“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9
The views expressed in this article are those of the author only and not of Riverside as a whole, or even the eldership of Riverside as a whole. It has been written to address the exceptions to Jesus' command about divorce that I didn't have time to address is this week's sermon.
Amongst Christians there's a spectrum of views on divorce and I'm probably towards one end of that spectrum with my view, but I'd like to share why that is the case. I know many Christians believe the bible makes provision for divorce under the special circumstances of adultery and desertion. I also know that there are Christians who believe that physical and emotional abuse constitute a type of desertion and would also qualify as legitimate reasons for divorce.
And then I think there are a minority of Christians who think that God wouldn't want anybody to remain bound up in a joyless marriage and they'd be willing to counsel divorce for diverse reasons.
I don't fall into any of those categories because I believe that the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles is that divorce is contrary to God's will for our lives.
That's an unusual position to adopt and some might think a heartless one, but I believe it is biblical and is actually the most loving view because, God's design for our lives, as revealed to us, is always the path to greatest joy - even if it might not seem so immediately.
In the Beatitudes
On three seperate occassions Jesus taught on divorce during his ministry, once during the beatitudes, once in the gospel of Luke and once later on for which we have two gospel accounts - one in Matthew and one in Mark. The account in Luke is very short and doesn't add anything that the other accounts don't say, so we'll focus on the two more substantial teachings Jesus made.
The verses in the beatitudes are short and they simply say that whilst it has been said that anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce, yet I (Jesus) say that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her a victim of adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Clearly Jesus is saying something contrary to what had been said before. And, clearly what Jesus is saying is narrower and tighter than what was said before. Also, what Jesus is saying, implies a serious moral situation for the woman who is divorced by her husband and then for the one who marries her after she has been divorced - namely adultery. And finally there seems to be a caveat for sexual imorality which, if that has happened, would mean that the moral implication of adultery wouldn't come into play.
Comment: The reason Jesus says that the woman is made a victim of adultery is to do with two realities. First, as a woman in that culture marriage was a necessity for survival. And second, the divorce certificate changes nothing about her married status before God. This is the only plausible reason Jesus can have for saying that she is made a victim of adultery. If the divorce had meaningful and moral effect, then what ground could Jesus have for saying she becomes a victim of adultery? Jesus is showing that the divorce has no meaningful or moral effect on the marriage of the husband and wife, and when she has to go and find a new husband, she becomes a victim of adultery because the first marriage is still in effect - it hasn't been annulled. It's the same with the one who marries her, he becomes an adulterer also, because she is still married to her first husband. The divorce hasn't made any difference in the courts of heaven - that's what Jesus seems to be saying. We'll come back to the caveat in a minute.
A Response to the Pharisees
The gospel writers Matthew and Mark record the other occassion Jesus taught on divorce. The teachers of the law, perhaps on the back of the teaching Jesus gave earlier, ask Jesus if it's lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason.
Jesus' response is narrow again. He takes the condition that God made humanity in as the model for marriage, saying that God makes the two individuals one flesh when they are married, and no one should try to seperate what God has joined together.
That prompts the teachers of the law to ask why Moses gave a broader command that allowed for divorce. And Jesus replies that Moses did that because of their hard hearts - by which he means their unbelief. Whereupon he gives a variation on his earlier verdict by saying that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immoraility, and marries another woman, commits adultery. So now, if the husband marries again after he divorces his wife, he commits adultery. Again, the only explanation for this is that the divorce did not accomplish the separation of that which God had joined.
The response of the diciples to Jesus' word testifies to the narrowness of his command. They say, if that's the case, it would be better not to marry. And Jesus doesn't respond by playing it down. Rather he reinforces what he's said by saying that not everyone can accept this word and to those who can't, they should choose to live like eunuchs - they should choose not to marry. But to the one who can accept his word - and he means bind themselves to one husband or wife for life, then it's good that they marry.
So now, Matthew has recorded Jesus saying twice that second marriages after divorce result in adultery for all parties, except, it seems, where sexual immorality was the reason for the divorce.
Mark, has a shorter version of Matthew's second accounting of Jesus on divorce. There are two differences in Mark's account that are worth noting. First, Mark records that Jesus addresses both husbands who divorce their wives and wives who divorce their husbands. And second, the caveat for sexual immorality is not recorded. This second difference makes Mark's accounting of Jesus' words more exacting than Matthew's account. If there were no other remarks on divorce in the New Testament, the faithful conclusion would be that Jesus taught a flat 'no' to divorce, no matter what the reason. We'll come back to this shortly.
Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians
There's only one explicit place in the apostolic writings where divorce is dealt with and that is 1 Corinthians 7. Although, Romans 7 also contributes something useful, but marriage is not the focus of the passage.
The Apostle Paul, in the first 9 verses of 1 Cortinthians 7, explains how in his view it's better not to be married, but if someone can't control themselves then it is good to be married. Then, in verses 10-11, he says, 'to the married I give this command' and then he says 'not I but the Lord' by which he means Jesus: 'A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife'.
Comment: Paul thinks that Jesus said something important about the sanctity of marriage. So much so that he feels at liberty to bring the teaching of Jesus as a command to the Corinthians. Twice he uses the imperative 'must' to command the believing wives and husbands to remain married to their spouses. And once he uses the imperative 'must' to say that if separation does occur, remarriage must not. It is clear that Paul takes Jesus' words on remarriage constituting adultery seriously. Separation must not result in remarriage or else there will be adultery.
In verses 10-11 I think Paul is assuming two married believers. That prompts him in verses 12 following to address the situation where the marriage is made up of a believer and an unbeliever. What then? Evidently Paul doesn't believe that Jesus spoke to this scenario because he says 'I not the Lord' say this. An unbelieving spouse who doesn't want to leave but wants to continue to live with their converted spouse must be allowed to. The believer must not divorce the unbeliever. Again Paul makes it a command - the believer must not divorce his spouse.
What if the unbeliever wants to leave though? What if they want a divorce? Verse 15, Paul says, 'let it be so'. He says the brother or sister is not 'bound' in those circumstances and God has called us to live at peace. He says 'how do you know if you will save your wife'.
The question here is, does 'not bound' mean that remarriage - after the unbelieving spouse has divorced the believer - is on the cards? I don't think so.
Here's why: First, that would fly in the face of what Paul already said in verse 11 and the words of Jesus which Paul is building his argument on there. It would seem odd if he were now to say the principle that Jesus laid down about 'one flesh', and 'God joining', and 'man not separating', suddenly doesn't apply in this situation.
Second, later in the 1 Corinthians 7 passage when Paul addresses those who are pledged to be married, he says, 'do not seek to be released' (verse 27). Clearly he has in mind being released from the commitment, not being released to go and do something else. And so it would seem strange if, here in verse 15, he had something different in mind when he used similar language to speak of the marriage union.
And thirdly, if Paul meant that a spouse was free to remarry after the unbelieving party had divorced then he would be completely at odds with himself when he went on to say at the end of the chapter (v.39) that spouses are bound to eachother for as long as they live. But if their spouse dies then they are free to marry anyone they wish, but they must belong to the Lord - they must be a believer.
The same word 'bound' occurs in both verses 15 and 39. In verse 39 Paul is clearly saying that spouses (even where one could be an unbeliever) are bound together for life. That teaching fits with what Jesus said in Mark 10. And so that must be allowed, in my view, to inform the less clear use of the word 'bound' in verse 15.
Whilst we know that the woman referred to in verse 39 is a believer, we have no clear indication about the man. Any logical leap that verse 39 only applies to the situation where both parties are believers is not convincing in my mind.
This shows that Paul means in verse 15 that the believer is not bound to compel the unbeliever to stay. Even if the believer's heart says it would be better for the unbeliever to stay because they are more likely to be saved, Paul says, you can't tell that. And since you can't, it's better to live at peace. He doesn't mean, the believer is not bound to remain unmarried after the unbelieving spouse has divorced them. On the contrary, the same principle applies to the believer after the unbeliever has divorced them - they must remain unmarried or else become an adulterer. The only thing they are not bound to is the responsiblity to keep the marriage together in the first place.
Paul's teaching in Romans
Romans 7:2-3 reinforces what Paul said in 1 Corinthains 7:39. Marriage and divorce are not the focus of Paul's teaching in Romans 7, but he uses the marriage covenant as an illustration to make a point about how the old covenant law only has a hold over people who have not died to the law.
In verse 4 he says that the brothers and sisters had died to the law through Christ so that they might belong to Christ. That death had to take place, otherwise the law would still have had it's hold on their lives.
Marriage serves his purposes then, because he regards marriage as an institution that unites a man and woman together for as long as they both live. But if one of them dies then the other is released from the law that united them. And, in that case, if they marry another, after death has occurred, then there is no adultery - death has annulled the law that united them. However, he says, if a person has sexual relations with another whilst their spouse is still alive, then it is called adultery.
This passage reinforces Jesus' teaching on divorce and Paul's own teaching in 1 Corithians 7 and it helps to clarify the more ambiguous verse 15 in that passage too.
The Exception Clause in Jesus Teaching
We referred to the exception clause in Jesus' teaching earlier, let's look at that now. As I already pointed out, the exception don't exist in Mark's account of the same event. Nor does any exception clause exist in Luke's record of Jesus on divorce (16:18) - however it's perfectly possible that on the occassion Luke is referring to, which is not parallel with any Mark or Matthew records, Jesus simply didn't refer to an exception.
Therefore what really counts is the question: why Mark didn't record an exception but Matthew did. The view I have come to believe fits best with all the other teaching on divorce in both the gospels and the letters is not of my own making, but I am persuaded by it.
We need to remember that Mark probably wrote his gospel first and that he wrote it primarily for a non-Jewish audience. Matthew came afterwards and may have been able to refer to Mark's account, and he was writing for a predominantly Jewish audience.
In the case of Matthew's account, he included the Mary and Joseph story at the beginning in which divorce is referred to. Mary and Joseph were betrothed, Mary was found to be with child, and Joseph had in mind to divorce her quiety, Matthew says. However, the angel intervened and told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife.
The sin that Joseph thought Mary had committed was that of fornication - sex outside of marriage - and, even though betrothal was loosly analagous to our engagement, nevertheless a formal annulment of the engagement - called a divorce - was necessary to break it off. That's what Joseph had in mind to do.
What is interesting about the two occassions that Matthew talks about divorce except for sexual immorality in Matthew 5 and 19, is that the Greek word for sexual immorality there is Porneia. Porneia means fornication and doesn't include for adultery; adultery has it's own word - Moicheia.
If Matthew had in mind some form of sexual sin that invalidated marriage when he wrote the exception clause it would make no sense to use the term for sexual sin outside of marriage but only the one that applies to sexual sin within marriage, namely Moicheia. However, he doesn't go for that word but for Porneia, on both occasions.
It seems most likely to me that Jesus didn't speak the exception clause at all. It seems most likely that the exception clause is Matthew's commentary, and that he is using it to tell his Jewish readers that what Jesus is saying doesn't invalidate what Joseph was commended for contemplating back at the beginning of Matthew's account. 'That situtation of betrothal is not what Jesus was speaking to when he was referring to divorce; he was exclusively referring to the marriage union and I don't want you to confuse the two' - that's what I think Matthew is saying.
I think that's why Matthew uses the sexual sin term for fornication (outside of marriage) and not the sexual sin term for adultery (inside of marriage) when he includes the exception clause.
So I believe the exception clause is not an exception for married people but for bethrothed people. I think that fits with Matthew's account and it's why Mark doesn't include the exception clause. And I believe this view most effectively fits with the wider teaching of Jesus and Paul which indicates that death alone can annul the marriage union that God has created. Which reinforces the notion that any form of remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery because the first marriage cannot be annulled by a legal certifcate.