What is the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage? Two instances, Matthew 19:1-12 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, give us clear direction on this issue.
Matthew 19:1-12
In order to get to the heart of Jesus' teaching, it is necessary to follow the flow of the dialogue in this passage. Many who analyze the course of the passage tend to jump from verse 3 to verse 9, and forget that there is a logical progression to the discussion.
Jesus leaves Galilee on His final journey to Jerusalem. Some Pharisees approach Him with a question on the issue of divorce.
The Pharisees' question (19:3b). The question seems basic: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for every reason?" On one level, it may seem as if the Pharisees are inquiring about legitimate grounds for divorce. However, as we look closely at the text, we see that the issue for the Pharisees is not whether there is any reason for divorce, but whether one could divorce for "every reason" (pasan aitian).
To understand the question, we must appreciate the social context of the inquiry. The Pharisees were attempting to engage Jesus in an ongoing rabbinic debate over the grounds and methods of divorce. Much of the discussion is recorded in Mishnah Gittin, which ends with the following statement:
A. The House of Shammai say, "A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity,
B. Since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deut. 24:1)."
C. And the House of Hillel say, "Even if she spoiled his dish,
D. Since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything."
E. R. Aqiba says, "Even if he found some one else prettier than she,
F. Since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Deut. 24:1)."1
It seems that the Pharisees were attempting to align Jesus either with the conservative position of Shammai, or the more liberal stance of Hillel, which is preserved in later tradition by Rabbi Aqiba.
Jesus' initial response (19:4-6). Although Jesus was almost certainly aware of the rabbinic debate, He responds by appealing to Scripture: "Haven't you read that the one who created from the beginning made them male and female? And said because of this a man shall leave father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. Therefore, they are no longer two but one flesh. That which God has yoked, let no per son separate." In this Jesus constructs a logical argument that places Him in control of the discussion. He does not even attempt to engage in the legitimacy of rabbinic authority, but takes the issue back to Scripture.
By appealing to Scripture, Jesus upholds the divine ideal. He first refers to human creation in Genesis 1:27 and affirms marriage as a divine initiative. Then, He points to Genesis 2:24 as evidence that not only did God place the first couple together, but He is actively involved in solidifying the union of the marriage relationship. In some mysterious way, the married couple becomes "one flesh." Jesus uses the metaphor of "yoking" to describe the marital union.
With this in mind, if we reduce Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' question to one word, it would have to be "No!" A person cannot secure a divorce for every reason stipulated in rabbinic tradition. For Jesus, the Scripture is clear that marriage is a lasting institution in which God binds two individuals together. Constructing a list of escape clauses to unyoke what God has yoked is to trivialize the sacred and mystical nature of the union.
The Pharisees' counter question (19:7). Not satisfied with Jesus' answer, the Pharisees prod Him further: "Why then did Moses legislate that a husband could give his wife a divorce writ and put her away?" They have followed Jesus onto His turf and are willing to meet Scripture with Scripture. The Mosaic legislation is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In appealing to this text, the Pharisees are suggesting that Jesus is going against Moses.
Jesus' second response (19:8, 9). Jesus refuses to move from His position as He places the Mosaic stipulation in its social context. He answers, "Because of your hardheartedness Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." This is not so much an indictment against Moses as it is against the rebellious people who refused to submit to the divine ideal. Moses did not initiate the divorce law; he simply permitted (epetrepsen) it.
Notice that the purpose of the Mosaic legislation was not to establish grounds for divorce, but to dis cuss the issue of sexual defilement. The existence of the divorce law is taken for granted in Deuteronomy. There is no explanation concerning its origin; it simply existed. However, although it existed it was clear to Jesus that it was not a part of God's original plan.
Given the flow of the discussion so far, the interpretive task would have been a lot easier if Jesus had stopped here. If Jesus had ended His discussion at this point, much of the current controversy would have been alleviated. However, Jesus ends His dialogue with a stern pronouncement: "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another, commits adultery." Some manuscripts go even further: "and the one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
What makes this statement in Matthew even more astounding is the fact that the parallel version in Mark 10:1-12 says absolutely nothing about an "exception" clause (except for porneia/adultery). Even Luke's brief reference is absolute (Luke 16:18). Matthew is the only one that provides an escape hatch.
The interpretation of porneia has challenged commentators for centuries. The normal biblical under standing of the term is "fornication," but the pre-marital connotation of "fornication" has led to obscure translations like "unchastity," "infidelity," "unfaithfulness," and even "adultery." I say even adultery because many hold that this is the unpardonable sin in marriage.2 However, if Matthew meant adultery, he would have used the correct term as he does further on in the verse and also in 15:19. Further, in 5:27, adultery includes not just the physical act, but the preceding act of the mind as well. This would mean that one had grounds for divorce even if a spouse thought about having an affair! So, what is the meaning of pomeia?
The term itself is related to the Greek word for a female prostitute (pome) and a male who solicits a prostitute (pornos).3 However, it is not only used to describe this ignoble profession, but also refers to other forms of sexually deviant behavior, particularly premarital sex. The idea is that those who engage in premarital sex are behaving in the manner of prostitutes. Is it possible that Jesus has this understanding in mind? Could Jesus have been stating that the only ground for divorce is premarital sex?
This merits further explanation. Jewish marriages in the first century commenced at the time we today may call "engagement." However, the marriage was not consummated until twelve months after the engagement.4 If a woman were found to be pregnant during the time of the engagement, three questions would be asked: (1) Was it the impatient fiance? (2) Was it another man after the engagement? (3) Was it another man before the engagement?
If it were the fiance, the marriage would commence immediately. If it were another man after the engage ment, the woman would be guilty of adultery and consequently executed (Deut. 22:23, 24). If it were with another man before the engagement, she would be guilty of fornication and biblical law mandated that she be executed (Deut. 22:13-21). However, for the third category, rabbinic law does not appear to be as harsh as biblical law. Although the Mishnah upholds execution for adultery, it permits a man to divorce on the grounds of fornication (Mishnah Gittin, 9:10 a-b). Could Jesus be agreeing with the House of Shammai at this point?
This view is certainly worthy of careful thought. Matthew is the only Gospel that provides the real scoop behind the engagement of Joseph and Mary. Matthew 1:18 tells us that while the two were engaged, Mary was found to be "with child from the Holy Spirit." Joseph's initial reaction was to "divorce her quietly." We are not sure at what point in their relationship Mary was chosen to be the mother of the Savior, but we do know that when it was discovered that Mary was pregnant, Joseph thought of the option of divorce. Had the divorce gone through, Joseph's action would have indicated to the community that Mary had engaged in pre marital sex. As such, she would have been guilty of porneia. It is only the intervention of the heavenly messenger that stopped Joseph from making a perfectly legal decision.
The disciples' reaction (19:10). While the case of Joseph and Mary does provide a likely context in which to understand Matthew's exception clause, the verdict is still out on the exact meaning of porneia. Whatever it means it certainly caused a stir among the disciples. Apparently after the Pharisees had left, the disciples told Jesus: "If this is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry!" This extreme reaction suggests that Jesus' statement seriously limited any grounds for divorce. The disciples in effect were saying that if a man was thus stuck with his wife for life, it was better to remain single.
The impact of Jesus' statement is even greater when seen in the light of the immediate rhetorical context. Just before the encounter with the Pharisees, Matthew records Jesus' teaching on forgiveness (18:15-34). Could it be mere coincidence that the topic of marriage follows these important lessons on forgiveness? I don't think it is. If this contextual, rhetorical continuum is indeed a deliberate part of the way Matthew constructs his Gospel, the message is clear that no hurtful action perpetrated by a spouse is unforgivable—not even adultery.5 Thus the integrity of marriage may well remain intact, even when adultery is a reality.
Jesus' concluding statement (19:11, 12). Knowing the hyperbolic nature of the disciples' statement, Jesus retorts: "Not all can take this saying, but [only] those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who are that way from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to receive this let him receive it."
Jesus recognizes the disciples' impulsiveness and brings them home to reality. Not many people are willing to sacrifice the pleasures of marriage for a lifetime of celibacy. He also acknowledges that many people are unable to accept the seriousness of the divine ideal—"not all can take this saying." Nonetheless, despite the difficult challenges that arise in a lifelong marital commitment, God calls for His people to take the union seriously.
1 Corinthians 7:10-15
Those who are still not convinced about the radical nature of Jesus' state ment can look to Paul's parallel admonition in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11. Surely any confusion over Jesus' admonition would have been resolved by the time Paul wrote to the church in Corinth.6
According to 7:1, Paul is responding to inquiries about marriage and sexual relations between Christians. His teaching is clear: "To those already married I command (not I, but the Lord), that a woman is not to separate from her husband (if she separates, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife." Paul gets straight to the point: Christian partners are bound together for the rest of their natural lives. Christian husbands who have the power to initiate a divorce are prohibited from such action.
Similarly, Christian wives who want release from the relationship are not free to remarry but must remain single for the rest of their lives.7 And just in case Paul is accused of invent ing this "difficult" saying, he makes it clear that he received it directly from the Lord Himself.
The only exception Paul makes is with marriages in which only one per son has converted to Christianity while the other has not: "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord): if a certain man has an unbelieving wife and she agrees to live with him, he must not divorce her; and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she must not divorce her husband.... But if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave; the brother or sister is not bound in such cases" (7:12, 13, 15).
Here Paul admits that he did not receive this advice from the Lord, but feels that it nevertheless makes sense. If a spouse does not profess Christianity, he or she cannot be forced to share the values that are promoted in verses 10 and 11. A divine command means nothing to a person who does not recognize divine authority. In such cases, if the unbeliever chooses to separate, the Christian brother or sister is not "bound." In this Paul seems to be saying that only those Christians who fall in this category are free to remarry. However, those marriages in which both partners claim to be Christian are expected to last until the death of a spouse (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:1).
Conclusion
From our investigation, the basic biblical teaching is clear. Jesus prohibits divorce for Christian couples. Instead, He promotes lifelong unions for those who unite together under God. For those couples who feel that they cannot live under the same roof—for whatever reason—the Bible suggests that they remain single until either reconciliation or the death of the other spouse.8 Thus, according to this line of thinking and interpretation, a Christian can only be released from the marriage relationship under two circumstances: (1) If it is discovered soon after marriage that the spouse has either impregnated or been impregnated; (2) If a married person becomes a Christian and the non-Christian spouse decides to desert him or her. The rest of us are bound by the vows we made before divine and human witnesses: "Till death do us part."
1 Mishnah Gittin, 9:10 Qacob Neusner's translation).
2 See Craig S. Keener, And Maine* Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of tte Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991).
3 Walter Bauer, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 693.
4 Mishnah Ketubot, 5:2a.
5 See C. Welton Gaddy, Adultery and Grace: The Ultimate Scandal (Grand Rapids: Eerdroans, 1996).
6 One also sees remnants of this teaching in the early church. See David G. Hunter, Marriage in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
7 See also 7:39 (Rom. 7:1), "A wife is bound [in marriage] for as long as her husband lives."
8 See Calvin Rock, "Separation in Marriage," Adventitt Review 1993 (October 14), 1074.
