This is an archive site
If you have not yet done so, please e-mail Graeme at graeme@codrington.biz now to tell him that you are using his paper.
This is a tentative theological position, which is very much in progress. I would value your feedback.
The Bible has much to say on the issue of relationships, and specifically the issue of marriage. The scope of this paper is limited to looking at the issues of marriage, divorce and remarriage in the light of the specific teachings of Jesus. The purpose is to deal with these issues sensitively, realising that they are emotional issues for many people, but nevertheless attempting to come to a thoroughly Biblical ethic of marriage, divorce and remarriage.
Jesus spoke of these issues specifically in the following passages: Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12: 22:23-33, Mark 10:1-12; 12:18-27, Luke 16:18; 20:27-40. Having said that we will limit the discussion to Jesus’ teaching, it must be understood that within the texts referenced above, Jesus is variously asked to interpret an Old Testament law, he quotes both from the Old Testament and from the oral law of the Pharisees, and these quotations are picked up elsewhere in the New Testament in relation to marriage (cf. Eph. 5:31). Thus, it is impossible to get an accurate picture of Jesus’ teachings on these issues without reference to the whole of Scripture.
In order to provide some framework for exegesis, a few preliminary comments must be made about the Scriptural texts.
Most of the passages referenced above are parallel passages, often repeated word for word in the different Gospels. It seems that the most significant time for Jesus’ teachings on divorce was when two groups of opposing rabbis came to Jesus to have a dispute settled about the grounds for divorce (Matt. 19 and Mark 10). The Hillel group believed that divorce was acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. The Shammai group allowed divorce only on the grounds of sexual immorality. It is very likely that it is this debate between the two groups that constituted the "test" of Jesus. It is helpful to understand this background, which Jesus was no doubt aware of as he answered their question, and to realise that both groups accepted divorce, differing only on the legitimate grounds for divorce.
Another significant passage on marriage was when the Saduccees tried to corner Jesus with a question about a woman married successively to seven brothers (Matt. 22, Mark 12, Luke 20). They wanted to know whose wife she would be at the resurrection. This was an obvious setup for Jesus, as the Saduccees did not believe in the resurrection at all. The only thing of significance for this present study in these recorded episodes is that marriage is for this age only, and not for the age to come.
Finally, in both of the passages in Matthew that deal with divorce (Matt. 5 and 19), a significant extra phrase, known as "the exception clause", is added. It gives an exception to Jesus’ statements regarding divorce. This will be discussed in depth below. The textual criticism of these parallel passages shall not be considered in this paper, except to say that the usual reason given for some of the differences between Matthew and Mark, is that Matthew was writing for a predominantly Jewish readership and Mark for Gentiles. This is by no means a closed issue, and it is this paper’s contention that, since they are both inspired Scripture, even if the issue of the original readers were beyond doubt, it should not make much practical difference in terms of modern application of the passages.
It is important to start with the concept of marriage, as intended by God. This is an institution designed by God as part of His original creation. Jesus himself points this out in quoting Genesis 2:24 as the basis for discussing marriage (cf. Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:7).
The first step in discussing marriage is to ask why God instituted it. Stott (1990:285f.) points out that classical theology has identified three main purposes for marriage arising out of Gen. 2:24, namely: (i) the procreation of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union. In addition to those discussed above, two further purposes of marriage may be discerned in Scripture. Throughout Scripture, family units, or "houses" are seen as part of the basic building blocks of society. Marriage is an institution that provides stability for a clan and a nation. It is a place of nurture for children and a place of love and peace for members of a community (this is the intention, if not the reality).
Another purpose of marriage is found in a somewhat obscure reference in Eph. 5:31-32. Marriage is an earthly symbol of the unity between Christ and the church. The love that is to be found in marriage, and the companionship and the closeness that leads to the "two becoming one", are all symbols and foretastes of the link between Christ and His church. This may be a useful aid in interpreting Mal. 2:16, which is talking about the covenant between God and His people, and how the people had been unfaithful to Him.
Although these are the purposes of marriage, it is important not to attempt to make them the essence of marriage. None of these purposes can be used to describe what defines a marriage.
We must therefore attempt to discover what the definitive characteristics of a marriage are. Marriage cannot be equated with sexual union, as some have tried to do (e.g. Luther, Lenski). We must agree with Adams that the sexual act itself does not define a marriage (cf. 1980:6). Whether a marriage is consummated or not, it can be a legitimate marriage. Neither is the procreation of children a definitive characteristic. People do not experience a state of "semi-marriage" until the birth of their first child, and childless marriages are still marriages. Stott adds that marriage exists when a person "leaves" and "cleaves" (1990:288), emphasising the permanence of the relationship between husband and wife. The leaving of parents is not unique to marriage, but the cleaving to another seems to be something reserved for marriage.
Adams proposes that the need to remove loneliness (cf. Gen. 2:18) is God’s basis for marriage (1980:8). However, since companionship can be found on many levels, with many different people throughout life, this does not seem to be a definitive characteristic of marriage. Adams goes on, however, to define his particular use of the concept of companionship, by referring to it as a "close union" (1980:11), which incorporates the concepts of a helping, becoming one flesh, and openness (1980:16ff). Again, the exclusive nature of the relationship seems to be the central issue.
These aspects are mentioned by Jesus in Matthew, especially when he refers to two people being "yoked together". The Greek word, sunezeuzen, used in Matt. 19:6 and Mark 10:9 is not found elsewhere in the New Testament and seems to mean a profound union. This union is instituted by God, and is, therefore, not to be broken. The union is explained by the concept of "one flesh". Although it certainly incorporates the concept of sexual union, it is not limited to this. The term "flesh", refers to the whole person, not just their physical bodies, meaning that in marriage the two people become one in their thoughts, feelings, actions and attitudes. 1 Cor. 6 seems to use this phrase to imply sexual union, but it may be seen that the oneness is expressed in body (v. 16) and spirit (v. 17). Thus, married couples become one in all areas of their relationship. The exclusivity of the relationship seems to be the essence of marriage. It is not possible for anyone to share this sort of bond with more than one person. The commitment to this relationship is often expressed in terms of a covenant.
Thus, a definitive concept of marriage would be "a covenant between a man and woman to an exclusive relationship that affects every part of their beings".
Since our relationship with God in eternity eclipses all such human relationships, marriage will fall away in heaven (cf. Matt. 22, Mark 12, Luke 20).
Now that we have an understanding of marriage, we are in a better position to understand Jesus’ teaching on divorce. When the Pharisees came to Jesus with their questions, in Mark they ask why Moses "permitted" (epetrefen) divorce, whereas in Matthew’s account, they ask Jesus why Moses "commanded" (eneteileto) divorce. In his answer, it is clear that Jesus never considers divorce to be an acceptable option, and, in Matthew, corrects the thinking that it was a command. It is important to note that divorce is never commanded or demanded in Scripture. Deut. 24:1-4 does not contain an imperative (as the KJV translation implies) but rather a recognition of people’s sinfulness and a regulation to guard against further abuses once divorce had been decided upon. Deut. does not itself make any comment on the validity of divorce. In Matthew 19:8-9, Jesus shows that divorce was never part of God’s plan. Hagner suggests that these verses also indicate that "the new era of the present kingdom of God involves a return to the idealism of the pre-fall Genesis narrative" (1995:549).
In Mark 10:11-12, Jesus gives the case for divorce, talking about both husband and wife. The sense of the passage is that divorce causes the one initiating the divorce to be judged as one who has committed adultery. Although there may be an effect on the spouse (this is made explicit in Matt. 5:32), this is only hinted at in Mark. The reference to both divorce and remarriage can be confusing. The best interpretation seems to be that it is the divorce itself that is the cause of adultery. However, all of the passages are united in including the concept of remarriage as part of the statement of adultery. Thus, there seems to be a total ban on divorce and subsequent remarriage, except for the "exception clauses" in Matt. 5 and 19.
In these exception clauses, Jesus seems to allow one possible reason that divorce may be considered legitimate. This is in the case of adultery, or sexual unfaithfulness already having occurred. The issue involved in the debate between Hillel and Shammai was the interpretation of the Hebrew word, r b ; D ; t w ' r ] [ , (Deut. 24:1), translated "indecency" or, literally "a matter of uncleanness". Jesus uses the Greek word, porneia in the "exception clauses" of Matthew 5 and 19. The interpretation of both these concepts is fraught with confusion from all sides, mostly arising out of a desire to support a specific, predetermined view. For the sake of this paper, it is sufficient to point out that the word most certainly refers to sexual infidelity within marriage, but is likely to have a broader range of meanings within the area of relational infidelity. Similarly, the sixth commandment is also phrased in marital terms, although it is clearly taken to encompass all sexual sins (cf. Ex. 20:14; Matt. 5:27 - 32).
We have defined marriage as an exclusive relationship. Where one party breaks that relationship by becoming involved with another person (especially sexually), the basis of marriage is destroyed. We must be careful, however, not to fall into the same trap that the Pharisees did. They had so analysed Deut. 24, that they had lost sight of the real essence of marriage. We must not do the same, by building an entire edifice of practice on the basis of one word, porneia, which has a contested translation. The essence of marriage is a covenantal, exclusive relationship. Anything that is done to break this down would be considered a sin, and therefore come under judgement just as adultery (in its literal sense) would.
Thus, we agree with Adams that all divorce is as a result of sin (1980:30). It was never part of God’s plan. Having said this, not every divorce is sinful. The Bible acknowledges divorce and regulates it. In fact, God Himself is said to be divorced from Israel (Jer. 3:8). There are occasions when divorce is legitimate and accepted by God. The easiest to explain is the case of a believer whose unbelieving partner wishes to divorce (1 Cor. 7:12-16). Note that the believer may not institute the divorce, neither is the believer compelled to seek a divorce in these cases. In the case of porneia, divorce is permitted, though not demanded.
An additional reason for this interpretation is that if Jesus were totally forbidding, why then can Paul add a further "exception" in 1 Cor. 7:15? The only possible explanation is that Jesus’ words do not cover all possible situations. We return then to a comment made earlier, that all the passages in the Gospels have one thing in common - they refer to both divorce and remarriage. Blomberg offers what seems to be a credible solution. He compares Paul’s exception to Jesus’, and finds some points of similarity: (i) both destroy the essence of marriage as defined above; (ii) both leave one spouse outside their marriage covenant if reconciliation is spurned; (iii) both recognise that divorce is extremely serious and an admission of defeat in all attempts at reconciliation. He concludes that this seems to leave the door open to divorce as a final step - the best of a set of bad options (1992:293). This is to say that divorce is nevertheless a sin, it is failure and an admission of defeat. But, as such, it can be forgiven, on the basis of true repentance. It seems most likely from Mark and Matt. 19 that it is not the divorce itself that is the "adulterous" act. It is the breakdown of the first marriage covenant that is the sin.
Matt. 5, appears to negate this, as it seems to refer to the divorce causing the wife to sin. However, in the case presented by Jesus in Matt. 5, if the wife had committed adultery, thus giving the husband the right to divorce her, the divorce does not cause her to commit adultery, since she has already done so. If, on the other hand, it is the husband who has committed adultery (grammatically very unlikely in this passage), it seems strange that he is the one then addressed as initiating the divorce - surely his sin is not the divorce, but rather the initial adultery? Thus, Matt. 5:32 can be understood along the lines of Lenski, who argues that if the wife has not committed adultery, but her husband divorces her anyway, she will be stigmatised as an adulteress by those who look on the divorce from the outside.
His compelling argument is that the forms of the words for "causes her to commit adultery" (moiceuqhnai) and, referring to the man who marries this woman, "commits adultery" (moicatai) are actually passive, and that the agent of these passive verbs is the original husband, a point emphasised by the use of poiei with the passive infinitive. The use of the passive is noteworthy, especially as the active forms are used in the immediately preceding passage on adultery (Lenski 1943:232f.). Thus, the force of the passage is that the husband, who divorces his wife while she remains faithful to the relationship, is the one who sins, by sending his wife away. He also sins against any future husband of his wife, since she should still be in relationship with him. As Lenski points out, a failure on the part of the English language to express how this Greek concept of adultery in the passive voice is no excuse to simply translate it in the active. We must dynamically translate it according to Greek idiom. He thus suggests that we translate this verse: "every man releasing his wife without cause of fornication brings about that she is stigmatized as adulterous; and he who shall marry her that has been released is stigmatized as adulterous"(1943:230).
The reason for this is that divorce is simply a recognition of defeat in the task of trying to maintain the exclusive covenant of marriage. The cause of this breakdown is sin. Divorce is important as a point of no return (cf. Deut. 24:1-4, although not discounting reconciliation should that be possible, cf. 1 Cor. 7:11), which should only be the last resort. In that the divorce is a public recognition of sins that brought about the demise of the marriage, any Christian who is divorced must repent of these causal sins in order to be forgiven and restored. It is popular within counselling circles to refer to a "guilty" and "innocent" party within divorce. In very rare cases, this may be possible, but since we are all sinners, it is likely that there is culpability on both sides. Understanding the Scriptures as described above requires no reference to these categories.
Scripture is clear that God understands that, although His intention was for marriage to be eternal, as he created Adam and Eve perfectly and placing them as perfect beings within a perfect marriage relationship, sin has destroyed His plan. As we have seen, Scripture acknowledges and regulates how marriages are ended, and what may occur thereafter.
Based on the discussion above, and on other New Testament passages (beyond the scope of this paper to develop fully) such as Rom. 7:3, 1 Cor. 7:8-9, 39, and 1 Tim. 5:14, it is clear that legitimate grounds for the dissolution of a marriage is the death of one of the spouses. The issue is therefore whether a divorced person may be remarried. Adams correctly states that "all persons properly divorced may be remarried" (1980:86). In the footnote to this statement, he explains that this means they have been released from the obligation to their spouse, as per 1 Cor. 7:27. The key issue to address is whether the second marriage, after a divorce, constitutes adultery or not. It makes little difference to this discussion whether this adultery (if it be adultery at all) is a once off event, or ongoing in nature.
We saw above that every reference to divorce and adultery in the Gospels also refers to remarriage. Without violating the Greek translation at all, these texts could also be translated "if a man divorces his wife and then marries another, he commits adultery", or "if a man divorces his wife in order to marry another, he commits adultery". This makes sense in a culture where divorce was fairly easy for a husband to do. In order not to break the law of Moses and commit adultery, the husband would first divorce his wife on some trumped up charge, and then marry the woman he desired. This is viewed as adultery by God. Thus, it is clear that the one who breaks the marriage covenant is the one who sins.
As discussed above, Jesus’ comments, although referring to remarriage, are focussed on the divorce as the sin. We have also seen that is actually the sins that lead to divorce that are the real issue. It would seem, then, that Jesus’ teaching places no restriction on the remarriage of those divorced. In the light of this statement, a few comments must be made on two passages that have relevance to this issue.
The first is 2 Cor. 6:14, where believers are commanded not to be "unequally yoked" with unbelievers. This is taken that believers should not marry unbelievers. This makes sense, given all that has been discussed above. It would be impossible for a believer to be "one" with an unbeliever, and thus the marriage relationship would be doomed from the start.
The second passage is 1 Cor. 7:10-11. In this passage Paul is dealing with a variety of questions raised by the Corinthian church relating to marriage and sex. It seems unlikely that this particular response of Paul is a specific response to a very specific situation, which is not generally applicable. If this were the case, we would expect him to make that clear. The word, cwrisqhnai, translated in the NIV as "separate" in verse 10 is an aorist passive infinitive, meaning "to be separated from". It is difficult to view this as a command, since it does not appear to rely on the wife’s initiative. It would tend to imply that the husband has initiated the divorce (similar to the situation envisaged in Matt. 5). In addition, the next phrase, "but if she does" is in the aorist, which can mean, in relation to the aorist infinitive, that it is an existing situation (Conzelmann, in Morris 1985:105). Within the context of the passage, Paul has been encouraging people to remain single, like himself. Paul’s comment that she should be reconciled to her husband fits in with the general theme of the verses we have considered, that everything possible should be done to maintain the covenant of marriage. If the husband who divorced her wishes to be reconciled, the wife should seriously consider this.
It goes without saying that none of these things are an issue, if they have occurred before conversion. Even those who say that a Christian who gets divorced can never remarry because this is an eternal consequence of their divorce, have little difficulty accepting that an unbeliever who was divorced before conversion has no such restriction placed on them. Thus, they make God’s forgiveness more powerful at conversion than for the rest of the Christian’s life. While it is true that there are lasting consequences to sin, we must never forget the power of God’s forgiveness. Thus, the only prerequisite for remarriage of a divorcee is that the person be forgiven of their sins that led to the divorce, having fully admitted and repented to God.
To summarise by way of a number of statements:
Marriage, divorce and remarriage are all extremely significant events in the lives of individuals. They are thus times of extreme emotions. It is therefore necessary to be fully Biblical, in order not to be swayed by our emotions on these issues. We can never be led by the pragmatic options or the easy routes. We must always be led by the light of God’s command sin Scripture. The teaching of Scripture (OT and NT) condemns divorce (or rather, a broken marriage relationship) as sinful and against God's perfect will. However, it is not the unforgivable sin, and there is no place in Scripture which prohibits or condemns per se remarriage after divorce for a repentant divorcee. I trust that this paper will help us to deal with these issues, and to begin to develop a Biblically based, pastoral response to them.
Links
http://www.teachingpages.co.uk/minilesson/divorced.html
Bibliography
Adams, Jay E. Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.
Aland, Kurt, et al., Eds. The Greek New Testament. Third Edition, with Dictionary. United Bible Societies, 1975.
Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Third Edition. The International Critical Commentaries. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912.
Atkinson, D. J. "Divorce" In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
______. "Remarriage" In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. The New American Commentaries. Nashville: Broadmans Press, 1992.
Broadus, John. Commentary on Matthew. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990.
Cole, R. Alan. Mark. Revised Edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1989.
Collins, Gary R. Christian Counselling. British Edition. Milton Keynes: Word (UK), 1989.
Dunn, James D. G. Romans. Word Biblical Commentaries. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.
Duty, Guy. Divorce and Remarriage. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1967.
Field, D. H. "Sexuality" In New Dictionary of Theology. Eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988.
Granberg, L. I. "Marriage, Theology of" In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary Series. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.
______. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary Series. Dallas: Word Books, 1995.
Hare, Douglas. Matthew. Interpretation Commentaries. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1993.
Holladay, William L., Ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988.
Hugh, Anderson. Mark. New Century Bible Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943.
______. The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1946.
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 7:1 - 8:4. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1973.
______. Studies in the Sermon on the Mount. Second Edition, Single Volume. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1976.
Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida., Eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. Volumes 1 and 2. First South African Edition. Cape Town: United Bible Societies, 1989.
Martin, John R. Divorce and Remarriage. Second Edition. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1976.
Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. New Century Bible Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1981.
Meilaender, G. C. "Sexuality" In New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology. Eds. David J. Atkinson and David H. Fields. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.
Miller, Patrick D. Deuteronomy. Interpretation Commentaries. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.
Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians. Revised Edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985.
Nixon, R. E. "Matthew" In New Bible Commentary. Third Edition. Eds: D Guthrie, et al. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970.
Olthuis, J. H. "Marriage" In New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology. Eds. David J. Atkinson and David H. Fields. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.
Perkin, H. W. "Marriage, Marriage Customs in Bible Times" In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.
Perschbacher, Wesley J., Ed. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody: Hendriksen Publishers, 1990.
Stott, John. Issues Facing Christians Today. British Edition. London: Marshall Pickering, 1990.
Swift, C. E. Graham. "Mark" In New Bible Commentary. Third Edition. Eds: D Guthrie, et al. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970.
Tasker, R. V. G. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961.
Wenham, G. J. "Divorce" In New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology. Eds. David J. Atkinson and David H. Fields. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995.
If you have not yet done so, please e-mail Graeme at graeme@codrington.biz now to tell him that you are using his paper.