Philosophy of Marriage Part II: On Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery

It is often assumed that Jesus gave an exception to divorce in the case of adultery.

There are two reasons why this myth is perpetuated among the faithful: personal interpretation of scripture and translation of scripture into english. (While scripture is useful for all aspects of faith, one should look to scripture scholars for a more definitive interpretation. )

Most of us are not well versed in Greek, Herbrew, Aramaic, nor familiar enough with Hebrew tradition to actually make dead on interpretations of Scripture. (I wonder how many people would say that God confirmed their interpretation that Jesus allows divorce in the case of adultery?)

I'm posting the article, which itself is based upon personal interpretation, to open up this debate about divorce and adultery.

I have recently come to conclusion that the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is not intended to provide a loophole for divorce and remarriage when one of the partners commits adultery.

I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11, 12 ("And he said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery against him'") and Luke 16:18 ("Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.") is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage.

I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16. Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions?

I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew's exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke.

The second thing that began to disturb me was the question, Why does Matthew use the word porneia instead of the word moicheia which means adultery? Almost all commentators seem to make the simple assumption again that porneia means adultery in this context.

Even though I am ready to admit that now and then porneia is used in a sense which can include adultery, the question nags at me why Matthew should not use the word for adultery, if that is in fact what he meant.

Then I noticed something very interesting. The only other place besides Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneia is in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore, the primary contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different than adultery.

Could this mean, then, that Matthew conceives of porneia in its normal sense of fornication rather than adultery?

The next clue in my search for an explanation came when I stumbled upon the use of porneia in John 8:41 where the Jewish leaders indirectly accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don't accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed fornication and Jesus was the result of this act.

On the basis of that clue I went back to study Matthew's record of Jesus' birth in Matthew 1:18-20. This was extremely enlightening.

In these verses Joseph and Mary are referred to each other as husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being betrothed to each other. This is probably owing to the fact that the words for husband and wife are simply man and woman and to the fact that betrothal was a much more significant commitment then than engagement is today.

In verse 19 Joseph resolves "to divorce" Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. But most important of all, Matthew says that Joseph was "just" in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.

Therefore, as Matthew proceeded to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19, in a difficult situation. He has before him the absolute sayings of Jesus that if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery, that is, he commits a grave injustice. Nevertheless, the one divorce that Matthew has contemplated with his readers in chapter 1 has been described by him as a "just" possibility.

Therefore, in order to avoid the jarring inconsistency between what he has said about Joseph and what Jesus says about divorce, Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication, is not included in what Jesus had said.

This interpretation of the exception clause has several advantages: 1) it does not force Matthew to contradict the plain, absolute meaning of Mark and Luke; 2) it provides an explanation for why the word porneia is used in Matthew's exception clause instead of moicheia; 3) it squares with Matthew's own use of porneia for fornication in Matthew 15:19; 4) from a redaction-critical standpoint it is very astute edition which promotes the truth of Jesus' own absolute command and the rightness of Joseph's intention in resolving to divorce his betrothed, Mary.

There is one more piece of evidence. It is usually assumed by evangelicals that when Jesus said the absolute form of his command, in Luke 18 for example, he was assuming that divorce on account of adultery was taken for granted and that a spouse had the right to remarry when divorced in this way.

But there is very strong evidence in Luke 16:18 that Jesus did not assume this but in fact contemplated the possibility of an exception clause and rejected it. Luke 16:18 says, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

What is the situation of the woman in the second half of this verse? It seems to me that if we take the verse as a unity (and I can see no reason not to) the situation is that a man has divorced his wife and married another. That is, he has deserted his wife and illegitimately gone off with another and formed a new marital relationship. He has committed adultery against his first wife and left her "divorced."

If the traditional view of Matthew's exception clause is correct, then this woman is free to remarry. But Jesus says just the opposite in the last half of Luke 16:18. He says that the woman who was divorced is not a candidate for remarriage, because if a man marries her, he commits adultery. The only way to escape from this implication is to say that the two halves of the verse don't have anything to do with each other.

But against that assumption is the active voice of the word "divorce" in 18a and the passive voice of the word "divorce" in 18b. In other words, the verse pictures a man divorcing in 18a and a woman divorced in 18b and it seems to me completely unnatural to think of this woman divorced in 18a and in 18b as two different women.

The force of this argument has been felt by the translators of the NIV in Matthew 5:32. They translate "anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (sic!), causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery." The fact that they insert the word "so" shows that they think of the woman in the second half of the verse as the same woman in the first half of the verse.

But when they get to Luke 16:18, they simply translate, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Why don't they use the word "so" in Luke 16:18? I think the reason is that as soon as they do, it will show that Jesus did consider the situation of an exception clause on the ground of adultery and rejected it. This is in fact the case.

This is what I have taught to my church and I see no warrant for anything different in I Corinthians 7.

My first wife divorced me after I endured her infidelity for over two years. I believed as in the scriptures that there was nothing I could have done and so I waited seven years before I remarried. My second wife became bipolar and depressed and the rest is history. Marriage was just not meant for some.

God's command in the OT not to work on the Sabbath was expressed very absolutely--no exceptions mentioned. HOwever, clearly the Lord thought that in unusual situations there were legitimate exceptions (Mark 2:23-3:6; John 5:1ff; 7:14; Luke 13:10ff; Luke 14:1ff) as even the Jews acknowledged.
If all of Jesus' commands are absolute, then "give to him that asketh of thee" would require one to surrender a gun to a serial killer. "Resist not evil" would require one to give in to Satan. All of Jesus' moral and ethical teachings must be informed by his higher principles, and the higher principles informed by the specific codes. Incidentally, what is your definition of porneia as used in Matthew? Does it include adultery or not?

>>If all of Jesus' commands are absolute, then "give to him that asketh of thee" would require one to surrender a gun to a serial killer. "Resist not evil" would require one to give in to Satan.

Obviously, common sense should prevail in these situations.

>>what is your definition of porneia as used in Matthew?

I would stick with the unchaste definition (meaning an unlawful incestious "marriage"). I think using the word "adultery" has done much disservice to the faithful.

>>I would stick with the unchaste definition (meaning an unlawful incestious "marriage"). I think using the word "adultery" has done much disservice to the faithful.<<

I would hardly think that Joseph thought he was in danger of being in an incestuous relationship with Mary.

You bring up an interesting point, but I think I have a good answer:

>>Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication, is not included in what Jesus had said.

Betrothal in the Jewish tradition is not relavant today. Also, notice that nowhere is it said that Joseph intended to remarry. The issue is not divorce, but remarriage after divorce.

I don't think that adultery does justice to this verse. While unchastity in the incestious sense isn't very relative today, it does more justice to the passage and is closer to the intent. Using fornication or adultery as the word for Pornea simply "gives" people the permission they need to remarry after divorce -- which is actually not permitted.

>>Well, why would not "common sense" apply when a wife is living with a physically and emotionally abusive husband? A husband dangerous to her and to her children?

Divorce or separation isn't really the issue -- it's remarriage which is.

Divorce and remarriage is a plague in our churches. There have been more families ruined by it than any other thing. It also has closed off areas of ministry to many people who would otherwise be perfectly qualified.

I am thinking in particular about the office of Deacon. In our church we hold that the "husband of one wife" clause means no divorced or remarried men are qualified to serve as a Deacon. This has severely limited the amount of otherwise qualified men from serving the church in this capacity.

This has severely limited the amount of otherwise qualified men from serving the church in this capacity.

8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Slanderers are also prohibited even though they are "otherwise qualified."

Drunkards are also prohibited even though they are "otherwise qualified."

The greedy are also prohibited even though they are "otherwise qualified."

The "doubletongued" are also prohibited even though they are "otherwise qualified."

Yes. Cannot men be "otherwise qualified" if they are grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience but divorced and/or remarried?

I'm not quite sure what your objection to my statement was.

I'm not quite sure what your objection to my statement was.

They ARE NOT qualified if they fail ANY of the requirements...whether that requirement be "not greedy", "not a drunkard", or "not divorced."

I believe that is what I said when I bemoaned the fact that there are so many men who would have qualified to be Deacons if that restriction were not there.

But the restriction is there, for good reason, and we abide by it as well as the rest of them.

I see the problem as God's ideal marrage vs reality.
In the OT men had many wives. Jacob, Gideon, David. How can one divorce one and not have it affect the others?
When Samson's wife was given to another man, was it proper?
What of David whose wife was given to another man yet he took her back, and still had several when he put away the daughter of Saul.
If a man has 5 wives and divorces one can he take another or is he stuck with the four?

Of course, I m only looking at the OT period. I am aware of the difference Jesus made in the NT which can still cause many debates.
What of a truly BAD marrage? What of a marrage to an unbeliever, or wife beater, or worse?
Just for the record, I'm still with my first.

>>Divorce or separation isn't really the issue -- it's remarriage which is.

A divorce at the time Jesus said this, if valid, always included the right of remarriage. The divorce decree declared that the divorced party was free to remarry. This is how Jesus' original audience would have understood his words.

>>A divorce at the time Jesus said this, if valid, always included the right of remarriage. The divorce decree declared that the divorced party was free to remarry. This is how Jesus' original audience would have understood his words.

What you say sounds reasonable -- but remember what Jesus said -- Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus put an end to it! (Which is why he referenced Moses and then basically said it's ove!!)

He basically put end to the Mosaic practice of divorce and remarriage.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.