One
Flesh: A Book About Divorce & Remarriage
Chapter 2
The Gospels
Matthew 5
It hath been said, whosoever
shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement: But I say unto you, that whosoever
shall put away his wife, save for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth
adultery (Matt. 5:31-32). Divorce and remarriage are
mentioned in six New Testament texts. The first
occurrence appears in ‘The Sermon on the
Mount’. This sermon represents Jesus’
relationship to the Law of God. Jesus was not
presenting a rival system to the Law of Moses. His
message was fulfillment of the Law and the
Prophets in contrast with the traditions of the
Pharisees. Christ taught the people that unless their
righteousness surpassed that of the scribes and the
Pharisees, they could never enter the Kingdom of Heaven
(Matt. 5:20). This did not mean they could earn
salvation by obeying a higher standard of rules and
regulations. Salvation came only by faith in the
Messiah. One point of this sermon was to show
God’s true righteous standards as compared with the
man-made traditions which had been established by the
Jews. The religious leaders claimed a man
could divorce his wife by simply giving her a certificate
of divorce. Those who were divorced were then free
to remarry. If this second marriage did not work,
the process could be repeated as often as necessary (cf.
John 4:18). The theological school of Shammai
interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to mean that a man could
only divorce his wife and remarry for serious sexual
sins. The school of Hillel interpreted Deuteronomy
24:1-4 to mean that a man could divorce and remarry for
minor offenses. This is what “had been
said” (Matt. 5:32). The Lord Jesus Christ begins this
section with stating the seventh commandment, “you
shall not commit adultery” (Matt. 5:27). Jesus
gives two examples of violations which His audience might
not contemplate as adulterous; lust and remarriage.
Whoever looks at a woman lustfully, commits adultery in
his heart (Matt. 5:28). Whoever divorces and
remarries, commits adultery (Matt. 5:32). The
people had been told that if a man wanted a divorce, all
he had to do was give his wife a certificate that would
allow or even force her to depart. Both parties
were then free to remarry. The certificate was a
written bill of divorcement which was worded in this
manner: On the ____ day of the week, the
day of the month ____ , in the year ____ from the
creation of the world, in the city of ,____ I, ____ , the
son of ____ , do willingly consent, being under no
constraint, to release, to set free, and to put aside
thee, my wife, ____ , daughter of ____ , who has been my
wife before. Thus I do set free, release thee, and
put thee aside, in order that thou may have permission
and authority over thyself and to go and marry any man
thou desire. No person may hinder thee from this
day onward, and thou art permitted to every man. This
shall be for thee from me a bill of dismissal, a letter
of release, and a document of freedom, in accordance with
the Law of Moses and Israel. ________ the son
of ________ , witness. ________ the son of ________
, witness. Some claim that Matthew 5:32 agrees
with this practice and furthermore allows Christians to
divorce and remarry if their spouse commits adultery.
They believe that adultery severs the one flesh bond and
therefore Jesus must have used the word porneia
(fornication) as an equivalent term for moicheia
(adultery). English translations render this word
in various ways: Fornication (KJV); Sexual Immorality
(NKJV); Unchastity-Matthew 5:32 and Immorality-Matthew
19:9 (NASB); Marital Unfaithfulness (NIV); Unchastity
(RSV). The NIV comes closest to rendering this word
as adultery yet falls short. The NIV uses the dynamic
equivalent (thought for thought) theory rather than a
more literal (word for word) rendering of the biblical
text. The translators of the NIV may have
substituted their interpretation into the text rather
than letting the reader decide the issue for their self. The Bible student must determine
what porneia and moicheia mean in context.
Strong’s Concordance codes each Greek word to a
number. This allows those who are unfamiliar with
the Greek language to look up the basic definition of any
given word. This can then be cross referenced with
other biblical passages. Porneia and its
cognates are coded as follows: porneia\4202; porneuo\4203;
porne\4204; pornos\4205. Moicheia
and its cognates are coded as follows: moicheia\3430;
moichalis\3428; moichao\3429; moicheuo\3431;
moichos\3432. Lexical Study. Five
Greek Lexicons will be examined to find the definition or
range of meaning for the terms porneia and
moicheia. The criteria for choosing these
lexicons is as follows: A. Length of time in print.
Have they been published for a sufficient length of time
so as to allow grammarians the chance to correct any
errors? B. Acceptance by students and scholars. Are
they widely used by Greek teachers and students
from various backgrounds because of their precision and
accuracy? C. Historical Research. Have the
authors and editors researched a broad enough source of
Greek literature to enable them to give an accurate range
of meaning to each word? The Lexical definitions
given for porneia, moicheia, and their cognates
are as follows: G. Abbott-Smith, A
Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, published
by T. & T. Clark 1921. Last reprint 1968. porneia- Fornication
is the basic definition. Distinguished from
adultery. May equal adultery because Sirach 23:23
uses it this way. Used metaphorically of idolatry. porneuo- To
prostitute the body for hire. To commit
fornication. Idolatry. porne- A prostitute or
harlot. Metaphorically for Babylon (i.e. Rome). pornos- A male prostitute.
A fornicator. moicheia- Adultery. moichalis- An adulteress. moichao- To commit adultery
with. moicheuo- To commit
adultery. moichos- An adulterer. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich,
translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament,
published by W. Kohlhammer Verlag 1933. Last
reprint 1992. Non-Jewish usage porneia- Fornication
or licentiousness. porneuo- To
prostitute or commit fornication. porne- A harlot for
hire (usually referred to slaves). pornos- A whoremonger
or male prostitute. The Old Testament (Septuagint) porneia- Fornication
sometimes involving adultery. porneuo- To play the harlot
(sometimes involving adultery). It may be used of
the prostitute or a betrothed woman who proves to be
unfaithful. porne- Harlot. pornos- Does not appear in
the Old Testament. Only appears in the Apocrypha
during this time. The New Testament porneia- The problem
in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is perhaps that Jewish
Christians who keep the Law are required to divorce
adulterous wives and hence cannot be responsible if these
contract a new relationship which is from a Christian
standpoint itself adulterous. Divorce itself is not
conceded. In John 8:41 the Jews claimed they were
not born of fornication (porneia). Acts
15:20, 29; 21:15 requires the Gentile Christians to avoid
fornication (cf. Leviticus 17-18). Porneia
has no part in God’s kingdom. porneuo- degeneracy. porne- degeneracy. The
center of paganism with its harlot-like apostasy from
God. pornos- Excluded
in I Corinthians 6:9 and Ephesians 5:5. moicheia- Adultery. moichalis- Adulteress or
adulterous. moichao- To commit adultery
with. moicheuo- To commit
adultery. moichos- Adulterer. The Apostolic Fathers porneia- Hermas Mandates
4.1.1 warns against porneia, which differs from,
but also includes, adultery (cf. Mandates 8.3;
4.1.5). We do not find the transferred use in the
apostolic fathers, who abandon the terminology of the
O.T. prophets. J. Moulton and G. Milligan, The
Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament,
published by WM. B. Eerdmans 1930. Last printed
1976. porneia- Originally meant
prostitution or fornication. Came to be applied to
unlawful sexual intercourse. It was a wider term than
adultery, embracing the idea of barter or sexual vice.
In the Old Testament there was a tendency to assimilate
the two terms. porneuo- To commit
fornication. porne- Prostitute. pornos- A male prostitute,
but generally understood in the N.T. in the sense of
fornication. moicheia- Adultery. moichalis- A married woman
who commits adultery. moichao- To commit adultery
with. moicheuo- To commit
adultery. moichos- Adulterer. H.G. Liddell and R. Scott, A
Greek-English Lexicon, published by Oxford
University Press 1843. Last printed 1996. porneia- Prostitution.
Refers to fornication in Matthew 19:9. Metaphorically
of idolatry. porneuo- To become a
prostitute. porne- A harlot or
prostitute. pornos- A
catamite, sodomite, or fornicator. moicheia- Adultery. moichalis- Adulteress. moichao- To commit adultery. moicheuo- To commit
adultery. moichos- Adulterer,
sodomite, or idolatrous person. W. Bauer and W. Arndt and F.W.
Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Published
by University of Chicago Press 1952. Last printed
1974. porneia- Basic
definition is fornication, prostitution, or unchastity.
Of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. Differentiated
from adultery in Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21. Appears
as adultery in Sirach 23:23. Sexual unfaithfulness
of the married woman in Matthew 5:32; 19:9. An
illegitimate or bastard child. In the Old Testament
as a symbol of apostasy from God or idolatry. porneuo- To prostitute or
practice sexual immorality. Distinguished from
committing adultery. porne- A prostitute or
harlot. pornos- A fornicator, one
who practices immorality. Differentiated from an
adulterer. moicheia- Adultery. moichalis- Adulteress. moichao- To commit adultery. moicheuo- To commit
adultery. moichos- Adulterer. When performing lexical research it
is important to consult quality scholarship sources.
One example of poor quality scholarship is found in Vine’s
Complete Expository Dictionary. Under the
heading Fornication Vine writes: In Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 it stands
for, or includes adultery; it is distinguished from it in
15:19 and Mark 7:21. Although it is true that the term
fornication can include adultery in limited contexts,
this is in not definite in the context of Matt. 5:32 and
19:9. It is improbable that it “stands
for” adultery as Vine asserts. He correctly
understands that in Matt. 15:19 and Mark 7:21 that two
words porneia and moicheia are used in the
same context to distinguish between the two. He
fails to realize that this is most likely done in Matt.
5:32 and 19:9 for the same reason. In determining
the meaning of words in their intended context it is not
enough to state what is possible based upon a broad range
of lexical definitions. The job of the expositor is
to determine the most probable usage of the word in
context. New Testament Survey. A
study of relevant New Testament passages may shed light
on how the term porneia could be interpreted.
We will examine New Testament texts other than Matthew
5:32 and 19:9 where the term porneia is used.
Special attention will be paid to passages where porneia
and moicheia are used in the same context. Matthew 15:19. Porneia
and moicheia are used in the same sentence to
differentiate between the two sins. Mark 7:21. Porneia and
moicheia are used in the same sentence to
differentiate between the two sins. John 8:41. The Pharisees
accused Jesus of being born of porneia. In
this context porneia refers to unlawful sexual
relations during the betrothal period. Acts 15:20, 29 and 21:25. Porneia
is one of four things which Gentiles are to abstain
from. In this context porneia refers to the
unlawful incestuous marriages listed in Leviticus
18:6-18. Romans 1:29. Porneia
refers to sexual deviancy in general. First Corinthians 5:1. The
incestuous man who has his father’s wife is
committing porneia. First Corinthians 6:13, 18. Porneia
refers to sexual deviancy in general. No claim
is made whether the man who joins himself to the harlot
is married or not. First Corinthians 7:2. Porneia
is used as a term for sexual deviancy in general. Second Corinthians 12:21. Porneia
is used as a term for sexual deviancy in general. Galatians 5:19. Porneia
and moicheia are used in the same sentence
to differentiate between the two sins. Ephesians 5:3, 5. Porneia refers
to sexual deviancy in general. Colossians 3:5. Porneia
refers to sexual deviancy in general. First Thessalonians 4:3. Porneia
refers to sexual deviancy in general. Revelation 2:21. Porneia
refers to sexual deviancy in general. Revelation 9:21. Porneia
refers to sexual deviancy in general. Revelation 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; and
19:2. Porneia is used to refer to spiritual
harlotry or apostasy. Cognates that are related to the
word porneia appear 29 times in other New
Testament passages. The words porneia and moicheia
are clearly differentiated in the following passages. First Corinthians 6:9. Pornoi
and mochoi are used in the same sentence to
differentiate between the two sins. Hebrews 13:4. Pornos
and moichous are used in the same sentence to
differentiate between the two sins. Those who wish to study the
remaining 27 passages will find the following definitions
are used: 1. Sexual deviancy in general. 2. A
prostitute. 3. Spiritual harlotry or apostasy. Summary: Porneia
means fornication or prostitution. It is
often used for sexual deviancy in general. This may
include homosexuality, incest, polygamy, adultery,
pre-marital sexual relations, or prostitution. In
certain contexts the New Testament does limit the meaning
of porneia to specify spiritual apostasy,
incestuous marriages, or unlawful sexual relations
committed during the betrothal period. There is no
evidence that porneia is used as an exact
one-to-one, no more no less, equivalent for adultery in
the entire New Testament. Moicheia means adultery.
Some Lexicons claim Sirach 23:23 uses porneia as a
synonym for adultery. This usage in Sirach is far
from certain. Sirach is an Apocryphal book of
wisdom literature written about 200 B.C. The phrase
used is “in fornication she committed adultery”
(en porneia emoicheusthe). Joseph Jensen,
possibly the author of the finest article examining the
uses of porneia in relevant literature, translates
Sirach 23:23 “she wantonly committed adultery”.[1]
Bruce Vawter believes it is difficult to prove Sirach
23:23 uses porneia as an equivalent to marital
infidelity.2
Abel Isaksson thinks that porneia in Sirach 23:23
refers to the ‘sexual desire’ that led the
woman to commit adultery.3 The same is probably true of porneia
as recorded in The Shepherd of Hermas Mandate
4.1.5 and Tobit 8:7. If Sirach did use porneia
as an expression for adultery this in no way proves that
Jesus or any other biblical writers used the word in this
manner. New Testament authors use the terms porneia
and moicheia together when they wish to
differentiate between the two sins. Most
commentators do not hesitate to admit that Matthew 15:19
and Mark 7:21 use moicheia and porneia in
the same sentence to differentiate between the two.
It is most probable that Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 intend to
show a distinction also. Interpretative Study. Some
claim that Matthew 5:31-32 teaches a man may divorce his
adulterous wife and then remarry. In Verse 31 Jesus
is merely recounting what Rabbinic tradition allowed.
He does not give approval of this practice. He told
His listeners to be “perfect, as your Father in
heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Every other
point of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ reflects a
higher standard than the Rabbinic traditions of
Jesus’ day. Why would this subject be the one
exception? Those who claim a person can divorce
and remarry in cases of adultery are simply making
Jesus a disciple of Shammai. Jesus would not be
upholding the ideal but would be teaching an ideal with
one exception. Edersheim writes: It is a serious mistake on the part
of commentators to set the teaching of Christ on this
subject by the side of that of Shammai.4 Will Durant writes: He [Jesus] hardened the Law in
matters of sex and divorce.5 Although Durant is not entirely
correct in his statement he rightly understands that
Jesus taught a higher standard than the scribes and
Pharisees. It is not so much that Jesus hardened
the Law but that Jesus taught God’s true righteous
standard. If lust is seen as breaking the seventh
commandment (Matt. 5:27-30) it should not surprise us to
find divorce and remarriage condemned in similar terms
(Matt. 5:32). Jesus claimed that adultery could be
mental as well as physical. Matthew 5:32 is phrased in this
manner: “But I say to you that
whoever divorces his wife except for a matter of porneia\fornication,
makes her moichasthai\commit adultery; and whoever
marries a woman who is divorced moichatai\commits
adultery.” When interpreting this passage
attention must be paid to the fact that the
‘exception clause’ appears only in
Matthew’s Jewish Gospel. The cultural
and historical context must be taken into consideration.
The man in Jewish society was not simply allowed to
divorce a fornicating wife, he was compelled. If
his wife was found to have committed sexual sin, he would
have no choice but to put her away. This is true
both during the betrothal period as well as after a
consummated marriage. According to Rabbinic Law,
the wife could intentionally cause the man to divorce her
by being unfaithful. The man would have no say in
the matter. Both Roman and Jewish cultures
compelled a man to divorce an unfaithful wife; both
during betrothal and after consummation. Both Roman
and Jewish cultures compelled the remarriage of a
divorced woman. When she remarried, Christ claimed
that she would commit adultery. Matthew 5:32
teaches that the man, who divorced his wife for any other
reason except fornication, was the cause of her adultery.
This does not mean a wife who was put away for adultery
was allowed to remarry. Rather, it teaches that
when porneia has been committed by the woman, her
husband is not the cause of her adultery, she is.
If the wife was unfaithful, it was she and not the man
who was responsible for the divorce and the subsequent
adulterous remarriage. In this case the exception merely
exempts Jesus’ disciples from the responsibility
for the divorce which an unfaithful wife brings about.
These teachings relieve the man of the responsibility for
the divorce and its consequences. The wife bears
the responsibility. Remarriage is still called
adulterous. This is what the ‘exception
clause’ means. Augustine in his exposition of Our
Lord’s Sermon on the Mount has this to say about
the exception clause listed in Matthew’s gospel: Wherefore did he not add, saving
for the cause of fornication, which the Lord permits,
unless because he wishes a similar rule to be understood,
that if he shall put away his wife (which he is permitted
to do for the cause of fornication), he is to remain
without a wife, or be reconciled to his wife?...And for
this reason also, because He who says, It is not lawful
to put away one’s wife saving for the cause of
fornication, forces him to retain his wife, if there
should be no cause of fornication: but if there should
be, He does not force him to put her away, but permits
him, just as when it is said, let it not be lawful for a
woman to marry another, unless her husband be dead; if
she shall marry before the death of her husband, she is
guilty; if she shall not marry after the death of her
husband, she is not guilty, for she is not commanded to
marry, but merely permitted. . . Now when He says,
“saving for the cause of fornication,” He has
not said of which of them, whether the man or the woman.
For not only is it allowed to put away a wife who commits
fornication; but whoever puts away that wife even by whom
he is himself compelled to commit fornication, puts her
away undoubtedly for the cause of fornication. . . . But
in reference to what He says, “whosoever shall marry
her that is divorced commits adultery,” it may be
asked whether she also who is married commits adultery in
the same way as he does who marries her. For she is also
commanded to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her
husband; but this in the case of her departing from her
husband. There is however, a great difference
whether she put away or is put away. For if she put
away her husband, and marries another, she seems to have
left her former husband from a desire of changing her
marriage connection, which is, without doubt, an
adulterous thought. But if she is put away by the
husband, with whom she desired to be, he indeed who
marries her commits adultery, according to the
Lord’s declaration; but whether she also be involved
in a like crime is uncertain, - although it is much less
easy to discover how, when a man and woman have
intercourse one with another with equal consent, one of
them should be an adulterer, and the other not. To
this is to be added the consideration, that if he commits
adultery by marrying her who is divorced from her husband
(although she does not put away, but is put away), she
causes him to commit adultery, which nevertheless the
Lord forbids. And hence we infer that, whether she
has been put away, or has put away her husband, it is
necessary for her to remain unmarried or be reconciled to
her husband. Some modern writers wrongly
teach that Jesus gave an exception for remarriage after
divorce in Matthew 5:32 without calling it adultery.
Their logic is manifestly absurd. It would make no
sense at all for Jesus to claim the woman who was
divorced for porneia was allowed to remarry while
the woman who was divorced for any other reason was not.
Jesus clearly refutes this kind of thinking by stating
“whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery”, He gives no exceptions. Summary: Matthew 5:32
places the emphasis of the guilt on the husband who
divorces for unwarranted reasons. The exception
clause is given to show that in the one exception, fornication,
the primary blame lies not with the man, but with the
woman. The remarriage is still adultery but the
blame is shifted from the man to the woman. The
exception clause is simply a matter of fact recognition
that the woman has already committed fornication. She
is responsible for the divorce, he is not. This
does not allow her to remarry. The last part of
verse 32 makes it clear by claiming “whoever shall
marry her that is divorced commits adultery”. Jesus
taught a higher moral standard than either Hillel or
Shammai. Every standard given in Matthew 5-7
surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and the
Pharisees. This subject is no exception. Matthew 19
The Pharisees also came unto
him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for
a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he
answered and said unto them, Have you not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and
female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain
shall become one flesh? Wherefore they are no
longer twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They
said unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a
writing of divorcement, and put her away? He saith
unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so. And I say unto you,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth
commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the
case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to
marry. But he said unto them, all men cannot
receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their
mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which
were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which
have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it,
let him receive it (Matthew 19:3-12). Differing views. Six
interpretations of the ‘exception clause’ are
listed below: 1. God Forgives.
This view states that since God forgives, the divorcee
may remarry. God may consider remarriage adultery
but if remarriage meets a person’s needs,
then it is allowed; God will forgive them. It is
believed that God wants people to be happy or fulfilled.
If a person needs their sexual, emotional, or
financial desires fulfilled then this overrides the fact
that God calls remarriage after divorce sin. This
interpretation is built on half-truths and very little
exegesis. It is true that God forgives sin. It
is not true that forgiveness allows the believer to break
His commands. It is true that God wants fulfilled
children. Fulfillment comes only from obeying
Christ. This view is really no more than an excuse
for sin without the need for repentance. It is interesting to note that many
who hold this view normally expect God to forgive them if
they divorce their spouse and remarry but they themselves
have no intention of forgiving their spouse of any wrongs
they may have committed. This is called hardness of
heart. Jesus warned against this in the parable of
the unjust slave (Matt. 18:23-35). Those who have
been forgiven by God should be willing to forgive others.
The husband or wife who expects to be forgiven by God
should be willing to forgive their spouse. 2. Erasmian Adultery. This
view is called Erasmian because the basic conclusion was
given its greatest impetus by Erasmus in the 16th
century. To be precise there is an old Erasmian
interpretive method and a new Erasmian interpretive
method. Both are termed Erasmian because of the
common conclusion that the innocent spouse may divorce
and remarry in cases of adultery or desertion. Erasmus and many of the Reformers
held to this conclusion because of a form of interpretive
legal fiction that saw the adulterous spouse as
figuratively dead. Modern Erasmians hinge their
conclusions on the following three major assumptions:
First, Jesus was speaking of the same kind of divorce as
the Jews were. Namely, adultery dissolves the one
flesh bond which gives a person the right to divorce and
remarry. Second, the exception clause
modifies both the preceding verb phrase “whoever
divorces his wife” as well as the following verb
phrase “and marries another”. Third, porneia
is a one to one equivalent for adultery. All three
of these assumptions are implausible. Problems with the old Erasmian
Interpretation include: The interpretive legal fiction
method, as originally held by Erasmus and some of the
Reformers, has been shown to be faulty. Because of
this it has basically been abandoned by those who support
divorce and remarriage. Since the old Erasmian
method of allowing divorce and remarriage was proved
deficient new interpretive methods are now used to
achieve the same results. Problems with the new Erasmian
method include: First, although it is true that
both Jewish and Roman divorce laws allowed both parties
the freedom to remarry in cases of adultery, this does
not mean that Jesus agreed with this practice. Jesus
often clashed with the traditions of men. We may
have here in the Matthean Gospel texts clear examples of
the difference between the law of God and the laws of
men. This would certainly answer the question as to why
the disciples reacted so strongly to the teaching of the
Lord: “If such is the case of the man with his
wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt. 19:10).
If Jesus were teaching that a man could divorce his
adulterous wife and remarry one would not expect such a
surprised reaction from the disciples. Jesus would
basically be teaching the same thing as the house of
Shammai. The incorrect application of this
cultural understanding of divorce laws has led to further
error. Since Jewish and Romans laws allowed
remarriage after divorce for any reason it is taught that
Jesus must have allowed remarriage after divorce for any
reason also. This clearly contradicts the teaching
of the New Testament. Second, there is no biblical
evidence to support the Erasmian claim that adultery ends
or dissolves the one flesh marriage bond. Many
Erasmian interpreters are reluctant to claim that one act
of adultery dissolves the one flesh bond and allows
divorce and remarriage. For this reason the
normative claim is that it is persistent adultery
that ends the marriage and allows one to divorce and
remarry. The term “persistent” is vague
and undefined. Are three acts of adultery
considered persistent; ten, twenty, one hundred?
Who is to decide how many acts of adultery are considered
persistent? To what degree must adultery persist until
divorce is allowed? Jesus told His disciples to
forgive seventy times seven which is a way of saying that
Christians should forgive as many times as necessary
(Matt. 18:22). The Christian is to forgive their
unfaithful spouse and pray for reconciliation. They
are not divorce them and find another spouse. No
matter how persistent the sin, reconciliation is always
an option until either spouse dies. Another problem with the persistent
adultery theory is we are not told when the
persistent adultery is discovered. The normative
Erasmian assumption is that the adultery of the guilty
spouse is discovered early on by the innocent spouse.
After this the guilty spouse continues to commit adultery
for an extended period of time. It is this continuous
adultery, after being discovered, that we are told,
allows the innocent spouse to divorce the guilty one. What if the adultery persists for
years before the innocent spouse discovers it? What if,
as soon as the guilty spouse is discovered, the guilty
spouse repents and ceases their sin? Erasmians who
are consistent would need to claim that the one flesh
bond was dissolved because the adultery was persistent.
What if the guilty spouse had adulterous affairs for
years, then ceased, and the innocent spouse did not learn
of the unfaithfulness for years after the fact? The
Erasmian position would lead one to believe that the
innocent spouse could divorce the guilty one even if the
adultery had ceased years before. This is because
Erasmians teach that Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage
in cases of persistent adultery. A related problem with the Erasmian
interpretation is their claim that the
“innocent” spouse in matters of adultery has
the right to remarry. By default this means that
the “guilty” spouse does not. If the
marriage bond is truly ended by adultery or divorce then
it makes no sense for only the innocent party to have the
right remarry. If the marriage is irreconcilably
ended then both parties would have the right to remarry.
The teaching that the innocent party is free to remarry
is based upon the erroneous belief that adultery breaks
the marriage bond. If this was true and the
innocent party forgave the guilty party, they would need
to be remarried. Second, it is doubtful that porneia
is a one to one equivalent for adultery. Every
other time in the New Testament where the words porneai
and moicheia are used together it is done for the
purpose of distinguishing between the two. It is
most probable that Jesus used the word porneia to
refer to something other than adultery. There are
at least three other reasonable explanations of the
meaning of “except fornication” in Matthew
19:9. If any of them are true then the Erasmian
interpretation falls. Third, it is probable that the exception
clause modifies only the preceding “whoever
divorces his wife” and not the following “and
marries another” phrase. Neither Erasmus, a
Greek scholar, nor the Reformers make any reference to
the exception clause modifying both the preceding and the
following verb phrases. They resorted to the use of
Old Testament legal fiction. The Erasmian view is based upon the
belief that “two wrongs make a right”. If
one spouse wrongs the other by committing adultery (has
sexual relations outside the marriage bond) then the
other spouse can also break their vows and have sexual
relations outside of the original marriage bond. One
emphasis of the teachings of Jesus is forgiveness. The
followers of Jesus Christ are to forgive even their
enemies and pray for those who mistreat them (Matt. 5:44;
Luke 6:28). To Erasmians these commands of Christ
to forgive do not seem to apply to spouses. If a
spouse sins against them by committing adultery they can
divorce that spouse and find another one. If taken
to its logical conclusion the Erasmian position would
allow a person to divorce and remarry every time their current
spouse commits a sin qualified under the “exception
clause”. Under this scenario one could
theoretically be divorced and remarried dozens of times,
all with the approval and blessing of the Lord. 3. Unlawful Marriage to
Gentile Idolaters. In Ezra’s day the Jews were
required to divorce their Gentile wives in order to keep
the Jewish ancestral lineage free from impurity and
idolatry (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13). Some have applied
this to mean that a Christian may divorce an unbelieving
spouse and remarry. There are at least three
problems with this view. First, most marriages take
place between two Gentiles. It would make no sense
for God to command Gentiles to divorce in order to keep
their lineage pure. Second, First Corinthians
7:12-13 makes it clear that a believing spouse is not to
divorce their unbelieving partner as long as they consent
to live with them. Third, what took place in the
restoration community under the leadership of Ezra and
Nehemiah was a unique occurrence. The separation
from Gentile wives was necessary to insure the continued
existence of the Jewish nation (Deut. 7:3-4). 4. Incestuous Marriages.
This view is sometimes called the Rabbinic view. It
teaches that fornication refers to unlawful marriages
which are prohibited in Leviticus 18:6-18. Some
leading adherents of this view include W.K. Lowther
Clarke, F.F. Bruce, J. Carl Laney, J.A. Fitzmeyer, and
Charles C. Ryrie. Leviticus 18:6-18 deals with
prohibitions of incestuous marriages. The phrase
used is “you shall not uncover the nakedness
of”. This is a Hebrew euphemism for sexual
intercourse in the confines of an incestuous marriage.
A man was not allowed to marry his mother, sister,
daughter, granddaughter, niece, aunt, mother-in-law,
daughter-in-law, or sister-in-law. Incestuous
marriage may be what Christ meant when He said
“whoever divorces his wife except for
fornication”. First Corinthians 5:1 may refer
to a man marrying his father’s widow. This
would be a flagrant violation of Leviticus 18:8. Acts 15 uses the term porneia
to refer to incestuous marriages. Some converts
from the Pharisees had come down from Judea and were
teaching the Gentile believers that unless they were
circumcised and kept the law of Moses they could not be
saved (Acts 15:1). Paul, Barnabas, and other
brethren met at Jerusalem to discuss this issue. After
much debate they were led by the Holy Spirit to tell the
Gentile converts that they should abstain from idols,
things that were strangled, blood, and fornication (Acts
15:20, 29). These are the things which are listed
in Leviticus 17:10-18:18. It seems to be assumed
that a believer would abstain from adultery, bestiality,
homosexuality, and sacrificing of children (Lev.
18:20-23). The Jerusalem Council would have no
need to tell believers to refrain from fornication if it
meant adultery or other sexual perversions in this
context. The evidence points to them telling the
Gentile believers not to enter into incestuous marriages.
These four prohibitions may have been designed to promote
peace between Jewish and Gentile believers. Gentiles
were not to practice those things which were offensive to
Jewish brethren. Some believe these four
prohibitions are binding on Christians for all time.
In either case, this would explain why Matthew would
include this exception clause in his Gospel to Jewish
readers. Some may wonder how probable it is
that a person would enter into an incestuous marriage?
The Romans had laws against incest but they were not as
strict as the Mosaic Law. They also did not seem to
be well enforced. The Bible gives us the narrative
of Herod Antipas. Herodias was the wife of Herod
Philip I. Herodias was the niece of Herod Philip I,
which means she was married to her uncle. Herodias
was also the niece of Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas
and Herod Philip I were half brothers. Herod Philip
I and Herodias divorced. Herodias remarried Herod
Antipas. Now Herod Antipas was married to his
half-brother’s wife who was also his niece. According
to Leviticus 18:11 and 20:21, these were illegal
incestuous marriages. Not because she was
considered his brother’s wife but because she was
his niece. Some believe that John the Baptist was thrown
into prison and beheaded for preaching against this sin.
The weakness of this assumption is the biblical text
states that John told Herod “It is not lawful for
you to have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18).
John did not say it is not lawful for you to marry your
niece. It appears that the emphasis of John’s
preaching was against the sin of divorce and remarriage
itself. Josephus also reports the practice
of incest among Roman rulers. Archelaus divorced
his wife and married Glaphyra, the former wife of his
half-brother. Bernice was originally married to her
uncle, Herod Chalcis. Bernice also had an
incestuous relationship with her brother, Herod Agrippa
II. Bazeus married his sister, Helena. 5. Betrothal. Unlike
western societies which practice engagement, the
Jewish culture practiced betrothal. Betrothal was a
binding legal contract that could only be broken by death
or divorce. The betrothed couple were considered
husband and wife. The marriage was usually arranged
by parents. The bride price or dowry was paid to
the father of the bride for economic loss to the family.
This would compensate the father for the daughter’s
work he would lose. He could earn interest off the
dowry but it was not to be spent in case his daughter was
widowed or divorced. Next, a betrothal promise was
made, but the marriage was not yet consummated. During
this time the bride would prepare herself for marriage.
The groom would prepare a home for them, usually in his
father’s house. At the end of one year, a
ceremony and wedding feast took place. During the
feast, the bride and groom would go into the bridal
chamber and consummate the marriage. A cloth would
be brought out to prove the bride’s virginity.
If the bride was found to not be a virgin, either before
the wedding or at the time of consummation, she was to be
divorced. This is why weddings of virgins were
usually held on Wednesdays and weddings of widows were
held on Thursdays. The courts sat on Mondays and
Thursdays. If it became evident to the groom on
Wednesday night that his bride was not a virgin, he could
go to court on Thursday and bring suit against her and
her father. This was the situation Joseph
thought he was in with Mary. This also explains why the
Jews claimed Jesus was born of fornication (John 8:41).
Before the marriage was consummated Mary was found to be
pregnant. Joseph was not simply allowed to divorce
Mary; Jewish law compelled him to do so. Joseph was
a righteous man so he sought to divorce her secretly.
If Joseph sought to divorce Mary publicly this could have
led to her death by stoning. It was not up to
Joseph to stone his betrothed for the sin of fornication
it was the men of the city who would do so (Deut.
22:20-21). Luke 2:5 only mentions the
betrothal to his Greek-Gentile readers. Matthew
1:18-25 gives a fuller account to his Jewish readers.
The betrothal view teaches that porneia is
premarital sexual relations between a betrothed person
and a third outside party. It takes into account
Matthew’s inclusion of the ‘exception
clause’ to his Jewish audience. Christ stated a
consummated marriage was permanent until death. One
could divorce his betrothed wife because of porneia.
This view has been proposed by James Montgomery Boice,
Abel Isaksson, and Lehman Strauss. The strengths of the Betrothal view
include: First, every other time in the New
Testament that porneia (fornication) and moicheia
(adultery) are used together it is done to differentiate
between the two sins. It is probable that this is
done in Matthew 19:9 also. Second, there is no evidence that
Jesus used the word fornication to refer to broader
sexual sins which included adultery. Third, the betrothal view takes
into consideration the reason why the “exception
clause” is listed in Matthew’s Jewish Gospel
and not the gospels of Mark and Luke which were written
primarily to Gentile readers. Fourth, there is an example of the
righteous practice of this type of divorce listed earlier
in Mathew’s Gospel (Matt. 1:18-20). Fifth, this view explains the
surprised reaction of the disciples in Matthew 19:10. One interesting fact should be
considered. As far as I know none of the early
Christian writers mention the betrothal view. Almost
all of them quote Matthew 5:32 when mentioning the
“exception clause”. Some quote from
Matthew 19 but few, if any, quote Matthew 19:9 directly.
It is often assumed that the “exception clause”
in Mathew 5:32 refers to the same thing as Matthew 19:9.
Could it be that Matthew 5:32 prohibits remarriage after
divorce for consummated marriages while Matthew 19:9
refers to betrothals? This could be one explanation
as to why the early Christian writers quoted from
Matthew’s gospel but did not hold the betrothal
view. For the modern Christian who is wondering how
each view might apply to his life; both the betrothal
view and the early Christian view prohibit remarriage
after divorce for any reason. 6. The Early Church View.
The early Church taught that porneia meant
sexual deviancy in general, but it was not limited to
adultery. If a man’s wife committed fornication,
he was to separate from her until she repented of her
sin. He was then to receive her back with the same
love with which Christ loved the Church. To live
with an unrepentant adulterous wife was a sin; to not
forgive her was also a sin. If a legal divorce took
place, remarriage while one’s spouse was alive was
still prohibited. This view is so named because it
was held by a virtual consensus of the early church for
the first six hundred years. The strengths of the Early Church
view include: First, it best explains the
placement of the “exception clause” in the
Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage. Second, this view explains the
surprised reaction of the disciples in Matthew 19:10. Third, it explains the inclusion of
the “exception clause” in Matthew’s Gospel
since a Jew would have been compelled to divorce his wife
who had committed fornication. Fourth, fornication is not a one to
one equivalent with adultery. Interpretive Study. The
Pharisees came to test Jesus. Three motives have
been proposed as to why they asked this question. 1.
They were attempting to get Jesus to incriminate Himself
by speaking against the Mosaic Law (actually it would be
against their interpretation of the Law since the Law did
not specifically address the issue of divorce and
remarriage). 2. They wanted to know what Jesus’
interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would be. Would
Jesus side with the house of Hillel or the house of
Shammai? 3. Since John the Baptist had recently
been beheaded for speaking against the divorce and
remarriage of Herod, they were attempting to get Jesus to
say something against the political authorities. Mishna, Gittin 9.10 reads:
The school of Shammai says: A man
may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity
in her, for it is written, Because he has found in her
indecency in anything. And the school of Hillel
says: He may divorce her even if she spoiled a dish for
him, for it is written, because he has found in her
indecency in anything. Rabbi Akiba says: Even if
she found another fairer than she, for it is written, and
it shall be if she found no favor in his eyes. Gittin is the plural form of
the Hebrew word get (divorce). The laws of gittin
only allow for divorce initiated by the husband.
If there was just cause for a man to divorce his wife,
the court required him to do so. If a
husband refused the court’s demand to divorce his
wife he is subject to penalties including
excommunication, monetary fines, or physical punishment.
The above mentioned opinion of Rabbi Akiba (A.D.
50-135) may not have been a factor in Jesus’ day
since Akiba was not born until after Jesus was crucified. It appears that this group of
Pharisees held to the dominant view of Hillel. They
did not ask if a divorced man could remarry. They
assumed that any divorced person could remarry. They
wanted to know if a man could divorce his wife for any
reason. The answer they received surprised them!
Instead of entering into a debate over the interpretation
of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jesus by-passed their traditions
and took them back to the beginning of creation, Genesis
1 and 2. To Jesus, man and wife were one flesh.
Because God had joined them together, no man was to
separate them (Matt. 19:6). The Jews retorted with
the Mosaic concession. They claimed Moses commanded
a man to divorce his wife. Jesus replied that Moses
only allowed this to happen because of the
hardness of man’s heart. From the beginning of
time this was not God’s plan. Up until verse 9, all agree
that Jesus taught an absolute prohibition of divorce and
remarriage. It is verse 9 that causes people
problems. The main reason for this is that few
Christians take into account the cultural and Jewish
legal considerations when examining the ‘exception
clause’ in Matthew’s gospel. Matthew
records one exception for divorce when writing to his
Jewish readers. Mark writes to Romans and gives no
exception for divorce. What does the
‘exception clause’ mean? The Pharisees
wanted to know under what circumstances a man was allowed
to divorce his wife. Jesus answered their question,
porneia. The societal structure under which
the Jews lived did not merely allow a man to divorce his
wife, it compelled him. A man in Jewish culture,
who found his wife to be guilty of porneia, would
be compelled by society to divorce her. This could
mean a man’s wife was found to be guilty of sexual
sin after consummating a legal marriage. It may
simply be speaking of the man who found his wife to have
lost her virginity before their wedding night. It is possible that Matthew 19:9
should be understood in a similar manner as Matthew 5:32.
Since the culture of Jesus’ time compelled a man to
divorce a fornicating spouse, then Jesus does not hold
his followers responsible for the divorce of a wife who
has committed porneia. The Pharisees asked
the question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his
wife for any reason?” The answer was no!
A man can not divorce his wife for any reason, except porneia.
Lest they should think that the man had the right to
remarry, Jesus added, “and marries another commits
adultery”. Some have assumed that since
the Pharisees used the word divorce to include the right
to remarry, then Jesus must have used the word in the
same way. It is true that the Jews of Jesus' day
believed the right to remarry came with the right to
divorce. Is it correct to assume that Jesus must
have taught the same kind of divorce that the Jews
practiced? To assume this wrongly makes Judaism,
not the teaching of Christ, the decisive factor in
interpreting Scripture. The burden of proof lies with those
who claim that Jesus was using the term
‘divorce’ in the same manner as the Pharisees;
namely, divorce with the right to remarry. Lest
they should think that the woman had the right to
remarry, Jesus added, “and whoever marries her who
is divorced commits adultery.” Some
translations (NIV, RSV, and NASB) that are founded on the
eclectic Critical Greek Text omit this final phrase.
Those translations (KJV, NKJV) which follow the majority
of Greek manuscripts retain this saying. Recent
research has shown that there is much evidence that the
longer reading of Matthew 19:9 is to be preferred. Verses 10-12 are contextually
related to what Jesus had previously stated in verses
4-9. They give strong support that Jesus was
teaching a higher standard than the scribes and the
Pharisees. The disciples had an astonished reaction
to the teaching of Jesus on the subject of divorce and
remarriage. They realized that the permanence of
marriage meant a man might be better off not to marry.
If Jesus had allowed remarriage for cases of porneia
He would have simply been agreeing with the conservative
school of Shammai. The response of the disciples
confirms that man was in a serious situation. He
could not be freed from a marriage, even if his wife was
guilty of porneia. In response to their reaction Jesus
assures them that they would be able to accept such a
high standard. Jesus uses the illustration of
eunuchs to prove what He has just commanded. Some
are born eunuchs. Some are made eunuchs by other
men. Some voluntarily make themselves eunuchs for
the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Since eunuchs
are able to refrain from sexual relations then His
followers would be able to refrain from remarriage.
The true disciple of Christ will be given the grace to
obey what God has commanded. Summary: No
legislation or cultural pressure exists in modern Western
society which would compel a man to divorce his wife if
she was guilty of porneia. Jesus told His
disciples to forgive seventy times seven. Men are
commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.
If a man’s wife is found to have been unfaithful
love and forgiveness are God’s standards, not
divorce. If one spouse deserts the other to live in
an adulteress relationship, the one flesh bond may be
polluted but still remains intact. Since the one
flesh bond is never truly broken by anything except death
or the rapture, remarriage after divorce is considered
adultery. Grammatical Study. Grammar
and syntax regulate the formation and usage of words in a
sentence. They come from analyzing and classifying the
language itself. They do not externally govern the
language; they simply deal with the internal facts of how
the language is constructed. Grammar and syntax
tell us how words relate to one another in any given
sentence. Lexicons give the possible range of
meanings for a particular word. Grammar and syntax
tell us how each word is used in a particular sentence.
The syntactical relations and groupings of words are
factors just as important for the bearing of significance
as the lexicographical aspect of a single word. The main grammatical issue appears
in Matthew 19:9. A person can get an adequate
understanding of the issues involved by comparing several
good English translations of the Bible. A better
grasp can be attained by looking at the sentence
structure in Greek. Matthew 19:9 states, “And I
say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except porneia,
and marries another, commits adultery”. Which clause(s) does the phrase
“except porneia” modify? Some
claim the phrase “except porneia”
modifies the following verb phrase “and marries
another” as well as the preceding “whoever
divorces his wife”. In saying this they wish
to prove that the person who divorces for the cause of porneia
does not commit adultery if he remarries. One commentator writes: Although it is not directly stated
it seems obvious from the words of our Lord that where a
divorce has been obtained on grounds of adultery, the
innocent party is free to remarry (emphasis mine).6 D.A. Carson in his book Exegetical
Fallacies calls this the “abuse of
obviously”. He writes: It is perfectly proper for a
commentator to use “obviously” when he or she
has marshaled such overwhelming evidence that the vast
majority of readers would concur that the matter being
presented is transparent, or that the argument is
logically conclusive. But it is improper to use
such expressions when opposing arguments have not been
decisively refuted, and it is a fallacy to think the
expressions themselves add anything substantial to the
argument.7 The previously quoted commentator
makes the mistake of inserting the word adultery in place
of fornication. He then fails to decisively refute
or even mention opposing arguments regarding Matthew
19:9. He does not deal with lexical, grammatical,
or exegetical evidence. He simply gives his opinion
on this subject. He openly admits that what he is
teaching is not directly stated. This is unwise.
If it is not directly stated in Matthew 19:9, then it is
not stated anywhere in the entire New Testament. There are grammatical problems with
claiming porneia allows a person to remarry as
well as divorce. ‘Except porneia’
is a prepositional phrase. It does not contain a
verb. One must be supplied from somewhere else in
the sentence. Prepositional phrases are adverbial
and normally qualify the verb which they follow. Matthew
19:9 contains a compound conditional clause (two verbal
actions). Matthew placed “except porneia”
after the first verbal action, “divorce”.
Like this: Whoever divorces his wife, except porneia,
and marries another, commits adultery. In this case ‘except porneia’
modifies only the preceding verbal action, divorce.
This construction allows divorce for the cause of porneia
but not remarriage. This is where it is placed in
the Greek text. He could have placed “except porneia”
after the second verbal action, “and marries
another”. Like this: Whoever divorces
his wife and marries another, except
porneia, commits adultery. In this case “except porneia”
would modify two sequential actions, divorce and
remarriage. This construction would allow
remarriage if the divorce occurred for the cause of porneia. Summary: The
syntactical burden of proof lies on those who claim that
the clause “except porneia” modifies the
following verbal action “marries”, as well as
the preceding verb “divorces”. The
grammatical evidence points to Jesus only allowing a very
restrictive form of divorce without the right to remarry.
The early church writers (many used Greek as their mother
tongue) interpreted the “exception clause” to
allow only divorce, not remarriage. The Reformers
did not claim the exception clause modifies “and
marries another”, they resorted to legal fiction.
If the exception clause modifies “marriage” as
well as “divorce”, it would seem strange that
the early Christians who spoke Greek would not recognize
this. Bill Heth writes: The syntactical argument that
except fornication modifies remarriage as well as divorce
is unique to the latter half of this [the 20th]
century. The early church Fathers understood the
exception clause as a simple limitation of the divorce
action only, not a “dissolution” of marriage.
They never discuss or debate the modern day controversy
about which verb or verbs the exception clause qualifies
[brackets mine].8 The grammatical evidence shows that
Matthew’s construction was not meant to qualify both
the following, as well as the preceding, verbal action.
If it was, then this would be the only place in the
entire New Testament where such a grammatical
construction appears. Logical Interpretation God has given man a logical mind.
Logic alone is fallible. Logic guided by the
constraints of Scripture can help determine if one’s
arguments and conclusions are consistent with all the
biblical data. Those who claim Matthew 19:9 allows
a divorced person freedom to remarry create logical
fallacies which are inconsistent with all the biblical
evidence. 1. Those who allow remarriage
usually maintain that porneia is a one-to-one
equivalent for adultery in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. They
then claim this adultery breaks the one flesh bond and
allows a person to remarry without committing adultery.
No biblical passage clearly teaches the one flesh
marriage bond is ever broken by anything except death.
Those who claim the one flesh bond is broken by
adultery must contend with inconsistency. If a
man’s wife commits adultery then the two would cease
to be one flesh. The man who continued to
live with his wife after she committed adultery would be
having sexual relations with a woman whom he had ceased
to be one flesh with. Consistency would
require the couple in this instance to remarry in order
to restore the one flesh bond. If the wife
committed adultery a second time, the process would need
to be repeated all over again. Some have taught
that it is persistent or continual adultery, not a single
act that breaks the one flesh bond and allows a
person the freedom to divorce and remarry. This is
also illogical. One act of adultery either does or
does not dissolve the marriage bond. There can be
no middle ground. 2. Some teach that Matthew
19:9 allows only the ‘innocent’ spouse freedom
to remarry in cases of adultery. This is
inconsistent as well as illogical. If adultery
truly breaks the marriage bond then both parties would be
free to remarry; not just the ‘innocent’ one.
This teaching would put a premium on the sin of adultery.
A person who wanted a divorce could commit adultery (or
claim they had) in order to be released from their
marriage. If a person claimed to have committed
adultery there would be no way to prove that they had
not. 3. Matthew 5:32 teaches that
the man who divorces his wife for any reason except porneia
causes her to commit adultery. A man could put away
his wife for reasons other than porneia and simply
wait. Once she remarried (committed
adultery) the Erasmian interpretation of Matthew 19:9
would allow the husband freedom to remarry without
himself committing adultery. The man who caused his
wife’s adultery would be the one who was allowed to
remarry. The woman who was unjustly put away would
not be allowed to remarry without committing adultery.
Consistent application of the Erasmian position would
allow a man to divorce his wife for any reason and
remarry without committing adultery. The
Early Church, Betrothal, and Incestuous positions cause
no such problems. Conclusion: The
lexical, grammatical, exegetical, and logical evidence
points to the ‘exception clause’ as allowing
divorce only in the limited instance of porneia.
Jesus was not compelling people to divorce an adulterous
spouse. Man’s legal bill of divorcement could
never separate what God had joined together (Matt. 19:6).
He was not telling divorced people to remarry. This
would be in opposition to God’s one flesh
covenant (Matt. 19:5). This is why the disciples
were so astonished at the teaching of Jesus (Matt.
19:10). They knew Christ was teaching a higher
standard than the religious leaders of His day (Matt.
5:20, 7:28-29). Lehman Straus writes: The whole idea of divorce is
diametrically opposed to the marriage plan as it was
instituted by God. . . Beware of all teaching and
teachers, whether in or out of the organized church,
which speak of ‘scriptural grounds for
divorce’.9 No plain rendered statement in the
entire New Testament clearly mandates the right of a
divorced person to remarry while their spouse is alive.
Matthew 19:9 may come closest, but the ‘exception
clause’ gives an exception for divorce which does
not include the right to remarry. Jesus taught that
the permanence of marriage was based on the one flesh
bond which God had ordained for man and woman from the
beginning of creation. It is for this reason that
man is not to separate what God has joined together. Mark 10
And the Pharisees came to him,
and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his
wife? Tempting him. And he answered and said
unto them, What did Moses command you? And they
said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and
to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto
them, For hardness of your heart he wrote you this
precept. But from the beginning of the creation God
made them male and female. For this cause shall a
man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no
more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder. And in
the house his disciples asked him again of the same
matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery
against her. And if a woman shall put away her
husband, and be married to another, she committeth
adultery (Mark 10:2-12). It was now the spring of
Jesus’ final year of ministry. He had just
left Capernaum, went through Judea, and ended up on the
east side of the Jordan in Perea. Perea was one of
two districts under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas.
Herod Antipas had previously thrown John the Baptist in
prison for preaching against his divorce and remarriage.
It was under these circumstances that the Pharisees came
to ask Jesus a test question concerning divorce. The Pharisees asked Jesus whether
it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife? Jesus
said to them, “What did Moses command you?”
The Pharisees believed that Moses permitted a man to
divorce his wife if he protected her rights by giving her
a certificate of divorce. First century Rabbinic
law not only allowed divorce it compelled it.
A man was not permitted to be reconciled to a fornicating
wife. In verse 5 Jesus claimed that it
was their hard-heartedness and obstinate refusal to
accept God’s view of marriage that allowed for
divorce. The Law of Moses only acknowledged the
presence of divorce; it did not institute or authorize
it. Jesus took his tempters back to God’s
original divine intent regarding the institution of
marriage. The man and woman are not simply two
partners in a legal contract. They are joined
together in an indissoluble one flesh covenant
union. Because of this, what God has joined
together let no man separate. Later, while the disciples and
Jesus were in a house, the disciples asked him for a
confirmation of what he had previously spoken. Although
Jesus spoke to the religious leaders in proverbs he
answered the disciple’s questions in a straight
forward manner: “The man who divorces his wife and
remarries commits adultery.” Both Matthew 19
and Mark 10 give a synopsis of the same event. Each
author was inspired by the Holy Spirit to record those
items which would be needed by their intended audience.
Matthew wrote primarily for Jewish readers and recorded
the exception for divorce in the case of
fornication. This was probably included because of
the Rabbinic law which compelled a man to divorce his
fornicating wife. Mark wrote to a Roman audience.
He included Jesus’ teaching regarding a woman who
divorced her husband and remarried. He gave no
exception for divorce. Even though Roman law
compelled a man to divorce an adulterous wife, it did not
allow her to remarry. The lex Iulia de pudicitia
et coercendis adulteriis – “The Julian law
of chastity and repressing adultery” – was
established by Augustus and the Roman Senate in 18 B.C. Concerning this law Will Durant
writes: Within sixty days of detecting a
wife’s adultery, the husband was required to bring
her before the court; if he failed to do this, the
woman’s father was required to indict her; if he too
failed, any citizen might accuse her. The
adulterous woman was to be banished for life, was to lose
a third of her fortune and half her dowry, and must not
marry again.10 Under Roman law a woman could
initiate a divorce. Rabbinic law did not allow
this. Though Roman law allowed remarriage after
divorce in most cases, Jesus boldly claimed that whoever
remarries after divorcing their spouse commits adultery. Luke 16
And the Pharisees also, who were
covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify
yourselves before men; but God knows your hearts: for
that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in
the sight of God. The law and the prophets were
until John: since that time the kingdom of God is
preached, and every man presses into it. And it is
easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of
the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife,
and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever
marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth
adultery (Luke 16:14-18). The Pharisees scoffed at Jesus for
teaching man cannot serve both God and money. Their
covetousness was detestable to God. They had
nullified the true interpretation of the Law and the
Prophets. They had justified their actions by
living according to the traditions of men. Jesus
announced that since John the Baptist, the kingdom of God
had been preached. The coming of the New Covenant
did not set aside God’s law; rather it was the
fulfillment of it. It would be easier for heaven
and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the
law to fail. The Old Testament prophecies would be
completely fulfilled, and the moral law of God would
remain absolutely authoritative. The Pharisees were very
adept at setting aside the true meaning of God’s law
and inventing their own standards of righteousness (cf.
Mark 7:13). In verse 18 Jesus uses an
illustration to show the Pharisees how far they were from
obeying the true intent of God’s law. He tells
them that everyone who divorces his wife and
marries another commits adultery. The man who
marries the divorced woman also commits adultery. The
Pharisees allowed both remarriage after divorce. The
evidence shows Jesus did not. Man may attempt to
justify himself by lowering God’s standards and then
judging himself accordingly. God knows the hearts
of everyone. In the end, all judgment will be based
upon God’s impeccable righteousness. Conclusion: Jesus based His
teaching concerning marriage on the one flesh union
created by God. His standards were permanence and
forgiveness. Though realizing culture may compel
one to put away a fornicating spouse, He never commanded
divorce. Divorce was caused by hardness of heart
(Mark 10:5). Hardness of heart may lead one partner
to commit adultery. Hardness of heart may cause a
spouse to be unforgiving. Neither are God’s
will. If adultery occurs, it does not dissolve the
one flesh bond or replace it with a new one. If a
legal divorce takes place, it cannot nullify the one
flesh relationship which exists between husband and wife.
Heth and Wenham write: Should a man be forced to put away
his unfaithful wife, as the Jewish readers of
Matthew’s Gospel would have been, Jesus does not
hold him responsible for breaking His command not to
divorce. The guilt and the blame lie with the
woman who is an adulteress by reason of her offense.
And should the hard-heartedness of one of the partners
result in an unfortunate divorce, lack of forgiveness and
a refusal to be reconciled, Jesus requires His disciples
to remain single. One thing appears certain from
this study: the New Testament and the early church as a
whole are not vague or confusing when it comes to
the question of remarriage after divorce. It is
clear that Jesus said that a man may have one wife or no
wife, and if someone puts away their partner for whatever
reason, they must remain single.11 Jesus did not command people to
divorce a fornicating spouse. He told them to
forgive. He did not tell divorced people to
remarry. He told them to reconcile or remain single
(1 Cor. 7:11).
[1] Joseph Jensen, “Does Porneia
mean Fornication,” p. 172-173. 2 Bruce Vawter, “Divorce and the New
Testament,” p. 531. 3 Abel Isaksson, “Marriage and Ministry
in the New Temple,” p. 133-34. 4 Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of
Jesus the Messiah, p. 245. 5 Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p.
568. 6 William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible
Commentary, Matt. 19:9. 7 D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies,
p. 122. 8 William Heth, May a Divorced
Person Remarry? p. 3. 9 Lehman Strauss, The Permanency of
the Marriage Relationship. 10 Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, p.
223. 11 Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce,
p. 199. |