Your advice is errant. There ARE hard and fast rules on this, given by Jesus Himself, and repeated by the Apostles, and lived by the early church, even acknowledged by the Orthodox church until the middle ages and recognized and acknowledged as the law of Christ still today by the Catholic church. (I am not Catholic, just learned.) Protestantism is the only formation of Christian religion (besides paganist cults) that has never acknowledged this clear teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
Your advice is the errant advice of corrupt men. It is the fool-hardy advice of the ignorant and worldly. Divorce and remarriage is adultery. Marriage is for life. Please read my post below.
I know that you will find Matthew chapters 5 and 19 and declare the "exception clause" but if you do so, you will do so in either ignorance or intentional sin. This contradicting (in appearance) phrase of Matthew has been mistaught for generations. Ask yourself this, why does Matthew APPEAR to conflict with Mark and Luke regarding marriage?
Amen, let us recognize God's word and the reason why Jesus died under cross for us.
I sincerely recommend that you find a congregation that teaches the Truth,
Amen. Bless you Brother.
Hi Brad,
Wow Thank you for the many blessings bestowed. I am not here to represent any religious denomination, religious tradition or religious doctrine. For when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior, through Jesus, God sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in me. The Holy Spirit dwells in us as a counselor and a teacher. It is of the Holy Spirit that convicts us of our sins and transforms us from our sins. Let no man's teachings of the gospel convict you of anything. It should be from the Holy Spirit that dwells in you. Let your spiritual eyes and ears be open to the word of God so the Holy Spirit can convict you in the word of God. "God is not dead".
This is a rather long explanation about divorce and remarriage and covers both old and new testment. But let me remind you if you believe it is a sin in what ever you do "it is a sin". (Romans 14:22-23) yes is is a scripture about food, yet also the Holy Spirit will convict you of what you see in scripture. I do not offer this as a teaching from me, for there is only one teacher for you and that would be the Holy Spirit. This is only one man's explanation of scripture. The verification of the truth or untruth of the words is within you.
(I am not Catholic, just learned.) I also am learning scripture day by day through devotional and studies of the word of God daily, may we continue to be devoted and faithful to Christ in seeking the truth of the word of God.
Somethings that you may want to read, I only included Matthew, Mark and Luke. Go to link for more.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible
THE MARRIAGE COVENANT: A BIBLICAL STUDY ON MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE
Chapter 6
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE IN THE BIBLE
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University
3. The Teaching of Jesus in Mark and Luke
The teaching of Jesus is fundamental to the study of the Biblical view of divorce and remarriage because Jesus clarifies the reason for the Old Testament concession (Deut 24:1) and reaffirms God’s creational design for marriage to be a permanent, indissoluble covenant. The two major passages containing the teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage are found in Mark 10:1-12 and Matthew 19:1-12. Both passages report the same incident and are placed in the same geographical setting (Matt. 19:1; Mark 10:1). Both passages record the same questions asked by the Pharisees and the same response given by Christ (Matt 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-9).
In spite of the essential similarities, there is one crucial difference between the two passages, namely the exception found in Matthew 19:9 which teaches that divorce and remarriage "except for fornication" is adultery. Whereas Matthew includes twice what has come to be known as the "exception clause" (Matt 19:9; 5:32), Mark and Luke exclude it entirely. Before examining the possible reasons for the exclusion of the exception clause in Mark and Luke and for its inclusion twice in Matthew, it is helpful to consider the setting of the episode.
The Setting. Jesus had concluded His Galilean ministry and was journeying through Perea to Jerusalem for the Passover and His crucifixion when He was approached by the Pharisees with a theological
test question: "And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any reason?’" (Matt 19:3; cf. Mark 10:2).
The intent of the question was not to learn from Jesus but to get Him into trouble. They were determined to destroy Jesus (Matt 12:14; Mark 3:6) and His travelling through Perea, the territory under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, offered them a unique opportunity. After all, Herod Antipas had John the Baptist beheaded for condemning publicly his incestuous marriage to Herodias, who was his niece and the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip (Matt 14:6-12). The Pharisees must have thought that if they could trick Jesus into condemning the illegitimate marriage of Herod of Antipas by means of a "test" question on divorce, this would result in His arrest and execution.
The Pharisees’ Question. The test question the Pharisees posed to Jesus centered on the significance of the phrase "some indecency" found in Deuteronomy 24:1. There was a major debate among the rabbis over the meaning of this phrase. The Mishna, which contains the oral traditions of Judaism, tells us how the conservative school of Shammai and the liberal school of Hillel interpreted the phrase: "The school of Shammai said: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has discovered something unchaste about her, for it is written, ‘Because he has found some unseemly thing in her’ (Deut 24:1). But the school of Hillel said: He may divorce her even if she spoiled a dish for him for it is written, ‘Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.’"7
It is remarkable to see how the same Biblical text (Deut 24:1) was interpreted in two radically different ways. The Pharisees wanted to force Christ to choose between the two schools so that they could use His answer to accuse Him either of laxity or narrow rigorism. Jesus, however, chose not to take sides. Instead, He answered by calling attention to God’s original plan for marriage: "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt 19:4; cf. Mark 10:6-9).
Christ’s answer is characteristic. He immediately calls attention to God’s original plan for marriage, almost chiding them for failing to realize that divorce is totally alien to such a plan. God’s original plan consists of a man and a woman being united in a marriage bond so strong that the two actually become one flesh (Gen 2:26; Matt 19:6; Mark 10:8). The "one flesh" unity of the couple is reflected especially in their offspring who partake of the genetic characteristics of father and mother, and the two are absolutely inseparable. Jesus affirms that it is God Himself who actually joins together a couple in marriage and what God has joined together no human being has the right to separate.
Moses’ Permission. It is significant that Christ answered the Pharisees’ question as to whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife by affirming the permanence of the God-ordained marriage union. Such an answer, however, provoked another question on the part of the Pharisees: "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" (Matt 19:7). By this question the Pharisees apparently intended to challenge the position Christ had just enunciated by assuming that Moses did command divorce. The argument of the Pharisees could be paraphrased as follows: if according to its original institution, marriage is a permanent union that cannot be dissolved by human authority, why then did Moses command divorce? Is not Your teaching contradicted by Moses’ commandment?
Christ’s answer is of fundamental importance because it clarifies the whole question of the Old Testament Mosaic provision. "He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’" (Matt 19:8; cf. Mark 10:5-6).
Two features of Christ’s reply should be noticed. First, the phrase "for the hardness of your hearts" implies that the Mosaic permission was occasioned by the insubordination and stubbornness of the Israelites. The latter did not invalidate the original institution of marriage as a permanent union. The bill of divorce was intended to regulate a perverse situation and not to abrogate the divine institution of marriage.
A second significant element of Jesus’ reply is the distinction between the verb He used to describe Moses’ provision and the verb used by the Pharisees. Jesus said that Moses "allowed" divorce while the Pharisees said that Moses "commanded" divorce.8 The verb Jesus used implies sufferance or tolerance of divorce but not a sanction of its practice. In the Mosaic economy, divorce was permitted because of the hardheartedness of the Israelites, but from the beginning there was no such permission. This means that the Mosaic permission was a departure from the creation ordinance of marriage which no man has the right to put asunder.
Jesus utterly condemns divorce as contrary to the divine institution of marriage. Divorce is the sundering by man of a union God Himself has constituted. As John Murray puts it, "Divorce is the breaking of a seal which has been engraven by the hand of God."9
A Clarification for the Disciples. Christ’s condemnation of divorce as a violation of God’s original plan for marriage apparently perplexed the disciples. Presumably they were wondering what would be the moral consequences if a man divorced his wife. Later that day when Jesus had found lodging ("in the house"), the disciples began questioning Him on this subject. And Jesus said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12).
The unconditional form of Christ’s statement in Mark 10:11-12 (and Luke 16:18) where no exceptions are allowed for divorce serves to emphasize the abrogation of the Mosaic permission for divorce (Deut 24:1-4). Jesus declares to His disciples in no uncertain terms that, contrary to the Mosaic concession, divorce and remarriage by either the husband or the wife is a sin of adultery clearly condemned by God’s law. A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman is sinning not only against God but also against his former wife. He "commits adultery against her" because by marrying another woman, he is violating his covenant of commitment to his wife.
Mark applies the same rule to both the husband and the
wife, a truth not expressed in Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Matt 19:9). The reason is that Matthew was writing for Jews among whom it was most uncommon for a wife to divorce her husband. But what was most uncommon among the Jews was common in the Graeco-Roman world where, in matters of divorce, wives enjoyed equal rights with their husbands. Since Mark writes for a predominantly Gentile readership, he records the application of Christ’s teaching to both the husband and the
wife.
With a few simple words in Mark, Jesus overrides the Mosaic concession and its rabbinic interpretations by pointing back to the great marriage charter of Genesis. In view of the fact that in the beginning when God established marriage, divorce was not permitted, for a husband or a wife to divorce his/her spouse means to act against the will of the Creator for marriage.
Jesus envisions marriage not as a mere social or civil contract that can be terminated through a legal proceeding but as a sacred and lifelong covenant. Those who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery. Such a radical teaching, as Hugh Montefiore points out, "was revolutionary to Jewish ways of thought. So far as we know, Jesus was alone among Jewish teachers when He asserted that marriage was intended by God to be lasting and permanent."10
The Contribution of Luke 16:18. In Luke, the teaching of Jesus on divorce is placed in a different context, namely, in the context of the proclamation of the Gospel of the kingdom of God which began with John the Baptist: "The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently" (Luke 16:16). The subject matter that was expanded by the religious leaders until the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry was the Law and the Prophets. But with the appearance of John, the proclamation of the good news of the kingdom of God began.
Some of the Pharisees mistakenly concluded that John and Jesus taught the termination of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus, however, emphasizes in Luke 16:17 that the inauguration of the kingdom of God does not set aside God’s law: "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void."
In the following verse Jesus drives home His point using divorce as an illustration. The Pharisees thought they were upholding the letter of the law by arguing about what constituted legitimate grounds for a divorce. Jesus reveals the permanence and true spirit of God’s law by condemning divorce and remarriage as a sin of adultery: "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery" (Luke 16:18). In this statement, Jesus condemns as adultery not only the act of divorcing one’s wife but also the act of marrying a divorced woman. The reason for the latter is that divorce does not destroy the indelible bond formed when a man and a woman enter into a marriage covenant.
The teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 makes no allowance for divorce and remarriage by either the husband or the wife. Marriage for Jesus is not a mere civil contract that can be terminated but a divinely established covenant relationship that must not be put asunder. God is not interested in divorce but in the permanence of our marital relationship. If we divorce and remarry, we commit adultery.
4. The Teaching of Jesus in Matthew
The Contribution of Matthew. Matthew makes three significant contributions about Jesus’ teachings on divorce which are not found in Mark or Luke. Before looking at them, we must understand why Matthew provides some of the Lord’s teaching on divorce not found in Mark 10. The apparent reason is the different readership. Mark wrote for Gentile readers while Matthew for Jewish readers. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each writer recorded those elements of the teaching of Jesus that would apply to their audiences. This is indicated by the fact that Matthew frequently quotes Old Testament scriptures while Mark cites them only in a few instances, obviously because the Gentiles had little appreciation for the sacred Scriptures. Mark takes pains to explain certain Jewish tradition and terms (cf. Mark 7:2, 11,34; 5:41; 9:43; 14:12, 36) unfamiliar to Gentile readers.
We noted earlier that only Mark mentions the possibility of a woman divorcing her husband (Mark 10:12) because that was common in the Graeco-Roman world. Matthew omits that part of Jesus’ teaching because Jewish law made no allowance for a woman to divorce her husband. It is evident, then, that each gospel writer selectively recorded those elements of Jesus’ teaching that would apply to his Christian community. Since Matthew is writing to Jewish-Christian readers he mentions three significant aspects of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage which are omitted by Mark and Luke.
The first significant Matthean contribution regarding Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage is found in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. Here Jesus encourages living in conformity to the spirit of the law rather than to its letter. Contrary to the Pharisees who allowed divorce by appealing to the letter of the Mosaic concession (Matt 5:31; cf. Deut 24:1-4), Jesus disallows divorce but for one exception (Matt 5:32) by revealing the true intent of God’s law.
The second significant Matthean contribution is the response of the disciples to Jesus’ teaching: "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry" (Matt 19:10). Apparently, the disciples had been following either the rabbinical view of Shammai which allowed divorce only on the ground of adultery or of Hillel which permitted divorce for any reason. When they understood that Jesus in essence made no allowance for divorce, they responded in astonishment, "If one cannot get out of marriage, then it is better not to marry in the first place." Jesus then declared that not all can accept a celibate life (Matt 19:11-12). This brief dialogue between Jesus and the disciples recorded by Matthew reveals, indirectly and yet forcefully, that Jesus taught the permanence of the marriage relationship.
The Exception Clause. The third significant Matthean contribution is the exception clause of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 which teaches that to divorce and to remarry, "except for unchastity [
porneia]" is adultery: "But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matt 5:32). "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9).
The exception clause found in these two texts has been the object of countless studies. A major reason is that many find in this clause the only legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage. Scholarly opinion on the meaning of the exception clause is divided, reflecting the lack of unanimity among scholars about the precise meaning of the key word of the clause, namely
porneia. The word is generally translated as "fornication" (KJV), "unchastity" (RSV), and "marital unfaithfulness" (NIV).
The Greek word
porneia, from which we derive the word "pornography," comes from the root word
pernemi—"to sell." The original idea was to offer one’s body for a price. The word was used especially of slaves and meant "a harlot for hire."11 Historically,
porneia has been used with wider and narrower meanings. The wider meaning includes unlawful extra-marital intercourse such as prostitution, fornication, and adultery. The narrower meaning can refer to sexual aberrations such as homosexuality (cf. Rom 1:29), incest (cf. 1 Cor 5:1) , and unlawful marriages within the forbidden degrees of relationship (Acts 15:20,29). The question then is, what is the exact meaning of
porneia in the exception clause (Matt 5:32; 19:9)? Is Jesus using the term in its wider or narrower meaning? Scholarly opinion differs on this matter as indicated by the five major interpretations of the exception clause.
Adultery or Sexual Misconduct. The traditional and most popular interpretation of the exception clause takes
porneia in its wider meaning of sexual misconduct. Thus, Jesus allows divorce when one party has been guilty of marital unfaithfulness. This view is reflected in most translations where
porneia is translated as "fornication" (KJV), "unchastity" (RSV), or "marital unfaithfulness" (NIV). Advocates of this view maintain that the exception clause allows for the divorce and remarriage of the innocent party, since divorce implies the dissolution of the marriage relationship. In this case, Jesus would be siding with the conservative school of Shammai which allowed divorce when the wife was convicted of serious sexual misconduct.
Problems with the Sexual Misconduct View. In spite of its popularity, this interpretation has several problems. In the first place, it contradicts the immediate context where Jesus rejects the Mosaic provision of divorce as being against God’s creational plan for the permanence of the marriage union: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6). The present imperative of the verb (
kovizeto) "let not put asunder" enjoins the cessation of a practice in progress, namely, the severing of marriage unions permanently established by God.
In the light of Christ’s refusal to accept the Mosaic provision for divorce, it is hard to imagine that He would make allowance for the dissolution of marriage in the case of sexual misconduct. If the latter were true, Jesus would be contradicting what He had just affirmed regarding the permanence of the marriage union. His teaching would represent not a rejection of the Mosaic concession but merely an interpretation essentially similar to that of the Shammaites. But the Pharisees certainly understood Jesus’ teaching to be in conflict with Moses ("Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"—Matt 19:7). The clear conflict between Jesus’ teaching on the permanence of the marriage union and the Mosaic concession, logically rules out the wider meaning of
porneia as sexual misconduct.
Would Christ teach that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees and then side with one party of the Pharisees by saying that a man should not divorce his wife except for the cause of unfaithfulness? If that were true, where would the superiority of Christ’s teaching be? And why would the disciples be astonished at His teaching? They could well have expected Christ to side more with the conservative view of Shammai than with the liberal view of Hillel? In the light of considerations such as these,
porneia must have a narrower meaning that does not contradict the astonishingly radical and revolutionary teaching of Matthew 19:3-9.
A second problem with interpretating
porneia as sexual misconduct is posed by the teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18 where divorce and remarriage are condemned as adultery without any exceptions. While today we can bring together the teaching of Jesus on divorce as found in all the three Synoptic Gospels, the Gentile readers of Mark’s or Luke’s Gospels, who did not have access to Matthew’s Gospel which circulated primarily among the Jewish-Christians, had no way of knowing that Jesus made allowance for divorce and remarriage in the case of marital unfaithfulness.
A third problem with interpretating the exception clause as sexual misconduct is that it contradicts Paul’s "no divorce" teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. In this passage, Paul claims to give Christ’s own command by enjoining the wife not to separate from her husband and the husband not to divorce his wife. The total prohibition of divorce by Paul reflects the teaching of Jesus found in Mark and Luke.
A fourth problem with the interpretation of
porneia as sexual misconduct (adultery) is that this term is not the normal word for adultery, though it may include it. The normal Greek term for adultery is
moicheia, a term used by Jesus in all the divorce texts to describe the outcome of divorce and remarriage, namely, "commits adultery." If Jesus intended to permit divorce specifically in the case of adultery, He would probably have used the explicit term
moicheia. The fact that He used another term suggests that
porneia may refer to something other than adultery.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that there is no provision in the Pentateuch for divorce in the case of adultery. The penalty for proven adultery was death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22, 23-27) and not divorce. The same was true in the case of a woman who had engaged in premarital sex before marriage (Deut 22:13-21). She was stoned to death and not divorced. There are no indications in the Pentateuch that divorce was ever allowed for sexual misconduct.
A fifth problem with interpreting the exception clause as sexual misconduct is that it fails to take into account the astonishment of the disciples at the saying of Jesus. As Edward Schillebeeck points out, "If Matthew 19:9 is taken to mean that Jesus was siding with the followers of the school of Shammai, who permitted divorce on grounds of adultery, then the astonishment expressed in the apostles’ answers would be incomprehensible—‘then it is not expedient to marry’ (19:10). Their astonishment is only explicable if Christ in fact rejected all possibility of the dissolution of marriage. His rejection is reinforced by the statement: ‘Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given’" (19:11).12 In the light of the foregoing considerations, we are bound to conclude that it is most unlikely that by the exception of
porneia, Jesus meant to allow for divorce and remarriage on the grounds of adultery or sexual misconduct. Respect for the astonishing and radical teaching of Matthew 19:3-9 requires that
porneia be interpreted in a narrower sense.
Unfaithfulness During the Betrothal Period. A second interpretation of the exception clause is that Jesus allowed for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality during the betrothal period.13 Unlike modern engagement, the Jewish betrothal was a legal contract that was as binding as marriage (Deut 20:7; 22:24). If the betrothed proved unfaithful prior to the consummation of the marriage, legal action could be taken and divorce could be obtained. Following this custom, when Joseph discovered that Mary was expecting a child while betrothed to him, he planned to divorce her quietly rather than exposing her to public disgrace (Matt 1:18, 19).
According to this view, the exception of
porneia allows divorce only in the case of unfaithfulness during the betrothal period. By her infidelity, the betrothed girl had broken her agreement to marry, and consequently, the man could be released from his obligation to marry the girl since marriage had not yet been consummated. The exception clause would then apply only to the ancient Jewish betrothal practice and not to modern marriages.
The betrothal interpretation of the exception clause does take into account the Jewish orientation of Matthew’s Gospel and finds support in the example of Joseph and Mary (Matt 1:19). The most obvious objection to this interpretation, however, is that the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees centered on
marriage and not on betrothal. It seems unlikely that Jesus would reply to the Pharisees’ question regarding the Mosaic provision for divorce by referring to unfaithfulness during the betrothal period, a situation which is foreign to the Mosaic provision and to the subject under discussion. Moreover, this interpretation does not account adequately for the absence of the exception clause in Mark and Luke, for the betrothal practice was common among the Greeks and the Romans to whom the exception would also apply. Another point to be noted is that the word
porneia is never used in the New Testament to describe the sin of illicit relations during the betrothal period.
Refusal of Jesus to Comment. A third interpretation attempts to explain Matthew’s exception clause by concentrating on the sentence as a whole. Some scholars argue that
porneia is to be equated with "something indecent" of Deuteronomy 24:1 and then suggest that Jesus refused to comment on the meaning of the Deuteronomic phrase. According to this view, the exception clause should be translated as "setting aside the matter of
porneia."14
This view is attractive because it concentrates on the overall meaning of the passage, rather than on a single word. It upholds the fundamental truth affirmed by Jesus that from the beginning God established marriage as an indissoluble, life-long relationship. It also harmonizes the difference between Matthew and Mark/Luke in Jesus’ teaching on divorce. Writing to Jewish readers, Matthew refers to their legitimate concern about
porneia without suggesting that Jesus has made it a ground for divorce. In spite of its attractiveness, this view lacks grammatical support because the Greek words do not allow such a translation.
Inclusive Meaning of Exception Clause. A fourth interpretation gives the exception clause an
inclusive rather than exclusive meaning. A number of modern exegetes have argued that the Greek words translated as "except for unchastity" (RSV), do not have any limiting meaning in this context. In this case, the passage of Matthew 19:9 would read: "Whoever divorces his wife, even if she has committed adultery and marries another, commits adultery."15
According to this interpretation, Matthew wanted to impress upon his Jewish readers that not even adultery constituted a valid ground for divorce. This interpretation may be grammatically possible, but it seems rather unusual because it is based on a rather uncommon inclusive usage of the word
parektos, usually translated "except for." This inclusive interpretation is based upon what Bruce Vawter calls "linguistic acrobatics," which turns "except" into "even including."16 It must be granted, however, that this interpretation does harmonize with the immediate context where Jesus rejects the Mosaic provision for divorce by pointing back to God’s original plan for marriage as a permanent covenant.
Marriages Unlawful According to Mosaic Law. A fifth view is based on a narrower interpretation of
porneia as referring to marriages which conflicted with the conditions laid down by Leviticus (Lev 18:6-18).17 In His call to practical holiness, God prohibited His people from marrying near relatives. Such marriages are condemned presumably because they are the result of sexual passion rather than of genuine love.
According to this interpretation, Jesus allows for divorce only where a marriage should not have taken place in the first place, namely, within the degrees of prohibited relationships. Consequently, in Matthew, Jesus does not envisage any exception to the absolute ban on divorce but only allows for the dissolution of a marriage which was validly contracted according to Greco-Roman laws but which was in conflict with the Mosaic law of prohibited relationships.
It may be objected that the Mosaic prohibition against incestuous marriages precludes any provision on the part of Christ for a legitimate divorce. This objection, however, as Carl Laney points out, "does not hold up under close scrutiny, for the Israelites were commanded not to marry foreign women (Deut 7:3-4), but when the command was violated in Ezra 9-10, the unlawful marriages were dissolved. The prohibition would not preclude the possibility of violation and the need to deal with an illegal incestuous situation."18
This view appears to me as the most satisfactory and enjoys considerable scholarly support. Among the scholars who advocate this view, mention can be made of J. Bonsirven, H. Cazelles, M. Berrouard, J. Kahmann, W. K. Lowther Clark, and more recently Charles Ryrie and the noted New Testament scholar, F. F. Bruce.19 Commenting on the use of
porneia in Acts 15:20,29, Bruce notes: "But fornication could bear a more technical sense of marital union within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity laid down by the Hebrew ‘law of holiness’ (Lev 18:6-18). There are one or two other places in the New Testament where fornication may have this technical sense—e.g. the concession ‘except on the ground of fornication’ added in the Matthean version of Jesus’ prohibition of divorce for his followers (Matt 5:32; 19:9)."20 Four major arguments support this view of the exception clause.
(1) New Testament Use of Porneia. One of the possible lexical meanings of
porneia is "incest" or "incestuous marriage."21 We find this meaning in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where Paul demands the expulsion of a Christian who has married his stepmother, a clear violation of Leviticus 18:8. The same meaning of
porneia appears in Acts 15:20, 29 where the Jerusalem Council recommends that Gentile converts should abstain from idol sacrifices, blood, meat of strangled animals, and
porneia. It is significant to note, as Carl Laney points out, "the order suggested first by James (Acts 15:20) and then given by the Council (Acts 15:29):
James
Idol Sacrifices Lev. 17:8-9
Porneia Lev. 18:6-18
Things Strangled Lev. 17:13-14
Blood Lev. 17:10-12
The Council
Idol Sacrifices Lev. 17:8-9
Blood Lev. 17:10-12
Things Strangled Lev. 17:13-14
Porneia Lev. 18:6-18
It is quite apparent that James was thinking of the Leviticus 17-18 restrictions but suggested them in the wrong order (Acts 15:20). Then, when the Council formulated its decision, the restrictions were recorded in their correct order according to Leviticus 17-18 (Acts 15:29)."22
In the light of the correlation existing between the four recommendations of the Jerusalem Council and the regulations of Leviticus 17-18 which appears to be the source of the Council’s recommendations, it seems plausible to conclude that
porneia refers not to sexual immorality in general, but to the forbidden marriage relationships of Leviticus 18:6-18 in particular.
There was no need for the Jerusalem Council to require Gentile converts to abstain from sexual immorality in general for they were required to abstain from it anyway. Since the recommendations of the Council were designed to reduce tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians, the requirement to abstain from
porneia must be, like the others, based on levitical laws still respected by Jewish Christians. "It is clear from Acts 15," note Bernard Leeming and R. A. Dyson, "that there was, early in Christian history, considerable discussion about the matter [of
porneia] among Hebrew converts, and the Council of Jerusalem may well have legislated before Matthew’s Gospel was written, with full knowledge that Christ had spoken in this sense."23
The Jews who became Christians continued to obey the Mosaic laws of prohibited relationships, but Gentile converts did not feel bound to such laws as indicated by the case of a Corinthian Christian who had married his step-mother (1 Cor 5:1). This inevitably led to a conflict which the Jerusalem Council solved by exempting the Gentiles from the law of circumcision while expecting them to obey the laws relating to idol sacrifice, blood, things strangled, and illicit marriage to a near relative.
"Since," as Lowther Clark points out, "the first three articles of the compromise are concerned with practices which were abhorrent to the Jews but seemed innocent enough to the Gentiles, the fourth must be of a similar nature. The passage of 1 Corinthians gives us the clue.
Porneia here means
marriage within the prohibited Levitical degrees. In this matter, Gentile Christianity wholly adopted Jewish standards, and the decree became obsolete because there was no longer any difference of opinion. But for a decade or two, especially in places like Antioch, where Jew and Gentile met and where the agitation culminating in the decree arose,
marriage within the prohibited degrees was a live issue, and
porneia was the word by which it was known."24 Applying this meaning of
porneia to the exception clause, the Lord in Matthew allows one exception to the universal rule of no-divorce, namely, in the case of an illicit marriage to a near relative.
(2) Jewish Context of Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew wrote his gospel principally for Jewish converts to Christianity. Jewish-Christians continued to follow the Mosaic marriage laws which prohibited marriage with a near relative (Lev 18:6-18). Gentile converts to Christianity kept the Greco-Roman laws of marriage. This would explain why Matthew, in writing to a Jewish-Christian audience familiar with the prohibitions against marriage to a near relative, includes the exception clause ("except for
porneia"). Mark and Luke omit the clause presumably because Gentile Christians were less likely than Jewish Christians to marry a near relative. Gentile people were not as tribally related as Jewish people.
Support for this interpretation of
porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is provided by first century Palestinian literature. Joseph Fitzmyer has shown that
porneia is the Greek translation of the Hebrew
zenut (cf. LXX Jer 3:2,9) which is used in the Qumran material to refer to marriage within the forbidden degrees of relationship.25 The same use is found in later Jewish literature.26
(3) Historical Setting. The narrower interpretation of the
porneia exception as referring to incestuous marriages prohibited in Leviticus 18:6-18 is supported also by the historical setting of Christ’s dispute with the Pharisees. Since the dispute occurred in Perea (Matt 19:1; Mark 10:1), the territory governed by Herod Antipas, it is quite likely that the Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into making a statement against the incestuous marriage of Herod Antipas. John the Baptist was imprisoned and executed for condemning Herod Antipas for divorcing his wife in order to marry the wife of his brother Philip (Matt 14:4). Antipas had violated the Mosaic law which stated, "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; she is your brother’s nakedness" (Lev 18:16; cf. 20:21).
The Pharisees presumably hoped that Jesus would follow John in openly condemning the incestuous marriage of Herod Antipas. Jesus, however, chose not to condemn directly Herod Antipas, but rather to state the principle that divorce is only permitted in the case of an unlawful marriage. Thus, the historical and geographical setting of the exception clause supports the interpretation of
porneia as a reference to marriage within prohibited relationships (Lev 18:6-18).
(4) Immediate Context. The immediate context supports the narrower interpretation of the
porneia exception as a reference to the prohibited relationships of Leviticus 18:6-18. In Matthew 19:4-8, Christ rejects the Mosaic provision for divorce as a mere concession to human rebellion running contrary to God’s original plan for marriage. In this context, it would be inconsistent for Jesus to proceed to make a concession of his own for divorce in the case of sexual misconduct.
The whole purpose of Christ’s argument which moved from Deuteronomy to Genesis, that is to say, from the Mosaic letter of the law which allowed divorce to the creational design of the law which excluded divorce, would be nullified if in the end He simply returned to Deuteronomy again. On the other hand, it would be consistent with what Christ had just declared for Him to say that God’s plan for marriage aloowed for divorce only in the case of an illegally contracted marriage to a near relative. In all other instances, marriage is a lifelong and binding covenant commitment.
The possibility of marrying a near relative was very real in the tribal Jewish society which consisted of large blood-related families. I was made forcefully aware of this fact while teaching in Ethiopia. Students belonging to the same tribe often referred to one another as brothers or sisters because to some degrees they were all related to one another. The situation was not much different in tribal Jewish society where it was relatively easy to marry a near relative. This can explain why Jesus in Matthew—a gospel written for Jewish Christians—would make allowance for divorce in the case of an illegally contracted marriage to a near relative.
Another aspect of the immediate context, which indirectly supports the unlawful marriage view of
porneia, is the reaction of the disciples: "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry" (Matt 19:10). Such a reaction is only explicable if Jesus rejected the possibility of divorce, except in the rare cases of marriage among near relatives where marriage should not have taken place in the first place.
Had Jesus permitted divorce for sexual misconduct, He would have hardly provoked such a reaction on the part of His disciples, since such a view was widely known and promoted by the rabbinical school of Shammai. The astonishment of the disciples indirectly proves that they understood Christ’s standard for marriage to be immeasurably higher and more exacting than that of the stricter rabbinical school of interpretation.
Conclusion. Our study of the Jewish setting, historical and geographical background, and the immediate context of Matthew 19:1-12 suggests that by the exception clause ("except for
porneia") Jesus permitted divorce only in the case of an unlawful marriage to a near relative. By means of the
porneia exception, Christ did not intend to impose the Levitical norms for legitimate marriage, but simply to declare that when such norms were violated, there was a valid reason for the dissolution of marriage.
This view is consistent with the absolute value that Mark, Luke, and Paul place on the saying of Jesus. We are bound to conclude that by the exception phrase about
porneia, Jesus did not intend to open the way for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual misconduct. Rather, He wished to reaffirm the creational principle of the permanence of the marriage union by allowing for divorce only in the case of an unlawful marriage. In the light of this conclusion, Matthew 19:9 would read: "whoever divorces his wife, unless his union with her is illegitimate, and marries another, commits adultery."
The teaching of Jesus in the Gospels can be summarized in two points. First, divorce is forbidden because it violates God’s intention that marriage be a permanent union of two persons. Second, remarriage after divorce is adultery because divorce does not dissolve the marriage union.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter we have found that both the Old and New Testaments clearly and consistently condemn divorce as a violation of God’s original plan for marriage as a lifelong union that enables a man and a woman to become "one flesh." Respect for this fundamental principle demands that a Christian couple experiencing marital conflicts should not seek to resolve them through divorce. If a marriage relationship becomes intolerable, a Christian couple can consider a legal separation. The purpose of the separation should be to provide an opportunity for the couple to work toward a possible reconciliation. It is only when reconciliation is no longer possible that divorce and remarriage are permissible.
Notes:
There is an apparent discrepancy in the form of the Pharisees’ question and of the Lord’s reply between Matthew 19:7,8 on the one hand, and Mark 10:3-5 on the other. In Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees ask: "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" In His reply Jesus says: "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives." But in Mark 10:3-5 the verbs appear in the reverse order. Jesus asks, "What did Moses command you?" and the Pharisees reply, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and put her away." To which Jesus replies, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment" (Mark 10:5).
The apparent discrepancy between Matthew and Mark can be resolved by considering several points. First, by saying "What did Moses command you?" (Mark10:3), Christ was possibly referring not merely to Deuteronomy 24:1-14 but primarily to the whole Mosaic revelation, including Genesis 2:24. In such a case Christ would have meant, "What are the teaching of Moses on this matter?"
Second, even if Jesus alluded only to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, it does not necessarily follow that Jesus meant that Moses required men to put away their wives. He could have simply meant, "What was the Mosaic legislation on this matter?" The Mosaic legislation did not require divorce, but it did require certain strict procedures if a divorce was given. In that sense it would be a prescription or a command. (Emphasis supplied).
@Edward I do hope you and yours truly will be able to share your personal testimony on Talk Jesus Forum . May we lead our lives for the glory of god.
But yet every day of my life my personal testimony is being written, When your eyes are opened to God, the wonderful things in your life are seen each day and is testimony of God's love for us. But honestly for last month I have been working on writing something. Where inspiration keeps adding to it.
God Bless, In all you do and all you say, may it be for the Glory of God.
May God Bless you in your new journey. Remember God First and everything else will fall into place. Matthew 6: 33 KJV.
