One area of controversy in the Christian faith,
and within evangelicalism, concerns divorce and remarriage.
Most evangelicals say that God allows divorce
and remarriage in some circumstances while one’s original husband or wife is
still alive. This is the view that I will be supporting in this article.
By contrast, a minority of evangelicals say that
God never allows divorce and remarriage while one’s original husband or wife is
still alive.
THE PASSAGE TO BE LOOKED AT IN
THIS ARTICLE
In the Gospels there are four passages that contain teaching of Jesus on
divorce and remarriage. These are Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12 and
Luke 16:18.
In this article I will concentrate on just one of these passages, Matthew
5:31-32, which the English Standard Version appropriately translates as follows:
‘31 It was also said, “Whoever
divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32a But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,
except on the ground of sexual immorality [porneia], makes her commit adultery,
32b and whoever marries a divorced
woman commits adultery.’
Actually,
the discussion in what follows will focus mainly on part a of verse 32,
although part b of this verse and verse 31 will also come into the discussion.
‘Sexual immorality’ in v. 32a is a
translation of the Greek word porneia, which is a broad term. This word
includes not only adultery but also sexual unfaithfulness during the time of
betrothal and possibly other sexually immoral acts too.
Most evangelicals, including myself, believe that in this passage one of
the things Jesus is teaching is that there are times when it is acceptable for
divorce and remarriage to occur while a person’s original husband or wife is
still alive.
Some evangelicals, however, deny this. They claim that in this passage Jesus
is not teaching that divorce and remarriage is ever acceptable while one’s
original husband or wife is still alive.
A consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of these positions will
be the topic of discussion in this article.
TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS
The first thing we need to do is see what the options are for how we
understand v. 32a.
There are two possible interpretations.
Interpretation 1
Jesus is saying the following:
If a man divorces his wife for any reason other than her
sexual immorality, he makes her commit adultery when she remarries. But if he divorces her for
her sexual immorality, he doesn’t make her commit adultery when she remarries,
because she, through her sexual immorality which has led to her being divorced
by her husband, makes herself commit adultery when she remarries.
Under this interpretation, every woman who is divorced by her husband
commits adultery when she remarries. So under this interpretation, every woman
who is divorced really remains married to her original husband in God’s sight
until either he or she dies. And the same would be true of a husband divorced
by his wife.
This would mean that remarriage is never acceptable to God while
someone’s original spouse is still alive. So this interpretation fits with the
minority evangelical view on divorce.
Interpretation 2
Jesus is saying the following:
If a man divorces his wife for any reason other
than her sexual immorality, he makes her commit adultery when she remarries.
But if he divorces her for her sexual immorality, he doesn’t make her commit
adultery when she remarries, because she doesn’t commit adultery when she remarries.
Under this interpretation, a woman who is divorced for a reason other
than her sexual immorality really remains married to her original husband in
God’s sight. But, under this interpretation, a woman who is divorced for her sexual
immorality ceases to be married to her original husband in God’s sight. And the
same would be true of a husband divorced by his wife.
This would mean that remarriage is sometimes
acceptable to God while someone’s original spouse is still alive. So this
interpretation fits with the majority evangelical view on divorce.
ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING
INTERPRETATION 1
There are some arguments that can be made in support of interpretation 1,
i.e., the view that in Matthew 5:32a Jesus is teaching that every divorced person
commits adultery when they remarry (while their original husband or wife is
still alive).
No exception mentioned in v. 32b
To begin with, there is the point that no exception is mentioned in v.
32b.
Verse 32b says simply:
‘.
. . whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’
The
most straightforward reading of these words is that every man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This would
mean that every divorced woman commits adultery when she remarries. And if v.
32b implies that every divorced woman commits adultery when she remarries, v.
32a won’t contradict this.
Importantly, however, Jesus is speaking very concisely in this verse,
and it is not at all difficult to think that the exception which is made
explicit in v. 32a should be understood again in v. 32b:
‘. . . whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery [apart from
those who marry a woman who was divorced for her sexual immorality].’
Implausibility
It
is also sometimes said that if we were to understand v. 32a to mean that
divorce and remarriage is sometimes acceptable while someone’s original spouse
is still alive, this would involve an implausibility.
There are those who argue in
this way:
If committing sexual
immorality allows the wronged party to break the marriage bond and makes
remarriage legitimate, then to say that a wife who is divorced through no fault
of her own can't remarry (as Jesus does imply in this verse) assumes that her
divorcing husband is not divorcing to have sexual relations with another
person. But this is a very unlikely assumption.
It is true that Jesus says
in this verse that a wife who is divorced through no fault of her own can’t
remarry without committing adultery. Nevertheless, we need to take account of
how concisely He is speaking here. We don’t have to understand Him to be giving
the all the details on this issue.
We could understand things
in this way:
The big principle that Jesus
is stressing in this verse is that marriages last for life, unless one partner
commits sexual immorality, in which case the other partner is free to initiate divorce
and remarriage. This means that a wife who is divorced through no fault of her
own can’t remarry without committing adultery, if there are no complicating
factors. However, sometimes there are
complicating factors. Sometimes, the original husband of the wife who is
divorced through no fault of her own will himself commit sexual immorality. In
this case the innocent wife can
remarry without committing adultery. Jesus doesn’t discuss any complicating
factors, because He is speaking very concisely and just wants to explicitly
state the general principle that marriages last for life unless one partner
commits sexual immorality.
It really isn’t difficult to understand things in this way.
Unfair and an incentive to commit
sexual immorality
It is also sometimes said
that if we were to understand v. 32a to mean that divorce and remarriage while
someone’s original spouse is still alive is acceptable in a case of sexual
immorality, this would be unfair and would create an incentive to commit sexual immorality.
There are those who argue in this way:
It would be strange if a woman who is divorced through no fault of her
own commits adultery when she remarries, but a woman who is divorced for sexual
immorality doesn’t commit adultery when she remarries. This is not only unfair
but it can easily lead to an incentive to commit sexual immorality. So we
should conclude [as in interpretation 1] that divorce and remarriage is never
acceptable while one’s original spouse is still alive.
There are a number of points to make in reply to this argument:
First, at its heart, the issue we are dealing with is one of God’s
created order, how He has made our world as regards what is and isn’t an
acceptable divorce or an acceptable remarriage. This is more important than whether
or not certain situations might seem unfair or might be unhelpful in serving as
an incentive to commit sin.
Second, even if we were to say that allowing remarriage (for both husband
and wife) if a woman commits sexual immorality has the downside of creating an
incentive for her to commit sexual immorality, it is not as if allowing remarriage
has no upside. It has the upside of enabling the wronged husband to avoid a lot
of pain. Under interpretation 1, not only is the husband sinned against by his
wife committing sexual immorality, but he is not then allowed to divorce her
and remarry. However, under interpretation 2 he is allowed to do this.
Third and most importantly, steps can be taken to avoid an incentive to
commit sexual immorality. We can say that remarriage is unacceptable after some
cases of sexual immorality.
For example, if a man has an affair and his wife divorces him for it and
he then wants to marry the woman he had the affair with, I believe that we
should, at least usually, refuse to recognise that remarriage.
In other words, we can make exceptions to the exception. We need to
understand that in this verse Jesus is giving general principles, not a
legalistic set of rules.
So, under interpretation 2 we could set out things in three statements:
(i) As a general principle people must not divorce their spouse and remarry
while their original spouse is still alive.
(ii) As an exception to that, if the spouse is guilty of sexual
immorality, it is OK for the wronged party to initiate divorce and for both
parties to be free to remarry.
(iii) But as an exception to the exception, it is wise to disallow
remarriage if the example being set might lead others to see an incentive to
commit sexual immorality.
The argument from unfairness and incentive to commit sin is therefore
not a strong one.
Summing up
Interpretation 1 states that in Matthew 5:32a Jesus is not teaching that
divorce and remarriage is ever acceptable while one’s original spouse is still
alive.
However, none of the three arguments that I have outlined in support of
this interpretation is very impressive.
ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING
INTERPRETATION 2
There are also arguments that can be made in support of interpretation
2, i.e., the view that in Matthew 5:32a Jesus is
teaching that not everyone who remarries commits adultery when they remarry (while
their original spouse is still alive).
The contrast between
v. 31 and v. 32a
To begin with, we need to take
account of the contrast between v. 31 and v. 32a.
In v. 31 Jesus refers to an
interpretation of the Law of Moses that allowed for very easy divorce.
Then in v. 32a (if we ignore
the exception phrase for a moment) He says, ‘But I say to you that everyone who
divorces his wife . . . makes her commit adultery’. With these words Jesus is
clearly setting out a principle forbidding divorce in contrast to the principle
of allowing divorce referred to in v. 31.
In the context of this
contrast, when we read the exception phrase in v. 32a – ‘except on the ground
of sexual immorality’ – it seems very natural to understand this exception as
referring to a situation in which the principle of allowing divorce in v. 31 is
valid.
Let me give a rough parallel.
Suppose someone says:
‘Some people say A is true.
But I say that B, except when X exists, is true.’
In view of the ‘But’ that
begins the second sentence, the most natural way of taking these words is that this
person believes that A is true when X exists.
Similarly, the most natural
way of taking the exception phrase in v. 32a is that it is referring to a
situation in which divorce is allowed. And if there is a real divorce, the
marriage is surely over. And if it is over, it makes sense to think that both
parties are free to remarry.
That is not to say that it would necessarily be acceptable for each
party to remarry anyone. See the comments above about exceptions to the
exception. But as a general principle, if God recognises a divorce, then we
would expect both parties to be free to remarry.
The contrast between v. 31 and v. 32a, then, is quite a strong piece of
support for interpretation 2, i.e., the view that in Matthew 5:32a Jesus is
teaching that remarriage is sometimes acceptable to God while someone’s
original spouse is still alive.
The amount of reading between the lines
There is also the issue of how much reading between the lines is
necessary for interpretation 1.
Under interpretation 2 of v. 32a, when a man
divorces his wife for her sexual immorality, she doesn’t commit adultery
when she remarries. But under interpretation 1, when a man divorces his wife
for her sexual immorality, she causes herself to commit adultery when she
remarries.
I think we have to do too much reading between the lines to easily say
that she causes herself to commit adultery when she remarries. It is a much
simpler and more natural interpretation just to think that she doesn’t commit
adultery if she is divorced for sexual immorality and remarries, in line with
interpretation 2.
Another awkwardness
There is also another awkwardness in interpretation 1.
Under interpretation 1, the divorcing husband is said not to cause his
wife who is guilty of sexual immorality to commit adultery when she remarries,
because she, by her sexual immorality which leads to her being divorced, causes
herself to commit adultery when she remarries.
However, it still looks rather awkward to say that her husband doesn’t
cause her to commit adultery, because, by divorcing her, he is still (under
interpretation 1) doing something that will lead to her committing adultery
when she remarries.
Summing up
Interpretation 2 states that
in Matthew 5:32a Jesus is
teaching that divorce and remarriage is sometimes acceptable while one’s
original spouse is still alive.
The three arguments that I have outlined in support of this
interpretation all carry some weight, especially the first, which is quite a
strong argument.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
If we weigh up the support for each position, the combined weight of the
arguments supporting interpretation 2 looks much more impressive than the
combined weight of the arguments supporting interpretation 1.
Given the very concise nature of Jesus’ saying in this passage, it isn’t
a surprise that I haven’t been able to use it to conclusively prove interpretation
2. But it does seem to fit much better with this interpretation than with
interpretation 1.
In summary, then, this means that Matthew 5:31-32 gives some support to
the view that there are times when it is acceptable for people
to divorce and remarry while their original husband or wife is still alive.
See also:
Is Divorce
and Remarriage Ever Acceptable? What Should We Make of the Lack of Explicit
Exceptions in Mark and Luke?
Divorce and
Remarriage Are Only Acceptable in Special Circumstances
The Danger
for a Christian in Marrying a Non-Christian
Should
Single Christians Aim to Get Married?
