The Bible’s teaching on marriage begins in Gen 2:23-24. This passage establishes that marriage is created by God, that it is between one man and one woman, and that marriage creates an inseparable bond between the two. The husband and wife are “one flesh” in marriage; that’s how serious this bond God makes is. So, Gen 2:24 is in the background of any teaching on divorce. The question then becomes: Is there any way this one-flesh reality can be broken/undone in divorce in a way that is acceptable to God?
We can jump to Jesus’ teaching on the subject. He answers this question, and he also fills us in on why the Old Testament says some of what it does on the subject.
Matthew 19:3-10 is one example of our Lord’s thoughts on this subject. The Pharisees are always trying to trap Jesus by asking him difficult or controversial questions. So, they ask him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” Jesus answers by taking them back to Gen 2:24. And he says, “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” So, his answer to their question is “no.” But he seems to go beyond a simple “no” by saying, “let no man separate.”
The Pharisees pick up the implications of “let no man separate,” so they ask him about the Law’s allowance for divorce (see Deut 24:1-4). Jesus rebuts by saying, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” His point here is that divorce was not always an option; it’s not God’s intended plan for humanity. And the allowance for divorce in much of the Old Testament time was only because the people were so sinful. It’s one of those occasions where God sets a sort of “lesser of two evils” rule, because the people are so bad and would have refused to do what is best anyway.
Jesus then clarifies even further: “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Here, the point is that the union God creates in marriage is so lasting that an illegitimate divorce is, in effect, no divorce at all. That man and woman are still one flesh in God’s eyes despite the paperwork from the State. And if they were to get married to another, it would be adultery against the first “divorced” spouse. This reality is so frightening to the disciples that they reply by saying, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”
Now I left one thing out in my explanation: Jesus does give an exception, a case where divorce is allowed, and where adultery would not be committed if remarriage occurred (although some see him making an allowance for divorce without the option for remarriage). He makes an exception “for sexual immorality.” Now there is a question about whether this is a true exception to divorce as we know it today. I’ll make the case for both from the best arguments I have heard and let you make a prayerful decision.
[1] No, there is no exception for divorce as we use the word in Matthew 19. The argument goes something like this: In Mark’s gospel, there is an account of a similar discussion, but Jesus never makes any exception (Mk 10:1-12). So, he never allows for divorce in Mark’s account. To add to this, the disciples’ reaction in Matthew 19 seems a bit extreme if you can get divorced if your spouse cheats on you. They seem to act, as the argument goes, as if there is no exception for divorce, so they say it’s better not to get married. All of this should lead us to look closer to see what’s going on here.
They then would argue that the placement of the exception clause is key to understanding what Jesus is saying, why the disciples react so strongly, and why Matthew’s accounts of this teaching (see also Matt 5:31-32) are not in conflict with Mark’s. The exception only follows the phrase “whoever divorces his wife,” and not the phrase “and marries another.” This is because the full phrase “[whoever] marries another woman commits adultery” is always true. Jesus has already made note of the one-flesh union that God creates and how this union is unbreakable by humans. Essentially, Jesus is saying that divorce is permitted to happen in the case of sexual immorality, but remarriage is never permissible; it always results in adultery.
This argument also might point out the fact that Matthew is the most Jewish of all the Gospels. This would mean that the original audience for the Gospel according to Matthew was Jews. And Jews used the word divorce in a way we would not today, and this is apparent earlier in Matthew. In Matthew 1, we see Joseph plan on divorcing Mary privately. Joseph realized that Mary was pregnant before the angel came to him and revealed that Mary was pregnant through the Holy Spirit. At that time, Mary and Joseph were betrothed (Matt 1:18). Jewish weddings worked differently than they do for us today. Being betrothed was similar to being engaged, but it was far more binding. You had to divorce to end a betrothal. So even though Mary and Joseph were not married and therefore had not had sex, they still would have needed a divorce to end the relationship. Joseph knows the kid is not his, so we read this in verse 19, “And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to divorce her secretly.” Joseph only seeks a divorce because he assumes Mary committed sexual immorality. He is a “righteous man,” so it only makes sense that he would seek a divorce in the one and only occasion Jesus would eventually say was permissible. In summary, they were not yet married, only betrothed, yet divorce is still the only way to stop the marriage from happening.
So, the argument against an exception in Matthew 19 puts this all together and says something like this: It makes sense that we find no exception in Mark; Mark is not the Jewish Gospel, and it does not contain the story about Joseph planning on divorcing Mary when they were just betrothed. The Jews reading Matthew would have known Jesus was talking about an exception that was only at play before the marriage, during the betrothal period. On top of this, Jesus never gives permission for legitimate remarriage here; instead, he says that remarriage would always result in adultery. The Jews in the narrative understood all of this, which is why the disciples had such a strong reaction to Jesus’ words.
[2] Yes, Jesus gives a clear exception for genuine divorce that is directly applicable today. This argument goes something like this: Jesus clearly says, “except for sexual immorality,” an exception he puts in place that would allow someone to get remarried without it being adulterous. He could have clarified that this was only for those who were betrothed, but he didn’t, which would mean that this exception is an option for someone betrothed (like Joseph back in Matthew 1) or for someone who is married. And he could have clearly said that you can get divorced because of your spouse’s sexual immorality, but you may never remarry, but he does not do this.
To add to this, the Old Testament context indicates that sexual immorality can break the one-flesh union that God creates in marriage. In 1 Cor 6:16, Paul says that the one-flesh union occurs during sex, and he uses this to argue that you should not have sex with prostitutes. If this is how/when God causes the one-flesh union to occur, then logically, sexual immorality would be a legitimate cause for divorce, particularly divorce that is accepted in God’s eyes. The Old Testament backs this idea up. God “divorces” Israel, and he gives the reason why. In Jer 3:8-10, the Lord says, “I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a certificate of divorce…” The Lord is literally talking about allowing Israel to be taken over by the Assyrians because of their idolatrous worship, but the metaphor he uses is divorce. And the reason for this metaphorical divorce is metaphorical sexual immorality. They were not faithful to God alone, so he gave them up. If you keep reading Jeremiah 3, you will find out that God promises to take back his unfaithful bride. Lastly, divorce for this reason is consistent with the law in the Old Testament that prescribes the death penalty for adultery (Lev 20:10-16). During God’s theocracy over Israel, an adulterer could be put to death, officially ending the marriage and therefore the one-flesh union (see Rom 7:2-3). The Church is not a theocracy or a government, but divorce functionally accomplishes the same thing as the death penalty; it ends the marriage.
So, the argument for legitimate grounds for divorce in Matthew 19 puts all this together and says something like this: Jesus is giving a legitimate exception for divorce in Matthew 19; he could have clarified to say he was just talking about the betrothal period, but he did not. And for saying this in a day and age where getting a divorce assumed you could get remarried, Jesus never made a clear statement to the contrary. In fact, Jesus is just picking up on the legitimate grounds for divorce that God gives for why he divorced Israel in the Old Testament (Jer 3:8-10). Sexual immorality creates a new union, so it only makes sense that it is a reason God would allow for a divorce. Why no exception in Mark? When you talk, you don’t always have to give every exception to the idea you’re talking about, which is why the exception is not included in Mark. I could say, “You need to save money,” without going on and listing all the times you should spend money rather than save it.
There is one more applicable text on marriage and divorce, which you can find in 1 Cor 7:10-11, 15. In 1 Cor 7:10-11, the apostle writes, “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (I left out the parenthetical comment for right now). Here, Paul just affirms what the Lord Jesus already taught back in Matthew 19. Don’t get divorced; it’s not right. But he has an interesting parenthetical comment in verse 11: “but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.” This is not a long section devoted to divorce and remarriage, so his comments are brief and not expanded on. He seems to be allowing for women to initiate a divorce in some undefined circumstances (possibly abuse could fit here?), one where getting married to someone else is not an option, only reconciliation is. He does not give this sort of exception to Christian men, only the women. But this parenthetical comment is so undefined that it’s difficult to know what’s going on. What is clear is that the union of marriage is so serious here that he tells a woman in this situation that she can’t get with anyone else; she can only get back with her husband.
[1] A person who thought that there was no exception for divorce back in Matthew 19 would interpret 1 Cor 7:10-11 something like this: Paul gives no grounds for divorce; he clearly says that women should not initiate divorce, and neither should men. So, he is just being consistent with the Lord Jesus when he does not bring up an exception for sexual immorality; he is talking to Gentiles after all, and they have no betrothal period. If a woman needs to get away from her husband for safety reasons, for example, she can. But she is still one flesh with him; their marriage is not really over, and that’s why she can’t marry anyone else, but can be reconciled to her husband. This, too, is consistent with what Jesus says in Matthew. Paul does not allow for remarriage because, like Jesus said, “[whoever] marries another woman commits adultery.” So even if it’s permissible to separate, it would not be permissible to remarry.
[2] A person who thought that there was an exception in Matthew 19 might interpret 1 Cor 7:10-11 like this: Paul gives no grounds for divorce in this general statement; he clearly says that women should not initiate divorce, and neither should men. This is the same thing Jesus taught; he does not need to list out every exception right here in this short statement. For example, in the next paragraph, he will give an exception for divorce that he does not mention here. If a woman needs to get away from her husband for safety reasons, for example, she can. But she is still one flesh with him because there has been no sexual immorality, so she must stay unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.
A few verses down, in 1 Cor 7:15, Paul writes this: “But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances, the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace.” This is sometimes called the abandonment exception. And it is in the middle of Paul’s discussion about how Christians should stay married to non-Christians if that’s the position they find themselves in. But what if your non-Christian wife hates you and wants to divorce you now because you’re following Christ and trying to lead your family in obedience to God? What if she packs up her stuff and heads out? He says you should let them leave; don’t chase after them in that case (assuming you should not let a Christian spouse leave for illegitimate reasons). In a case like this, you would not be bound/enslaved. The question then becomes bound to what? Again, this is a brief comment the apostle makes, so it’s not well-defined.
[1] One option is that Paul simply says that the believing spouse is not bound to continue the marriage. It is simply the apostle saying what he already said earlier when he says to let him leave. We are called to peace, so don’t spend your whole life following around this unbeliever that you’re married to. Let them go–you’re not enslaved to them. In this view, the divorce is allowed to happen, but then the believing spouse is not to remarry, similar to verse 11. So Paul is just being consistent throughout the chapter. Marriage is until death separates. Even if a Christian gets “divorced,” like in verse 11 or here in 15, they must still honor the lifelong one-flesh union by not getting remarried. Oh, and it is also notable that Paul does not use the same word for “enslaved/bound” later in verse 39, showing that the two situations are not equivalent.
[2] The other most common view here is that Paul says that the believing spouse is not bound to the marriage whatsoever. This statement is an expansion on the previous comment to let him leave. Basically, Paul says, “let him leave, and also, you’re not bound to this marriage anymore.” The practical difference is that in this view, one would be allowed to remarry after a desertion. Being deserted would break the one-flesh union. The argument is that Paul uses the word “enslaved/bound” here in verse 15, making a connection to his later discussion about when a spouse dies. Later, he uses the word “tied/bound” to speak about how marriage lasts until a spouse dies. 1 Corinthians 7:39 says this: “A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes (only someone in the Lord).” Although the same word is not used in verses 15 and 39, they are synonyms, so they carry the same meaning. Being no longer bound would therefore mean you could get remarried. So, if your unbelieving husband abandons you, you can get married to someone else. If they leave you and get a divorce, they desert you, which means they are practically functioning like they have died.
Leave a Reply