FAMILY 03 - Divorce & Remarriage

This unit is largely based on the excellent Book “Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible” by David Instone-Brewer. The book is so detailed and so scholarly, that many will not find it easy to read. Here is an attempt at a summary, hopefully faithful to the original.

Foundations: affirmation of marriage & family

Exo 20:14, Deu 5:18            

“Do not commit adultery”

  • God protects marriages, families, covenants … he protects husbands, but also especially wives and children
  • God wants marriages where both are secure, faithful, treated justly & thriving
  • Be content with the spouse you have … “Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well … “Let your fountain be blessed and rejoice in the wife of your youth”… (Prv 5:15-18) … Don’t play with the fire! Don’t risk! … “Can fire be carried in he bosom without burning one’s clothes? Or can one walk on hot coals without scorching the feet?” (Prv 6:27-28)
  • Do not break trust, do not betray, do not break covenant.
  • If you do, you risk the relationship > adultery most often leads to major relationship conflict and often to divorce.

Old Testament Background

Marriage contracts in Ancient Near East
  • Everywhere in the Ancient Near East the marriage covenant was a contract between two parties, similar to national treaties, covenants with gods or economic contracts.
  • The law of Moses is no full legal treatment, it seems only where it differs from common Ancient Near East that laws are recorded, like Deu 24:1-4.
  • Covenants were implemented by a document or ceremony.
  • Covenants had stipulations agreed to by both parties, and sanctions that come into force when a stipulation is broken.
  • Marriage Covenants had payments and penalties, ensuring the serious nature of the contract and increase security:
    • 1 Bride-price (mohar), paid by groom to bride’s father, often about 10 months’ wages. This ensured marriages were not entered lightly.
    • Sometimes Gifts, given by groom to bride (Gen 24:22).
    • 2 Dowry (nedunya), paid by bride’s father to bride, held in trust for her by her husband, roughly the daughter’s share of the inheritance.
  • The Dowry remained the possession of the bride, and so gave her security in case of her husband’s death or a divorce, providing her with money to live on. In some cases she had rights to part of the inheritance of her husband in case of his death.
  • The only case where the wife lost part of all the dowry was if she broke the stipulations of the marriage contract, thus having caused the divorce.
  • Divorce implies financial penalties of the causing party. These arrangements were part of the marriage contracts.
  • Deu 24:1-4 Forbids a re-marriage of a former wife after she had been married to someone else. The case given: 1st husband finds a ‘matter of indecency’ > divorce with her loosing the dowry. Then marriage to another man, who divorces her because he ‘disliked her’ (=no grounds divorce) > she keeps her dowry. Remarriage to the first man would mean that the 1st husband gets a 2nd dowry, that is: he has a financial incentive to remarry, and that is forbidden.
  • Though sometimes these payments cancelled each other out, they were still considered important and recorded in the contract.
  • Stipulations of marriage contracts mostly unmentioned (general agreement in Jewish and other cultures), like sexual faithfulness.
  • Some common stipulations mentioned: ‘no 2nd wife in preference to the 1st’, which didn’t prohibit polygamy, but the neglect of the 1st wife.
  • Stipulation on husband to provide ‘food, anointing oil and clothing’. Sometimes ‘food’ was replaced by ‘grain’ or ‘money’. Parallel to this Exo 21:10-11 ‘food, clothing and conjugal rights’ (last one not so clear).
  • Sexual unfaithfulness carried the death penalty for both offenders in the OT and in the Ancient Near Eastern world. Whether the execution of the death penalty was mandatory is less clear.
  • Deu 24:1 ‘matter of indecency’ has no parallel in the Ancient Near East. The term is hard to translate, meaning ‘nakedness of a matter’, also occurring in Deu 23:14, God turning his back on Israel if he saw something indecent.
  • Even though God’s covenant with Israel is not a parity covenant, but a suzerainty covenant.

Law of Moses

Where is the OT differing from the Ancient Near Eastern Law?

  • The Law of Moses doesn’t differ from surrounding culture by prohibiting polygamy or divorce, it doesn’t prohibit either. The OT records the polygamy of Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon etc. and the divorce of Abraham from Hagar, that God approves (Gen 21:12). Yet the origin and ideal indicated is monogamy and faithfulness.
  • Also it did differ in that the divorcee woman had more rights: Exo 21:10-11 says that a divorced slave wife had to be let go as free person with no claims on payment.
  • Deu 24:1-4 says that a divorcee must be given a certificate of divorce.
  • Deu 22:13-18 describes the case of a husband trying to find false grounds for divorce, which suggests that a groundless divorce was either not permitted or resulted in severe financial penalty.
  • No details on grounds for divorce, on whether or when the wife should have her dowry returned, or inheritance laws for children
  • But: a woman had the right to remain married, the woman had the right to a divorce certificate that allowed her to remarry, and she had the right to divorce and remarriage:

 

Rights of women to divorce or rights of a woman in marriage

  • In the Ancient Near East there were different systems: Some gave no rights to women to divorce, some gave right to divorce if the husband was at fault, but pending a court case that could mean her death if the verdict went against her. Some gave rights to women to divorce if neglected.
  • Hammurabi Law code: Wife of a husband taken captive and not having enough to live on can remarry, but if the husband returns she must return to him. Wife being neglected could only after 5 years divorce her husband, leaving her to 5 years of starvation unless a father or sons look after her.
  • Deuteronomy is more gracious as it has no time constraint: A wife could divorce a husband on grounds of neglect as per Exo 21:10-11, the assumption being that a right a slave woman had, a free woman also shared.

 

Rights of women to remain married

  • Deuteronomy allows women more right to remain married in the case where they had been treated falsely.
  • Rape: Ancient Near Eastern law had him executed and her unpunished, but de facto ruined as another marriage was unlikely of if so at a reduced bride-price.
  • Deu 22:28-29 stipulates that the man raping a woman must marry her and cannot divorce her for life, even if she doesn’t fulfill the marriage stipulations. > She is provided for.
  • Hammurabi Law Code: Women with a specific sickness (unclear what one) developing after she married cannot be divorced.
  • Law of Moses has nothing on sickness & divorce, but Jewish tradition has a law that an insane wife cannot be divorced.
  • Deu 22:13-18 has a law protecting a woman accused after her marriage night of not having been a virgin (possibly financial incentive, of keeping dowry if she is considered guilty). Deuteronomy stipulates that if the counter-proof can be given, the husband looses his right to divorce.
  • It seems that in case of rape and severe illness it is the woman who decides if she wants to marry him (Philo & Josephus assume this).

 

Right of women to a divorce certificate & to remarriage

  • Deu 24:1-4 demands a divorce certificate for every divorcee, which is unique in Ancient Near East. The only thing similar thing found was a ‘tablet proving widowhood’, after 2 years of a husband being captured.
  • The wording was probably the recurring “You are allowed to marry any men you wish” (traceable though Jewish marriage & divorce certificates).
  • This document was needed not for men (who could marry another wife regardless of the status of an earlier marriage due to polygamy permission) but for women (who could be accused of adultery punishable by death if they remarried).
  • In the Law of Moses all widows are given the right to remarry. Even more: widows without a son were guaranteed a new husband by the Levirate marriage, stipulating the duty of a brother to raise up offspring for his brother (Deu 25:5-9),
  • In Ancient Near Eastern Law a husband had the right to reclaim his neglected wife by force within 5 years, even if she had remarried in the meantime, including children. This would have made is much harder for neglected women to even find husbands to marry them, because of this risk.
  • Deu 24 doesn’t allow for that: once divorced the husband has no further claims. It allows a woman to remain married to her second husband, the first husband can’t claim her back by force. To divorce a wife meant to loose all claims to her.
  • This protective ‘must give a certificate of divorce’ law was sadly turned around as a pressure point to subjugate women: if a husband refused to write the certificate, the woman was stuck. He wasn’t stuck because of the polygamy permission.
  • This also was a problem for wives of husbands missing or presumed dead.
  • Psa 132:13-16 “For the LORD has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation: “This is my resting place forever’ here I will reside, for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless its provisions; I will satisfy its poor with bread, its priests will clothe with salvation and its faithful will shout for joy”. This describes God covenanting with Israel, in terms resembling a husband’s marriage vows, though going far beyond it.

Later prophets

Israel’s breaking of the marriage vows is condemned
  • Law of Moses describes God bringing Israel unto himself (Exo 19:4), covenanting with Israel to be their God and them being his people (Exo 19:4-6, 29:45). God is described as a jealous God (Exo 20:5, 34:14), demanding and rightfully deserving Israel’s exclusive worship.
  • Hosea, then Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel develop a theme inherent in the OT: God as the abandoned husband of Israel, who has broken marriage covenant vows, reluctantly divorcing Israel. God is guiltless and without shame, since Israel has blatantly broken the marriage vows.
  • God’s divorce from Israel is expressed in several ways “you are not my people and I am not your God” (Hos 1:9), inverting Exo 29:45. Also “She is not my wife, and I am not her husband” (Hos 2:2) which is most likely the exact wording in a divorce. Divorce is also implied in “then she shall say, “I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now” (Hos 2:7) and “I will go after my lover; they give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink” (Hos 2:5), paralleling Exo 21:10-11.
  • God never wanted this divorce, God suffers this divorce, Israel having broken every marriage vow repeatedly and consistently.
  • Hosea’s hope oracles are – beyond reason or belief – that God would take back the re-united Israel and Judah, described in terms of a virgin (Hos 2:19-20).
  • Isaiah likens both idolatry and political alliances to adultery against God. But when he speaks hope he asks them where their ‘certificate of divorce’ is (Isa 50:1)
  • Jeremiah – addressing a faithless Judah – likens her to a faithless sister to faithless Israel (Jer 3:11). He quotes the Deu 24 divorce law (Jer 3:1)
  • Similarly Ezekiel describes Judah as the helpless child raised up as a bride for himself that turns idolatrous (Eze 6) and also Israel and Judah as two whoring sisters, breaking the marriage vows (Eze 23).

Mal 2:13-16                God hates divorce, faithlessness, breaking of covenant

“And this you do as well: You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. 14 You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring. So look to yourselves, and do not let anyone be faithless to the wife of his youth. 16 For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.”

  • Redefining spirituality as to daily choice, behavior with family, not the big crying praying sacrificing fasting. Command again to men, when beauty or youth or novelty wears off.
  • Sex is not only physical but also spiritual … the union is on all levels. The destruction thereof is like ripping apart everything.
  • Mal2:16 parallels divorce and violence. God doesn’t want anybody to have to go through something like this.
  • Context: Israel’s faithless to God. God is faithful, he will never abandon us, he is always committed, … we need to be like him.
  • Malachi speaks of God’s hatred for divorce, both in human marriage, but also for the current attitude of the returned Jews: marrying idolatrous wives (Mal 2:11-12), not giving tithes (Mal 3:8-10), magic, adultery, perjury, oppression of employees, widows, orphans and foreigners (Mal 3:5), all constituting covenant breaking.
  • Verse 16 is in the 3rd person (in translations often put in God’s mouth “I hate divorce”) but actually is ‘he hates (and) divorces’. ‘Hates and divorces’ is the standard expression referring to a no-grounds-divorce (De 22:13, 24:3). The meaning then would be: Do not be faithless to your wife, your vows, do not divorce on no grounds. The message then is not: Don’t divorce! The message is: do not break your marriage vows!
  • Qumran exegets (first to forbid polygamy) do not criticize divorce or remarriage.
  • Classical Greece and early Rome divorce was almost unknown and women were in total subjection to their husbands. By 300 BC this was replace by ‘free marriage’. Augustus tried to go back by passing a law in 18 BC, but with little effect.
  • Divorce by Jewish women becomes easier outside Israel from 200 BC to 100 AD. Marriage is considered to be a matter of mutual consent, when consent brakes down, the marriage ends. Either partner could end it by walking out or declaring it ended. These were no penalty divorces. If the woman committed adultery, she lost the dowry, if the husband committed adultery, he had to pay her a dowry and a half. Adultery was common, though still shameful, and was considered by some to make divorce compulsory.
  • 500 BC Jewish documents of Egypt show almost total equality of men and women: equal rights to orally divorce, equal inheritance rights, equal conjugal rights, and equal rights to demand monogamy from the spouse. The latter shows Greco-Roman influence, as till 300 BC they were monogamous. Unlike Greco-Roman custom walking out of the house or expelling the spouse from the house didn’t constitute divorce and was financially penalized.
  • In Judaism women got slowly more say, still the divorce certificate could only be given by he husband, but courts could force a husband to write one.
  • Simeon ben Shetah changed financial aspects of marriage & divorce to discourage divorce & give greater financial security to divorcee, but thereby reducing the stigma

Rabbinic Teaching: Increased grounds for divorce

  • 1st century BC there was consensus that grounds for divorce were: childlessness, material neglect, emotional neglect (Exo 21:10-11) and unfaithfulness. Divorce was generally regarded as undesirable but sometimes necessary. Divorce was enacted by the man, but courts could persuade men to enact divorces, if the woman had enough grounds. Remarriage was generally accepted, but treated as adultery if the divorce was not valid. Also there was agreement on financial penalties for the party breaking the marriage vows.
  • So men could not be forced into a divorce, unless there were grounds, but a woman could be divorced with or without grounds. Yet the courts could – if sufficient grounds existed – so financially penalize that it ruined the man, or some Talmudic commentators say whips were used in some cases.
  • Disagreements were around a new interpretation of Deu 24:1, which Hillel interpreted as an ‘any grounds divorce’.

Infertility as ground for divorce

  • Gen 1:28 was interpreted to be a binding command. Children were the main, even goal for marriage. The only reason for a Jew not to marry was to study the Torah or because of financial difficulties, bu it was rare.
  • If withing 10 years of marriage there was no offspring, a divorce and remarriage was expected that hopefully were fertile. It is likely this ruling was rarely enforced, but it was permissible.
  • Both Shamma and Hillel in NT times allowed for divorce if childlessness persisted.

Unfaithfulness as ground for divorce

  • Adultery was treated extremely seriously. Theoretically it was still a capital offense deserving capital punishment in NT times.
  • The required 2 witnesses to the act were hard to come by. Philo thought that is why there is the Bitter Water rite (Num 5) for suspected adultery.
  • Adultery was probably rare, but even a mere suspicion was taken seriously and subjected to the rite. Bitter water rites were common, but with the destruction of the temple they could no longer be performed.
  • It was assumed that a guilty woman would die on her own, so there was no need (and no compulsion) to divorce her. But the husband had the right to divorce her, keeping the dowry.
  • Mary’s betrothed Joseph didn’t divorce / reject her obeying God’s instruction, but the community would have seen Mary as being unfaithful to him. Bitter Water rites were not applied with pregnancy. In the case of Mary her unfaithfulness seemed proven.
  • A woman could not divorce her husband for unfaithfulness because of polygamy. The offense was not against his wife but against the husband of his lover. A man could therefore not be guilty of unfaithfulness and therefore not divorced.
  • Very clear issues of inequality existed, though a marriage was still voluntary, the wife couldn’t be forced to speak vows.
  • Women could be divorced for ‘encouraging’ adultery: loose hair, exposed skin, … Dowry remained with the husband. The bitter water rite could prove her innocence.

Exodus 21:10-11 as grounds for divorce

  • These were the grounds women could use to divorce a husband.
    • 1 (she’arah) ‘food’ … literally ‘her flesh’, usually translated ‘her food’, ‘rich food’ (as meat was not regularly eaten), possibly her physical well-being or even sexual satisfaction.. Mostly understood as ‘food’, ‘provisions’
    • 2 (kesutha) ‘clothing’ … also ‘accommodation’, ‘covering’,
    • 3 (onathah) is hard to translate: ‘her abode, her right of parenthood, her nuptial gift, her food, ointment … most translate: marital duty / conjugal rights
  • In NT times the agreed translation was ‘food, clothing and conjugal rights’, though the exact meaning of some words was debated.
  • This was a law concerning slave wives, but it became the basis of general divorce law “if that is true, then surely this is also true” … if a slave wife had these rights, so did any wife, and any husband.
  • If there obligations were broken, it meant for the slave woman to be free, free of the marriage and the slave status (and any debt or so). For a wife it would mean free of the marriage without loss of the dowry.
  • Both Shamma and Hillel accepted these grounds for divorce, thought they disagreed on the length of time that constituted emotional neglect.
  • The rabbinic literature grouped this into material neglect and emotional neglect. Material neglect normally led to divorce, emotional neglect was give conciliation attempts and fines in the hope that divorce could be avoided.
  • Material neglect: defined as undiminished supply of food and clothing. Husbands had to provide these, wives had to prepare these (meals and clothes). Details as to amount and activities were worked out.
  • Also: a Jewish wife in the Diaspora could be taken to Judah or Jerusalem without her permission, but not the other way round. Distance from family was regulated.
  • Emotional neglect: conjugal duty of the men was spelled out by profession (daily for richer, every 2 days by workers, those laboring away every 7 or 30 days as per profession, 30 days to study the Torah. No details are spelled out for the wife.
  • Courts would not easily allow divorces, rather fine: by decreasing the ketubah for the rebellious wife, and by increasing it for the rebellious husband.
  • It is significant that there is no mention of ‘forcing of conjugal rights’ anywhere, which means that a husband could not force a wife, neither vice versa. The illegality of marital rape became well established in Judaism at a relatively early stage.
  • Emotional neglect probably included much more: Cruelty, beating and humiliation were also recognized as grounds for divorce in rabbinic literature (dating difficulty).
  • Lists of how a husband could be cruel to a wife were followed by lists of how a wife could be cruel to a husband. The courts implemented divorce in the case of cruelty divorce, whereas lack of giving conjugal rights was typically treated by fines.
  • Mishna: Emotional neglect going on for a month > divorce. Woman gets the dowry.
  • Eze 16: 16-19 describes God providing food, clothing and much more to an Israel, which then turns to adultery and prostitution.

Any ground divorce

  • Deu 24:1 ‘a matter of indecency’ was interpreted differently by Shamma and Hillel. Hillel interpreted this to mean: ‘any matter’ and ‘indecency’ as grounds, meaning anything could be a ground, even a spoiled meal. Shamma interpreted ‘a matter of indecency’ = adultery as grounds for divorce together with the three Ex 21:10-11 grounds. This was the most common interpretation.
  • Hillelite courts required no evidence. To still slow down a ‘heat of the moment’ divorce, they had elaborate rule for the actual procedure based on Deu 24:1-4 of writing the certificate, then handing her the certificate and then ‘sends her outside his house’. As divorces had become common, these hurdles were put in place and more financial penalties were added.
  • Hillelite divorce quickly became the norm as normal people shied away from difficult, resource consuming and shameful evidence & proofs in court.
  • Joseph, wishing not to bring shame on Mary (Mth 1:19) wanted to go for a Hillelite any grounds divorce, that required no public trial, no evidence brought by witnesses and very little fuss. Matthew says the Joseph was planning this because he was a righteous man.
  • A divorce then didn’t require a court unless there was a dispute about dowry. All a husband has to do was pay back the dowry > the divorce would stand. Any money earned by his wife during the marriage belonged to him.
  • Girls were often betrothed before they reached adulthood at 12 ½ years, and could not refuse the marriage. Once adult they could refuse the marriage. Young girls were therefore in a very different position from widows and divorcees.
  • Right to remarry was implied in the certificate of divorce. Paul says “she is fee to marry whichever man she wishes, (but) only in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39), echoing the divorce certificate language.
  • A widow without a male child was obligated by Scripture to marry his brother in a Levirate marriage, though he could refuse by a publicly humiliating ceremony.
  • There was no stigma involved in marrying a divorcee of widow, unless the woman was divorced for adultery. Such a second marriage required only half the bride-price. Often divorcees and widows remarrying were 2nd wives of their husbands.
  • The minimum dowry was about 8 months wages of a day laborer, so a divorcee could not live forever on that money, and therefore seek a further marriage. Richer divorcees might not have. Women were equal to men in almost every way in rabbinic Judaism, except in the realm of their fertility. They did not have to remarry but a divorcee or widow of childbearing age was encouraged to remarry in the NT and rabbinic Judaism (1 Tim 5:14).
  • Remarriage after an invalid divorce was considered adultery.

Jesus on divorce and remarriage

The question brought to Jesus                       Mth 19:3-10, Mrk 10:1-12

“Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made the male and female,’ 5 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’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
  • The Pharisees come to test Jesus over a point they are themselves divided over. Whatever he will say, one group will oppose it.
  • Mark doesn’t have ‘for any cause’ but simply “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” All Pharisees agreed on the unfaithfulness and the Exo 21:10-11 grounds for divorce. What they disagreed over was the ‘any matter’ divorce versus ‘a matter of indecency’ divorce (interpretation of Deu 24:1). Mark assumes this to be clear, Matthew put the phrase back in for clarification, but they are reporting the same question for the same reason.
  • Mark’s question if taken the other way round: ‘is it at all lawful to divorce a wife?’ all, including Jesus, would have answered: ‘yes, of course, it says to in the law’.
  • Jesus doesn’t appear first to answer their question at all. He is more concerned with reminding them that marriage was meant to be monogamous and life-long.
  • To do so he refers back to ‘the beginning’, quoting Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:24. The emphasis is not that ‘back then it used to be so, but no longer’, but ‘this is how God made it and wants it’.
  • Those of Jesus contemporaries who argued monogamy used Gen 1:27 together with Gen 7:9-10, so this ‘two by two’ thought would likely be present in people’s mind when Jesus speaks.
  • Jesus says ‘…let no man separate’. The word ‘separate’ had the almost identical range of meaning to the word ‘divorce’.
  • The picture is that the couple by their marriage vows bind themselves together, and God ‘joins’ them, blesses them and is witness to their vows (Malachi portrays God as witness).
  • ‘let not one separate’ doesn’t mean ‘no once can separate’, but it is a command to the couple to not separate. Jesus implies that it is sin to break the marriage vows.
  • Jesus thinks this a suitable answer, but the Pharisees, Shammaites and Hillelites are not satisfied.

7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her? 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so heard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

  • The Pharisees are using the passage to prove that Moses ‘allows divorce’, under the condition that a divorce certificate is given. They look for an easy divorce, justified by obeying legal trappings. This easy divorce was for the man, a right or freedom they will not grant woman.
  • Why then did God ever give this law to Moses?
    • > sin is a present reality, they are a mess, God is trying to clean them up,
    • > this law is a ‘limiting damage’ law, an attempt to reduce damage within bad things, how to bring a degree of justice within injustice.
  • Basically: at least divorce her properly, so she can remarry legally.
  • A husband can send his wife away and remarry without a legal divorce because of polygamy being allowed. But she cannot. So for her not be stuck and abandoned and neglected forever, at least properly divorce her, so she can remarry.
  • ‘because you are hard-hearted’ … why? For applying the law to only one gender, for wanting to escape and not be faithful, for looking for loopholes
  • But divorce is not prescribed for adultery, if at all a reconciliation is possible through forgiveness and voluntary accountability, it is much preferred. Jesus does not forbid divorce, but he discourages it and tells his followers to do their best to avoid it.
  • Full prohibition of divorce creates injustice of a different nature.
  • Other values need to be held in balance with the value of the marriage, the sanctity of life for example. No authority is absolute, every authority has limits.
  • They introduce Deu 24:1-4 as a teaching of compulsory divorce on the grounds of adultery at this point to counter Jesus’ ‘marriage should be life-long’.
  • They in effect say: ‘the law commands divorce in some situations, therefore marriage cannot be regarded as life-long.’
  • Jesus answered that the Law of Moses doesn’t command but allows divorce. The implication is that even in the case of adultery divorce is not mandatory.
  • What about adultery that is persistent & unrepentant? Jesus’ comment on ‘hardness of heart’ answers that: the law allows divorce because of human stubbornness. Stubbornness could hark back to Jer 3:1, 3:3, 3:13, 3:17, 3:20, where stubbornness, non-circumcision of the heart and divorce is linked for Israel against God.
  • Jesus ‘allows’ or ‘encourages’ the wronged partner to forgive the guilty partner, and says the divorce law should only be used if the guilty partner stubbornly refuses to repent. Jesus teaches to forgive anyone who repents (Luk 17:3-4).
  • This would have been scandalous in Jewish ears, adultery being considered a very serious crime, and forgiveness an outrage or shame, looked at with disdain. This is what Hosea faced, and Mary’s husband Joseph.
  • Jesus still had not answered the original question or whether ‘any matter’ divorces were okay.

9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unfaithfulness, and marries another commits adultery.”

  • In Mark Jesus speaks this as a later explanation to the disciples.
  • What does Jesus mean? In no legal code ancient or of that time was it held that a legally divorced person remarrying is committing adultery.
  • ‘commits adultery’ means illegal sexual relations with a person who is married to someone else. It’s life theft: stealing what belongs to another.
  • Some interpret this to mean that divorce may be legal, but remarriage is not. But sexual relations after remarriage do not constitute adultery as per the law.
  • Most interpreters therefore explain the passage as having to refer to an illegal divorce, otherwise it makes no sense in relation to other laws.
  • 4 scenarios are mentioned in Matthew, Luke, Mark and referral to illegal divorce make sense for all 4 scenarios:
  • 1 a man who marries an invalidly divorced woman commits adultery (Luk 16:18, Mth 5:32). This was clear in Jewish eyes: if the woman who accidentally marries two men, the second relationship constitutes adultery.
  • 2 a man who invalidly divorces his wife cause her to commit adultery (Mth 5:32, variants of Mth 19:9). ‘Causes’ here is due to the expectation that a divorced woman will remarry for economic and safety reasons. But some who could afford not to, didn’t. The point is not: divorce = adultery. The point is: if she remarried, and therefore becomes an adulteress, her first husband bears part of the guilt.
  • 3 a man who invalidly divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (Mrk 10:11, Mth 19:9, Luk 16:18). That did not agree with understanding of the law of the time: a man who married an unmarried woman couldn’t technically commit adultery: he was committing polygamy, but not adultery. Yet Jesus had insisted on monogamy, and if monogamy then also the invalidly divorcing man can commit adultery if he marries another. Jesus with this statement then not only condemns polygamy, he makes polygamy illegal. Jesus says ‘adultery against her (his first wife)’ in Mrk 10:11. In polygamy the adultery was never against the wife, it was possibly against the husband of the woman taken second if she was married. Jesus puts up the standard significantly, here.
  • 4 a woman who invalidly divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery (Mrk 10:12). This would have to refer to non-Jewish settings, because Jewish women were not able to divorce their husbands unless through a court persuasion. Technically the husband could not be forced to divorce. The woman could perform all the parts of a divorce but he still had to sign the divorce certificate.
  • This all matching and making sense shows that Jesus indeed meant that remarriage after an invalid divorce (only) constituted adultery, and for both man and woman, but not a remarriage after a legal divorce.
  • But why would a divorce be considered invalid? The answer lies in Jesus’ exception clause ‘except for indecency’ (Mth 19:9, Mth 5:32) with which he goes back to Deu 24:1-4, the text on which the Hillelite based their interpretation.
  • This doesn’t mean that Jesus claims there is only one legitimate ground for divorce ‘a matter of indecency’ (to the exclusion or for example Exo 21:10-11 grounds). He uses ‘a matter of indecency’ to refer back to Deu 24:1-4, he passage on which the Hillelites based their interpretation.
  • What does ‘a matter of indecency’ mean? It includes adultery but also is used for a wider range of sexual sin and impropriety (like in Heb 13:4). It may include physical abuse or mental torture, but there are no support texts available. Some argue it means strictly incest. Though incest is definitely included, the context is not incest, but ‘too liberal use of the divorce right’.
  • Jesus here turns against the Hillelite interpretation of ‘any matter’, for if ‘any matter’ would do, a divorce would always be legal (if procedure was maintained and dowry was returned etc.), and then the case of an ‘invalid’ divorce and therefore consequent adultery (also for men, presuming polygamy illegal) would not come up.

Mth 5:31-32             divorcing or marrying a divorcee

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce’;’ 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Luk 16:18               remarriage after divorce = adultery

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

  • Context of Jesus arguing with the Pharisees, showing them that they appear well but are not clean in heart > in this context Jesus brings up the divorce issue again. After that the Lazarus story: you don’t listen to Moses anyway.
  • Matthew abbreviates, and Luke even more so, but with the context in mind (clauses that hearers and readers would have put in automatically):
  • Matthew’s ‘except on the ground of unfaithfulness’ is a short-hand of Jesus referring to ‘legitimate causes for divorce as per the law’ (including unfaithfulness, material & emotional neglect as per Exo 21:10-11). This is not meant to declare the Exodus grounds of the Law of Moses as invalid. They are assumed (as all Pharisees also agreed) … the point is made against the Hillellite position that ‘any ground will do’.
  • Luke abbreviates this even further, not even mentioning the exception clause (far less have it list all legitimate grounds), but the clauses would have been present in hearers’ minds.
  • Abbreviations like this are well known also in rabbinic literature (not every exception clause is always spoken). What is agreed upon is not brought up.

Mth 19:10 better not marry!

“His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better no to marry. 11 But he said to them, Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

  • The disciples (not the hard hearted Pharisees!) respond, saying basically – if the same standard is applied to man as was applied to women all along -, it is better not to marry! Now that is honest.
  • This further explanation is in private. The disciples are surprised at the limitations that Jesus put on divorce. Maybe they are surprised that Jesus said that spouses should forgive each other and not divorce (if at all possible) or, more likely, that Jesus opposes the Hillelites ‘any matter divorces’. They probably regarded that ‘power to divorce of the man’ as needed to keep their wives under control. Or they needed a way to get out of a marriage where they lost control. There is a sense of fear in their answer.
  • Jesus then makes his most surprising statement: that not all men are expected to marry, that marriage and childbearing was not compulsory. For the Jewish understanding Gen 1:28 was a binding command and the Shammaites and Hillelites had debates about minimum number of children fulfilling the multiplication command. So much so that many assume Paul must have been married (and widowed), some even that Jesus was married. Marriage was expected in the teenage years, so Jesus’ singleness would have raised eyebrows.
  • Jesus’ birth was not officially regarded as illegitimate at the time, for that would have meant he could not enter the temple courts nor participate in synagogue worship. Illegitimacy needed proofs. But rumors and shame would have surrounded his birth story. Later rabbinic literature declares him illegitimate.
  • The first two ‘eunuch by birth’ and ‘eunuch by the action of men’ were categories also recognized by rabbis.
  • The third category was completely new ‘made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom’. It is unparalleled and there is nothing in rabbinic literature like it.
  • This did not refer to castration (there is nothing on self-mutilation even in the most ascetic branches of Judaism, ‘marring the image of God’), but to life without marriage and childbearing. Jesus describes, even commends this as an option that can be voluntarily chosen. This would have been totally shocking.
Instone-Brewer: reconstructed Text with ‘assumed clauses’ put in

The Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on the grounds of any matter’ (Deu 24:1) 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” (Gen 1:27), and ‘For this reason a man shall eave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24). 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 to put her away?” (Deu 24:1). He answered them, “Moses did not command this, but he allowed it. He allowed it in the situation of stubborn hardness of hear (Jer 4:4 – where God divorces Israel who stubbornly refuses to repent of her adulteries). 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 matter’ and not for ‘a matter indecency’ (the correct interpretation of Deu 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 (no polygamy allowed). Similarly, if a woman forces her husband to divorce her for ‘any matter’ and not for ‘a matter indecency’ and she marries another, she is also committing adultery.

Luk 7:36-50               Jesus’ grace > sinful woman anointing him

“her sins, which were many, have been forgiven, hence she has shown great love, But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little. Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

  • Any sin can be forgiven to the repentant. The woman knows her sin, hopes for forgiveness. She does not defend or justify her sin.
  • But this is not commenting on future marriage permission.

Jhn 8:1-11                 Jesus’ grace > man and woman caught in adultery

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sire.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. God your from now on do not sin again.”
  • Thinking about this situation it becomes clear that those setting the trap have not prevented this adultery, rather watched it (or even orchestrated it) to use it for their purpose of trapping Jesus.
  • Jesus does not join their gender-biased accusation and application of the law … The law commands death penalty for both man and woman (Le 20:10)
  • Jesus who could judge does not judge, rather forgives & tells her not to sin any more.
  • They focus on adultery (the favorite sin to attack, especially in a woman), Jesus focuses on all sin.
Practical Consequences of Jesus’ teaching
  • Jesus’ teaching means a revolution to the Jewish world that is easily overlooked:
    • 1 Monogamy
    • 2 Marriage should be life-long
    • 3 Divorce is not compulsory
    • 4 Divorce is allowable
    • 5 Marriage is not compulsory
    • 6 Divorce for ‘any matter’ is invalid

1 Monogamy

  • An individual can be married to only one person at a time.
  • Polygamy was getting rarer except with the very rich, so not a huge impact there.
  • But it decreased the inequality concerning the law for man and woman.
  • It also allowed women to use adultery by the husband as a ground for divorce.
  • The vows of ‘sexual exclusiveness’ would be made by both at the marriage act.
  • This had the unwanted side effect of making it harder for widows to remarry (as 2nd wives often were widows, with half bride-price making them more affordable) as unmarried men were much rarer.
  • Paul encourages the younger widows to marry, and the older widows to use their greater freedom well as examples, teachers.
  • There are records of over 1500 widows received daily support in the Roman church, and 3000 widows and virgins in Antioch.

 

2 Marriage

  • Marriage should be lifelong, and it is against God’s will to break it up.
  • This command alone didn’t change much, as rabbis also taught that, but in connection with the following commands it was of huge consequences.

 

3 Divorce

  • Divorce is not compulsory, even in cases of adultery.
  • This was contrary to standard rabbinic teaching.
  • The bitter water rite could be used, but husbands who didn’t love their wives could divorce them even if they were not proven guilty by the rite. And husbands who loved their wives did not want to subject her to the rite.
  • Positive consequences: it was no longer considered impious to continue the marriage, and many men might be glad to be permitted to forgive their wives.
  • Women could also forgive their adulterous husbands and this would have been acknowledged as such (before this would not have been an issue of forgiveness as he had polygamous rights).
  • This would have greatly eased things for women in the area of ‘acts encouraging adultery’, like being in a room with a man or talking with a man in public. Before twice talking (2nd time after a warning of the husband) could force a husband to divorce her whether he wanted to or not.

 

4 Divorce is allowable

  • Divorce is allowable, if there is a stubborn refusal to stop breaking marriage vows.
  • This is by implication only. It gave the sinned against spouse an option to eventually ask for a divorce.
  • It seems that Jesus accepted adultery and also the Exo 21:10-11 grounds as legitimate grounds for divorce, if persisting (though not ‘any matter’ and not infertility).
  • Time spans for the different aspects were not defined in rabbinic literature (except conjugal rights), neither in the NT. Not really any changes here.

 

5 Marriage is not compulsory

  • Marriage is not compulsory, and so infertility is not a ground for divorce.
  • Under rabbinic interpretation it was definitely permissible, partially commanded to divorce in case of fertility.
  • Jesus abolishes this. Jesus does not regard Gen 1:28 as binding on every man,
    6 Divorce for ‘any matter’ is invalid
  • Divorce for any matter is invalid and so remarriage after this divorce is adulterous.
  • This had a big impact as divorces by this time were treated rather lightly it seems.
  • This would also mean that children of the 2nd marriage are illegitimate.
  • Maybe Jesus’ listeners assumed that Jesus would not grant divorce on these terms, but that he would recognize divorces done by others (as the Shammaites and Hillelites recognized each other’s divorces, or as one denomination’s marriage is recognized by other denominations).
  • But Jesus is very strict compared to Jewish society here: He not only limited the grounds for divorce, but encouraged forgiveness instead of divorce.
  • What would Jesus’ followers have done? Annulling second marriages and trying to go back to the earlier ones? Remaining single because the divorce has been ‘any matter’? Maybe that is why Jesus adds the saying about the acceptability, even the value of choosing celibacy. There is no instruction to prosecute here.
Does Jesus allow other grounds for divorce than unfaithfulness?
  • There is no direct argument, three arguments from silence can be made (which need to be taken with caution):
    • 1 Jesus didn’t say anything about the other grounds for divorce (and he brings up several things they didn’t want to hear, like monogamy, life-long marriage, allowed only, any matter isn’t legitimate, infertility is no ground).
    • 2 The reason the other legitimate grounds for divorce don’t come up in the conversation is because they were agreed upon by all, including Jesus.
    • 3 Jesus uses the almost identical language to the Shammaite ruling in his exception clause, who also accepted the Exo 21:10-11 grounds as legitimate. Jesus uses the same wording in the same context with Shammaites present. If Jesus meant something else, he would have addressed it or said it differently.

Paul on marriage

  • Paul states obligations within marriage, Jesus’ teaching against divorce, the right to remarry if one is divorced against one’s will, delaying marriage for practical reasons. He indirectly identifies as ground for divorce. He calls desertion an improper means of divorce. Remarriage as right for those who had been divorced against their will, even if the grounds for the divorce were not strictly those laid down in Scripture.
  • Divorce in the Graeco-Roman world: men and women could divorce their partner by unilateral separation. A spouse moving out or a spouse telling the other spouse to move out constituted divorce. There was no requirement for a warning, nor an option for prevention, grounds did not have to given, or could be of any kind, example: diminishing beauty. No exact statistics but anecdotal evidence indicates a high divorce rate. Marriage certificates had a lot more on divorce procedures than about the case of widowhood, seemingly not expecting the marriages to last.
  • In contrast to this: the Jewish concept of bondage, where both husband and wife were bound to keep obligations, and divorce required a certificate.
  • Though Hillel added the ‘any ground divorce’ besides the 4 legitimate Jewish grounds for divorce (unfaithfulness, the three of Exo 21:10-11), it still differed from Graeco-Roman law in that it was only open to men, and the certificate was required. Marriage contracts were expected to last till death, though divorce in case of marriage vow breaking was included.

1 Cor 7:1-9                                  Emotional obligations in marriage

Now concerning the matters which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman”. 2 But, because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should to have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 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. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. Bu each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9 But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

  • Paul quotes the Corinthians’ slogan (set apart by an ‘eta!) and corrects them, here and in many other passages in Corinthians.
  • The slogan may be from an ascetic, maybe pre-Gnostic philosophy, somebody who is anti-sex (not anti-marriage, actually).
  • Paul states the opposite: for married man and women sexual relations are par of their marriage, their vows, their obligations. Paul talks about it in terms of owing one another, even belonging to one another. Paul affirms Exo 21:10-11, conjugal rights for both. Even a slave wife had the right to being loved by her husband, how much more a free wife and a husband.
  • Paul doesn’t allow ‘demanding love’, though, he commands ‘giving love’.
  • He then states his opinion – which shows that everything up to now he considers law – about a period of abstinence. The law of Moses doesn’t cover this, Shammaites had a maximum of 2 weeks of abstinence, the Hillelites had 1 week. These were probably the time frames Paul also was thinking about, but this also shows that Paul was not interested to define legal details to the same degrees as rabbis did.
  • Paul states the rights and obligations throughout this chapter in a completely even way, same for husband and wife.
  • Paul states the Scriptural norm to be for men and women to marry. He is in tension with this when he talks of marriage as necessary but undesirable. Why would he think that? Later verses show that he considered the times in which he lived to be dangerous and difficult for children and families, so possibly for that treason.
  • Paul gives freedom no to marry, but he doesn’t condone people practicing abstinence in marriage for some ascetic ideal.

1 Cor 7:32-35                              Material obligations in marriage

“I want you to be free from anxieties. He unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, 33 but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord.

  • Paul bases his teaching on the OT, specifically Exo 21:10-11. In 1 Cor 7:1-9 he covered conjugal rights (no emotional neglect) and in 1 Cor 7:32-25 he covers rights to food and clothing (no material neglect).
  • Paul’s motive for discouraging marriage to free people up from accompanying material obligations, during the time of ‘present distress’ and ‘tribulation in the flesh (1 Cor 7:26, 28). This probably refers to famines affecting Corinth at that time (Eusebius, Pliny and Suetonius mention grain shortages and attendant social unrest roughly 40-60 AD). This could have been a reason for the illness and death withing the congregation mentioned in 1 Cor 11:30).
  • Being married and looking after a family was a full-time occupation at that difficult time. This does not mean that Paul generally regarded marriage and family as incompatible with Christian service. He mentions Peter and others being accompanied by a wife (1 Cor 9:5) and speaks highly of Aquila and Priscilla (Rom 16:3-4), an apostle-teacher couple.
  • Again Paul describes the material obligation is marriage in completely parallel terms for men and women.
  • Again he simply affirms Exo 21:10-11: if a slave wife had these rights, even more so a free wife, and the husband. Paul is not condemning marriage and its material obligations, but simply states that they will take time to fulfill.
  • Paul doesn’t mention that ‘material neglect’ constituted grounds for divorce, for his thrust in this chapter is for the Corinthians to not cause a divorce if at all it could be helped. But he uses and affirms Exo 21:10-11 in just the same way as in Judaism: three issues divided in emotional and material neglect, and them being binding on both partners. Paul also interprets the hard to translate third ground ‘conjugal rights’ as sexual love. Paul seems to assume his readers know the normal Jewish application of these obligations (the argument in 1 Cor 7:15 seems to depend on it). Paul stresses fulfillment of marital obligations as a way to diminish or discourage divorce, not unlike the rabbinic courts slapping financial penalties on the partner that caused emotional neglect.
  • Desertion is not a valid means of divorce

1 Cor 7:10-15                              Desertion is not a valid means of divorce

“To the married I give this command – not I, but the Lord – that the wife should not separate from her husband. 11 (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say – I and not the Lord – that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is and unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is mad holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. 16 Wife, for all yo know you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

  • The word used is separate, dismiss, divorce … there are no principal differences. In the Graeco-Roman world separation was a legal divorce.
  • The passage is in two parts, one that Paul states as authoritative (based on gospel tradition of Jesus’ teaching about divorce) and one that Paul states to be his opinion or advice.
  • Authoritative: Do not divorce by separation! If divorce by separation had occurred, they must do everything they can to reverse it: trying to be reconciled and remaining single so as to be available for reconciliation.
  • This only makes sense if Paul was talking about divorce by separation in the Graeco-Roman context for in a Jewish world to simply separate didn’t cause one to be ‘unmarried’ nor allow remarriage in the first place.
  • Both Jesus and Paul allowed divorce on valid grounds (adultery, emotional & material neglect), but not an ‘any ground’ divorce.
  • 1 Cor 7:12-15 Paul states his opinion, doesn’t claim Scriptural authority and argues from logic: If a believer is in a marriage to an unbeliever, let him not cause a divorce by breaking vows or separation. What if the unbeliever partner is not willing, that is: separates or divorces the believer? In this case the believer is not bound. Can a believer who has been so divorced remarry? ‘Not bound’ seems to imply that Paul allowed a believer in this situation to remarry (if having a divorce forced on them).
  • Paul did not allow any Christian the use of the Greco-Roman procedure of divorce by separation, simply deserting the spouse. He bases this on Jesus teaching against the Hillelite ‘any ground divorce’ and also on his own understanding of marriage: such a divorce could not be used even on an unbeliever. However, if a believer had his unbelieving spouse force a divorce by separation on him or her, there was no way to prevent it.
  • What does ‘is not bound’ mean? Free to separate? Free to remain separate and not seek reconciliation? Free to divorce? Free to remarry?
  • The only way the passage makes sens is by assuming the last one: free to remarry, the very phrase in all the Jewish divorce certificates: ‘you are free to marry any man you wish’.
  • ‘For God has called us to peace’ reminds of the phrase ‘for the sake of peace’ occurring in rabbinic Judaism when a pragmatic solution was necessary even if not following the interpretation of the law strictly.
  • Strictly speaking deserted believers were not free to remarry under the laws of Scripture, first they had to obtain a legal divorce based on the four grounds for divorce. For a man this wasn’t a problem (polygamy being allowed) but a woman was stuck if she couldn’t obtain the divorce certificate. This is still a problem of Jewish women today, they are called ‘agunot’ or ‘chained women’, ones whose husbands out of spite refuse to write the certificate.
  • Paul cuts through this real problem by the pragmatic solution he proposes: in the case of a person having a divorce by separation forced on them and can do nothing to reverse it, should be regarded as validly divorced, and therefore free to remarry.
  • Paul was not too concerned with the exact grounds for divorce when a man or woman is divorced against his or her will in a society that is governed by non biblical laws. Though Paul doesn’t allow the believers to use a Greco-Roman divorce by desertion, but if that is forced on a believer, and the unbelieving spouse considers it as legal and final (by Greco-Roman law) then it should be considered a valid divorce, allowing the believer to remarry.

1 Cor 7:25-31, 36-38                   Marriage is good, lifelong, but difficult at present

“Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. 29 I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, 30 and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice and those who buy as through they had no possessions 31 and those who deal with the world as through they had no dealings with the world. For the present form of this world is passing away. … 36 If anyone thinks he is not behaving properly toward his fiancee, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let them marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. 37 But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancee, he will do well. 38 So then, he who marries his fiancee does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

  • Who exactly is Paul addressing? Basically two possibilities:
    • 1 advising unmarried men not to marry their fiancee
    • 2 advising fathers not to marry off their daughters
  • Probably: Paul addresses virgins, meaning ‘unmarried, before first marriage’. He says virgins, then keeps talking on as if to men > virgin should be read inclusive of both genders.
  • The immediate context of 1 Cor 7:27 is the question of virgins or betrothed, but Paul seems to widen it out in 1 Cor 7:26-27, so this could well include a divorcee or a widow. The message being: don’t marry if you are okay with it, but to marry is not sin. That would be Paul allowing marriage in general, and also remarriage for widows & divorcees. The word ‘free’ or ‘released’ was a general word for being released form any sort of contract. A valid divorce would fall under that.

1 Cor 7:39-40                              Remarriage of widows

“A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my judgment she is more blessed if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

  • This is addressing widows (some say addressing betrothed widows).
  • By this verse Paul departs from the Levirate marriage (Deu 25:5-10), a widow having to marry her dead husband’s brother to raise up a male child.
  • The Levirate marriage ensured that there was always a male heir of the family, to whom the land holding would go, or to whom the land would return in the year of jubilee. With exile, return and diaspora of the Jews these laws diminished in importance (and hadn’t been implemented fully for centuries already, if ever they really were). For Gentile believers this was of no relevance anyway.
  • Paul therefore allows a widow to not remarry, or to remarry any believer she wishes.
  • The wording ‘free to marry anyone she wishes’ is important as it is a quote from the standard Jewish divorce certificate (Mishnah). The Jewish divorce certificate stipulated her marrying a Jewish man. Paul stipulates her marrying a believer.
  • Paul’s line of argument: ‘the rights a divorcee has a widow surely also has’ was also used later by Rabbi Ashi to prove that a widow was free of the Levirate law.

Rom 7:1-4                                     Metaphor: married to the Law or to Christ

“Do you not know, brethren – for I am speaking to those who know the law – that the law is binding on a person only during his life? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. 3 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. 4 Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.”

  • This affirms the right of the woman to remarry after the death of the husband, something not really challenged or debated, only possibly controlled by the Levirate marriage law.
  • Does this text mean that there are no valid grounds for divorce at all?
  • Jesus allowed definitely grounds of unfaithfulness, most likely all law of Moses grounds (including Exo 21:10-11 grounds).
  • Why then the metaphor and What does it mean?
  • In the metaphor a person is married to the Law, and cannot be released from that marriage to the Law until death. Law is by nature law-abiding, that is: Law would never be ‘unfaithful’ nor ‘break marriage vows’ (material or emotional neglect), therefore there are never lawful grounds for divorce. Therefore death is the only valid or lawful way such a marriage would end.
  • Paul explains the believers ‘death in Christ’ to be a ‘death to the Law’, resulting in a valid ending of the earlier marriage to Law, and therefore the freedom of legitimately marry Christ.
  • Also: not all exemption clauses are always stated as in many Bible verses, legal texts in Judaism or anywhere else.
  • The entire OT holds that there are legitimate grounds for divorce and such a divorce made remarriage legitimate. This passage does not contradict that.

1 Tim 3:2, Tit 1:5-6                    elder as husband of one wife

“Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once (husband of one wife (married only once), temperate …”
“appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: 6 someone who is blameless, husband of one wife (married only once), whole children are believers,

1 Tim 5:9                                      wife of one husband

“Let a widow be put on the list if she is not less than sixty years old, the wife of one husband …”

  • What does this phrase ‘husband of one wife’ mean?
  • 1 church leaders must be married … this would disqualify Jesus, Paul, and any widower from leadership. It also goes against Paul’s recommendation of celibacy in order to be ‘busy with the Lord’s affairs’ in 1 Cor 7.
  • 2 church leaders must not be polygamous … this could work for men, but doesn’t work in 1 Tim 5:9 where this term describes a woman, and women weren’t allowed to be polygamous in the first place. The meaning must be wider.
  • 3 church leaders must be people who are sexually faithful, not adulterous, not polygamous.

Eph 5:28-29                                Affirmation of marriage obligations

“In the same way husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies … 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church”.

  • Paul affirms here the obligations in marriage for material and emotional provision as in Exo 21:10-11, here addressed to the man, in Jewish marriage vows it was mutual: for him to provide, for her to cook & make.

Divorce & Remarriage in the church

  • After 70 BC with the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem and the diaspora of the Jews foundational teaching of the Law of Moses is lost from view.

Church Fathers & Catholic Canon Law

  • Hermas of Rome (100-150 AD) says that for a husband to stay with his wife after knowing of her persisted adultery is a sharer of her adultery. There is only once chance at repentance, forgive the adulterer once. Sins after baptism are unforgivable. Even after a divorce because of unfaithfulness do not remarry in the hope of reconciliation.
  • Justin Martyr of Rome (139 AD) … similar to Hermas. Said it was sinful to remarry. He recorded a case where the church was unsure of whether a believer should leave an unfaithful and abusive husband.
  • Athenagoras of Athens (177 AD) … boasted that many Christians were celibate, and that they avoided sexual activity except for childbearing. He seems to forbid remarriage even for widows, maybe basing it on an unbreakable ‘one flesh’ concept.
  • Theophilus of Antioch (178-188 AD) … seems to allow divorce only on the ground of unfaithfulness.
  • Clement of Alexandria (192 AD) … marriage is necessary for childbearing but passion should be restrained in marriage. Punishment for adultery should be severe. Remarriage should be avoided in order to allow for reconciliation.
  • Tertullian (193-220 AD) … increasingly rigid asceticism, permitting his wife to remarry after his death, though he urged her not to do so. Later: remarriage after death of a spouse is sinful.
  • Origen (185-254 AD) … Said that Moses stated his own opinion (which doesn’t match with Jesus’ teaching). He picked up God portrayed as divorcee in the OT and said that Jerusalem committed adultery when asking for Barabbas instead of Jesus. Jesus’ marriage to the church is a remarriage. Did not conclude that humans can remarry after divorce, only after death of the spouse. Unfaithfulness is the only valid ground for divorce.
  • Irenaeus & Ptolemaeus (late 2nd century) … Said that Moses stated his own opinion (which doesn’t match with Jesus’ teaching)
  • Ambrosiaster … remarriage is allowed after an unbeliever separates. Marriage to an unbeliever is invalid.
  • Jerome & Chrysostom (350-410 AD) … marriage can only end with the death of the spouse, no valid grounds for divorce. Even a woman abandoned by a wicked husband and forced into remarriage by her family was denied communion.
  • Epiphanius of Cyprus (early 5th century) … allowed remarriage after divorce for unfaithfulness, called it the ‘lesser sin’.
  • Augustine (419 AD) … adultery is only ground for divorce, but such a divorcee cannot remarry. Marriage can be broken only by death due to the sacramental nature of marriage. He expressed doubt about this view, but it became standard.
  • Thomas Aquinas (13th century AD) … Roman Catholic canon law was based on Augustinus as systematized by Aquinas. Marriage is a sacrament, it is ontologically indissoluble. He understood all divorce mentioned in the NT as being separation only, but not ending of the marriage. Remarriage after divorce / separation was forbidden (also after death?)
  • As the marriage law got more stringent, the list of what could ‘annul a marriage retroactively’ got longer.
  • Divorce is illegal in the catholic church, so often husbands abandon families, remarrying elsewhere, resulting in unclear family situations (Tubal).
  • In summary the Church Fathers taught that divorce is only allowed for adultery and for desertion by a non-believer. Remarriage before the death of a former partner is sinful. Ascetic beliefs minimized the problems with this ‘plain’ meaning of the texts. Many Fathers regarded celibacy as preferable to marriage

Reformation

  • Reformation was based on a fresh examination of Scripture and a break with traditional authority and it sparked a great deal of reappraisal of Christian doctrines, also concerning divorce & remarriage. Origen’s doubts could be explored without the straightjacket of orthodoxy, but the 1st century background was still not available.
  • Erasmus … with Greek NT now available said that the Catholic concept of indissoluble sacramental marriage based on a translation in the Vulgate. He concluded that Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage after unfaithfulness and Paul allowed it for a deserted believer.
  • Luther … only death can dissolve a marriage, but the adulterer is spiritually dead. Luther allowed remarriage after divorce for unfaithfulness and after desertion by an unbeliever. He also allowed the grounds of physical deficiencies and refusal of conjugal rights. He also allowed remarriage of a wife when her first husband was kidnapped without hope for return.
  • Zwingli & Bullinger … allowed divorce for adultery and other grounds, saying that Jesus did not exclude other grounds.
  • Calvin and Beza allowed only grounds of unfaithfulness and desertion by an unbeliever. Remarriage is allowed for desertion (unfaithfulness?). Later he allowed three other grounds: impotence, extreme religious incompatibility and abandonment.
  • William Tyndale … agreed with Luther that marriage was not a sacrament and allowed remarriage after divorce for adultery or desertion. He opposed King Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Thomas Cranmer supported it and was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533 AD.
  • Cranmer wanted to avoid the papal annulment laws. He argued divorce with remarriage for adultery, desertion, prolonged absence, mortal hatred and cruelty. This wasn’t implemented due to opposition in Edward’s reign and the conservatism of Elizabeth I’s reign. The Anglican church therefore remained with Catholic law and an occasional annulment.
  • Modern England and USA … with a more vocal middle class came growing pressure for a cheaper route to divorce and added grounds like: cruelty, desertion, insanity or long term imprisonment > ‘Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 AD’.
  • Often ‘adultery’ was staged in mutual understanding to get through a divorce. In response the concept of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ was suggested in replacement of the ‘matrimonial offenses’. Irretrievable breakdown was defined as: adultery, intolerable behavior, desertion for two years, separation for two years, or separation for five years if one party contests the divorce in 1967 AD.
  • In 1996 AD the ‘irretrievable breakdown’ was maintained, but made easier to prove it. Mandatory counseling and cooling-off periods were introduced, but – being found unworkable – the act was withdrawn.
  • Men and women have always found is hard to live together and it was only legal difficulties, religious barriers of economic restraints that prevent them from divorcing. Jesus finds it necessary to tell his followers to not be hard-hearted, and forgive rather than divorce. Paul commanded for those with no-ground separations to try to go back and reconcile. Both Jesus and Paul condemned no fault divorces and referred to valid grounds.
  • After 70 BC with the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem and the diaspora of the Jews foundational teaching of the Law of Moses is lost from view.

Modern Reinterpretation of the Biblical Texts

How many grounds for divorce apply today?

  1. two grounds: adultery or desertion
  2. no grounds
  3. other grounds can be drawn from the Bible
  4. the grounds vary with society
  5. Instone-Brewer: 4 grounds: adultery, desertion, material & emotional neglect

What does ‘a matter of indecency’ mean?

  1. adultery (Instone-Brewer)
  2. illegitimate marriage, annulment not divorce
  3. wider range of sexual offenses, anything that causes the breakdown of marriage

What does Paul’s exception mean today?

  1. desertion by an unbeliever
  2. desertion also by an unbeliever or an unrepentant believer
  3. any behavior not conducive to continued Marriage
  4. Instone-Brewer: Desertion by a believer or unbeliever

When is remarriage allowed?

  1. Remarriage only after a former partner has died
  2. Remarriage after death and legal ‘death’ (Luther)
  3. Remarriage after any valid divorce (Erasmus, Instone-Brewer)
  4. no remarriage for guilty partner
  5. no remarriage to one’s adulterous partner

How much does the NT agree with the OT and 1st century Judaism?

  1. the NT is completely different to the OT or Judaism
  2. the NT affirms OT law
  3. the NT affirms the OT law and also agrees with some Jewish traditions
  4. Instone-Brewer: the NT affirms OT law and agrees with some Jewish traditions and was written for a 1st century audience

What is the main message of the NT about divorce?

  1. Christians can never divorce
  2. Divorce is allowed only on two grounds: adultery & desertion
  3. Christians should not cause a divorce
  4. Instone-Brewer: divorce should not be caused, rather avoided and limited to the four biblical grounds.

Instone-Brewer Summary

  • The NT teaching on remarriage after a valid divorce is admittedly ambiguous and unclear.
  • However, divorce and remarriage was a fundamental right in the 1st century world, and if was often regarded as an obligation.
  • Thus, the NT writers knew that they would have to enunciate their teaching extremely clearly and unambiguously if they wanted to teach the opposite of this universally held view.
  • I regard as consistent with all facts: Jesus and Paul affirmed all four OT grounds for divorce (unfaithfulness, material & emotional neglect) and remarriage (after a valid divorce) while emphasizing that divorce should be avoided whenever possible and that believers should go the extra mile in trying to maintain a marriage. They allowed divorce on specific grounds from the OT and rejected the no-fault divorces of the Hillelites and of Graeco-Roman culture.

Some final thoughts

  • We have to balance values against each other. Here equally important values are in tension: protection of marriage <=> right to life & security
  • God values both, both must be protected, both limited, both highly important
  • West: ‘easy divorce’ for both sides. Lie behind it: if it doesn’t work, it wasn’t he right person > so I have the right to try again. But: 2nd relationships rarely end up better.
  • Why? People marry similar spouses again, escape but never learn to solve conflicts
  • East: less divorce (though also common).
  • Why? … Is it higher morals? Better cultural values? society pressure on a marriage & family? Or less financial independence of women? more options for men?
  • Where divorce rates are less, often women pay the higher price for it