Orthodox Christian Theology

The misuse of 1Cor 6:16-17 or
Marriage is a permanent relationship that cannot be dissolved

by Hadley Robinson

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? 16b  For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."  But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.  1Cor 6:16-17 NIV

A pillar of the modern sexual revolution

One of the pillars of the sexual revolution in the American Evangelical church is the widespread mistranslation of this passage.  The roots of this can be traced back to the 16th century – the Reformation.  Most Reformers held the view that marriage was not a permanent covenant between a man and a woman and this laid the foundation for the increasingly permissive views that we see in churches today.

The current Evangelical view of 1Cor 6 goes something like this:

Going in to a prostitute is a sexual act where there is a union with her in body and they "become one flesh” (as in Gen 2:24).  Becoming spiritually one with Christ is in stark contrast of becoming physically one with a prostitute.

All are in agreement that a man's union with Christ and his union with a prostitute are contradictory acts.  It is the meaning of Gen 2:24 that is questioned.  Does “becoming one flesh” have as its primary meaning the physical union of a man and woman?  If so, much follows including the view that sexual misconduct can dissolve a marriage.

When we speak of the sexual revolution we think of the 1960’s and the widespread rejection of traditional and godly marriage including the Creator's purpose for human sexuality.  What is less recognized was the abandonment by the older generation at that time of the belief in the permanency of marriage and the decreasing stigma of the divorced among those in polite society.  These immoral views gained traction with the cultural elite in the universities, the media, Hollywood, and seminaries.  These organized groups were able to influence the public and beat down the remnants of godly practice in the U.S.

However, the notion among those in the churches that marriage was not permanent actually rooted itself much earlier when it became an enshrined doctrine of most Protestant Reformers during the 16th century.  It was not until the last 100 years or so that this error has became so recognizable in the moral chaos that has overcome the vast majority of churches in the West.

From a Biblical point of view, Americans of the post WWII era began to widely throw aside sexual restraint, including the trading of spouses by those already married.  This was nothing new in history but it was relatively new for respectable people in the U.S.

When the New Testament Church was brand new, the Apostle had to confront immorality, as we would expect in any age (1Cor 5:1ff.; 2Cor 12:21).  Just as in the late 1st century, the Church is largely unrepentant.  The difference between the 1st century and now is that immorality of all kinds was not widely entrenched in the early Church, as it is today.  Like the time of the Judges, "...everyone did as he saw fit." and that is what too many Christians are now doing.

The effects of Modernism, rejection of authority (rebellion), gross sensuality, widespread prosperity, materialistic egalitarianism, humanism, the dramatic increase in scientific knowledge, and Marxist evolutionary theories all play a part in the widespread meltdown of the public morals.  Add our depraved and sinful human heart and we can be assured of an ongoing moral disaster until the end of Time.

While we expect the pagan and godless culture around us to embrace every manner of evil, the rise of immorality among those who profess to belong to Christ is alarming.  There has been a sexual revolution among Christians, especially among Protestant Evangelicals.

The dark side of the Reformation

Despite the current and widespread rejection of the Bible among Christians, it is possible to observe an earlier beginning of the movement away from biblical morality, something that occurred hundreds of years earlier.

The Reformation was not just about the “solas” (sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.) but it also incorporated philosophies that were popular at the time, especially Humanism – a freight train that has continued to roll right along into the present era.

In particular, the Humanist notion that Man has a right to happiness independent of his relation and obedience to God was to play a major role in Protestant theology from that time on.

Erasmus was among the early Reformers and, more importantly, was also a compiler of the Greek text used for the translations made during that period.  He adhered to the idea that men must have relief from bad marriages.  To help this view along, he changed parts of the Greek New Testament text that would conform to this view.  His adulteration of the Greek text in Matt. 19 set the stage for the widespread acceptance of his views of marriage by those who wished to translate the New Testament into the common tongues of that period.  (This matter is discussed in detail here.)

That marriage is dissolvable outside of death was, and is, a popular notion.  If we estimate that one half of all marriages are unhappy, the appeal is obvious.  The only major exception to this view after the Reformation period was a statement by the Church of England in 1603 (Canon 107) which stated that separation or annulment is authorized but divorce with permission to remarry is not.

Typical of the time was Luther’s legal fiction that an adulterer was “as good as dead.”  As the civil authority no longer punished adultery with death (but should, he thought), the Church should treat the adulterer as “dead.”  According to Rom. 7, death dissolves the marriage bond and subsequently allows the surviving spouse to re-marry.  This view became enshrined in the Westminster Confession (XXIV:5).

While the Reformers were experts in Latin, it is evident that their knowledge of Greek and, especially, Hebrew was not as great.  In addition, they did not have at their disposal the advanced tools and resources that we have today nor did they have the best Greek texts.  It is essential that translations be based on a godly form of textual criticism.  In addition, some like Erasmus did what popular American Bible teachers do: rearrange the Sacred Text to suit their purposes.

As a result of this enshrinement of the right to remarry after divorce, modern Reformed theologians (including Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary, John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul, and many others) did not make an effort to re-examine many of these doctrines.  However, Dr. Hodge did note in his systematic theology that the Early Church was unanimous in its view that marriage is permanent without exceptions.1  I know of no Protestant seminary textbook used today that notes this important historical fact.

Immorality is nothing new but the confessions of the Church did not permit adulterous relationships until only recently.  Suppression of the historical views of the orthodox Church, feckless translations of the Bible, an unwillingness in Protestant seminaries to even discuss the issue or challenge the legal fiction presented in the Westminster Confession, have all perpetuated a dreadful contempt of the Creation account of the marriage covenant we find in Genesis.

As a result we have today in most of the Protestant church an expanding list of reasons to dissolve marriage, such as viewing pornography, having adulterous thoughts, emotional abandonment, unwillingness to engage in physical intimacy often enough, among other excuses that are offered in order to supposedly nullify the marriage covenant.  Once the typical evangelical man or woman wants out of a marriage, it is easy to find a pastor who is willing to give his enthusiastic approval.

It is a dreadful state of affairs.

Similarly, the prohibition against men serving as bishops and elders who have multiple wives (1Tim 3:2) has been reduced to a mere prohibition against being a polygamist, something that was illegal anyway under Roman law of the 1st century.

The view of the Early Church

It is odd that Hodge’s curiosity was not aroused by the position of the Early Church?  All too often, Protestants, including Hodge and the Mormons, write off the Church Fathers as hopelessly infected with false and heretical doctrines that appeared the minute the Church was born.  But is this an accurate view?

The Church Fathers are dead so it is easy to win arguments with them.  It was a time of brutal persecution for the Church, there were no printing presses, and Christian writings were suppressed at every turn.  Much of what they taught resulted in savage attacks from both within and without the Church.  This is evident in the writings of Paul in 2 Corinthians and Galatians.

Already, the ancient equivalents of such popular teachers as Billy Graham, Bill Bright, and Robert Schuller were massaging (and changing) the Gospel for popular consumption (2Cor 12:21).  This was, and is, especially true of the critical Biblical doctrine of repentance which is missing from most modern preaching of the gospel.  Repentance is not only turning away from evil but doing what one can to remedy the consequences of those sinful actions e.g., Zacchaeus (Lk 19).

Central to the teachings of the Church Fathers was the Biblical doctrine that confession of Christ as LORD and Savior must be accompanied by deeds appropriate of true repentance (Mt 3:8; 7:16).  This was nowhere more evident than in their rejection of the still popular notion that God’s people are free from obedience to the moral law.

Men have sought every means and excuse possible to abandon the wives of their youth.  As a result, the Church Fathers made it clear that this kind of sin must not be found among God’s people.  Consequently, adultery was not tolerated by the Early Church and remarriage after divorce was forbidden.

Was their understanding of marriage some invention?  This is unlikely.  They knew that the toleration of any immorality by the churches would doom them to destruction – as what happened to Israel, God's enemies in Canaan, and probably to the Greek city of Constantinople.  Jesus repeatedly warned the churches of the dire consequences of tolerating immorality but such warnings are rarely heeded (see Rev 2, 3 and especially 22:15).

More bad fruit...

Another result of the Reformation was the increased elevation in authority of individual men above that of the Church as a whole.  While following charismatic men rather than Christ has always been widespread (see 1Cor 1ff.), the Reformation and its mix with humanism made this error more acceptable.  Luther basked in his widespread notoriety – 

Holding fast in undeviating loyalty

Before we can properly understand what is meant in the Old Testament concerning “becoming one flesh”, we must consider what is meant by the phrase Gen 2:24, “…and be united with his wife.”

Scholarly works on the meaning of the word “unite” are unanimous that the primary meaning of the word is spiritual.  A good definition of the word as it is contextually used in the Hebrew would be to “hold fast with undeviating loyalty.”

Throughout the Old Testament this word is used to describe Israel’s proper response to God’s covenant love for her:  She is to hold fast to the LORD with undeviating loyalty.

1Ki 11:2 is the only other reference where the Hebrew word for “unite – hold fast” is used for the husband-wife relationship:  Solomon held fast to his wives in love.  This is unlikely an allusion to Gen 2:24.  How is it possible to hold fast with undeviating loyalty to more than one woman?  It makes no sense.  Rather, the context demands that it is Solomon's undeviating loyalty to the pagan religion of his wives.  He was so loyal to them that he sacrificed to Chemosh and Molech.  For this, the LORD would later tear all Israel away from his descendants but Judah which was taken because of the LORD's promise to King David.

Bone and flesh

The majority of post-Reformation Bible teachers and commentaries, including well known scholars like John Gerstner and G. I. Williamson, assume that “becoming one flesh” is sexual in nature.  This is a result of the supposed connection of 1Cor 6 (union with a prostitute) and Gen 2:24 (the man and woman becoming one flesh).  The unbelieving Jews have a crazy interpretation which states that "one flesh" is referring to the man and woman's child.  Of course, this is another of their countless dodges of the clear meanings of Scripture.  The German theologians of the 19th century e.g., R. Bultmann, also proved that no matter scholarly and erudite a man is, he cannot interpret Scripture as the Creator intended without the critical help of the Holy Spirit.  The Jews are no different.  They, too, want an "out" for bad marriages.

Here are these two verses as translated and parsed so that the foundation of marriage given in Genesis agrees with the teaching of the New Testament.

16a  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? 16b  For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."  17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.  1Cor 6:16-172

Suffice it to say, the early Church Fathers understood this passage correctly, especially Gen 2:24.

The first problem is with the verse division of all modern translations, something that was done during the late Middle Ages and is not a part of the original text.  While this facilitated reference work, it also pre-supposed logical divisions of Scripture.3

In 1Cor 6:16, the last half of this verse (16b) should stand by itself as it is not logically connected with the first halve (16a).

The second problem is created by the first: The common Protestant interpretation of this verse suggests, therefore, that going into a prostitute defines the meaning of "becoming one flesh" vis-à-vis the reference in 16b is to Gen 2:24.

The Biblical meaning of becoming "one flesh" is that the man and woman become united in such a way that it is like their being brother and sister – but even more so.  Examples of this meaning of the phrase are found in Gen 29:14 & 37:27.

To be someone’s ‘bone and flesh’ (cf. [Gen] 2:23) was a common expression to denote kinship or blood relations (Gen 29:12-14; 37:27; Ju 9:2; 2Sam 19:13).4

Not only is the misunderstanding of 1Cor 6 a pillar of the modern sexual revolution in the Church but is also one that supports the widespread notion developed during the Reformation that immorality dissolves a marriage.

For a married man to be with a married woman is always adulterous.  It is doubly so because he commits adultery against both his own wife and the husband of the other woman.  This is Jesus' teaching in Mt 19:9; Mk 10:11;12; and Lk 16:18.  But Jesus never taught that adultery could dissolve the bonds of marriage no more than the spiritual adulteries of Israel could dissolve her bond with the LORD (cf. Hosea).

What most in this age have done is to make Jesus Christ a party to adultery.

Is it any wonder that the Church continues to shrink in both size and influence in the United States just as it has in Europe?  Does not His wrath burn against His faithless and impure bride?  Will He not punish her as her deeds deserve, just as He did to Israel?  During the divided kingdom of Israel and Judah, God blessed His people with prophets who spoke the truth and still does today through the Bible.

The lesson for us is that, despite the spiritual adulteries of His bride, He will always love her and treat her faithfully – even in Judgment.  But who wants to experience God's justice?

The correct interpretation of 1Cor 6

If the typical translation (and understanding) of this passage in 1Corinthians is in error, what should it be?

The overall theme of the second half of 1Cor 6 is that Christians are to have nothing to do with sexual immorality.  This is because the body is meant for the LORD (vs. 13) and, as such, our bodies are members of Christ Himself (vs. 15).  Therefore, going into a prostitute is joining a member of Christ with a prostitute (vs. 15), something unthinkable.

The Apostle then discusses in verse 16b the deep unity there is between a believer and Christ which is inviolable and spiritual in nature.  On the other hand, there is not a deep spiritual unity between a man and a prostitute.  This is why 16b must go with 17 and not with 16a.

Although 16b is connected by the Greek causative particle "gar" to 16a, its use here is not the common mode of expressing the reason for what has been before, implied, or affirmed.  Instead its likely use is the less common elliptical construction.  That is, the clause to which "gar" refers is omitted and must be supplied in thought.  Translating the passage in this manner avoids its conflict with the overwhelming teaching of Scripture concerning the nature of marriage. The passage should be divided and translated this way:

16a  Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is ONE with her IN BODY?

16b But, as it is written, 'The two will be one flesh [like brother and sister – permanently and firmly related and joined together]'  17 so he who unites himself with the Lord, in the same way, is ONE [permanently and firmly related and joined together] with him IN SPIRIT.

The parallel between a man's relationship to Christ with that of a husband and wife is a striking and well established metaphor throughout Scripture.  Christ demands our exclusive love just as a man demands the exclusive love of his wife.  For the man to love other gods or for the wife to love other men is always adulterous.5

With respect to Paul's understanding of the connection between Christ and the Church and a man and his wife, Eph 5 is a parallel passage of 1 Cor. 6:16b-17:

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."  This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church.  Eph 5:31-32

The passage in Ephesians 5 suggests what Paul had in mind in 1Cor 6:16b-17.  The mystery of the union of Christ and His Church is paralleled in creation with the mystery of the union of a man and his wife.  What appears to be so incomprehensible is that the man and the woman (as previously separate and often unknown to each other) become bonded together in such a way as if they were brother and sister but more so.

So also it is with Christ and His Elect.  Not only is Christ unknown to the unconverted man but he is also His enemy.  For the Gentile, he is even further removed as he has no relationship by blood to the father of faith, Abraham.  How does the Creator of the universe bond Himself so tightly – even beyond death – to His bride?  This is the Holy Mystery of God's grace from which we benefit beyond any expression of words.

Marriage is a permanent relationship that cannot be dissolved

The marriage relationship, as Gen 2 teaches, exceeds in strength and permanency any other relationship on earth, including the relationship between father and son.

For example, if the father dies, is not his son still his son?  If the father is a cruel tyrant who unjustly beats his children, is he still not the father, as bad as he may be?  Even if the father is imprisoned for his crimes (as would be the righteous duty of the state to do), does this make him any less his children's father?  How is the relationship changed by anything?  Even if a father disowns his son, he is still his father's son.

Marriage is the same.

As the Apostle writes, it is better for the widow to stay as she is (1Cor 7:8) but he states that remarriage for the widow is simply not adulterous – that is all that can be said about it.  Popular movies and so-called Christian books celebrate re-marriage of the widowed.  But this is a lie: just ask the children (if they be godly).  "What happened to dad's picture on the mantel?"  "Why can't we discuss our dad anymore at family occasions?"  And on it goes....

Why would the Holy Spirit declare celibacy preferable to re-marriage if it were not so?  Most have this backwards, despite the explicit teaching of Scripture.  It is unthinkable among most Protestants (John Stott excepted) that anyone would sacrifice the married life for devoted service to Jesus Christ and His family.  If I am single for Jesus, I must be a closet homosexual or have some endocrinal disease.  If there is a widely worshipped idol of the modern Church, it is sex.  It has become more important than God.

The prohibited relationships of Leviticus 18 – incest

The marriage bond even survives death in some ways.  This is illustrated in Lev 18 where sexual unions are prohibited among those who have new horizontal relationships that were created by marriage,

v.6 `No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.  v.7 `Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. v.8 `Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father. Lev 18:6-8

The sin of the man noted in 1Cor 5 was of the nature mentioned above in v. 8.  Having sexual relations with the wife of one's father (one's stepmother) would, of course, be adulterous if the father was alive.  Such a union is not addressed in Lev 18, as we would expect.

The prohibitions in the verses above are based on the prohibition against incest (v. 6), not against adultery.  How is a son's sexual relations with his father's widow (his stepmother) a form of incest if there is no blood relationship with her?  It would only be so if the father's marriage to the otherwise unrelated woman created a bond that is as strong or stronger than a bond by blood.  One's brother is always one's brother, even if he is dead.  One's wife will always be one's wife even if she is dead.6

If follows that a widower who remarries after the death of his first wife ceases to be a "one-woman man" and forfeits the privilege of being an elder in the Church.  Those who place marriage with a woman above obedience to Christ have created an idol.  Like John the Baptist, faithful Christians can lose their heads over such matters.

Conclusion: Man’s right to be happy is a false hope

In sum, the current notions concerning both adultery and the grounds and consequences of divorce are largely based on poor interpretations of Scripture motivated by the desire to loosen the bonds of marriage.

American seminaries ban discussions of this.  What if some student raises his hand and asks a divorced and remarried professor, "Sir, are you, then, an adulterer according to the Scriptures?"  One can only imagine the repercussions.  As in the church at large, the immoral and the adulterers long ago wormed their way into the seminaries and the bodies that create translations of the Bible.

The theological roots of this seismic shift in the teachings of the Church can be traced back to the Reformation and its adoption of the humanistic view that "man has a right to happiness."

Instead, we must heed the Savior’s words,

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.  Mt 3:8

And:

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?  Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.  Mt 7:16-20

The godly fruit of the Christian is faithfulness in marriage, regardless of a spouse's behavior.

Suffice it to say, those who have divorced and remarried others, become converted Christians, and seek fellowship in a godly church should not assume that their existing marriages must be abandoned. 

Nonetheless, there are some in the Church who teach this and with good reason.  The concern of all is that the Church in the West has not honored the marriage bed by assimilating the values of the debauched culture around us.  The Jewish church of the Old Testament period was warned of the dire consequences for adopting the pagan morality.  It is the same with the New Testament church: the Creator will judge the sexually immoral.

Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.  Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.  But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled.  And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. – Lev 18:24-28

Will the land vomit us out?  It is something to think about....

I know of no example in Church or rabbinical history, much less the Bible, where converts to the faith were required to abandon a 2nd marriage.  Ezra commanded (Ez 10:11) the returning exiles to abandon their marriages.  But these wives were not converts but pagan women who refused to become Jewish and maintained their worship of idols.  Herod's taking of Herodias was a violation of Lev 18:16 which applied to all Jews, hard hearted or not.

On the other hand, there is an example of an adulterous marriage where the prophet did not require that the couple separate: David and Bathsheba.7

Pastor and writer John Piper has discussed this dilemma at length: the couple took vows, there may be children involved, and to attempt to rectify the sin of the man and woman would do more harm than good.  Piper does not make the case that people's happiness trumps the Word of God.  Instead, he is claiming that God's mercy triumphs over judgment in some situations.  Certainly, the couple must have a repentant attitude for what they did, nonetheless.  Pastors should not re-marry previously divorced people but nearly every Evangelical church in the U.S. does so.

What should be done with the remarried when there is no explicit command given in Scripture? 

The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth does consider circumstances when He deals with men whether to extend mercy and grace or to exercise justice.  An example is Naaman's request of Elisha in 2 Ki 18:18 to worship in a pagan temple.  "Go in peace" was the prophet's response.  Should Naaman have accepted demotion and perhaps death rather than bow down to Rimmon?  Joab was put to death for murder (1 Ki 2:31), why not David for his adultery and murder?  The woman caught in adultery in Jn 8 was not dragged away and stoned in accordance with the Law.

David received another pass when he made a deal with Ish-Bosheth to have Michal, once his wife, be separated from her new husband Paltiel, and returned to David.

So Ish-Bosheth gave orders and had her taken away from her husband Paltiel son of Laish.  Her husband, however, went with her, weeping behind her all the way to Bahurim. Then Abner said to him, "Go back home!" So he went back. - 2 Sam 3:15-16

According to Dt 24, she could not return because she was now the wife of another man and defiled.

In the same manner, are there mitigating reasons to not require separation of those who have remarried after divorce?  There may be.  Nonetheless, this is not some attempt to make any excuse that might allow remarriage after divorce.  It is a discussion of why those who have remarried after a previous marriage, did so in ignorance of the truth, and now should be allowed by the Church to remain together.  We already have one home wrecked by divorce is it best to wreck a second home?

A remarried couple we will call Mr. & Mrs. Smith have been married for 10 years, have three young children from the marriage, and have recently become converted Christians.  They desire to join a church and the pastor meets with them.

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith, you each must cease living in the same home and, from now on, have no intimate relations.  Mr. Smith, you are to return to your first wife.  Mrs. Smith you are to return to your first husband.  God help all of you and, especially your three children."

Here are some serious questions.  What if Mr. Smith's first wife has remarried?  Who gets the children and what will happen to them?  What if Mrs. Smith's previous husband does not want her?  How will she support herself and, presumably, take care of the children?

As Piper states, adultery cannot be fixed.  Rather, the pastor should ensure that Mr. & Mrs. Smith have repented of what they did and make it clear that remarriage after divorce is always adulterous.

 Mr. Smith could openly confess his sin of adultery and appeal to God with a prayer in this way,

LORD, you gave Naaman a pass to enter the temple of Rimmon and bow down to an idol.  You did not put King David to death for murder and adultery.  You are the God of mercy to those who love you.  Have mercy on me and do not take the woman I love, defiled as she is, nor take the children you have given us.  In Jesus' name I plead for your mercy and forgiveness.  Amen.

While the Smith's case is hypothetical, it was a widespread reality in the 1st century just as it is today.  Why did Paul the Apostle not mention the case of those who remarried after a divorce, especially in 1Co 7? Is his command that those who are married when called stay married also include those remarried after divorce?  As long as our culture celebrates wickedness and perversion, it will be a tough road for the Church to travel.  If the culture and Church made the consequences of divorce severe, people might think twice before abandoning a marriage and, rather, seek reconciliation.  If men who seduce the wives of other men were put to death, we might assume that that there would be less adultery.

The dishonoring of the marriage bed (Heb 13:4) by the Church has always invited the wrath of the Creator and, like Israel, there is no sign that things will change.  Remarriage after divorce creates a sinful mess to say nothing that such marriages usually end in a second divorce.  The Church has failed to teach and practice that marriage is a permanent relationship and simply goes along with the culture.  As Jesus notes in Mt 19, converted Christians can remain celibate but who wants to hear this?

ΩΩΩ
1Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (3 Vol.; Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 2001) Vol. III 392.
2The NIV here follows the KJV version of the Bible so we cannot necessarily blame modern translators for a lack of clarity in this passage.
3An example of where this division is awkward and illogical is 2Cor 7:1 which really belongs to chapter 6.
4 Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, 20.  Cf. BDB, ‘bāśār' , 142 (4); F. Baumgärtel, ‘sarx’, TDNT 7 (1971) 106; N.P. Bratsiotis, ‘bāśār' , TDOT 2 (1977) 327-8; Footnoted by Wenham and Heth, Jesus and Divorce (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2002) 101.
5The Biblical doctrine of monogamy also applies to the LORD’s relationship to His bride, the Church.  Contrary to the modern teaching known as Darbyism (or Dispensationalism), Jesus Christ does not have two wives – Israel and the Church.  There is but one Bride who is the Church, the Israel of God (Eph 2:14ff; Gal. 3:29; 6:16).  Just as the nature of man’s relationship to his wife is confused, so the greater relationship between Christ and His Church is confused.  The misunderstanding of both go hand in hand.
6There are limited exceptions – we are not married in Heaven (Mt 22:30) nor do those who remarry after the death of a spouse commit adultery (Ro 7:2-3).  The amusing idea of the "virtual death" of a living spouse is enshrined in the Westminster Confession, Chapter 24:5 – such were the extraordinary but vain efforts of some Reformers including their theological descendants, to legitimize adulterous remarriages in the church.
72 Sam 12:1-15 King David took Bathsheba, Uriah's wife but the prophet Nathan did not command David to put her away.