each other again).
The porneia case in Mat. 5:32 is "logos porneia" i.e. the porneia law or the porneia case. Logos in Matthew never means conduct, it always means an authoritative and binding pronouncement of a person, a judgement, here the judgement of Moses in Deut. 22:13-21, the only divorce law in the Torah referring to the woman who was "whoring in her father's house" i.e. sexually active with someone else before she was betrothed, and not during the betrothal period. Although in that case the man forfeited his divorce remedy by his own misconduct, the essence of his case to impeach the validity and finality of his marriage to his wife is to prove that she was not a virgin at the time she was betrothed to him, not on the wedding consummation. This is a difficult burden, and the man has to prove that it was not him who took her virginity during the betrothal period (which is difficult to prove) and that she didn't fail to bleed on the wedding consummation for any other reason (i.e. he has to prove she had sexual relations with another man before he was betrothed to him). The policy of the law is to restrict virginity claims against brides raised after the wedding consummation. In other words, the law and its policy is that the wedding ceremony and the wedding consummation all but makes a marriage unimpeachable. The brides of Israel are not to be challenged on that point unless the man can a) avoid any misconduct on his own part and b) the man has actual proof that he was defrauded in this way from the time of the betrothal itself. This is the opposite of what the authors claim: that if the woman didn't bleed on the wedding consummation then the man had the right (perhaps the obligation) to declare his marriage defective and terminated.
The Lord introduced the exception clause in Mat. 5:32 and 19:9 not to address divorcing one's betrothed wife before the wedding, but to address the exceptional case of divorcing one's wife after the wedding consummation. The authors of the book have missed this context and the linguistic clues and the Mosaic background of the porneia law. This case and scenario is totally different from betrothal period divorce which requires no proof of anything and which no one, ancient or modern, Jewish or Christian, ever objected to.
May 27, 2017
This is an excellent book. Elliff and his fellow elders have put together a thoughtful, biblical, and pastoral case for the permanence view. I would strongly encourage anyone who preaches, teaches, and or counsels on marriage to read this book, as well as Christians who have been divorced or remarried. I recommend this all the time. I have also counseled a formerly divorced brother who has since reconciled with his wife based much on help from this great book!
June 7, 2023
This book gives solid scriptural support for a view that I have held for quite some time. I have heard teaching in the subject from Voddie Bacham that I agreed with. However, this book digs in deeper and answers objections raised to this point of view.
In summary, these three points are made:
1. The one-flesh union created in marriage is permanent until death.
2. Initiating a divorce is never lawful.
3. Remarrying after divorce is an act of adultery if a former spouse is living.
The heart of God is shown through the exposition of verses that show this view. The permanance view of marriage holds marriage to be the sacred union that the Bible says it is.
One Q&A that I wish the authors would have addressed is whether a believer may, in good conscious, attend the wedding of someone who is remarrying while their former spouse is still living.
In summary, these three points are made:
1. The one-flesh union created in marriage is permanent until death.
2. Initiating a divorce is never lawful.
3. Remarrying after divorce is an act of adultery if a former spouse is living.
The heart of God is shown through the exposition of verses that show this view. The permanance view of marriage holds marriage to be the sacred union that the Bible says it is.
One Q&A that I wish the authors would have addressed is whether a believer may, in good conscious, attend the wedding of someone who is remarrying while their former spouse is still living.
May 27, 2020
The argument is tight and convincing. 9/10
I could wish that they had dealt with Rom. 7:2-3 in its own chapter. Also, the syllogism of Eph. 5:25:
1. A husband must be like Jesus Christ.
2. Jesus Christ never divorces His wife.
Conclusion: A husband must never divorce his wife.
Also, in their brief treatment of God's bill of divorce to Israel in Jeremiah 3 on pages 45-47, I wish they had noted:
1. No bill of divorce was given to Judah. 3:8
2. This bill of divorce did not end the covenant. 3:16-19
3. God still called himself married to them, and did not take another. 3:14
4. The bill of divorce did not change His love for them. 3:1, 7, 12-14, 22
I could wish that they had dealt with Rom. 7:2-3 in its own chapter. Also, the syllogism of Eph. 5:25:
1. A husband must be like Jesus Christ.
2. Jesus Christ never divorces His wife.
Conclusion: A husband must never divorce his wife.
Also, in their brief treatment of God's bill of divorce to Israel in Jeremiah 3 on pages 45-47, I wish they had noted:
1. No bill of divorce was given to Judah. 3:8
2. This bill of divorce did not end the covenant. 3:16-19
3. God still called himself married to them, and did not take another. 3:14
4. The bill of divorce did not change His love for them. 3:1, 7, 12-14, 22
November 10, 2019
A great defense of the permanence view with fresh insights you may have not encountered.
August 25, 2011
I thought this was a well-reasoned defense of the permanence view of marriage. i.e. that divorce and remarriage are both biblical indefensible. I appreciated the format, how the authors would present their view and then respond to objections. However, I still believe the arguments fell short at some critical points, and I will still have to probe further in figuring out where I land on this issue. This book is an important and accessible contribution to the issue of the Christian view of divorce and remarriage.
October 20, 2009
The best handling of Divorce and Remarriage that I have seen. Answered every question that I could think of with Scripture this is a priceless resource on the subject. I am very thankful for it.
February 3, 2014
I disagree on some points (including conclusion) but a well written defense of the permanence view of marriage.
May 14, 2014
While not convinced of the authors' view, I appreciated very much the deep commitment to Scripture. A worthwhile contribution.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews