Allowing for remarriage in exceptional cases where reconciliation is impossible and where the marriage union truly cannot be remedied by either the church or the civil magistrate—either because the former spouse has already died, already remarried, or perpetually refuses reconciliation even where clear evidence of genuine repentance is present—does not in itself necessarily imply that any divorce apart from exceptional cases such as adultery or desertion are legitimate divorces. And it most certainly does not imply that divorce, which is a form of covenant breaking, is permissible when, say, the husband and wife do not get along. The principle is only relevant to cases where the divorce has already taken place.

Throughout history, the Christian Church has rightly recognized marriage as a lifelong commitment between one man and one woman in accordance with Scripture (Romans 7:2). Jesus Himself accordingly teaches that when a man and a woman are joined together in holy matrimony, the two become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:9).
Christ is also very clear on the fact that because the marriage union has been instituted and ordained by God, there is no human authority by which a marriage can be dissolved: “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Mark 10:9). Because marriage is a “holy institution” for the purpose of covenantally advancing Christ’s Kingdom through “godly offspring” (Malachi 2:11, 15), divorce is an abomination committed against God—a wicked attempt to overthrow His authority and destroy his Kingdom (Malachi 2:16).
Are you irritated by your spouse? Do you long to be with someone else? Are you longing for the privileges of being single again? God expects you not only to maintain and work on your marriage, but also to produce godly offspring. Under no circumstances may you abandon your spouse for your own sake.
Exceptions for Divorce?
However, it is universally recognized that Scripture does allow for divorce in those exceptional circumstances where sin has caused irreparable damage to the marriage union. Deuteronomy 24:1-3 officially recognizes a certificate of divorce as a legal document disbanding a marriage. Our infallible interpreter, Jesus Christ, however, tells us that this certificate of divorce is only recognized “because of the hardness of your heart” (Mark 10:5), thereby amplifying the divine intention behind marriage as being a lifelong commitment from both parties (Mark 10:6-9).
What is significant about Christ’s explanation of this law is the fact that it shows how even the Mosaic law made certain accommodations for the sake of our weaknesses and our sinfulness, evidently implying that the law of God is not merely some abstract standard of justice, but a very real and practical standard for our moral conduct as Christians. Furthermore, Christ Himself simultaneously confirms both the divine intention behind the institution of marriage as well as the law’s recognition of the permissibility of divorce in exceptional circumstances. Thus, while divorce in principle is forbidden by God, Jesus Himself recognizes sexual immorality as an exceptional circumstance in which divorce would be permissible (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).[1]
Restrictive Views on Remarriage After Divorce
Most Christian denominations and theologians recognize the reality that exceptional circumstances do exist in which divorce is permissible. However, a number of denominations completely oppose remarriage after divorce on the grounds of Jesus’ claims recorded in the three synoptic Gospels. In Matthew 19:9 (NKJV), we read the following words of Christ:
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.[2]
In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says:
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.
In Luke 16:18, the words of Jesus is recorded as follows:
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Thus, while recognizing exceptional circumstances for divorce, the Roman Catholic Church, for example, does not recognize remarriage as permissible. The canon law of the Church of England also historically allowed only for separation of husband and wife in the case of adultery, but never for remarriage.[3]  There are even some Reformed denominations that share this view, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches in America,[4] while most Presbyterian denominations, in an attempt to follow the Westminster Confession of Faith article 24.5 adhere to the principle that only the innocent party, in the case of adultery, may remarry.[5] The New Testament scholar from Capital Bible Seminary in Lanham, Maryland, Thomas R. Edgar, has also referred to this latter position as “the standard Protestant view.”[6] Some scholars have suggested that remarriage may also be permissible for the guilty party once they repent and ask forgiveness, as they then are then transformed by God’s grace into an innocent (or guilt-free) party.[7] However, in such cases there would be no need for remarriage, as repentance from the guilty party and forgiveness from the offended party should of course lead to reconciliation.
Seeing Jesus’ Words More Narrowly
However, it must be taken into consideration that neither the Westminster Confession nor Scripture claims adultery to be the sole legitimate grounds for divorce (see WCF 24.6 and 1 Corinthians 7:15). The reality is also that there are many divorcees who may have been guilty in causing their divorce, but did not commit adultery in the process leading up to the divorce, such as when the divorce was caused by abandonment. There may also be cases in which both parties are equally guilty in terms of causing the divorce, whether or not adultery had occurred. Would there be any circumstances in which remarriage would be biblically permissible in such cases? Another question the Westminster Confession leaves unanswered is whether an adulterer who has repented and come to faith may then marry again.
In addressing these questions, there are a number of Scriptural considerations to be taken into account:
Firstly, it is important to recognize that biblical law itself recognizes the possibility of a legitimate remarriage on the part of even the guilty party and even in cases of sexual immorality (Deuteronomy 24:1-2). If Christ’s commands in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 are taken as injunctions against all remarriage on the part of the guilty party, it would seem to be at odds with His own recognition of the law’s recognition of such marriages in Mark 10:5.
Secondly, biblical law itself, while requiring the death penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 11:20-25), legally distinguishes remarriage after divorce from adultery prior to divorce (Deuteronomy 24:2-4).
Third, the Scottish Presbyterian theologian and professor of Westminster Theological Seminary, John Murray (1898–1975) has convincingly shown how the Greek verb used in Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18, μοιχεύει (moicheuei), modifies both preceding actions together, “divorcing” as well as “remarrying,” as opposed to these actions taken individually.[8]
Read More
Related Posts:

The temptation of other religions or unbelief belongs to the flesh, and this includes both overt idolatry as well as perverse worship outside of Christ. If we worship Christ in any way not commanded in his word, we fall into this sin. As church history makes clear, we are ever prone to worship God how we want to and not how God wants us to. 

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. — Galatians 5:19-21
Think how often you are left standing there asking yourself, “Why did I do that? What was I thinking when I said that?” Words escape your lips, and thirty seconds later you regret what you said. Yes, this is the war of desires that roars within us. This is how sin stays alive within us our whole life long. In his letter to the Galatians, the apostle Paul writes:
For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. (Gal. 5:17)
And it doesn’t get easier the longer you are a Christian and the more mature you grow. As Luther pointed out, the more godly a man is, the more he feels the battle. And Calvin put it this way: we don’t even perceive our full depravity until we mature like a tree. Our growth in sanctification is not a realization of how holy we are, but it is humiliation at how often the flesh gets its way.
Yes, the war between the flesh and the Spirit wages throughout our lives. This side of heaven, there is no armistice in this conflict—no peace treaty. Yet, this truth of our life, our ever struggle with sin, should not cause us to despair. At first glance, this battle is fairly discouraging: the flesh will get its sinful way until we die.
The Guidance of the Spirit Is Greater than the Flesh
Yet, the unceasing hostilities don’t mean that the flesh and the Spirit are equally matched. The score doesn’t remain tied. Rather, Paul writes,
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. (Gal. 5:18)
The Spirit is our general, our tour guide, our master. The guidance of the Spirit is greater than the flesh, for the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ.
The Spirit gets the better of the flesh not merely by getting us to do the good, but by making us forsake our works to trust only in the works of Christ. The Spirit leads us to the once and forever victory over sin and the flesh—the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Spirit enables us to recognize that even our better works are still tainted with sin. The Spirit leads us to Jesus and reminds us of our justification, all of grace and through faith alone. Our best moments of obedience and love still fall very short of perfection. As we fail to do, the Spirit sets before our hearts that Christ did it all for us. This is the beauty and sweet comfort of the Spirit of Christ.
Though, in our battle with the flesh, Paul does want to remind us what are the deeds of the flesh. Even if we still stumble, the Spirit calls us to resist the flesh, to put to death the fleshly deeds. We need to know what deeds and desires must be killed off by the Spirit working in us. So, Paul gives us a list of the flesh’s works, which he says are evident. Having the Spirit, it isn’t hard to recognize the flesh. Yet, he does give us a list of 15 vices to deepen our perception of the ways of the flesh and to give us a more profound discernment so that we resist the flesh better and not be blind to its sophistication. Now, this list of 15 can be grouped into roughly 4 categories.
Sexual Perversity
Sexual Immorality (1), Impurity (2), and Sensuality (3)
The first three vices fall into the first category of sexual sins: sexual immorality, impurity and sensuality. These cover transgressions such as premarital sex, adultery, pornography, homosexuality, prostitutes, strip clubs, and so on. And it is fitting that Paul puts this category first, for sexual sin is one of humanity’s deepest flaws.
The created good of sex in marriage is perverted most often. Thus, we need to remain vigilant against these desires and not be complacent—but for the grace of God there we go as well. This is especially the case as our culture is constantly sticking in our faces sexual temptations. In fact, sensuality to which Paul is referring here particularly has the sense of losing all self-control and restraint.
Exercising this self-control isn’t just about our will toughing it out; rather, it is built into our life structure, into our community. We avoid tawdry places, we block perverse websites, and we help each other by keeping one another accountable. Paul’s command—not to fulfill the desire of the flesh—is helpful here.
Sexual lusts can just pop up in our minds with little provocation. If God hadn’t made humans so beautiful, this would be a lot easier.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Benjamin T. Inman |
Tuesday, November 29, 2022
I disagree with his assertions about Overture 15. I leave argument aside. I disagree that concerns expressed in terms of the reform of the church deserve to be greeted as malicious. I leave argument aside. I disagree that mendacity has been the substance of the controversy around Johnson, et. al. I leave argument aside. I disagree that the PCA should construe coming advocacy around officers, race, and worship as a time to discern who is honest rather than how to honor Christ. I leave argument aside.  I disagree with TE LeCroy’s admonition for the PCA. I do not think he is lying.

Teaching Elder Tim LeCroy has published a heart-felt and scathing admonition for the PCA. He is grieved. He speaks of many liars, many unrepentant liars, particular organizations which have been undeterred by his rebukes. He warns the PCA– not just about deception, but real degeneracy.
I write to express my disagreement and to invite others to disagree. I think that TE LeCroy is mistaken. He will think that I am mistaken. We disagree. I do not accuse him of prevarication. If he follows my lead here, he may change his mind– then, we would no longer disagree. I would be shocked if he revealed himself to have lied. I don’t think he lied. I think he disagreed.
Disagreements are not surprising, and they are not un-Christian. No, they are not even un-Presbyterian. The scathing admonition might be faulted by some, as “intemperate.” Yes, that is un-Presbyterian, though the very word is perhaps one of our pets. Presbyterians may have single-handedly kept the word from obselescence. We don’t do intemperate speech, but we mention it when necessary. You know that we are serious about “intemperate.” We vote on it.
A Disagreement
“Memorial and Pastor Johnson tried to get people to listen to explanations of their ministries and their theology.” And, apparently, some people agreed with their representations; specifically he cites the Standing Judicial Commission. Others, LeCroy laments, stopped their ears and refused to listen. I do not have a particularly wide knowledge of the PCA, but I can substantially confirm the point, if not the opprobrium attached to it.
I have encountered numerous men over the last couple of months with a similar narrative:
In 2018 I started listening to Johnson, et. al., sympathetically, and then in 2022 the cumulative weight of my attention and patience brought me to a slow but definite position. I stopped listening to understand and interact; instead, I started listening to counter these developments in the church.
I think this sounds like the reasonable people who ended up, well, disagreeing with Johnson’s claims. At some point they stopped simply listening, but that is not to be faulted.
“That is not to say that there weren’t many people of good will with honest concerns and questions. Some of these folks pursued their concerns and questions in the right way: by engaging in honest dialog, following Presbyterian process, and seeking to understand and believe the best about Johnson and Memorial. Some of these folks were persuaded of the overall orthodoxy of Johnson while holding some valid concerns. Others, while not persuaded, continued to engage in an honest and charitable way.”
So, there was a disagreement. In the midst of honesty, dialog and process– some people concluded Johnson, et. al., are orthodox and others concluded they are heterodox. That is disagreement about a serious matter. Somehow, the ugly conclusion was still charitable and honest.
What is a charitable and honest (both) demeanor for concluding a minister is unwholesome? Might one disagree at this point? Must one consent silently to those who think otherwise? Might one express– temperately– a dour and unhappy and honest side of a dialog?
There is one matter about which there is no disagreement. Disagreement does not give license for lies. Disagreements are serious matters. Lies are wicked.
Not JUST A Disagreement
TE LeCroy has not given a heart-felt vindication for his side of the disagreement. Nor has he published a scathing analysis and criticism of the contrary view. This is not just a disagreement. He has assailed “a vast majority,” “many of them pastors and elders.” He has put his finger on names: “The Aquila Report, The Gospel Reformation Network, and Reformation 21, . . . Presbycast.”
More than differing with others, rather he has accused:
“. . . communicating an array of false information . . spreading false information . . . refused to acknowledge their error . . . continued to repeat the lies . . . doubled down on the lies . . . They stopped their ears against any just defense.” Disagreements are serious matters. Lies are wicked.
What is the difference between a disagreement and a lie? I disagree with TE LeCroy’s representation of Greg Johnson. His list of lies disseminated in this conflict is recognizable to me. I have heard all of those assertions– with nuances which are absent from LeCroy’s terse catalog:
” . . . that Johnson, doesn’t believe homosexual temptation is a sin, that he denies sanctification, that he says that homosexuals can never change, that he calls himself a gay Christian, that he identifies with his sin; that the PCA is ordaining unrepentant homosexuals, that the courts of the PCA have gone liberal and are ineffective to engage in true church discipline, that there are those in the PCA who are advocating for celibate partnerships.”
I have listened (and relistened) to a good bit from Greg Johnson and read his prose. My familiarity with Johnson’s voice makes these purported lies each quite plausible to me– if my familiarity with the dispute is allowed to remember nuances. I have heard these assertions before, though with nuances. I recognize them, although, here, they were unadorned with nuances. They were rather different, but they were not lies. I think, maybe, Mr. LeCroy and I differ on this. I disagree with him. I don’t think he is lying.
A Disagreement about Nuances
It seems Mr. LeCroy acknowledges that people may disagree about these matters:
“. . . valid concerns and frustrations . . . Yet, none of my frustrations or concerns amounted to the level of heretical belief or practice. They were at the level of things that myself and others believed were unwise and unhelpful, but not worthy of censure or excommunication.”
He suggests something of a spectrum: unwise > unhelpful > heretical practice > heretical belief > censure > excommunication.. Is the use of such a scale merely as mechanical as reading a thermometer? Might people charitably and honestly differ on this? Is the contrast really between agreeing or lying? Is that a nuance?
Mr. LeCroy specifies what he found predominantly unhelpful or unwise with Johnson, et. al:
”They . . . expected mature believers to read the nuance in the things they said and did. But understanding of nuance is not something one can expect these days. These days nuance is treated as the enemy of the truth.”
Johnson, et. al., required people to understand their nuances, but nuance attracts an adversarial attention. Nuance somehow short circuits truthfulness.
Is nuance the enemy of truth? Or does nuance fail to guarantee agreement? When people assert that a particular nuance is a distinction without a difference, or an instance of equivocation, or a fallacious appeal— are they expressing their disagreement or lying through their teeth? Disagreement is a serious matter. Lying is wicked. Nuance is not the distance between them.
A Demonization of Disagreement
Mr. LeCroy’s grief is fitting. A historic congregation has departed our communion, and it has done so with articulate recrimination. The truth of their assertions deserve sober consideration as the PCA moves forward. There is no duty to agree with such assertions, but there is a duty to take them seriously.
“I believe there will be a reckoning for all these lies. For those who have won this battle, this is not the way battles should be won in the Church of Jesus Christ.” Those are strong words. Again, only a fool would not weigh them and reweigh them. Remember how slow we can be when corrected.
I don’t have the impression that many people believe a battle was won. Partisans think that decisive conflict was avoided. The questions are not actually settled; the acrimony obviously lingers. People do lie, but people also disagree. Those who have avoided the battle must recognize that confusing prevarication and disagreement will most certainly reap more than a dust devil or two.
If deliberation is reduced to discernment of which speakers are lying– what confidence should you have in any vote? Unless you get your way. Consider the revulsion of getting your way and wondering if some in the majority were lying. Or does that matter if you’re getting your way? How horrible if a court of Christ’s church replaces disagreement and deliberation with distrust and dominant voices.
I imagine demons both agree and disagree dishonestly.
Mr. LeCroy goes on in his admonition. I disagree with his assertions about Overture 15. I leave argument aside. I disagree that concerns expressed in terms of the reform of the church deserve to be greeted as malicious. I leave argument aside. I disagree that mendacity has been the substance of the controversy around Johnson, et. al. I leave argument aside. I disagree that the PCA should construe coming advocacy around officers, race, and worship as a time to discern who is honest rather than how to honor Christ. I leave argument aside.
I disagree with TE LeCroy’s admonition for the PCA. I do not think he is lying.
I encourage others to do the same.
Benjamin T. Inman is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is member of Eastern Carolina Presbytery.
Related Posts: