DIVORCE A LOOK AT THE KEY PASSAGES Gary Inrig December 2002 Revised November 2004

Transcription

1 DIVORCE A LOOK AT THE KEY PASSAGES Gary Inrig December 2002 Revised November 2004 I. THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE- GENESIS 2: Marriage is a divinely established creation ordinance. It reflects God s intention and his creation purpose. It is not a product of the fall, of societal arrangement or of human tradition. 2. While procreation is an important part of the marriage relationship, it is not mentioned in this passage. It is an important but not an essential part of marriage. 3. Marriage involves a covenant commitment that has priority over all other human relationships. An individual s most fundamental loyalties are transferred from one s biological family to one s spouse, in a relationship intended to be both exclusive and permanent. 4. Marriage is both consummated and expressed in a sexual relationship between a husband and a wife. Thus, marriage involved personal consent, public commitment and private consummation. Sex alone does not constitute a marriage relationship (and, therefore, sexual sin does not automatically unravel it). However, the sexual union functions as the covenant-ratifying act. Sexual unfaithfulness thus strikes at the marriage covenant in a very significant way. There can be no doubt that the OT consistently views adultery as a sin of the highest order, an offense not only against people but God (e.g. Gen. 20:6-10; 39:9). It is the preeminent violation of the marriage covenant. 5. The one-flesh statement indicates that marriage is a covenantal, not merely a contractual, relationship (Prov. 2:17; Mal. 2:14). A covenant is a relationship of the highest possible significance, although, unlike kinship, it is not inviolable. As a chosen relationship, it can be unchosen. II. MARRIAGE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT A. General Observations 1. Marriage as a covenant. a) The Hebrew term berith has a wide range of meanings and is used for a variety of relationships. At its core is the concept that it is a chosen, rather than a natural relationship, established under divine sanction. There are a various kinds of covenant (unilateral, bilateral; conditional, unconditional). b) Marriage as a covenant was the common terminology, not only in the OT but also in the surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East (ANE).

2 2 Proverbs 2:17 Malachi 2:14 c) The nature of the marriage covenant is modeled on the covenant between God and his people. Ezekiel uses this metaphor in describing God s relation to Israel and Judah. It is both a marriage and a covenant (16:8, 59-62). Jeremiah also closely links the ideas of covenant and marriage (31:31, 32). d) The marriage covenant was ratified by exchange of finances and vows. i) The exchange of payments: the bride price (the mohar; Gen. 24:53, etc.) and the dowry (nedunyah; Judges 1:14, 15). The bride price was paid to the groom s father and represented many months wages. This helped to ensure the man did not enter into the marriage lightly. The dowry was of greater value than the bride price, but it continued to belong to the bride, although it was controlled by her husband. In one sense it represented her share of the father s inheritance. ii) This was the legal transaction that formalized the marriage. (In no ANE culture was marriage merely a matter of cohabitation). It also gave security to the marriage by providing strong fiscal sanctions. Whoever caused the divorce suffered financially. If a husband initiated the divorce without cause, he was required to return the dowry. If a wife did the same, she lost her right to some or all of the dowry. iii) The oral vows throughout the ANE seem to be very similar: Be my wife. Be my husband. In a similar way, the divorce declaration was X is not my wife; I am not her husband (see Hosea 2:2). iv) The minimum marital responsibility is that a husband provide his wife with food, clothing and [marital] rights (Exodus 21:10, 11). Interestingly, in other ANE materials there at least five references to a husband s responsibility to provide food, anointing oil and clothing. In the absence of these, she is free to leave the marriage. 2. Polygamy in Israel a) Whatever the biblical ideal, there is no attempt to make polygamy in the Old Testament. b) Most men would only have had one wife, for financial reasons. 3. Divorce in Israel a) God s ideal did not include divorce (Matthew 19:3-9), but it is never prohibited in the OT. Aspects of it, however, are regulated (Exod. 21:10-11; Deut. 21:14; 22:13-19, 29; 24:1-4). b) Most of the divorce laws in Israel cannot be shown to be different than those prevailing in the ANE generally. There is a general understanding throughout the ancient Near East that a wife can be divorced at will by a husband and have her dowry returned, but, if she has done wrong, she does not receive her dowry. There is also some evidence that wives were able to divorce their husband in some situation. Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, p. 19

3 3 c) The man could not receive a divorce under all circumstances (Deut. 22). The wife could receive the right to remain married, a right that in that culture was extremely important since it provided financial security. He must support her for life, although it is unlikely that she was required to fulfill her conjugal duties. d) A divorce involved the right to remarry. The wording on the standard rabbinic divorce certificates was You are allowed to marry any man you wish. e) The divorce certificate mentioned in Deuteronomy 24 is without parallel in the ANE. In much of the ANE, a first husband could reclaim his first wife, even if she was remarried. The certificate was important for a wife, since it documented her right to remarry. It probably also came at the time that dowry repayment was made. A man would not need one, since he could have more than one wife. It provided a clean ending to a broken marriage. Also Hebrew law prohibited her first husband to reclaim her. She had the right to remain remarried. It would have been a most valuable document for a woman to possess because it gave her the right to remarry. Without it she would be under the constant threat of her former husband who could claim at a later date that she was still married to him and thus charge her with adultery. Instone-Brewer, 29 B. THE LAW OF ADULTERY Leviticus 20:10 Adultery, which is specifically prohibited in the Decalogue, brought the penalty of the execution of both parties in the illicit relationship. This obviously terminated the marriage relationship. Adultery had destroyed the marriage; therefore, violators were to be destroyed. The death penalty meant that this was not merely viewed as an offense against the partner, but against the larger social order, as well as the Lord. Prohibited sexual relationships are listed in Leviticus 18:6-24. This passage (20: 10-16) attaches the death penalty to such sins. Deuteronomy 22:22 This follows the Leviticus statement very closely. Adultery means the death penalty for both participants. C. THE LAW OF DIVORCE- DEUTERONOMY 24: The form of the passage is case law, rather than code law. The case is set out in verses 1 to 3, and the conclusion is given in verse four. The pattern is if if if, then. This records the situation as it was, rather than requiring these things. It is a reference to the existing customs in the society. The passage is thus regulating and controlling already existing practices, rather than establishing or requiring them. The existence of divorce in the culture of the time is presupposed in passages such as Leviticus 21:7, 14; 22:13; Num. 30:9; and Deut. 22:19, 29.

4 4 2. The central purpose of the passage is found in verse four. It was the prohibition of the despised wife being taken back by her former husband after another marriage had intervened. This seems to have been intended primarily as a protection of the woman. In the context and undoubtedly in the culture, it was the man alone who could initiate such a divorce process. The remarriage prohibition kept the woman from being bartered between two men, and would restrain a man from dismissing his wife recklessly, since there was no way back. Clearly, this was not seen to apply to David in his demand for the return of Michal (2 Sam. 3:12-16) or to Hosea s retaking of his wife. Neither of them had initiated a divorce. 3. The most significant phrase in the passage is the reference to the husband finding something indecent (erwat debar) in his wife. This is not defined. However, the phrase occurs elsewhere (Deut. 23:14), and refers, not to a moral but a social issue (uncovered excrement in the camp). It is extremely unlikely that it referred to adultery, since there is no suggestion of applying the death penalty. However, the normal sense of erwah is a term that often has sexual connotations ( nakedness, exposure ), and the term may describe some kind of shameful behavior. It must refer to some behavior, short of adultery, that was viewed as a serious violation of propriety and the marriage covenant There is no suggestion that he should divorce his wife for such a reason; only that he had. The Lord Jesus described this as a divine permission, a condescension to human hardness of heart. The varying rabbinic interpretations of something indecent led to the Pharisees challenge of Jesus in Matthew The certificate of divorce ( a writ of cutting off ) and the formal sending away was also intended to be a protection for the woman, although the entire process would have been very difficult for her. The divorce certificate is mentioned in Isaiah 50:1. The divorce certificate was therefore both a disincentive to divorce as well as a benefit to a divorced woman. Without the law of the certificate of divorce, a man could simply dismiss his wife from the house and then change his mind on a future occasion. The certificate made this dismissal a more significant event and gave the woman legal rights. It also slowed down the event because the man had to sit down and write out the certificate. This must have prevented many divorces that might otherwise have occurred at the climax of an argument. Instone-Brewer, p It is important to note that the passage assumes that divorce brings the freedom to remarry. The remarried woman is not treated as an adulteress. 6. The traditional use of Deuteronomy 24 distorted the intention of the text. The law was interpreted to mean that one could not get divorced without a divorce certificate. This meant that divorce became the prerogative of the husband because he wrote out the divorce certificate. Therefore, a provision that was meant to empower the divorced woman resulted in the enslavement of women who wished to get divorced. Instone-Brewer, 31

5 5 C. GOD S DIVORCE OF ISRAEL 1. Hosea and God s divorce of Israel a) The metaphor of marriage is used to describe the relation of Yahweh and his people. Hosea is writing in the period immediately prior to the destruction of the northern kingdom and his main theme is Israel s spiritual adultery (syncretism) and its consequences. b) Hosea s experience parallels that of Yahweh s. His wife descends into unrelenting adultery with a series of partners, and finally abandons the relationship. c) Yahweh uses the standard divorce formula to separate himself from Israel: She is not my wife and I am not her husband (2:2). She herself speaks of him as her first husband (2:9). d) Both Hosea and Yahweh remarry their wives (2:14,15, 19, 20; 3:1-5). 2. Isaiah 50:1- Israel s certificate of divorce The exegetical question is whether the answer to the question, Where is your mother s certificate of divorce? is positive or negative. In other words, is Yahweh saying that he had divorced Israel or not? In the context of Isaiah 40 to 66, with its reference to the restoration of Judah, it seems more likely that this is a rhetorical question and that the Lord is saying that he may have disciplined his people, but that he had not divorced them. They clearly had been guilty of spiritual adultery, but his love toward them had persisted. Because the divorce has not taken place, restoration is possible. The passage, however, has been taken to mean that the divorce certificate makes it very clear why God has allowed his people to be sent away. Nevertheless, he will restore them. This seems less likely in the context. 3. Jeremiah 3:1-10- God s adulterous wives This passage clearly reflects the Deuteronomy 24 passage, as well as Hosea and Exodus. The basic premise is that a wife who has been divorced for cause has no reason to expect restoration. Both Israel (Samaria) and Judah have been faithless and adulterous, with many lovers. [Note that the metaphor is strained because Yahweh had married Israel as one nation, but with her division he is married to two sisters, a condition contrary to the Mosaic law (Lev. 18:18)]. Yahweh had indeed given Samaria a certificate of divorce represented by the Assyrian Captivity, and Judah is about to share the same fate in Babylon. God has divorced his people. But the metaphor should not be pushed too far, since the Lord will take back faithless Israel (v. 12) upon her repentance. What would be impossible under the terms of the law will be made possible by God s grace. Yahweh will not allow his own law to stand in the way of a restoration of his covenant with his people. But she must acknowledge and abandon her promiscuity.

6 6 It is very dangerous to use such an illustration to build a doctrine of divorce. However, the fact that God is able to describe himself as divorced shows that divorce can be morally justified under some circumstances. 4. Ezekiel 16, 23 - God s prostitute people The passage vividly portrays the spiritual adultery of God s bride. The language of 16:35ff. is the vivid language of divorce. But once again, God will restore his fallen wife to himself in undeserved love. D. EZRA 9, 10- EZRA S REQUIRED DIVORCES 1. The men of Judah were intermarrying with the surrounding pagan nations, in a way that directly contradicted the Mosaic commands. These were sinful marriages, but they were also real marriages. Parental consent was involved (9:2) and children had been born of them. 2. After he had prayed and accepted the counsel of one of the leaders, Ezra led the people to send away all these women and their children (10:3). This was seen to be an act of obedience to the Lord (10:11). 3. Whatever else we see in this passage, we need to acknowledge that divorcing a pagan wife was seen as a lesser sin than violating the covenant command of marital purity in Israel. It is not simply an annulment. The women are constantly called wives, not concubines or mistresses. 4. The same issue reappeared in the time of Nehemiah (13:23ff.), but there is no indication that he required a series of divorces. He did reinforce the prohibition on intermarriage. E. MALACHI 2:10-16 GOD HATES DIVORCE A key verse in this section (2:16) is very difficult in the Hebrew text. A literal reading produces the following: 2:16 laer'f.yi yhel{a/ hw"hy> rm;a' xl;v; anef'-yk (because hating sending away, says Yahweh the God of Israel) taab'c. hw"hy> rm;a' AvWbl.-l[; sm'x' hs'kiw> (and he covers with violence his garment, says Yahweh of armies) 1. The circumstances involved in this situation must be carefully noted. a) The men were marrying pagan wives (v. 11) b) To be free to do this, they had broken faith with their Hebrew wives (v. 14), almost certainly by divorcing them. c) This divorce was viewed both as treachery against their marriage partner, and God who had acted as covenant witness to their marriage commitment. d) This treachery attacked God s purpose in marriage, which is to produce godly offspring.

7 7 2. The most common translation of verse 16, I hate divorce, says the Lord cannot fairly be wrenched out of context to put guilt on all parties in all divorces. In the Malachi context it is clear that the Lord s main complaint is the breaking of faith with one s wife. a) It should be noted that there are major textual and translation problems in verses 15 and 16. The first half of verse 15 is notorious as perhaps the most unintelligible passage in the Hebrew Bible. The first half of verse 16 is also difficult, since it lacks a clear subject. The Massoretic text literally reads, Because he [3 rd person] hates sending away, says Yahweh. Many believe it should be rendered as the ESV does, For the man who hates and divorces, says Yahweh, covers his garments [better, covers himself ] with violence. b) The phrase he hates and divorces is found in other ANE texts, where it means to divorce without adequate grounds. This was a legal distinction between a divorce that was based on grounds such as adultery or neglect (which resulted in a financial penalty for the guilty partner) and a divorce where no grounds could be cited (which resulted in a financial penalty for the person bringing the divorce). Instone-Brewer, 56, 57. c) The most likely interpretation is that this prohibits divorce on the basis of personal feelings alone: hate- or aversion-based divorce (in modern parlance, no-fault divorce ) is prohibited. There must be some objective wrong done to the offended partner. This then cannot be used as a blanket condemnation of all divorce. d) The translation I hate divorce is arrived at by emending the text, in its most simple form by suggesting that the first-person pronoun anoki has dropped out somehow, and the verb hates could then be read as a participle. e) A central idea in all three verses is that of breaking faith (dgb). It had earlier occurred in vv. 10, 11. It occurs only forty-three times in the OT and is used overwhelmingly for violations of covenants It is used for those who break the Sinai covenant, for those who break a betrothal covenant, and for those who break a marriage covenant. Malachi s condemnation of divorce is therefore directed at the person who breaks the marriage covenant. Instone-Brewer, 57, This passage then cannot fairly be used to condemn divorce on the grounds of the other person s adultery. Such a person had already broken faith with the covenant. Also, divorce on the grounds of adultery theoretically did not exist in the OT. 4. This is strengthened by the recognition that, in some OT passages, God actually required divorce. They all have to do with slaves who had become wives. If a man refused to have her as a wife any longer, he could not reduce her to slave status. He had to let her go free, and she could marry another man. a) Exodus 21:10-11 b) Deuteronomy 21:10-14 c) Genesis 21:8-14

8 8 III. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN THE FIRST CENTURY CONTEXT A. General observations 1. As we move closer to the New Testament period, polygamy is increasingly being criticized within Judaism. It is likely that it was never very common and it was often related to childlessness. However, it was not prohibited within Judaism until the eleventh century A.D. 2. Divorce in the Greco-Roman world was becoming much easier to initiate by both men and women. B. The Greco- Roman world 1. Women were almost equal to their husbands in matters of divorce. This was considerably different than the Jewish viewpoint. 2. Marriage was assumed to be a matter of common consent. When the consent broke down, the marriage would end. Either partner could end the marriage at any point. It was not necessary to cite any grounds. 3. A person could end a divorce simply by leaving or declaring that the marriage had ended. It did not require a court proceeding. 4. It was generally held that adultery made divorce compulsory. In fact, Augustus issued legislation penalizing husbands who did not divorce adulterous wives. It appears, however, that this was not strictly enforced. C. Judaism 1. Jewish women had equal standing with men in most areas, but not in those relating to reproduction (hence marriage). Only husbands could give a certificate of divorce, but women had limited rights to force them to do so. 2. The Qumran community forbade polygamy, but they did not criticize divorce or remarriage. 3. The rabbinical courts gradually took on the power to supervise the nature of marriage contracts (ketubah). They also developed the amount of bride price (200 zuzin for a virgin; 100 for a widow or divorcee). A dowry settlement was also specified in the contract. 4. The rabbis used Exodus 21:10, 11 to determine the essence of a marriage contract (on the principle that if these criteria applied to a slave wife, they certainly applied to a free man and woman). The three requirements were the right to clothing, the right to food and the right to marital love. Failure to provide any of these was considered to be a valid ground for divorce. This led to concept of material neglect and emotional neglect as grounds for divorce. The Mishnah became legalistically particular in delineating exactly how much food and clothing the husband must provide, what the wife could do with them, and how often

9 9 various groups were required to have sex to be in conformity with these requirements! Cruelty and humiliation were considered to be emotional neglect. 5. Infertility was a ground for divorce, since procreation was the primary purpose of marriage according to Genesis 1:28. Any couple that did not have children in ten years was expected to divorce. By NT times, this was considered desirable, but not compulsory. 6. Only a man could enact a divorce, but a woman could go to the rabbis and show that she had grounds for a divorce. The courts could then attempt to force the husband to give her a divorce certificate by levying fines on him. 7. Adultery on the part of a wife was considered to be a virtually mandatory reason for divorce. It did become compulsory after 70 A.D. However, a husband s adultery, although viewed as reprehensible, was not seen as requiring divorce, since he was allowed more than one wife. It was an offence against the cuckolded husband, not against his wife. 8. There was a fundamental division in the first century AD between the school of Hillel and that of Shammai, based on the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. The Hillelites put emphasis on if she does not find favor in his eyes, while Shammaites centered on a matter of indecency. The Hillelites thus held to an any matter (no required grounds) view. The school of Shammai say: A man should not divorce his wife unless he find in her a matter of indecency, as it is said, For he finds in her an indecent matter. And the School of Hillel say, Even if she spoiled his dish, since it says, For he finds in her an indecent matter. Rabbi Akiba says, Even if she found someone else prettier than she, since it says, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes. Mishnah Gittin 9.10 a) The Hillelite view was the most popular view, and after the fall of the Temple and the disappearance of the Shammaites, became the only view. It did away with the requirement to bring evidence to the court, since none was needed. It required no witnesses and no public trial. It did require a divorce certificate. b) The Shammaites recognized the Exodus 21 grounds for divorce, in addition to adultery. As well, they recognized the validity of divorces granted in a Hillelite court, even though they disagreed with their basis. 9. Remarriage was always appropriate after a divorce. The common divorce certificate statement was you are free to marry any man you wish. IV. DIVORCE IN THE TEACHING OF THE LORD JESUS A. The Biblical passages 1. Mark 10:2 12 a) Contemporary Biblical scholarship has reached a consensus that Mark was the first gospel, and that Matthew and Luke used his gospel as the basis of theirs. The concept of Markan priority is often given great significance in

10 10 interpretation (i.e. Mark s version is original, and Matthew s represents a later change). b) This passage is paralleled by Matthew 19:1-12, which we will use as the basic text later. The event has its roots in rabbinic debate about the meaning of something indecent in Deuteronomy 24. One difference between Mark and Matthew is the way the question is posed. In Mark the question is, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? In Matthew the Pharisees ask, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause? However the difference is more apparent than real. First-century Jewish readers would have mentally inserted the phrase for any matter into the question that the Pharisees asked Jesus, whether or not it occurred in the text. They would have done that not only because they were familiar with the debate, but also because the sentence made no sense without it. The question Is it lawful to divorce a wife? could be answered only by Yes, it says so in the Law. This question would make sense only if there was a portion of the Jewish world that did not allow divorce under any circumstances, so that the question would mean Are you one of those who does not allow divorce? However, as far as we know, there was no such group. It is now clear the Qumran community did allow divorce. If someone asked in a modern church context, Do you believe in the Second Coming? there would be no necessity to add the phrase of Jesus Christ because everyone would mentally add the phrase. Similarly, if someone asked Should women have equality? it would be unnecessary to add the phrase in employment and education. However, if the question had been asked a century ago, the implied additional phrase would have been in voting rights. Instone-Brewer, 135 c) The Lord s statement in verses 11 and 12 is notable for its lack of any exception clause. The text simply says indicates that remarriage after divorce involves a committing of adultery against one s former spouse. This has led to a variety of ways of handling the differences between Mark and Matthew: i) This is the Lord s teaching, and Matthew has altered it by adding the exception clause. ii) This is the Lord s teaching, and Matthew is to be interpreted in such a way that it agrees with Mark. This usually involves giving Matthew s term immorality (porneia) a very technical meaning. iii) The main point of Jesus is to affirm the permanence of marriage. Mark records the Lord s words accurately but not fully. Writing to a Roman audience who would have viewed adultery as requiring divorce (Augustus had made adultery a penal offence. Adulterers were banished and husbands were not permitted to pardon or be reconciled to an offender), Mark gives the answer in the simplest of forms, assuming the exception Matthew makes explicit. Its inclusion is so obvious that any intelligent Jew would have mentally supplied it. I would similarly add an exception to Jesus words at Matthew 5:28: But I say to you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. We mentally add the words except for his wife. We regard this exception as unnecessary, because one cannot commit adultery with one s wife. When contemporary Jews heard the question Is it lawful to

11 11 divorce your wife? they would have mentally added the words for any reason. Similarly, when they heard the reply Whoever divorces his wife, they would have mentally added the phrase except for valid grounds. Instone-Brewer, d) Mark s statement that a wife might take the initiative in divorcing her husband in counter-cultural. The concern for women s rights in the gospels is unparalleled in antiquity. It was technically impossible for a man to commit adultery by marrying an unmarried woman. He was allowed more than one wife. However, Jesus had already stated his belief in monogamy. Mark was pointing out that one of the consequences of Jesus teaching about monogamy was that adultery was no longer just a crime against a husband but against a wife. Instone-Brewer, Luke 16:18 a) The statement in Luke s gospel stands in a very different context than in either Mark or Luke. It is not tightly connected to a context or narrative. The sections that precede and follow relate to the subject of wealth. Some have thought that divorce was primarily an issue for the well-to-do. It may be related to the immediately preceding section critiquing the Pharisees. They elevated the law and celebrated marital purity. But their view of divorce for relatively trivial reasons made a mockery of moral purity. b) The first half of the statement is essentially identical with that in Mark. The second half extends the idea by indicating that someone who marries a divorced woman is at that point guilty of adultery. This indicates that the original marriage is still viewed as being operative. c) Some suggest that the Lord is referring to a specific kind of divorce, that done with the intention to remarry. 3. Matthew 5:31,32 a) The statement in the Sermon on the Mount is in the larger context of the Lord deepening the meaning of the Old Testament standards beyond merely formal adherence to its standards. b) The first clause of the verse takes a new turn. It indicates that a man who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulteress. This clearly presupposes that she will remarry. As in Luke, the man who marries such a woman is guilty of adultery. c) The central distinctive of this statement is the exception clause: except for marital unfaithfulness (porneia). It is illogical to make this apply to only one half of the sentence, so that it permits divorce but not remarriage or to reduce it to a tautology ( causes her to commit adultery, unless she already has ). d) The origin of the exception clause is debated:

12 12 i) It is the product of Matthew or the early church, not the Lord, to deal with new circumstances. ii) It is the product of Matthew, added under inspiration to clarify the Lord s meaning. iii) It originated with the Lord Jesus, who speaking to a Jewish audience, had a very specific meaning for porneia. iv) It originated with the Lord, is accurately represented by Matthew and was implicit in Mark and Luke. However, the central message of Jesus is not the grounds of divorce, but the permanence of marriage. 4. Matthew 19:3-12 a) The context of this passage is the rabbinic debate about the meaning of the shameful thing of Deuteronomy 24. The Pharisees are attempting to discredit Jesus by their question ( to test him ) because they knew that his viewpoint was stricter than the mainstream position, one less likely to be popular with the general public. It also should be noted that the cultural context gave a woman little if any opportunity to initiate divorce. So the question is posed from a male perspective. Mishnah Gittin 9:10 The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything. And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything. R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes. i) Hillel and his followers had a very permissive view, believing that a man was free to divorce his wife if she did not find favor in his eyes. ii) Shammai and his followers adopted a much stricter line, contending that the indecency involved shocking offenses against marital propriety. Divorce was mandated in such situations. b) The Lord does not at first answer the question about divorce. He addresses a more fundamental question the divine intention for marriage. He is concerned to make it clear that marriage is to be monogamous and lifelong. His use of Genesis 2:24 makes clear God s intent. c) The context is adversarial, and the Lord s response is not a formal proclamation of a divorce policy intended to answer every possible contingency. In fact, he does not dwell on the grounds for divorce, as the Pharisees desired, but on the permanence of marriage, according to the creation mandate. He also answered the question primarily from the male perspective, as the question and

13 13 the culture indicate. Women in that context may have been guilty of adultery, but very rarely of physical abuse or desertion. These were male sins. d) The Lord s statement in verse 6 indicates that what should not be broken (i.e. the marriage bond) could be broken. It does not say that it cannot be broken. Marriage is not intrinsically indissoluble (the Catholic position). It is significant that, when he says, let not man separate, he uses a word implying divorce, but also uses an imperative. It is possible for such a separation to occur, but it contradicts God s will. The imperative implies that it is possible for couples to separate, but they are being asked or commanded not to. Jesus asked or commanded them to keep their marriage vows and not to break up the marriage in which God has joined them together. They have bound themselves by marriage vows, and they have been joined together by God. Jesus implied that it is a sin to break the marriage by breaking these vows. Instone-Brewer, 141. e) The Pharisees contended that divorce was not only possible but commanded. After all, Moses commanded both the certificate of divorce and the sending away of one s wife. There was only one situation in which the early rabbis thought that Moses commanded divorce. This was the case of adultery. In early Judaism it was generally considered necessary to divorce a wife even if she was only suspected of adultery. Instone-Brewer, 143 f) The Lord s statement that this was a divine permission, not a command, is entirely consistent with correct exegesis of Deut. 24. The divorce legislation is not a command, but a concession to human depravity. This is a reminder of the difference between the divine ideal and the reality of life in a fallen world. The implication is that even in a case of adultery, divorce is not mandatory. Instone-Brewer, 143 f) The Lord connects divorce to hardness of heart. The term has about it the idea of stubbornness and occurs only elsewhere in the NT in Mark 16:14 (text?). The word does occur in the LXX, and one striking occurrence is in Jeremiah 4:4: Circumcise your hardness of heart. It is notable that this immediately follows a passage in which Israel was divorced by God because she refused to repent of her adulteries (Jer. 3:1-3, 13, 17, 20). This may suggest that the stubbornness is that of the unfaithful partner who refuses to repent. (I-B, 146) Jesus appeared to imply that the divorce law should only be used if the guilty partner was stubbornly refusing to repent and give up the adulterous behavior, as in the case of Israel in Jeremiah. Both partners should take care to fulfill their marriage vows, but also should be ready to forgive a partner who breaks the marriage vows and subsequently repents. However, divorce is allowed if one partner stubbornly continues to break the vows, as Israel did when God divorced her. Instone-Brewer, 146 g) The statement of verse 9 is basically the same as 5:32, although the final phrase talks about him committing adultery upon remarriage, rather than causing his former wife to commit adultery. The exception clause is basically the same as in 5:32 (the minor differences in the Greek phrasing have identical meanings).

14 14 h) The central question is the meaning of porneia. Does it have its normal meaning or a very technical sense? This must be decided on the basis of contextual requirements, not dictionary possibilities. i) Porneia is the most general term for sexual unfaithfulness. It looks at all kinds of sexual sins, such as those described in Leviticus 18: The LXX uses porneia to translate the Hebrew zenut, which is used for immorality and also specifically for incestuous marriages and other illegitimate form s of marriage. Zenut is used for the full range of sexual immorality, including adultery, in the Old Testament, intertestamental literature and Qumran scrolls. Instone-Brewer, 157 ii) Options (1) Sexual unfaithfulness during the period of betrothal before the marriage was legally consummated (see Joseph and Mary, Matt. 1). (2) Marriage within the degrees of kinship prohibited in Lev. 18: It should be noted that this is a very precise meaning, not one inherently attached in the word. We would expect the context to point in that direction. But the context here is a general one of divorce and marriage. An incestuous marriage would be handled by annulment rather than divorce. (3) Marriage between Jews and Gentiles (4) Adultery (moicheia is the regular Greek word). (5) Porneia is best taken in its broadest sense. There are no compelling contextual reasons to limit its sense to any of the preceding options. It would thus include adultery, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and perhaps indecent exposure. The Shammaites allowed remarriage even after a Hillelite any matter divorce. They decided that if a legal court had granted a divorce, they would not countermand the court s decision, even though it was counter to what they would have decided. Jesus, however, refused to recognize the validity of this kind of divorce. He not only refused to allow any matter divorces but declared that they were invalid, so that anyone remarrying after an any matter divorce was committing adultery. Instone-Brewer, The disciples expressed their surprise at the limitations Jesus put on divorce. The surprise indicates that they regarded the Hillelite any matter reason as a normal and perhaps even a necessary procedure. Instone-Brewer, 168 i) The exception clause must be viewed as a genuine exception. Although the Lord clearly intended marriage to be permanent, sin had devastated the divine intent. His position is far more restrictive than the existing rabbinic positions, but also more gracious. Porneia brought death in the OT and would obviously make remarriage possible. The Lord Jesus establishes it as a possible basis for the termination of marriage, but he in no way requires it. j) A critical question that must be asked is whether the Lord was making a formal legal statement that covered all cases. Does his statement mean that illicit intercourse alone is a basis for divorce, or could the term be extended to things such as serious physical abuse? This is a pressing question in light of the

15 15 Pauline exception in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul apparently did not view the Lord s words as establishing a legal absolute, which admitted no further refinements or nuances. k) Jesus teaching on singleness is very significant in this context. Having declared that marriage is to be monogamous and lifelong, he now makes it clear that marriage is not compulsory. This does not sound surprising to a modern reader but Jews considered go and multiply as one of the 613 commands given by God in the Torah. It was the duty of every man to marry and have children. There is absolutely no guilt associated with remaining single, if it is done in order to work for God. Instone-Brewer, 168, 171. B. Summary: the Lord s Teaching on Marriage Instone-Brewer has a very helpful summary of the Lord s teaching, as well as some fascinating insights into some of the practical consequences for the early church. 1. Monogamy a man can be married to only one woman at a time. One major consequence was the number of widows in the early church. A second wife was often a widow (the bride price was much less, and she often brought money from an earlier marriage). The concern for widows occurs as early as Acts 6 and is evident in 1 Timothy 5. It is recorded that there were more than 1500 widows on the rolls of the church in Rome and 3000 widows and virgins in Antioch who received daily support. 2. Marriage should be lifelong. 3. Divorce is not compulsory. In Jewish circles a woman was suspected of adultery if she spent even a few minutes in conversation with a man. The Lord s teaching would obviously give women far more freedom in daily activities. 4. Divorce is allowable if there is stubborn continuance in adultery. Divorce was possible on the basis of adultery. 5. Marriage is not compulsory. This not only validated singleness, it also meant that infertility was not a ground for divorce. 6. Divorce for any matter is invalid. There was a huge gulf between the teachings of Jesus and the rest of Jewish society. Not only did Jesus limit the grounds on which one could demand a divorce, but he also said that forgiveness should be offered before proceeding to divorce. Instone-Brewer, 183 C. Remaining Questions 1. Jesus did not say what should happen in the case of an invalid divorce. There is no indication that he required separation. 2. Jesus makes no statements about the other grounds that were universally considered by all groups within first century Judaism to be valid grounds for divorce, based on Exodus 21:10-11 (material and/or emotional neglect). Does his silence indicate consent (so Instone-Brewer)?

16 16 V. PAUL S TEACHING RELATED TO MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE Romans 7:1-4 Marriage is here used by Paul as an illustration of a believer s relation to the law, before and after conversion. The central point is that death alone can end the marriage to the law because a woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive. This is taken by some to be a statement that divorce is not viewed as a possibility. However, the passage is not a discussion of divorce but an illustration. As such it has a specific purpose, and must not be used to address issues that are not in view. 1 Corinthians 7: In verse 10, Paul is referring to the Lord s teaching on marriage and divorce, given in the gospels. The main statement is that marriage is intended to be permanent ( a woman must not separate from her husband ). If the exception clause is accepted as genuine, it is of course an exception to this statement as well. 2. If a woman does separate, she has two options according to verse 11- to remain unmarried or to be reconciled. Remarriage is not an option. He seems, however, to recognize that separation may be viewed as necessary. He does not call for church discipline or for others to force her back into the relationship. The separation is not treated as the moral equivalent of remarriage. Since the ancient world had no concept of legal separation, this separation may have been viewed as divorce, although that is not clear. 3. Having quoted the Lord Jesus in verses 10-11, he now speaks on his own. He is not denying divine guidance, but making it clear that he is not quoting the Lord Jesus in verses At the same time, he believes that he has the Spirit of God (7:40). The general issue is a spiritually mixed marriage. The basic guideline is that such a marriage falls under the same guidelines as those of verses The believer is not to initiate separation or divorce. However, a specific question emerges in verse 15: what if the unbeliever leaves the marriage? The believer is not to insist on maintaining the marriage: A believer is not bound in such circumstances. It is striking that the standard Jewish certificate of divorce read: You are free to any man (Midrash Gittin 9:3). If Paul meant that the believer really was bound to stay married, this is a very strange way to say it! Surely You are not bound is the same as you are free. In an age of no-fault divorce the idea of being bound is a moot point. But the important principle is that the abandoned believer is free to pursue another relationship. However, the believer has no right to initiate withdrawal from such a relationship.

17 17 4. The question is, Does abandonment or divorce by an unbeliever give a believer the freedom to remarry? Is this a Pauline permission which goes beyond the words of the Lord in Matthew? There are two answers that have been given: a) No. The believer is not required to maintain the relationship, but is not given freedom to enter another marriage. b) The abandonment of the marriage by the non-believer (not temporarily, but decisively and apparently permanently) does give a believer the freedom to remarry. This, I believe, is the more likely interpretation. CONCLUSION 1. There can be no doubt that the emphasis of Scripture is on the permanence of the marriage and the inviolable nature of the marriage covenant. It is appropriate to talk about divorce only in that context. It is also appropriate to consider divorce only after serious attempts at restoration have proved impossible. 2. The Old Testament had no legislation requiring divorce. However, it was present in Hebrew culture and the Torah sought to regulate the practice to protect women and to prevent further abuse. Sexual violation of the marriage covenant was viewed so seriously that it brought the death penalty. 3. The New Testament does permit divorce and remarriage on two explicit grounds: adultery and desertion by an unbelieving partner. In both cases, people are in a situation by the choice of others. 4. There is no passage in Scripture that gives a formal law of divorce. Since both adultery and desertion have in common that they constitute gross violation of the marriage covenant, other illustrations of such gross violation could also be viewed as grounds for divorce (prolonged incarceration, extreme physical abuse of spouse or children, severe chemical addictions, gross dereliction of marital responsibility, etc.). It must be admitted that this is an extension of biblical teaching that must be employed with great caution. However, I must admit that it was a case of severe physical abuse that led to profound doubt about a legalistic application of the exception clauses. I was unable to reconcile in my mind how a sexual adventure would be a more profound violation of the marriage covenant than this man s continued life-threatening physical assaults upon his wife.