Replies

A good and even-handed discussion of the issues that must be resolved in the words of Christ concerning divorce and remarriage:

1. Instruction about marriage 19:3–12 (cf. Mark 10:2–12)

Matthew evidently included this instruction because the marriage relationships of His disciples were important factors in their effective ministries. Jesus clarified God’s will for His disciples that was different from the common perception of His day. He dealt with the single state as well as the essence of marriage and the subjects of divorce and remarriage.

19:3 The Pharisees again approached Jesus to trap Him (cf. 12:2, 14, 38; 15:1; 16:1; 22:15, 34–35). This time they posed a question about divorce. In 5:31–32, Jesus had taught the sanctity of marriage in the context of kingdom righteousness. Here the Pharisees asked Him what divorces were legitimate. Perhaps they hoped Jesus would oppose Herod as John had done and would suffer a similar fate. The Machaerus fortress where Herod Antipas had imprisoned and beheaded John was nearby, east of the north part of the Dead Sea. Undoubtedly the Pharisees hoped Jesus would say something that they could use against Him.

Both the NASB and NIV translations have rendered the Pharisees’ question well. They wanted to know if Jesus believed a man could divorce his wife for any and every reason. The Mosaic Law did not permit wives to divorce their husbands.

There was great variety of opinion on this controversial subject among the Jews. The Qumran community, for example, believed that divorce was not legitimate for any reason.708 In mainstream Judaism there were two dominant views both of which held that divorce was permissible for “something indecent” (Deut. 24:1). Rabbi Shammai and his school of followers believed the indecency was some gross indecency though not necessarily adultery. Rabbi Hillel and his school interpreted the indecency more broadly to include practically any offense that a wife might have committed, real or imagined by the husband. This even included a wife not cooking her husband’s meal to his liking. One of Hillel’s disciples, Rabbi Akiba, permitted a man to divorce his wife if a prettier woman caught his eye.709 Josephus was a divorced Pharisee, and he believed in divorce “for any causes whatsoever.”710 In many Pharisaic circles “the frequency of divorce was an open scandal.”711

19:4–6 Jesus’ citation of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 shows that He believed that marriage unites a man and a woman in a “one flesh” relationship. He was the Creator in view (v. 4) though He did not draw attention to that point (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16). The phrase “for this cause” (v. 5) in Genesis 2:24 refers to Adam’s awareness that God had made Eve out of his bone and flesh, from him as well as for him. She was related to him in the most intimate sense. When a man and a woman marry, they become one flesh thus reestablishing the intimate type of union that existed between Adam and Eve before God separated Eve from Adam.

“. . . the ‘one flesh’ in every marriage between a man and a woman is a reenactment of and testimony to the very structure of humanity as God created it.”712

In view of this union, Jesus concluded, a husband and wife are no longer two but one (v. 6). God has united them in a “one flesh” relationship by an act of creation. Since God has done this, separating them with divorce is not only unnatural but rebellion against God. Essentially Jesus allied Himself with the prophet Malachi rather than with any of the rabbis. Malachi had revealed that God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16).

Jesus focused on the God-ordained and supernaturally created unity of the married couple. The rabbis stressed the error of divorce as involving taking another man’s wife. Jesus appealed to the principle. He went back to fundamental biblical revelation, in this case Creation. He argued that marriage rests on how God made human beings, not just the sanctity of a covenantal relationship between the husband and the wife.713 Marriage does not break down simply because one partner breaks his covenant with his or her spouse. God unites the husband and wife in a new relationship when they marry that continues regardless of marital unfaithfulness.

19:7 Jesus had not yet answered the Pharisees’ question about how one should take the Mosaic Law on this subject, so they asked Him this question. Granting Jesus’ view of marriage, why did Moses allow divorce? In the Deuteronomy 24:1–4 passage to which the Pharisees referred, God showed more concern about prohibiting the remarriage of the divorced woman and her first husband than the reason for granting the divorce. However the Pharisees took the passage as a command (Gr. entellomai) to divorce one’s wife for any indecency. God intended it as only a permission to divorce, as the passage itself shows.

19:8 Jesus explained that the concession in the Mosaic Law was just that, a concession. It did not reflect the will of God in creation but the hardness of the human heart. Divorce was not a part of God’s creation ordinance any more than sin was. However, He permitted divorce as He permitted sin because not permitting it creates worse situations.

“Moses regulated, but thereby conceded, the practice of divorce; both were with a view to (pros) the nation’s (hymon) hardness of heart: since they persist in falling short of the ideal of Eden, let it at least be within limits.”714

This is not saying that the Israelite who divorced his wife for the reasons God permitted committed sin, though he did. It is saying that the divorce option that God granted the Israelites testifies to man’s sinfulness. Therefore one should always view divorce as evidence of sin, specifically hardness of heart. He or she should never view it as simply a morally neutral option that God granted, the correctness or incorrectness of which depended on the definition of the indecency. The Pharisees’ fundamental attitude toward the issue was wrong. They were looking for grounds for divorce. Jesus was stressing the inviolability of the marriage relationship.

Notice in passing that Jesus never associated Himself with the sin in the discussion. He consistently spoke of the peoples’ sin as their sin or your sin, never as our sin (cf. 6:14–15). This is a fine point that reveals Jesus’ awareness that He was sinless.

What was the indecency for which Moses permitted divorce? It was not adultery since the penalty for that was death, not divorce (Deut. 22:22). However, it is debatable whether the Israelites enforced the death penalty for adultery.715 It could not be suspicion of adultery either since there was a specified procedure for handling those cases (Num. 5:5–31). Probably it was any gross immoral behavior short of adultery, namely fornication, which includes all types of prohibited sexual behavior. Even though divorce was widespread and easy to obtain in the ancient Near East, the Israelites took marriage somewhat more seriously than their pagan neighbors.

19:9 Jesus introduced His position on this subject with words that stressed His authority: “I say to you” (cf. 5:18, 20, 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 8:10; 16:18, 28). His was the true view because it came from Him who came to fulfill the law. Matthew recorded only Jesus’ words concerning a man who divorces his wife, probably because in Judaism wives could not divorce their husbands. However, Mark recorded Jesus saying that the same thing holds true for a woman who divorces her husband (Mark 10:12).716

There are four problems in this verse that account for its difficulty.
First, what does the exception clause include? The best textual evidence points to the short clause that appears in both the NASB and the NIV translations, “except for immorality” or “except for marital unfaithfulness.”717
Second, what is the meaning of porneia (“immorality” NASB, “marital unfaithfulness” NIV, “fornication” AV) in the exception clause? Some interpreters believe it refers to incest.718 However, there is no evidence of which I am aware that the Jews ever regarded an incestuous relationship as constituting marriage. Furthermore Paul used this word to describe prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:13 and 16. In other words, porneia does not mean just incest.
Others believe porneia refers to premarital sex, in which case if a man discovered that his fiance was not a virgin he could divorce her.719 Even though the Jews considered a man and a woman to be husband and wife during their engagement period, they were not really married. Consequently to consider this grounds for a divorce seems to require a redefinition of marriage that most interpreters resist.
Still others define porneia as adultery.720 However the normal Greek word for adultery is moicheia, which Matthew used back to back with porneia previously (15:19). Therefore they must not mean the same thing. It seems unlikely that porneia refers to spiritual adultery in view of 1 Corinthians 7:12.
The best solution seems to be that porneia is a broad term that covers many different sexual sins that lie outside God’s will. This conclusion rests on the meaning of the word.721 These sexual sins, fornication, would include homosexuality, bestiality, premarital sex, incest, adultery, and perhaps others.
A third problem in this verse is why did Matthew alone of all the Synoptic evangelists include this exception clause, here and in 5:32, when the others excluded it? To answer this question we must also answer the fourth question, namely what does this clause mean?
Some scholars believe that Matthew simply added the clause himself to make what Jesus really said stronger. They assume that what Mark wrote represents what Jesus really said. This view reflects a low view of Scripture since it makes Matthew distort Jesus’ words.
Another answer is that the exception clause does not express an exception. This view requires interpreting the Greek preposition epi (“except”) as “in addition to” or “apart from.” However when me (“not”) introduces epi it always introduces an exception elsewhere in the Greek New Testament.
Another similar answer is that the exception is an exception to the whole proposition, not just to the verb “divorces.”722 In this case the porneia is not involved. We might translate the clause as follows to give the sense. “Whoever divorces his wife quite apart from the matter of porneia and marries another commits adultery.” Thus in this view, as in the one above, there is no real exception. The main problem with this view, as with the one above, is its unusual handling of the Greek text. One has to read in things that are not there.
A fourth view is that when Jesus used the Greek verb apolyo (“divorces”) He really meant “separates from” and so permitted separation but not divorce.723 Therefore there can be no remarriage since the marriage bond is still in tact. However in verse 3 apolyo clearly means “divorce” so to give it a different meaning in verse 9 seems arbitrary without some compelling reason to do so.
Other interpreters believe Jesus meant that in some cases divorce is not adulterous rather than that in some cases divorce is not morally wrong.724 In the case of porneia the husband does not make her adulterous; she is already adulterous. However the text does not say he makes her adulterous or an adulteress; it says he makes her commit adultery. If the woman had committed porneia, divorce and remarriage would not make her adulterous. However divorce and remarriage would make her commit adultery. The major flaw in this view is that in verse 9 it is the man who commits adultery, not his wife.
Probably it is best to interpret porneia and the exception clause as they appear normally in our English texts. Jesus meant that whoever divorces his wife, except for some gross sexual sin, and then remarries someone else commits adultery (cf. 5:32).
“On any understanding of what Jesus says . . ., he agrees with neither Shammai nor Hillel; for even though the school of Shammai was stricter than Hillel, it permitted remarriage when the divorce was not in accordance with its own Halakah (rules of conduct) (M[ishnah] Eduyoth 4:7–10); and if Jesus restricts grounds for divorce to sexual indecency . . ., then he differs fundamentally from Shammai. Jesus cuts his own swath in these verses . . .”725
Divorce and remarriage always involve evil. However just as Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of man’s heart, so did Jesus. Yet whereas Moses was indefinite about the indecency that constituted grounds for a divorce, Jesus specified the indecency as gross sexual sin, fornication.726
Why then did Mark and Luke omit the exception clause? Probably they did so simply because it expresses an exception to the rule, and they wanted to stress the main point of Jesus’ words without dealing with the exceptional situation. Since Matthew wrote for Jews primarily, he probably felt, under the Spirit’s inspiration, that he needed to include the exception clause for the following reason.
Jesus’ specification of marital unfaithfulness as the sole ground for divorce conflicted with the law’s requirement that the Jews should stone those unfaithful in marriage. Jesus was also abolishing the death penalty for marital unfaithfulness by taking the position He took. He was teaching that His hearers could deal with marital unfaithfulness through divorce rather than through execution, though divorce was only a divine concession and not His preference. The subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews in view of Old Testament and rabbinic teaching on this subject.

19:10–12 Some scholars who believe that Jesus meant to discourage remarriage in verse 9 interpret the disciples’ statement in verse 10 as evidence that they understood Him in this light.727 If a person has to remain unmarried after he divorces, it would be better if he never married in the first place. However this is probably not what Jesus meant in verse 9. The evidence for this is His reference to eunuchs in verse 12 as well as the inferiority of this view as explained above.

Probably the disciples expressed regret because Jesus had come down more conservatively than even Rabbi Shammai, the more conservative of the leading rabbis. Jesus conceded divorce only for sexual indecency, as Shammai did, but He was even more conservative than Shammai on the subject of remarriage. He encouraged the disciples not to remarry after a divorce involving sexual indecency whereas Shammai permitted it. His encouragement lay in His clarification that marriage constitutes a very binding relationship (vv. 4–6). The disciples thought that if they could not divorce and remarry, as Hillel or even Shammai taught, they would be better off remaining single.

Jesus responded that not everyone can live by the strict verdict that the disciples had just passed in verse 10, namely never marrying. He did not mean that it is impossible to live with the standards He imposed in verses 4–9. If He meant the latter, He eviscerated all that He had just taught. Some could live by the strict verdict that the disciples suggested, namely eunuchs whom God graciously enables to live unmarried.

Jesus identified three types of eunuchs (v. 12). Some eunuchs were born impotent or without normal sexual drive and therefore remained unmarried. Other eunuchs were eunuchs because others had castrated them, most notably those eunuchs who served in government positions where they had frequent access to royal women. Still other eunuchs were those who had chosen an unmarried life for themselves so they could serve God more effectively. Thus in answer to the disciples’ suggestion that Jesus’ encouragement to remain unmarried presented an unreasonably high standard (v. 10), Jesus pointed out that many people can live unmarried. For those so gifted by God it is better not to marry. Those who can accept this counsel should do so.

However neither Jesus nor the apostles viewed celibacy as an intrinsically holier state than marriage (1 Tim. 4:1–3; Heb. 13:4; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5). They viewed it as a special calling that God has given some of His servants so they can be more useful in His service. Eunuchs could not participate in Israel’s formal worship (Lev. 22:24; Deut. 23:1). However they can participate in the kingdom and, we might add, in the church (Acts 8:26–40; 1 Cor. 7:7–9). Evidently there were some in Jesus’ day who had foregone marriage in anticipation of the kingdom. Perhaps John the Baptist was one, and maybe some of Jesus’ disciples had given up plans to marry to follow Him (cf. v. 27). Jesus definitely was one for the kingdom’s sake.

To summarize, Jesus held a very high view of marriage. When a man and a woman marry, God creates a union that is as strong as the union that bound Adam and Eve together before God separated Eve from Adam. Man should not separate what God has united. However, even though God hates divorce He permits it in cases where gross sexual indecency (fornication) has entered the marriage. Jesus urged His disciples not to divorce, and if they divorced He urged them not to remarry. However, He did not go so far as prohibiting remarriage. He encouraged them to realize that living unmarried after a divorce is a realistic possibility for many people, but He conceded it was not possible for all. A primary consideration should be how one could most effectively carry on his or her work of preparing for the kingdom.728

Matthew did not record the Pharisees’ reaction to this teaching. His primary concern was the teaching itself. He only cited the Pharisees’ participation because it illustrated their continuing antagonism, a major theme in his Gospel, and because it provided the setting for Jesus’ authoritative teaching.

Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Mt 19:1–10). Galaxie Software.