The teaching of Jesus on divorce has been misunderstood by the church virtually from the beginning. The traditional view is that divorce is only allowed in the case of adultery and of desertion by an unbeliever; remarriage is not permitted as long as the marriage partner is alive. Noticeably, this does not allow for divorce in the case of life-threatening physical abuse, although this appears to be as valid a reason as any.
You can also watch this content as a VIDEO PODCASTor listen to it as an AUDIOPODCAST
This understanding, that there are only two legitimate grounds for divorce and that remarriage is not permitted, goes back to the earliest writings of the church fathers on the subject. It continues to be the formal position of the Roman Catholic Church. The churches of the Reformation generally agree that there are only these two grounds but do allow for remarriage in the case of adultery and desertion.
This means the church has been consistently wrong in its interpretation of Jesus’s words on the matter, as David Instone-Brewer proves in Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (2002). He does this by taking a very thorough look at all the relevant texts and the ancient world. This is what I like about the book: we get the whole picture, including the teaching and practice of Second Temple and rabbinical Judaism, as well as the legal and cultural practice of the Roman world of the NT. In this context, the words of Jesus take on a decidedly different meaning.
The most relevant Bible passages are: Exodus 21:7-11, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (OT), Matthew 5:31f, 19:3-12, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Corinthians 7 (NT; in Mt. 5 and Lk.16, the report is abbreviated to such an extent that it cannot be understood without the more extensive versions in Mt. 19 and Mk. 10).
Divorce in the Law
Deuteronomy 24 is the passage that everybody knows, presumably because it is the one the Pharisees point out to Jesus (Mt. 19:7). Moses implies that anyone divorcing his wife should provide her with legal proof of this:
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife… (Dt. 24:1f)
As an aside: this arrangement was for the benefit of the woman. This way, she could prove that she was divorced and therefore free to remarry. She did not have to wait five years, as in Hammurabi’s law code (Babylon, ca. 1754 B.C.). It also made it impossible for her ex-husband to simply come and claim her back, something that did happen in the world of the Ancient Near East.
Important in Deuteronomy 24 is the reason given for divorce: “some indecency.” Traditionally, this had been understood as serious sexual misbehaviour, usually adultery, but this had changed by the time of Jesus, as we will see below.
It is usually overlooked that there is a second passage in the OT law that deals with divorce. Although it deals with the case of a slave woman that someone takes as a wife for himself or for his son, the directive presumably applies to all marriages; if a slave girl had these rights, how much more a free woman:
If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (Ex. 21:10f)
The husband was obliged to provide food, clothing, and sexual intercourse or perhaps more broadly, love and emotional support. If he failed to do this, the woman was free to leave. After all, her husband was not living up to his commitments and duties:
The biblical grounds for divorce are all failures to keep the marriage vows – that is, promises of faithfulness and provision of food, clothing, and love. The latter three may be generalised as material and emotional support. Physical and emotional abuse are extreme failures of marital and emotional support. (Instone-Brewer 2002: 308)
Hillel and Shammai
In the days of Jesus, divorce had become easy among the Jews, although not everyone agreed. Basically, there were two camps on this issue (and on many others). One was named after Rabbi Hillel (died ca. A.D. 20) and the other one after Rabbi Shammai (died A.D. 30). Hillel stood for easy divorce; Shammai defended a more restrictive position. This debate, rediscovered for Christian theology in the 19th century, forms the background for the words of Jesus on divorce, although the practical implications have usually not been drawn out, as Instone-Brewer observes:
Actually, much of the Jewish background to the divorce debate has been well understood by scholars for many decades. It was one of the important discoveries after the revival of Jewish studies in the mid-1800s. After about 1850 all good commentaries mentioned the Hillelite-Shammaite debate as an explanation of the Gospel material. The only significant new factor that has not been properly noted before was the acceptance of the other three biblical grounds for divorce by all Jews, including the Shammaites. Once the debate behind the Gospel account is recognized, it becomes clear that Jesus is giving his opinion about the Hillelite interpretation “any matter,” and so he is not condemning “every divorce.” Although this is obvious, very few scholars have either recognized it or written about it clearly because the traditional teaching about indissoluble marriage was so firmly entrenched in Christian theology. (Ibid.: 305f)
The debate centred around the phrase “some indecency” in Deuteronomy 24:1. Literally, in Hebrew, this phrase consists of two nouns, of which the second qualifies the first: “indecency matter.” Normally, one would understand this as “indecency of a matter.” As a result, there would be only one ground for divorce given here, a serious one, therefore often understood as adultery. This is how Shammai saw it.
Hillel argued there are two nouns and therefore two grounds are given: indecency (or adultery) and a “matter,” or in other words: “any matter.” Therefore, divorce could be for “any matter.”
It should be clear how poor this reasoning is, but easy divorce was so attractive that most of the Jews sided with the Hillelites. Not so Jesus.
The debate between Hillel and Shammai provides the background for the question that Jesus is asked by the Pharisees in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. In the latter passage, the issue at stake is even mentioned explicitly: “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Mt. 19:3; emphasis added). So, Jesus is asked for his opinion on the debate between Shammai and Hillel: what is the meaning of the crucial phrase in Deuteronomy 24? Does it include “any cause” or is it limited to adultery? Jesus takes the position that a divorce for any (or no) cause is illegitimate and turns any new relationship essentially into adultery. (It does not appear Jesus expected such couples to split up; his statement serves to bring out how seriously wrong easy divorce is.)
With this, Jesus is not making a statement on possible other grounds for divorce. He is taking a position in the debate about the phrase “a matter of indecency.” It means adultery, nothing else.
Why did the church misinterpret his words as an absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage? Two reasons. First, within decades the church became increasingly Gentile and lost its connection to the synagogue and therefore to the Jewish world of thought. Second, the Shammaites disappeared after A.D. 70; their movement did not survive the destruction of the temple, and therefore the views that remained were those of Hillel.
As a result, no one in the church knew or understood the debate that formed the crucial background to the statement of Jesus on divorce and remarriage, and therefore misinterpreted the statement of Jesus as absolute: no divorce except for adultery (and, based on 1 Corinthians 7, for desertion), and no remarriage even in the case of adultery.
Further Implications
Instone-Brewer’s thorough study uncovers several additional implications that are not immediately obvious. Among them:
Polygamy. The answer of Jesus effectively prohibits polygamy. Based on the law, a Jewish man could not commit adultery by marrying an unmarried woman; adultery could only be a crime against another husband (ibid.: 151). Even if his divorce would not be valid, it would still not be adultery but polygamy: he now had two wives. However, Jesus nevertheless accuses him of adultery (against his wife!). In other words, the same standard now applies to both men and women: there can be only one legitimate spouse.
Separation. Ironically, separation (as distinct from divorce) became the one alternative option accepted in the church. This is ironic because it contradicts 1 Corinthians 7 and because it would have been an impossible option in Roman and Greek society. There was no formal procedure for divorce. Divorce simply took place by leaving or sending away one’s spouse. In other words, divorce took place by separation; they were synonymous.
Other grounds. Jesus must have accepted the other grounds for divorce that are mentioned in the law (the failure to provide food, clothing, and love). The reason is that everyone assumed them to be valid grounds. The words used by Jesus closely parallel those of Shammai, who acknowledged other grounds as well (ibid.: 186). There was no need to mention points everyone agreed on (such as the death of a spouse as a valid reason to remarry, something that is not mentioned either). If Jesus had been of a different opinion (that the grounds of Exodus 21 do not apply), he would have had to make this clear.
Remarriage. It was generally expected, both by Jews and non-Jews, that divorced people would remarry. Jewish certificates of divorce explicitly state that the woman is free to remarry. Emperor Augustus had issued a law that those who divorced had to remarry within 18 months (even though this law was not enforced). Remarriage was normal, expected, and legal (ibid.: 289). If Jesus or Paul would have wanted to forbid this, they would have had to speak out clearly, because, without such clarity, everyone would assume otherwise (the prohibition in 1 Cor. 7:11 deals with an illegitimate separation).
A More Biblical Approach
Does this mean we now have a broader spectrum of reasons for divorce to choose from if we are so inclined? Not at all. To ask the question like this is to miss the deeper concern of both Jesus and Paul. Divorce is still a disaster, something to avoid if at all possible. But Jesus and the Bible know human nature: this possibility does not always exist. Instone-Brewer (ibid.: ix) summarizes his conclusions as follows:
- Both Jesus and Paul condemned divorce without valid grounds and discouraged divorce even for valid grounds.
- Both Jesus and Paul refer to the Old Testament grounds for divorce.
- The Old Testament allowed divorce for adultery and for neglect or abuse.
- Both Jesus and Paul condemned remarriage after an invalid divorce, but not after a valid divorce.
Or as he restates it at the end of the book:
Jesus and Paul affirmed all four OT grounds for divorce and remarriage while emphasising that divorce should be avoided whenever possible and that believers should go the extra mile in trying to maintain a marriage. They allowed divorce on specific grounds from the Old Testament and rejected the no-fault divorces of the Hillelites and of Greco-Roman culture. (Ibid.: 299)
And no doubt those of Western culture as well.
Attribution
Forever: Photo by Gabby Orcutt on Unsplash https://unsplash.com/photos/kPtrg4Z6jZ0
Exit: Photo by Michael Jasmund on Unsplash https://unsplash.com/photos/t-WxNy6CMyU
Certificate: Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash https://unsplash.com/photos/tMYAWJVxhpw
Couple: Photo by Eric Ward on Unsplash https://unsplash.com/photos/7KQe_8Meex8
Woman: Photo by Asdrubal luna on Unsplash https://unsplash.com/photos/irVfITbMJZw
References
Instone-Brewer,David (2002), Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)
Standard Bible Society (2001), The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Standard Bible Society)
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I willreceive an affiliate commission. If you purchase anything through such a link, you help me cover the cost of Create a Learning Site.