I recently read a couple comments about Jesus’ teaching on divorce that stopped me in my tracks.
First Comment
E. P Sanders writes,
If Christians wish to keep today a biblical sexual law that is fundamental to the Bible, they should observe the prohibition of adultery. This is one of the Ten Commandments, it figures in numerous biblical stories (such as David and Bathsheba), and it is emphasized in the New Testament. In fact, it is one commandment that Jesus made stricter: he forbade remarriage after divorce and considered it to be adultery (e.g., Matt. 5:31-32). But this view, despite its very strong place in the Bible, is generally disregarded: adultery, divorce, and remarriage after divorce all flourish. It is now quite common even for Catholics to be given “annulments” in lieu of divorce. (372)
Is this true?
Did Jesus forbid remarriage after divorce?
Jesus’ Teaching
Here is what Jesus says in Matthew 5:
It has been said, “Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.” But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (vv. 31-32)
How does a husband who divorces his wife make her “the victim of adultery”? Jesus presumes that the man will proceed to marry someone else. Since the first marriage is indissoluble, when the man engages in sex with a subsequent partner, he commits adultery against his wife, thus making her “the victim of adultery.” Later in Matthew, Jesus repeats the same idea while making the concept of remarriage explicit: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (19:9). Those who marry, divorce, and remarry someone else commit adultery against their original spouse. Sanders appears to have a point.
Before we get to Matthew’s famous exception clause, let’s move to Mark and Luke’s version:
He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” (Mk 10:11-12; cf. Lk 16:18)
Although Mark and Luke lack the exception clause and the “certificate of divorce,” they essentially express the same idea—remarriage equals adultery.
Why is Matthew the only one to include the exception clause?
Rather than getting sidetracked on this question, I will simply mention two scholarly proposals. First, Mark and Luke assumed the special case so they didn’t feel the need to make it explicit. Second, Matthew added the exception clause to Jesus’ original words.
The more relevant question for this post is this: Did Jesus prohibit remarriage?
Second Comment
Here is the second comment I read:
Matthew’s account is not in conflict with Mark and Luke, for in ancient Greek syntax the exception clause qualifies the divorce, but not the remarriage. Jesus’s teaching in Matthew permits divorce (without remarriage) only in the case of unrepentant marital unfaithfulness, and forbids remarriage after divorce altogether. . . . Moreover, this is the virtually universal understanding of Jesus’s teaching and Matthew’s exception clause in the early church within the first three centuries. (Ware, 282)
Did Jesus really forbid “remarriage after divorce altogether”? Does the exception only permit divorce without allowing remarriage? If this is accurate, the husband is allowed to divorce his wife, but he is not allowed to remarry. He must remain celibate.
James Ware supports his assertion about the early church by referring to ancient Christian teachers, such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine.
Do other New Testament authors provide us with more light on this matter?
Paul’s Restatement of the Lord’s Words (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)
Paul says, “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): 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” (1 Cor 7:10-11).
According to Paul, the separated believing wife has two options and remarriage is not one of them: “she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.” Also, Paul reiterates the permanency of marriage in these words, “a husband must not divorce his wife,” making remarriage a moot point. Notably, Paul says this is not his command; it is the Lord’s. Hence, Jesus’ statement in the Gospels probably lies behind Paul’s thinking.
If Ware is right about the early church’s position, the case for prohibiting remarriage is strong:
- Jesus’ explicit statements in Matthew, Mark, and Luke
- Paul’s restatement of Jesus’ prohibition in 1 Corinthians
- The early church’s interpretation of Jesus’ words
An Assumption from Ancient Judaism
However, everything hinges on an assumption. Robert Stein writes, “In Judaism, divorce always included the right to remarry. The very act of divorce assumes that remarriage can follow: ‘You are free to marry whomever you will’ (m. Git. 9.3)” (1056). So here is the assumption: When divorce is permitted so is remarriage.
David Turner concurs with Stein, “Most Protestant scholars” believe Matthew’s exception extends to both the divorce and remarriage, “but there are notable exceptions” (921). Turner sides with the majority of Protestant scholars, stating, “If divorce does not convey freedom to remarry (m. Git. 9.1-3), it is essentially meaningless” (922).
Both Turner and Stein refer to the Mishnah, the collection of oral rabbinic tradition originally compiled around AD 200. The quote says:
The basic, essential, element of a bill of divorce is: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is also another essential sentence: And this that you shall have from me is a scroll of divorce, and a letter of leave, and a bill of dismissal to go to marry any man that you wish. And the basic element of a bill of manumission for a maidservant is: You are hereby a free woman, or: You are hereby your own. (m. Git. 9.3)
The bill of divorce is first mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. (vv. 1-4)
Based on this passage, the rabbis appear to be correct in allowing remarriage. The key question, though, is this: Was Jesus prohibiting what had been allowed under Moses and the rabbis? In other words, was Jesus confirming or challenging the assumption that remarriage is allowed following a divorce?
The Pauline Privilege (1 Corinthians 7:12-16)
In addition to Matthew’s exception clause, we have what has become known as the Pauline privilege. After conveying the Lord’s words regarding a wife who is separated from her husband, Paul gives his own view on another situation:
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. . . .
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (1 Cor 7:10-16)
Paul says that the marital bond should not be broken—”he must not divorce her” and “she must not divorce him,” then he proceeds to address a special case: an unbeliever deserting a believing spouse. He concludes, “the brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances.” Does this mean the believer can remarry? Many believe so. But we should note that the right to remarry is not made explicit. Could “not bound” only refer to the right to divorce? On the other hand, can a person really be “unbound” without the right to remarry?
Death: The Official End of Marriage (1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3)
We know for certain that death dissolves a marriage, allowing the remaining spouse to remarry. Paul says, “A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39).
Also,
2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. (Rom 7:2-3)
This passage reuses the word “bound” to express the permanency of marriage as well as acknowledging that death unbinds us. And once again Jesus’ teaching is expressed in Paul’s words: “if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress” (v. 3).
Conclusion
So where does this leave us?
Sexual immorality and desertion by an unbeliever are permissible reasons for divorce. Though, in the case of desertion, we should admit that we only have the phrase, “the brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances.” Nevertheless, a good case can be made that Paul is permitting divorce in the case of desertion.
Are there other legitimate grounds for divorce? This is another issue that can easily distract us so I will be brief. While the New Testament authors only provide us with two reasons—sexual immorality and desertion—many believe they were not attempting to give an exhaustive list. Plus for many it is reasonable to say that just as sexual immorality breaks a marital bond so does something like physical abuse. But, of course, this is another contentious issue.
Back to the point: Are Christians allowed to remarry after a divorce even if they have legitimate grounds for the divorce?
I have to say that I have never really considered the evidence, but after doing so, I find it more compelling than I expected. Jesus allowed divorce in a particular situation, but he didn’t make the allowance for remarriage explicit. And when he talks about remarriage, the word adultery is not far behind. Likewise, Paul’s statements on this topic are strikingly close to Christ’s. Should we assume, however, that Jesus would have agreed with the ancient rabbis: If divorce is allowed so is remarriage? Everything hinges on this answer.
What does this academic exercise mean for the practical question of believers who have been divorced and remarried? Nothing, necessarily. It does not mean that they should get another divorce. How would that help? But perhaps it may be helpful for those entering into marriage for the first time. Most of all, it gives us a glimpse into the world of biblical debates and how they unfold.
After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. My latest book focuses on Paul’s work as a tentmaker and what it means for today.