Volume 2
- Study 17
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
The emphasis of the Christian Scriptures is against divorce until it becomes unavoidable.
The sin which finally leads to divorce is the persistent breaking of the marriage vows.
MISUNDERSTANDING FROM THE SECOND CENTURY
To gain a complete understanding of the various Christian Scripture statements concerning
divorce and remarriage it is necessary to understand the background knowledge and
assumptions of a first-century reader. Sadly this background had already been forgotten by
the second century because:
1. Early Jewish Christians were expelled from the synagogues and their later generations
were unaware of relevant Jewish teaching.
2. The destruction of Jerusalem and its temple system in A.D. 70 meant that there were
no Shammaite rabbis around who had taught several of the same things that Jesus
taught on marital matters.
3. Only the Jewish Hillelite ‘for any cause’ type of divorce was known to the Christians.
They rejected this because they knew that it contradicted their understanding of the
teachings of Jesus and Paul on divorce and remarriage.
4. The 2nd century Christian Congregation was largely comprised of Gentiles who also
were unaware of Jewish issues concerning divorce.
5. The Hebrew Scriptures were essential for a correct understanding of divorce. However,
there was a mindset of rejection of these on the part of some Christian groups - the
most heretical being the Marcionites.
This situation meant that the Early Church Fathers misunderstood the texts of the Christian
Scriptures concerning divorce and remarriage; and for this reason they taught that there could
be no scriptural divorce or remarriage for a Christian and that it would be only with
the death of their spouse that any Christian could remarry. The later development of making
marriage as something sanctified by the church and so making it a sacrament is a
further unbiblical position and which implies that those outside of the church do not have
valid marriages. So the modified view, which is now the traditional view, allows for divorce on
the grounds of sexual immorality and the desertion of an unbelieving partner (Matt.
5:32, 19:9. and 1 Cor. 7:15). However, remarriage is still not permitted under this view.
THE BASIS FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING
If we read the biblical texts through the eyes of Church tradition or through the eyes of a
modern reader we will come to different conclusions on this subject than if we read them in a
culturally sensitive way. This means that Scripture should always be read through the
filters of the language and culture of the people to whom these things were first said or
written. The Scriptures being inspired, but mainly not dictated, means that one has to
understand the people and their thinking as much as possible if one is to grasp the meaning of
what they said and wrote. In recent decades there has been rigorous historically contextual
biblical research to correct the misunderstandings of the past.
1
However, before examining this background it is necessary to look at the ancient Near East
background, the Mosaic Law, and how the Prophets described God’s marital relationship with
Israel/Judah.
THE MONOGAMY/POLYGAMY ISSUE
Genesis holds out the ideal for marriage as being monogamous: “…and he must hold fast to
his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24 ESV). Yet the rest of the Hebrew
Scriptures make no mention of the monogamy/polygamy issue and, in fact, there is no
criticism of polygamy for husbands even though the excesses are condemned. However, in
time, both the Qumran community (using Leviticus 18:18) and Jesus (using Genesis)
condemned polygamy.
THE PURPOSES OF MARRIAGE
1. Companionship and love (Gen. 2:18; 24:67; 29:31-34; Mal. 2:14; 1Cor.11:9; Eph. 5: 2223).
2. Sexual “one flesh” union and enjoyment (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-6; 1Cor. 6:16; 7:9;
Eph.5:13).
3. Procreation (Gen.1:28; 4:1; Ps. 127:3).
The traditional view of divorce generally fails to recognize that a marriage, which is a
relationship, has broken down when there is no longer any companionship and love.
MARRIAGE IS A CONTRACT [COVENANT]
In all ancient Near East nations including Israel marriage was a contract that involved
payments, agreed obligations, and penalties.
THE BRIDE PRICE
This price, which amounted to approximately 10 month’s wages, was paid by the groom to
the bride’s father. In the event of a divorce this price was retained by the bride’s father.
THE DOWRY
This amount, paid by the father, was far in excess of the bride-price and was regarded as the
bride’s share of the estate. If, later, the husband was the cause of the divorce he had to either,
pass the dowry over to his wife or return the dowry to the wife’s father. If, on the other hand,
the wife was the cause of the divorce then the husband could keep the dowry.
MOSAIC CASE LAW FOR THE
MARRIAGE CONTRACT
The marriage contract was generally like every other business or diplomatic covenant. The
law in Israel concerning marriage and divorce was based mainly on Exodus 21:10-11 and
Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
THE HUSBAND’S OBLIGATIONS
At first glance Exodus 21:10-11 does not seem to have much to do with divorce. It is a law
about how someone should treat a slave wife when he marries a second, free wife. However, a
deeper study of this passage reveals that it is vital passage regarding the subject of marriage
and divorce and its connection with the other main text on divorce i.e. Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
2
DIVORCE
TRANSLATION ISSUE FOR JWs Re. Exodus 21: 7-11 NWT:
“And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl …
 if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he does not designate her as a
concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign
people in his treacherously dealing with her.
 And if it be to his son that he designates her, he is to do to her according to the due right
of daughters...
 If he should take another wife for himself, her sustenance, her clothing and her
marriage due are not to be diminished. If he will not render these three things to her,
then she must go out for nothing, without money.”
NOTE: The first ‘not’ is not in the original Hebrew. Its inclusion in the text of the NWT confuses what
is being spoken about here in comparison with all other translations and the Hebrew Interlinear. Also
note that Judges 20:4 shows that a man was regarded as a concubine’s husband.
ESV renders Exodus 21:7-11 more accurately:
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave …
 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let
her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken
faith with her.
 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as a daughter.
 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing and
her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for
nothing, without payment of money.”
NLT gives greater clarity:
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave …
If she does not satisfy her owner (“to be his wife” CEV), he must allow her to be bought
back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke
the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he
may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter. If a man who has married a
slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first
wife to food, clothing and sexual intimacy. If he fails in any of these three
obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.”
The teachers in Israel, in studying the law, realized that if a slave wife has these rights, then
surely a free wife would have, at least, the equivalent rights. So this passage became the basis
for understanding the obligations of a husband in the marriage contract and that persistent
failure to meet these obligations became the basis for divorce. So this section of scripture
became the standard in the marriage contract of the obligations/stipulations that the husband
was to provide his wife namely: sustenance, clothing and her marriage due (marital
rights/sexual intimacy) and also one of the bases for divorce, the other being that of
adultery in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
THE WIFE’S OBLIGATIONS
In the marriage contract the wife would agree to use the materials that the husband
provided for the benefit of the family. This would mean the preparation of the meals, the
turning of materials into garments and the general housekeeping. It would also mean she
would lovingly engage in their sexual intimacy in response to her husband’s advances. If she
significantly and persistently failed in any of these areas she would be breaking her part of the
marriage contract and giving cause for her husband to divorce her. The Mishnah. Ketub.5.5
lists the woman’s material obligations as “grinding flour, baking bread, laundry, preparing
meals, feeding the baby, making the bed, working in wool.”
3
BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY FOR DIVORCE
The Hebrew noun used for divorce is k’rithuth derived from the verb karath meaning “to
cut off.” This term of “cutting off” is used in the Scriptures for any break down in a
relationship or of the breaking of a connection between things.
The nearest Greek word used to describe k’rithuth is apostasion which the lexicons show to
involve: relinquishment, abandonment and giving up of one’s claim i.e. notice of divorce.
THE CASES WHERE NO DIVORCE WAS ALLOWED
1. “If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her
a bad name, saying, ‘I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find
proof of her virginity,’ then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a
virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl’s father will say to the elders, ‘I gave my
daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said,
‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s
virginity.’ Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the
elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver
and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad
name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.”
(Deut. 22:13-19).
2. “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and
they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the
girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
(Deut. 22:28, 29).
These two cases clearly imply that divorce was not forbidden under the law in Israel in normal
circumstances and it follows that such persons may remarry.
GOD’S EXAMPLE IN MARRIAGE TO AND DIVORCE OF
UNFAITHFUL ISRAEL
God metaphorically married Israel when the Law covenant was agreed to by the Israelites at
Mount Sinai. Yet it is the prophet Hosea who was the first to present the details of God’s
marriage to Israel and its later breakdown precipitating divorce proceedings. The drama in
Hosea (c.740 B.C.E) pictures how God has been wronged by the unfaithfulness of Israel—she
commits spiritual adultery (idolatry). God is seen as putting Israel on trial for this
adultery. This situation is portrayed by Hosea’s divorcing of his wife for her many cases of
literal adultery. In neither case is the wife threatened with the death penalty as would be the
case if the Law of Leviticus 20:10 had been strictly applied. There is, in fact, no actual case in
the Hebrew Scriptures of a putting to death of an adulteress. The case in Hosea is of a trial for
adultery where the plaintiff, the husband, shows mercy and is desirous of having a
chastened wife rather than divorce. This drama shows that it was Israel’s spiritual adultery
that was the cause of the eventual divorce. Although not putting her to death, God, as her
husband, would have to withdraw his obligatory support from her:
GOD THREATENS TO WITHDRAW ALL THAT WAS HIS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE
 “And she did not know that it was I who gave her the grain and the wine and the oil, and
who lavished on her silver and gold, which they used for Baal…I will take back my grain
in its time, and my wine in its season, and I will take away my wool and my flax which
were to cover her nakedness..” (Hos. 2:8, 9 ESV).
4
DIVORCE
This indicates that the Exodus 21:10, 11 passage is the basis in the marriage contract for what
is expected of a husband to provide for his wife. God sets the example. This further shows that
divorce is not sinful because it was something that even God was prepared to do.
GOD DIVORCES ISRAEL
 ‘“The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that
faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and
there played the whore? 7And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’
but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8She saw that for all the
adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce.
Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore’”
(Jer. 3:6-8).
GOD’S EXAMPLE IN MARRIAGE TO AND DIVORCE OF
UNFAITHFUL JUDAH
This is really one and the same marriage as to Israel at Mount Sinai. God has not really
married two wives because:
 ‘“…you were at the age for love…and I entered into a covenant with you,’ declares the
Lord GOD, ‘and you became mine…And I clothed you…and shod you…And I wrapped
you in fine linen…And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your
wrists…and a beautiful crown on your head…You ate fine flour and honey and oil’”
(Ezek. 16:8-13 ESV).
Not only is God fulfilling this marriage covenant according to the law in Exodus 21:10, 11 but
He goes far beyond this by lavishing upon Judah the most beautiful of things. Here God gives
the ultimate example of the love and care that a husband should give his wife including the
demonstration of love. Yet for a husband to fail to provide the best that he can for his wife in
these areas would show his failure to fulfil his marriage contract. By such persistent failure he
can become the one causing divorce. Yet in this instance it is Judah as a wife who becomes the
one who provides grounds for divorce (verses 15-26) because she fails to use her husband’s
generous provisions for the marriage, but instead misuses those things to engage in her
spiritual adultery:
 “You took some of your garments and made for yourself colourful shrines, and on them
played the whore…You also took your beautiful jewels of my gold and of my silver,
which I had given you and made for yourself images of men and with them played the
whore…Also my bread that I gave you – I fed you with fine flour and oil and honey–
you set before them for a pleasing aroma … And you took your sons and your daughters,
whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them [the idols] to be devoured…as
an offering by fire…” (Ezek. 16:16, 19, 20 ESV).
Here Judah has broken her marriage covenant by giving three grounds for divorce: 1) and 2)
The misuse of the food and clothing provisions and 3) Adultery. A further breach of the
marriage covenant was the slaughter of the husband’s own children. Deliberate childlessness
was a breach of the Mosaic Law and yet to actually slaughter them is almost inconceivable.
Any one of these breaches of the marriage contract serves as a basis for divorce. And so, God,
as the innocent party, is again forced to divorce her:
5
 “Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you and diminished your allotted
portion … And I will judge you as women who commit adultery … ‘I will deal with you as
you have done, you who have despised the oath in breaking the covenant.’”
(Ezek. 16:27, 38, 59 ESV).
These descriptions show that the concept of divorce is not wrong otherwise it
would not have been an action that God Himself took.
GOD’S INTENTION TO REMARRY ISRAEL
 “And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer will
you call me ‘My Baal.’ ...19And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me
in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in
faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD” (Hosea 2:16, 19-20).
All of the above factors show that none of these issues were merely a matter of
estrangement but were a complete “cutting off” i.e. divorce which fully cancelled the
marriage bond.
GOD’S HATRED OF DIVORCE THAT IS WITHOUT
VALID GROUNDS
Contrary to popular opinion, the following scripture does not give a basis to believe that
God hates all divorce or that divorce is a sin. This is shown by an examination of the context:
 “And you ask, ‘Why?’ Because Yahweh stands as a witness between you and the wife of
your youth, with whom you have broken faith, even though she was your partner and
your wife by covenant. Did he not create a single being (‘made them one’ NIV), having flesh
and the breath of life? And what does this single being seek? God-given offspring! Have
respect for your own life then, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. For
I hate divorce, says Yahweh, God of Israel, and people concealing their cruelty under a
cloak, says Yahweh Sabaoth. Have respect for your own life then, and do not break faith
(“Do not be unfaithful to your wife” NLT).” (Mal. 2:16 NJB).
These men had broken faith with their wives by treacherously divorcing them without a
scriptural cause. Clearly these wives had not failed in their duties to prepare the material
things for the family, nor had they failed to respond to their husbands’ need for sexual
intimacy. So God’s hatred of divorce is not concerning divorce in general but that of divorce
for no valid scriptural reason (as detailed above). Again it is the person who causes the
divorce that is guilty and not the person who has to initiate divorce proceedings.
ALTERNATIVE RENDERING
The phrase “For he has hated a divorcing” is rendered with up-to-date scholarship in the
ESV:
“For the man who hates and divorces…says the God of Israel, covers his
garment with violence…”
The term ‘hates and divorces’ has the meaning: ‘he divorces without adequate grounds.’
6
DIVORCE
‘SOME INDECENCY’ AND THE CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ESV:
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes
because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of
divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of
his house, and if she goes and become another man’s wife and the latter man
hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her
out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her
former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she
has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring
sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.”
PURPOSE OF A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE
This provision enabled a woman to remarry. The man was required to write her this
certificate. Once in her hand the certificate showed that the marriage was completely ended
and it would give a woman a full right to remarry. Because a man could be polygamous
under Israelite law he would not need a certificate of divorce before marrying another woman.
The some indecency clause gave valid grounds for a man to divorce his wife. The woman
therefore lost her right to her dowry which he was able to keep. The second marriage ended
with an invalid divorce (the term “hates her” is a technical term for a groundless divorce) so
that she, as the innocent party, would have been awarded the equivalent of a dowry from this
second marriage, even if she had not brought a dowry into this second marriage. If then the
first man was allowed to remarry her he would have unfairly gained access to this second
dowry. So the law was put in place to keep any man from getting such an unjust financial
benefit.
HOW WAS ‘SOME INDECENCY’ ORIGINALLY INTERPRETED?
In Deuteronomy 24:1-4 the Hebrew phrase translated “some indecency” (“uncleanness” in
the KJV) is erwat dabar. It is evidently unlikely that this term originally referred to
actual adultery because the penalty for a woman committing adultery was death rather than
being given a certificate of divorce according to:
 “If a man who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour…both the adulterer
and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:10 ESV).
However, it appears that the death penalty was rarely carried out because of the requirement
for 2 or 3 witnesses to adultery – a situation that was virtually impossible. So Leviticus 20:10
had its prime effect upon Israelites by communicating to them just how seriously they were to
take this sin. Nevertheless, a woman could be divorced for engaging in illicit sexual
activity (not actual adultery for which the penalty was death) and even for encouraging
adultery with her by revealing too much of her beauty. According to m. Ketub 7.6 and t.
Ketub 7.6 rabbinic teaching saw this as being done if the woman were to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Do spinning in the street; thereby showing her bare arms to men.
Having her garments slit on both sides and so being provocative.
Speaking with any man and particularly joking with young men.
Bathing in a public bath with any man.
The Hebrew word erwat in Leviticus 20:18f refers to ‘indecency’. Furthermore, it is
‘excrement’ that is described as erwat (‘anything indecent’) in Deuteronomy 23:13, 14 and the
7
term is also used in other forms for “nakedness” in Exodus 28:42 and numerous other
scriptures including at times implying “shame.” So it would appear that for the early Jewish
interpreters the erwat dabar had an original meaning of unlawful sexual behaviours
whereby a woman, although not actually committing adultery, was engaged purposely in
practices that could lead to adultery. Because of this “she should find no favour in his [her
husband’s] eyes…he must also write her a certificate of divorce.” However, in the progression
of time there seems to have been a shift in the interpretation by the rabbis of the term erwat
dabar so that it referred only to actual adultery.
THE PENALTY FOR ADULTERY IN LATER TIMES
 In the following centuries, in cases of adultery, some of the rabbis may have applied the
quality of mercy in imitation of God’s example in Hosea. The records show that in the early
first century the Shammaite and Hillelite rabbis viewed divorce, rather than the death
penalty, as being the consequence of committing adultery. This however, does not
preclude that the death penalty for adultery may rarely have been carried out officially, at
least, until the beginning of the first century when the Romans took over administration of
Palestine and possibly even up to 30 C.E (T.B. Sanhedrin 41a).
 If John 8:1-11 is part of the inspired record, then this event was staged by the teachers of
the Law to trap Jesus. Rather than actually stoning the woman caught in adultery, which
they were not allowed to do by Roman law, they brought her to Jesus. However, we must
ask where the adulterous man was because the law of Leviticus 20:10 (restated in Deut.
22:22) required that both the man and the woman be executed. The trap for Jesus was that
if he had said that she should be executed then he would have run into trouble with the
Romans. If, on the other hand, he had said that she should not be executed he would have
been accused of failing to support the law stated in Leviticus 20:11. Nevertheless, this
event shows that Jesus was not insistent upon the death penalty for an adulteress
because no potential executioner was free from sin, but rather the woman was to “sin no
more.”
THE PERSISTENT BREAKING OF ANY MARRIAGE VOW
FORMS THE BASIS FOR DIVORCE
The Pentateuch does not speak against divorce and a number of divorces are described
including Abraham’s divorcing of Hagar with God’s approval (Gen.21:12). As seen in God’s
dealings with Israel and Judah, there is no condemnation of the person who is seeking a
divorce or who initiates a divorce. The fault lies with the one who significantly and
persistently breaks a stipulation of the marriage contract. Whoever was the innocent party
was to keep the dowry. Therefore, if a wife became an adulteress or failed in her other wifely
duties she could be divorced. If, on the other hand, a husband failed to provide his wife with
food, clothing and sexual intimacy (Exodus 21:10, 11) she would have valid grounds for a
divorce, but it would be the husband who had caused the divorce, and so he would suffer the
various penalties. Because of the acceptance of polygamy in ancient times a husband could
not be accused of committing adultery against his wife. Yet as we shall see later, Jesus
reinstated monogamy as God’s standard. This meant that now a husband as well as a wife
could be guilty of adultery and other sexual immorality. These then also become grounds for
the wife to divorce her husband (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
8
DIVORCE
MARITAL ISSUES DURING THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD
THE QUMRAN COMMUNITY
In the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran community there are three references to divorce two
of which are shown below. These references neither condemn divorce nor make any mention
of restrictions to remarriage. However, some words are missing from the following documents
because it was not always easy for the experts to decipher them:
Temple Scroll 54.4-5:
But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound
herself shall stand against her, according to all that proceeded from her mouth.
The Damascus Document CD 13:15-17
Let no man do anything involving buying or selling without informing the examiner in
the camp. He shall do it … and not … and so for one divorcing and he … humility and
with loving mercy.
The marital subject of greater concern to the Qumran community was that of monogamy and
the prohibition of polygamy. Because they understood the word ‘sister’ in Leviticus 18:18
to mean a fellow female Israelite they viewed Leviticus 18:18 as a proof text against polygamy:
 “And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness,
while her sister is still alive.” (Lev. 18:18 ESV).
The Damascus document severely criticized the Pharisees for their practice of
polygamy. Later it will be seen that Jesus took the same position as the Qumran community
on this issue in one of his debates with the Pharisees.
THE JEWS AT ELEPHANTINE, EGYPT
The large body of papyri discovered at Elephantine includes Jewish marriage contracts and
documents relating to divorce in the 5th century B.C.E. These all indicate an almost total
equality of men and women so that women had the right to divorce.
RABBINIC TEACHING
After the close of the Hebrew Scripture canon the interpretation of the Scriptures by the
rabbis gave 4 grounds (technically 5) for divorce:
Childlessness (infertility)
Material neglect (food and clothing)
Emotional neglect
Indecency (meaning adultery in Shamaiate teaching)
Only the husband could enact a divorce by writing out a divorce certificate and handing it to
the wife (Deut. 24:1-4). However, the wife could obtain a divorce when the court of the rabbis
would persuade (by words, fines or beating) the husband that he must enact this valid
divorce because he had failed in his marital obligations. There is evidence in the Mishnah and
in a recently discovered divorce document that women did, indeed, bring petitions for divorce
in the first century.
THE MISHNAH
This work for interpretation of the Scriptures shows that all the rabbis based their
understanding of the grounds for divorce on the threefold obligation to feed, clothe and love
as set down in Exodus 21:10-11.
9
m. Ketub. 5.8
He…may not provide for her less than two qabs of wheat or four qabs of barley [per
week]. And one pays over to her a half-qab of pulse, a half-log of oil, and a qab of dried
figs or a maneh of fig cake. And if he does not have it, he provides instead fruit of
some other type. And he gives her a bed, a cover and a mat. And he gives her a cap
for her head, and a girdle for her loins, and shoes from one festival season to the next,
and clothing worth fifty zuz from one year to the next.
THE SCHOOL OF THE HILLELITES
This school of rabbis brought in a new interpretation of the Deuteronomy 24:1 phrase: “He
has found something indecent (‘indecent-of thing’ in the Hebrew Interlinear) on her part.”
They split the phrase into two to make two different grounds for divorce namely:
1) Indecency. 2) Anything (any matter) = any cause in the ESV of Jesus’ words.
THE SCHOOL OF THE SHAMMAITES
This traditional school of rabbis understood the phrase something indecent to mean one
thing, namely: adultery.
THE DEBATE
So by the first century there were two different opinions held by the rabbis concerning the
interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 as to what constituted proper grounds for divorce.
Sifré Deut.269 says:
The School of Shammai says: A man should not divorce his wife except if he found
indecency in her, since it says: For he found in her an indecent matter.
And the School of Hillel said: Even if she spoiled his dish, since it says: [Any] matter.
Nevertheless, to avoid accusations of illegitimacy of offspring, both schools took a pragmatic
view and had a policy of mutual recognition of each others rulings.
MODERN COMMENTARY ON THE DEBATE
Since the mid-1800s scholars and commentators have become aware of the HilleliteShammaite debate of the first century. Henry Alford writes in his The Greek Testament:
This was a question of dispute between the rival Rabbinical schools of Hillel and
Shammai; the former asserting the right of arbitrary divorce, from Deut. 24:1, the other
denying it except in cases of adultery.” And he notes the use of the phrase “any
matter.”
So when we look at the encounter in Matthew 19:9 Jesus is giving his opinion only concerning
the Hillelite “any matter” interpretation.
FIRST CENTURY GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE
1. Childlessness. Jesus indirectly showed this as no longer grounds for divorce.
2. Material neglect (food and clothing) based on Exodus 21:10-11.
3. Emotional neglect also based on Exodus 21:10-11.
4. Adultery if from the School of the Shammaites and based on Deuteronomy
adultery and ‘Any Matter’ if from the School of Hillel.
10
24:1 but
DIVORCE
Because of the popularity of the new Hillelite interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 the
Shammaites were, by the first century, in the minority and had fewer husbands/wives
approach their courts regarding divorce. However, both schools held firmly to Exodus
21:10, 11 to show what were the marriage contract obligations and the breaking of which
formed the grounds for divorce. These three grounds for divorce based on Exodus 21:10 were
classified in rabbinic sources under just the two headings of: Material neglect and
Emotional neglect. This “any matter” Hillelite type of divorce is very similar to the modernday ‘no fault’ divorce. Of course, the “any matter” clause encompassed all of the other grounds
and therefore required no public trial and so no evidence brought by any witnesses. For
example, it would have been an ‘any matter’ type of divorce that Joseph sought from Mary so
as to create the least fuss and to bring the least embarrassment on her (considering the
public’s incorrect assumptions regarding her pregnancy).
REMARRIAGE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL
As shown earlier the certificate of divorce given to a woman entitled her to
remarry because this certificate made a clean cut so that her previous husband now had no
hold on her. Although the document might say “that you may be married to any man you
wish” it was understood that this would be any Jewish man. There were also categories of men
that she could not marry namely: a former husband (Deut 24:4) or a priest (Lev.21:7). This
assumption moves on in Christianity to become: “she is free to be married to whom she
wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39).
JESUS’ TEACHING ON DIVORCE
THE DEBATE RAISED WITH JESUS BY THE PHARISEES
The Hillelite/Shammaite debate continued through to the time of Jesus who was drawn into
the debate when the Pharisees ask:
 “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” ( Matt.19:3 ESV) to which Jesus later
replies in verse 9:
 “I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (porneia), and
marries another, commits adultery (moicheuo).”
The fact that the Pharisees raised the matter of the divorce certificate makes it evident that
this encounter concerned Deuteronomy 24:1 which involved the erwat dabar – “something
indecent.” Professor James Dunn comments on this issue:
…in Mark 10:2 the question reads simply, ‘Can a man divorce his wife?’; but Matthew
reformulates it, ‘Can a man divorce his wife for any cause?’ Thereby he transforms a
general question and sets it within the rabbinic debate between the schools of Hillel
and Shammai; the Matthean formulation in fact presupposes the then current practice
of divorce and asks Jesus for a verdict on the then dominant Hillelite position (divorce
permissible for any cause). With the same effect the unconditional ruling of Jesus in
Mark 10:11 is amended by Matthew to allow the possibility of divorce in cases of
unchastity- the more rigorous position of Shammai (19:9; so 5:32). Jesus is thus shown
as engaging in a current rabbinic debate and as favouring the stricter viewpoint of the
Shammaites.
Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. p. 247
11
“SEXUAL IMMORALTY” (porneia) IN CONTRAST TO ADULTERY (moichea)
In Matthew 5 and 19 Jesus stated that the penalty for sexual immorality was divorce and
not death. The David Guzik Commentary states regarding Deuteronomy 24:1:
But Jesus carefully and properly defined what uncleanness (erwat debar) is in
Deuteronomy 24:1. He said: “Whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality
and marries another; commits adultery” (Matt.19:9). Jesus rightly understood that
uncleanness refers to sexual immorality; a broad term referring to sexual sin, which
includes, but is not restricted to sexual intercourse with someone who is not your
spouse. The Hebrew word translated uncleanness in itself implies the meaning of
sexual immorality; it is literally, “nakedness of a thing.”
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says on Page 977 of Volume One:
Matt. 5:31…even closer to the School of Shammai (Gk. parektos logou porneias; cf.
Heb. dabar erwa, Shammai’s transposition of the text)… Matthew’s preference for GK.
porneia seems adequately explained in terms of Shammai’s dabar erwa and properly
interpreted as the range of unlawful sexual conduct.
So
porneia
means the range of illicit sexual activity (not actual adultery for which the
penalty was death) that a married person wrongly engages in which encourages adultery
including all kinds of lewdness. Jesus was, therefore, returning to the original meaning of the
Hebrew phrase erwat dabar in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as referring to indecency or
nakedness and implying shame because of the unlawful sexual behaviours whereby a
married person who, although not actually committing adultery, was engaged purposely in
practices that could lead to adultery.
NOTE: The KJV translation of “fornication” is now corrected in the NKJV as “sexual immorality” as is
the rendering in most modern translations.
THE MISSING “FOR ANY CAUSE (every sort of ground)” CLAUSE
 “Pharisees…asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (Mark 10:2 ESV).
 “And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s
wife for any cause?” (Matt. 19:3 ESV).
The phrase “for any cause” in Matthew is a reference to the earlier described teaching on
divorce of the School of the Hillelites which said: “Even if she spoiled his dish, since it says: [Any]
matter.” This is the phrase from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that the Hillelites split into two. During
this confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus, the Jews would have mentally inserted
the phrase on for any cause because the question would have made no sense to them
without it. To ask the question in the form that Mark gives it, and without any background
understanding, could be answered only by a ‘yes’ because there was no body of rabbis, scribes,
Pharisees, the Qumran community or anyone else who did not allow for divorce under any
circumstances. All groups taught that divorce was permissible even though
the grounds for it might vary. A modern-day example might be: If someone asked ‘should
women have equality?’ it would be unnecessary to add the phrase ‘in the work-place or in
education’ because it would be understood. However, Matthew inserts the phrase for later
readers who would be unaware of the implied thought of invalid divorces. The proof that the
“for any cause” phrase was an implied one comes when the Pharisees refer to Moses
‘certificate of divorce’ (verse 7) as noted only in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
12
DIVORCE
MONOGAMY AND LIFELONG MARRIAGE
 “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made
them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother
and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but
one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man separate.’”
(Matt. 19:4-6 ESV).
Here Jesus decides not to answer the Pharisees question, but rather, to talk about what he
considers more important than simply the allowable grounds for divorce. Polygamy was still
practiced in Judea but was becoming increasingly frowned upon. Many rabbis used Genesis as
the basis for condemning polygamy even though some Pharisees were still polygamists. Jesus
was simply showing where he stood on this vital issue. The term “the two” is not in Genesis
2:24 but only in a variant Hebrew text (also in the Septuagint) which draws on Genesis 1:27
(“male and female he created him”) and the fact that even the animals were gathered “two by
two (Gen. 7:9).” So Jesus was saying what other rabbis were also saying, namely: God’s
standard was of yoking only two people together in marriage. In doing this Jesus
showed that polygamy was not God’s standard. Yet, by his adding the phrase “what God has
joined together let no man separate (divorce)” Jesus is teaching the very important fact
that marriage should be lifelong. However, God only yokes or joins the couple together
because he is a witness to their marriage vows. It is the couple themselves who bind
themselves to each other by their making of contractual marriage vows. So Jesus is not saying
that divorce would never happen, but because the phrase “let no man separate” is in the
imperative Jesus is really commanding couples to keep their marriage vows and not to act in a
way that would break up the marriage.
SHOULD DIVORCE HAVE BEEN COMPULSORY FOR SEXUAL IMMORALTY?
 “They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce
and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart
[“stubbornness” REB] Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning
it was not so.” (Matt. 19:7-8 ESV).
In Deuteronomy 24:1 the Septuagint says “he shall write,” rather than “and he writes” which
is in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. So the early rabbis misinterpreted Moses’ command as if, in
the case of some indecency, divorce of one’s wife was to be compulsory. The Pharisees
introduced this thought into the debate with Jesus in order to counter Jesus’ teaching on
lifelong marriage, but Jesus responds that Moses did not command divorce but only allowed
it because of their hardheartedness (“stubbornness” in Jer. 4:4 LXX, therefore not sinfulness).
What were they stubborn about? The only possibility that fits the context seems to be that the
men were stubbornly refusing to live up to their marriage vows and their sexually
immoral former wives were stubbornly refusing to repent and give up their immoral
behaviour. So from Moses the ‘command’ was to give a certificate of divorce and the
‘concession’ was that of divorce which should only be initiated if the guilty partner was
unrepentant.
JESUS’ SPEAKS OF INVALID DIVORCE
THE PARALLEL ACCOUNTS
 Matthew 19:9, ESV:
“I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and
marries another, commits adultery.”
NOTE: The added words in the KJV: “And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit
adultery” are not in the Greek text.
13
 Mark 10:10-12 ESV:
“And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said
to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery
(moicheuo) against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another,
she commits adultery.”
The phrase “divorces his wife and marries another” may indicate that there was an improper
motive for the divorce, namely so that he/she could marry someone for whom they already
had feelings. This would mean that: he/she divorces his wife/husband so that they can
marry another.
THE ISOLATED ACCOUNTS
 Matthew 5:31-32 ESV:
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of
divorce. But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for
sexual immorality (Greek: logou porneias), makes her commit adultery. And
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
NOTE on verse 32: “makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.” R.C.H. Lenski has shown that these phrases are in the passive form and so are better
translated as:
“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.”
In other words the first husband’s actions cause his now divorced wife and her new husband unjustly
to appear as adulterous. This is in the same sense as those who “make God a liar” (1 John 1:10, 5:10)
i.e. make Him appear to be a liar. Clearly, in such a divorce it is not the woman who is the guilty
party.
 Luke 16:18 ESV:
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,
and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
The Luke 16:18 and Matthew 5:31-32 passages are both isolated from any context. The Luke
16:18 passage is very similar to the text in Mark 10:10-12. Both these statements of:
“divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,” were said privately to the
disciples after Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees. However, Matthew 19:9 shows this
statement to have also been said to the Pharisees thus linking the exception clause to
the whole subject of divorce. The invalidity of the divorce that Jesus here speaks of is
implied, but readily understood by the Jewish audience. If all of these texts were referring to
a valid divorce then the statements would be illogical. It would be comparable to saying:
“Everyone who leaves the army and joins the navy commits an illegal act.” But when the
implied thought is added i.e. that they left the army without a valid discharge, it makes
sense. So when we recognize that Jesus was referring to the popular but invalid Hillelite
type divorce then his statements make sense. Because of Jesus’ earlier focus on monogamy
as God’s standard, Jesus was now showing that polygamy was immoral and illegal and that
adultery and other sexual immorality were no longer crimes only against a husband, but also
against a wife as shown in his words: “commits adultery against her (his wife).”
WHY SHOULD THESE DIVORCES BE CONSIDERED INVALID?
The fact that neither in Luke 16 nor Mark 10 is there mention of the exception that is noted
in the other two passages does not nullify the exception clause because exceptions are not
14
DIVORCE
stated every time a general rule is mentioned. Furthermore, as shown above it is only when
these divorces are viewed as invalid that Jesus’ statements in Luke 16 and Mark 10 become
logical and make sense. Secondly, it is because of the exception clause in both Matthew 5
and 19 that we can tell that the Mark and Luke accounts must have been abbreviated with the
invalidity of such divorces as being implied only, but readily understood by the Jewish
audience. An example of an implied thought would be:
 “…everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with
her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28 ESV).
It would be unnecessary to add the words ‘except for his wife’ because one cannot commit
adultery with one’s wife. Such a thought is implied and would be mentally acknowledged by
the listeners. Many other examples could be given to show that in daily conversation there are
many unsaid things that are understood by each one in a conversation.
THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE
Matthew 19:9 ESV:
“I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (porneia),
and marries another, commits adultery (moicheuo).”
The Matthew 5:32 phrase logou porneias is likely an exact translation of the Hebrew
phrase erwat dabar in Deuteronomy 24:1 for “some indecency” - the literal of which is “the
nakedness of a thing.” It actually means sexual immorality and in the context of divorce in
Matthew it means extramarital sexual activity. So it is much broader than the
Shammaites interpretation of porneia as being only ‘adultery.’
COMBINING MARK 10 WITH THE DETAILS FROM
MATTHEW 19 (in blue)
Abbreviation, with assumptions left unsaid, was a common procedure in the ancient world
as much as it is today. This was certainly the practice of the rabbis and of the writers of the
Christian Scriptures. Both Mark 10 and Matthew 19 show signs of editing. So by combining
these two accounts and by noting the two schools of thought common at the time regarding
interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 the picture of this encounter becomes a little clearer:
“Pharisees now approached and, to put him to the test, began questioning him
whether it is lawful for a man to divorce a wife [for any cause]. Deut. 24:1
according to the Hillelite interpretation} [In reply he said: ‘Did you not read] that from
the beginning of creation he them made them male and female {Gen.1:27} [and]
said, “On this account a man will leave his father and his mother, and the two will be
one flesh {Gen 2:24 LXX}; so that they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore
what God joined together let no man put apart.” [They said to him: “Why, then, did
Moses command giving her a certificate of divorce and divorcing her?”] {Deut. 24:1}.
In answer to them he said: “What did Moses command you? They said: “Moses
[commanded] the writing of a certificate of divorce and divorcing her” {Deut. 24:1}.
But Jesus said to them: “Out of regard for your hardheartedness {Jer. 4:4 LXX} he
wrote you this commandment. [Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your
wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning].”
When again in the house the disciples began to question him concerning this. And he
said to them: “Whoever divorces his wife, [except for sexual immorality] {Deut.
24:1 according to the Shammaite interpretation} and marries another commits
15
adultery against her, and if ever a woman, after divorcing her husband [except for
sexual immorality], marries another, she commits adultery.”
The above text is still too abbreviated for the modern reader to be able to grasp the full
meaning of Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees and his subsequent comment to the disciples.
So the following paraphrase by David Instone-Brewer is helpful:
“And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife [for any cause] (as the Hillelites say)?”
Jesus answered, “Have you not read that in the beginning of creation men could
marry only one woman? Scripture says, ‘He made them (one) male and (one)
female’, and ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined
to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ These verses also show that God made
them, so it is God who joins them and makes them one flesh. Therefore, if God has
joined them together, neither of them should divorce the other.”
The Pharisees replied: “But if they should not divorce, then why did Moses command a
husband to give a certificate of divorce to an adulteress and put her away?” He
answered them, “Moses did not command this, but he allowed it. He allowed it in the
situation of stubborn hardness of heart. But this is not what God wanted from the
beginning.”
Later, in private, the disciples asked him again about this matter. And Jesus said to
them, “If a man divorces his wife for any cause and not for sexual immorality
(the correct interpretation of Deut. 24:1), he does not have a valid divorce. If he then
marries another woman, he is committing adultery, because he is still married to his
first wife. Similarly, if a woman forces a husband to divorce her for any cause and
not for sexual immorality, and she marries another, she is also committing
adultery.”
JESUS INDIRECTLY SHOWS THAT INFERTILTY
IS NO LONGER GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE
 “The disciples said to him [Jesus]: ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not
to marry. But he said to them…there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs
for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. Let the one who is able to receive this receive
it.”’ (Matt; 19:10-12 ESV).
This self-imposed state of being a eunuch meant that marriage and therefore childbearing
were not compulsory. So this would take infertility in either partner out of the equation and
remove it as grounds for divorce.
THE REVOLUTIONARY IMPLICATIONS OF JESUS’ TEACHING
1.
MONOGAMY
Although polygamy was becoming rare it was still practiced by the rich and by the Pharisees
(Note the earlier criticism of them by the Qumran Community). The main consequence of
this was that women gained the right to use adultery as grounds for divorce.
2. MARRIAGE IS IDEALLY TO BE LIFELONG
This was God’s original standard and so it was against God’s will for either party to break
their marriage vows and thus precipitate divorce proceedings. This would now save many
marriages.
16
DIVORCE
3. DIVORCE IS NOT COMPULSORY
The false teaching that a husband must divorce his wife if she committed adultery or was
even suspected of having committed adultery or of being guilty of “something indecent” was
corrected by Jesus to show that if the wife was repentant the husband could show forgiveness.
This would now save many marriages. Jesus’ teaching would also give women more
freedom concerning who they spoke to so that they would have less fear of being wrongly
suspected of adultery or other sexual immorality.
4. DIVORCE IS ALLOWABLE
However, it should be avoided unless the erring partner stubbornly refuses to repent.
5.
MARRIAGE IS NOT COMPULSORY
Therefore, infertility was not a legitimate ground for divorce.
6. DIVORCE for
any cause IS INVALID
This also meant that remarriage after this kind of divorce constituted adultery. Although
this was the same position that the Shammaites took they were willing to accept the legal
validity of this Hillelite type of divorce. Jesus, however, was not willing to do so. Also because
the vast majority of divorces were of the easy Hillelite type, Jesus was effectively stating that
all such people, having divorced in this way, were adulterers and that the children of the
second marriages were illegitimate. However, there is nothing in Jesus’ teachings to suggest
that he expected anyone to separate from the second wife or husband. So Jesus’ areas of
agreement with others were:
1. Monogamy as taught by the Qumran Community.
2. Being against the for any cause divorce as were the Shammaites.
THE GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE IN EXODUS 21:10, 11 WERE NOT
DISCUSSED IN THE DEBATE WITH THE PHARISEES
Just as there were implied thoughts left out of the question by the Pharisees and implied
thoughts left out of Jesus’ answer in the Luke and Mark accounts so, too, there is an implied
thought concerning the exception clause stated by Jesus in the two Matthew accounts.
Because of the two phrases used in this encounter it is clear that it concerned the debate
between the Hillelites and the Shammaites over Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In the question put to
Jesus the Pharisees used the phrase: “any matter” = “for any cause” which came from the
Hillelite School. Jesus replied using the word porneia = ‘some indecency’ = sexual immorality
which was close to the teaching of the Shammaite School although they misunderstood the
meaning of porneia as being adultery only. So this debate entirely concerned the
interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and did not take into account the known other valid
reasons for a divorce that are detailed in Exodus 21:10-11. So the exception clause is
entirely within the context of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and does not include the 3 other
scripturally valid reasons for divorce. None of the Gospel accounts tells us about the teaching
of Jesus concerning the grounds for divorce in Exodus 21:10-11.
Many take this silence to mean that there were no further grounds other than sexual
immorality. However, because Jesus’ focus had been on the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 issue the
most natural conclusion is that he agreed with the unanimous opinion of the rest of Judaism
regarding these grounds for divorce in Exodus 21. After all he was a Jew under the Law of
Moses.
17
WOULD JESUS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE STATEMENTS
IN EXODUS 21 AS GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE?
THE ASSUMPTION
It has been assumed that Jesus named the single exception of sexual immorality because
this was the only ground for divorce that he recognized. This is a faulty assumption because if
we made the same assumption about the Shammaites we would conclude that they, too,
thought that adultery was the only ground for divorce; whereas the Shammaites recognized
the factors in the law of Exodus 21:10, 11, namely: material/emotional neglect, as grounds for
divorce.
FACTORS ABOUT THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
1.
JESUS DID NOT MENTION THESE
OTHER GROUNDS
In this encounter with the Pharisees Jesus spoke about matters that he was not asked about
i.e. polygamy and lifelong marriage. This was because to him, these were vital issues. So it
would seem strange for him to raise these issues and yet fail to discuss the Exodus 21 grounds
if he wanted to reject them as grounds for divorce.
2. EVERYONE WOULD ASSUME THAT JESUS RECOGNIZED THAT
THERE WERE OTHER GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE
No school of thought on divorce, of the time, rejected the Exodus 21 grounds for divorce of
material neglect and emotional neglect. If Jesus had wanted to teach a rejection of
these grounds he would have had to say so very definitely. For him to have said nothing
about this universally held belief would indicate his agreement with it e.g.
a) Jesus never said anything condemning sexual acts before marriage. Yet no one believes
he was in favour of such things.
b) Jesus never explicitly allowed remarriage after the death of a spouse. Yet no one would
assume that he forbade such an arrangement.
3. THE ALMOST PERFECT PARALLEL BETWEEN THE WORDING OF JESUS’
EXCEPTION CLAUSE AND THE SHAMMAITE RULING
CONCERNING ERWAT DABAR
THE RABBINIC LITERATURE
Sifré Deut.269 says:
The School of Shammai says: A man should not divorce his wife except if he found
indecency in her.
m.Git. 9.10
A man should not divorce his wife except if he found in her a matter of indecency.
These are semantically identical to the two versions of the exception clause in Matthew 19:9
and 5:32. So Jesus used the same terminology as the Shammaites and in the same context.
Just as the Shammaites said that Deuteronomy 24:1 allows no divorce except for indecency
and did not mean that all of Scripture allows for no divorce except for indecency, so too,
with Jesus.
JESUS’ ATTITUDE TO THOSE WHO ARE REMARRIED
Although Jesus may or may not have approved the other four marriages of the woman at
the well near Sychar who had, one at a time, had five husbands; yet he did recognized the fact
of those divorces (although some may have died) and the subsequent remarriages as lawful. If
18
DIVORCE
this was not so then Jesus would have criticized the woman for those remarriages. Yet, rather
than saying ‘You have had only one husband, and the other four relationships, plus the man
you now live with, have all been adulterous’ Jesus actually says to her “you have had five
husbands.” So he recognized them as legitimate remarriages (John 4:16-18).
SUMMARY OF JESUS’ VIEW
Jesus did not create any new legislation regarding divorce and remarriage. His view was
exactly that which was set down in the Hebrew Scriptures which allowed for divorce and
remarriage. However, his revolutionary statements for first century Jews concerned the
necessity for them to return to God’s ideal standard of life-long marriage as set out in Genesis
unless there were valid grounds for divorce.
PAUL’S TEACHING ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
PAUL TEACHES THE SAME OBLIGATIONS FOR A HUSBAND
AS IN EXODUS 21:10, 11
Paul’s main comments on divorce identify the grounds for divorce by emphasizing the
obligations within marriage. He also deals with remarriage as a right for those who have been
unjustly divorced. Most of what he has to say on these subjects is found in 1 Corinthians 7 and
Ephesians 5.
 “Husbands, love your wives as the Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her…In
the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his
wife loves himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes
it…let each one of you love his wife as he does himself and let the wife see that she respects
her husband.” (Eph. 5:25-33 ESV).
 “Now concerning matters about which YOU wrote: It is good for a man not to have sexual
relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality each man
should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to
his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not
have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not
have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another,
except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that YOU may devote yourselves to prayer;
but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of
self-control. Now as a concession, not as a command, I say this. I wish all were as I myself
am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the
unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if
they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be
aflame with passion.” (1 Cor. 7: 1-9 ESV).
Paul’s statement that “the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights” is based
exactly on the law of Exodus 21:10 concerning the rights of a slave wife. So a free wife would
logically have the equivalent rights according to rabbinic analysis. Clearly Paul was basing his
teachings concerning Christian sexual morals on the Mosaic Law.
19
MATERIAL AND EMOTIONAL OBLIGATIONS IN A CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
As noted earlier, Exodus 21:10, 11 became the standard in the marriage contract of the
obligations/stipulations that the husband was to provide his wife namely: food, clothing
and her marriage rights (marital rights/sexual intimacy). Although the Hillelites and
Shammaites argued over the length of time before material/emotional neglect would become
the basis for a divorce, they never disputed the fact of these failures as being the basis for
divorce. So Paul sets out these obligations showing that:
 “…the married man is anxious about the worldly things, how to please his wife…the
married woman is anxious about the worldly things how to please her husband.”
(1 Cor. 7:33-35 ESV).
Paul’s motive for discouraging marriage in Corinth was stated in verses 26 and 28 as: “in
view of the present distress” and “those who do [get married] will have tribulation in
their flesh. But I am sparing you.” This distress and tribulation were probably caused by the
famines that were being experienced in Corinth at the time and which made it very difficult
for a man to provide for his wife. So Paul is not saying that marriage is incompatible with
Christian service in general, but rather he was sparing them from a worse situation of
tribulation in Corinth at that particular time. However, Paul does highlight the material
obligations — the worldly things — in a Christian marriage. So the persistent failure to
keep the marriage vows regarding the things of the world would eventually form the basis for
divorce.
IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD
“SEPARATION” = DIVORCE
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 ESV:
“To the married I give this charge (not I but the Lord): the wife should not separate
from (divorce) her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else
be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.”
In the Greco-Roman world separation was a legal divorce and not merely that of a married
couple living apart as in modern Western terms. There were more than 50 words for divorce
in Greek marriage and divorce contracts. Usually Paul spoke of “separation” as the wife’s
action and ‘dismissal’ as that of the husband. Not only did Paul not allow this Greco-Roman
‘separation’ as a scripturally valid divorce for Christians, but he actually condemned it. This
divorce by separation was very little different to the any cause divorce of the Jewish
Hillelites. Yet, “unmarried” does mean that she is now divorced. If Paul was referring just to
separation in Western terms, then the woman would not be called “unmarried.”
DESERTION/ABANDONMENT BY THE UNBELIEVING PARTNER IS
THE SAME AS THE “ANY CAUSE” DIVORCE
 “To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and
she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who
is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the
unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made
holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is they
are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the
brother or sister is not enslaved (“is not bound” NAB). God has called YOU to peace.”
(1 Cor. 7:12-15 ESV).
20
DIVORCE
WORSE THAN AN UNBELIEVER
 “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his own
household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1Tim. 5:8).
With the earlier clarification as to how Jesus likely viewed divorce, one can understand that
even a believing husband who deserted his wife would fall into the category of being
“worse than an unbeliever” because, by his desertion, he no longer provides for his family.
“GOD HAS CALLED YOU TO PEACE”
This sentence that Paul used is reminiscent of the pre-A.D. 70 rabbinic phrase “for the
sake of peace” and was used to indicate that a pragmatic solution to something had
been sought rather than following a strict law. Strictly speaking, deserted believers were not
free to remarry under the laws of Scripture, but only if their divorce was based on one of the
four grounds for divorce. However, for practical purposes desertion obviously meant that
there was a neglecting to supply food, clothing and love to the deserted partner which then
turned the divorce into a valid one. So Paul cut through any legalism and presented a
pragmatic solution for believers who had been divorced against their will and so alleviated the
problem concerning the great amount of time it might take to prove the neglect. Again the
fault lies with the person who was the cause of the divorce.
THOSE WHO ARE DIVORCED CAN REMARRY
Paul commanded the believer not to use the Greco-Roman ‘separation’ type of divorce
(similar to the Hillelite “for any cause” divorce) but to remain married even though the
partner was an unbeliever. However, if the unbeliever divorced the believer (by separation) it
would constitute a valid divorce for the believer – he/she “is not bound” NAB or “no
longer bound to that person” (CEV) meaning that he/she was free to remarry. Yet, before
remarrying, the believer should do everything that is reasonably possible to become
reconciled with the unbelieving partner (verse 11).
 “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a
wife. But if you do marry you have not sinned.” (1 Cor. 7:27, 28: ESV).
Here the contrast is between the married state: “Are you bound to a wife?” (dedesai gunaiki)
and the divorced state: “Are you free from a wife?” (lelusai apo gunaikos). Grammatically
and in context the phrase “free from a wife” does not mean that a man was never married,
but rather he is now divorced from a wife as shown in the UBS Interlinear: “If you have been
freed from a wife” or “Are you released from a wife?” (NASB) or “Has your marriage been
dissolved?” (NEB, REB, and Barclay). The NIV translation: “Are you unmarried?” does not fit
the Greek grammar. Verse 34 contrasts “the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin”
showing that “unmarried” means ‘no longer married,’ but not because of being widowed
(verse 9) – a separate category. Although in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul is advising against
remarriage in the current circumstances he clearly shows that it is not wrong to remarry. No
doubt this concerns those Christians mentioned earlier who were wrongly divorced in the
Greco-Roman style. This is not as some say a release from a betrothal agreement.
REMARRIAGE AFTER WIDOWHOOD
 “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to
be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:39 ESV).
Because this is addressed to widows it does not concern the four Jewish scriptural grounds for
divorce. It is speaking of the situation of a marriage that runs right through to the death of the
21
husband and that has had no significant problems that precipitated a divorce. Therefore, one
cannot say that the only time a woman may remarry is if her husband dies. To do so would
contradict what Paul has just said in verses 27 and 28. Furthermore, Paul states that it is “a
wife” rather than a divorcee who is bound by the law of marriage to her husband until he
dies. The point of the teaching is that just as for a divorced woman who would have the words
‘she is free to be married to whom she wants,’ so too, for a widow.
DOES ROMANS 7:1-4 TEACH THAT:
THERE CAN NEVER BE REMARRIAGE UNTIL THE HUSBAND DIES?
 “Or do you not know, brothers - for I am speaking to those who know the law - that the
Law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? Thus a married woman is bound by
law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the
law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with
another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from
that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers,
you also have died to the Law through the body of the Christ, so that you may belong to
another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit to
God.”
The subject in this passage is that of Christians who are no longer under the Law because they
are now united with Christ. The subject here is being illustrated and no illustration of itself
can be taken as a proof text. Writers rarely draw upon all of the detailed complexities of the
subject that they choose to use as an illustration and this is also the case with Paul as the
commentators show. In this case, Paul is using, as an illustration, the subject of a Jewish
marriage that runs its full course and ends with the death of the husband. So this is an
illustration of a normal marriage and is not about divorce because under Jewish law a
woman had no right to divorce her husband. Yet in verse 3 Paul brings in the exceptional case
where a woman adulterously “lives with another man while her husband is alive”
i.e. the man is still her husband. So Paul is not here teaching that a wife cannot, under any
circumstances, remarry after divorce until the man who was her husband dies. He simply is
not drawing upon all the many factors that can be involved in marriage such as divorce.
FORBIDDING REMARRIAGE
If anyone forbids remarriage for an individual whose marriage has truly scripturally ended
then such a forbidder puts themselves in a similar position to those who are condemned by
Paul’s words concerning those “in later times ... who forbid marriage” (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
LATER TRADITIONAL JUDAISM
By the time of the Talmuds the wording of marriage contracts had become fairly fixed and
can be seen in examples of the Geniza contracts:
I desire of my own will to marry….that I might bring her into my house so that she will
be [my wife on condition that I hon]our her, feed her, sustain her, esteem [her] as all
[…in the man] ner of dece [ent Jewish] men [who honour, feed, sustain and esteem
their wives fa] ithfully.
And she undertook to honour, esteem, attend and [serve him…in the manner of
dece[nt women, the daughters of Israel, who attend and serve their husbands in purity
and sanctity…]
Kairite Judaism, known as the back-to-Scripture movement and whose literature runs from
the 9th to the 13th centuries, preserves the biblical basis for rabbinic thinking. They discuss the
22
DIVORCE
obligations in marriage of food and clothing as based on Exodus 21:10-11. Their 9th century
treatise on marriage reads:
He who says, “I refuse to feed and support my wife,” must be compelled to divorce her
and pay her the full amount of the marriage contract, as it is written: He shall not
diminish her food, raiment and cohabitation. And if he do not fulfil these three for her,
she shall go free [Exod. 21:10-11].
SUMMARY OF THE FOUR SCRIPTURALLY VALID
GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE
The first three grounds are based on Exodus 21:10-11 which, as the cultural norm, Jesus
did not revoke and which the apostle Paul affirmed (Ephesians 5:25-31). The last ground was
one which Jesus did affirm and was based on Deuteronomy 24:1-2.
A. Abandonment. This includes the persistent and unrepentant failure to carry out one’s
obligations according to one’s marriage vows. These include the reasonable provision
of:
1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Love (both companionship and the marriage due).
This obviously would include physical and emotional abuse as extreme failures of emotional support.
B. 4. The committing of sexual immorality (naturally adultery is included) with
no repentance.
1, 2 and 3 can be summarized in the manner of the rabbis as: Material neglect and
Emotional neglect (including humiliation and abuse).
Unlike the Pharisees and other rabbis of the first and later centuries Christians would not take
a legalistic approach to these matters but deal with them according to the spirit of the Law.
Clearly Jesus treated divorce very seriously; so these grounds are only to be invoked as a last
resort and every effort should be made by the innocent partner to avoid divorce and to bring
about reconciliation. This means that the Christian spirit of forgiveness plays a major role in
these matters.
THE TWO SCRIPTURALLY VALID GROUNDS FOR REMARRIAGE
A. Having a scripturally valid divorce (as above).
B. The death of one’s spouse (1 Cor. 7:39).
A non-biblical but practical position taken in both ancient and modern times is to refuse
remarriage for an adulterer/adulteress to his/her lover who would have contributed to the
break-up of the original marriage. For a minister to perform a marriage ceremony for them
would be a condoning of their sin.
Neither valid divorce nor remarriage are included in any list of sins that will
keep one out of the Kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21).
23
CONCLUSION
Roman Catholicism allows for no divorce because it treats marriage as a sacrament which
therefore, cannot be changed. Instead, it operates a system of annulment i.e. the marriage was
never valid. This is certainly unsatisfactory to many separating Catholics because it means
that any children of the marriage will be viewed as illegitimate so that their names would be
besmirched. However, if divorce was wrong it would be listed along with the many other sins,
but it never is (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-22). Anglicanism allows divorce for adultery and for
desertion, yet remarriage after the desertion is not allowed. Many other churches, including
Jehovah’s Witnesses, allow divorce only for adultery after which remarriage may take place.
All these positions are based on a reading of the texts without an understanding of the
essential 1st century Jewish background which was only just beginning to be known in the
mid-1800s and not fully known until the latter part of the 20th century. These positions
regarding divorce and remarriage have led to situations, for some wives, which are absolutely
intolerable. Is it really likely that Jesus, as a reflection of our loving Heavenly Father, would
make rules requiring a wife to stay married to a man who is physically abusing her (perhaps
beating her or sexually abusing her) or emotionally abusing her by constant criticism or
belittling comments or insults? This does not fit Paul’s description of how a wife should be
highly valued, loved and cherished. Additionally, based on the definition of adultery, any
sexual abuse of the children by the father are valid grounds for divorce. So would Jesus really
have made a rule that meant that a marriage must continue in spite of the fact that the
husband consistently fails to provide the necessaries of life for his family? Such a person is
worse than an unbeliever.
Furthermore, these faulty positions regarding divorce and remarriage have led to situations,
for some husbands, which also are absolutely intolerable; whereby a wife has persistently
misused or failed to use what the husband has provided for the family, or that she has
persistently denied her husband dignified marital intimacy or has behaved indecently with
other men. Yet, in context, the understanding of Jesus’ words shows that he never created the
basis for the occurrence of any such appalling situations.
Jesus’ great accomplishments in this area were that he removed the inequalities for women
by speaking out against polygamy so that a wife could get a divorce for her unrepentant
husband’s sexual immorality. He also showed that the “any cause” divorce, which was very
popular because the men could get a divorce on a whim, in fact led to adulterous situations.
This may all have seemed new to the disciples but Jesus was simply directing the people to
return to God’s original standard as laid out in the Hebrew Scriptures.
By Raymond C. Faircloth
SUGGESTED READING
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible by David Instone-Brewer
§
24