Most
evangelicals say that God allows divorce and remarriage in some circumstances
while one’s original husband or wife is still alive, including in cases of
marital infidelity. In what follows, I will refer to this as “the majority
view.” 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. I will refer to
this as “the minority view.”
Actually,
to be precise, those evangelicals who hold the minority view can be divided
into two camps. Some say that God disallows all divorce and all remarriage
while one’s original spouse is still alive. Others say that He disallows all
remarriage but does sometimes allow divorce while one’s original spouse is
still alive.
The
question I am most interested in answering in this article is whether God ever
allows remarriage while one’s original spouse is still alive. So, for my
purposes, the difference between the two groups that hold the minority view is
not important, since both groups claim that God always disallows remarriage
while one’s original spouse is still alive.
To
keep the following discussion as uncomplicated as possible, I will speak as if
all those who hold the minority view disallow all divorce and all remarriage,
even though some of them allow some divorce. This will simplify the discussion
without affecting any argument that I make or conclusion that I reach.
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 Matt. 5:32; 19:3-9; Mark
10:2-12 and Luke 16:18.
There are many areas of debate concerning the
text of these passages, and arguments are given for and against the majority
and minority views.
In this article I will concentrate on just one
of these passages, Matt. 5:32, which the English Standard Version appropriately
translates in this way:
“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 on
part a of this verse, although part b will also come into the discussion.
“Sexual immorality” in this verse is a
translation of the Greek word porneia, which is a broad term. Porneia was
probably chosen instead of moicheia, which means “adultery,” so as to allow for
the inclusion of sexual unfaithfulness during the time of betrothal, homosexual
acts etc. But porneia should be understood to include adultery.
Most evangelicals, including myself, believe
that in v. 32a 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 v. 32a 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 being divorced by her husband, has made 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 men. Every man who
is divorced by his wife commits adultery when he remarries, because in reality
he remains married to his original wife in God’s sight until either he or she
dies.
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, but not with
the majority view.
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 men. A man who is
divorced for a reason other than his sexual immorality really remains married
to his original wife in God’s sight. But a man who is divorced for his sexual
immorality ceases to be married to his original wife in God’s sight.
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, but not with
the minority view.
ARGUMENTS
SUPPORTING INTERPRETATION 1
There are some arguments that can be made in
support of interpretation 1, i.e., the view that in Matt. 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 can’t contradict this.
I think there is some weight to this argument.
Nevertheless, it is not 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].”
Jesus is speaking very concisely in this verse,
and it is not at all difficult to understand him to be implying that the
exception of v. 32a should be repeated in v. 32b.
Implausibility
It is also sometimes said that if we were to understand
v. 32a to mean that divorce and remarriage is sometimes acceptable, 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 an innocently divorced
wife can't remarry (as Jesus does say 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.
Again,
this argument carries some weight.
It
is true that Jesus says in this verse that an innocently divorced wife 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 whole picture 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 an
innocently divorced wife can’t remarry without committing adultery, if there
are no complicating factors. However, sometimes there are complicating factors. Sometimes, the original husband of the
innocently divorced wife 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 is really not that 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 is sometimes acceptable, this would be unfair and 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 for
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.
Again, there is weight to this argument.
However, there are a number of points to make in reply:
First, it seems right to think that the issue of
what God does or doesn’t regard as an acceptable divorce or an acceptable
remarriage is more important than whether or not certain situations might seem
unfair or might be unhelpful in serving as an incentive to commit sin. At its
heart, the issue we are dealing with is one of God’s created order.
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 one’s original spouse is still alive.
(ii) As an exception to that, if the spouse is
guilty of sexual immorality, it is legitimate 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 compelling.
Summing
up
Interpretation 1 states that in Matt. 5:32a
Jesus is not teaching that divorce and remarriage is ever acceptable while
one’s original spouse is still alive. Each of the three arguments that I have outlined
in support of this interpretation carries some weight. However, none of them 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 Matt. 5:32 Jesus is
teaching that not everyone who remarries commits adultery when they remarry (while
their original husband or wife is still alive).
An awkwardness
To begin with, there is an 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.
The
contrast suggests a real divorce
Next, the contrast in v. 32a also makes most
sense if divorce and remarriage is sometimes acceptable while one’s original
spouse is still alive.
When Jesus says in v. 32a that a man who divorces
his wife for a reason other than her sexual immorality causes her to commit
adultery when she remarries, He is implying that the divorce is not a real
divorce at all in God’s sight.
Yet this situation is contrasted with the
situation where a man divorces his wife for sexual immorality, and the contrast
looks most natural if this time the divorce is
a real divorce in God’s sight. 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.
An
improbability
Most importantly, there is an
improbability in thinking that in v. 32a Jesus is not allowing any divorce and
remarriage while one’s original spouse is still alive.
The first point to make here is that
it is unlikely that the man of v. 32a, who divorces his wife for her sexual
immorality, should be viewed as being compelled to divorce her in line with
Jewish law.
In this part of Matthew’s Gospel
Jesus is contrasting His way of doing things with Jewish customs, including by
differing in some respects from the Law of Moses. So it seems strange that He would
be speaking as if the divorcing husband was compelled to follow Moses as
regards whether or not to divorce, precisely in the context of modifying Mosaic
teaching.
It therefore seems improbable that
the man of v. 32a should be viewed as being compelled to follow Jewish law.
However, if this man is viewed as not being compelled to divorce his wife
for her sexual immorality, things become even more difficult.
If he is not compelled to divorce
her, and if it is also true, as it surely is, that the man does no wrong in
divorcing his wife for this sin, then interpretation 1 is very difficult. It
seems very strange that God would be content for the man to divorce her, when
he is not compelled to do so, and when doing so will lead to her committing
adultery. Instead, we would expect God to forbid the man to divorce his wife,
since adultery is such a grave thing.
Furthermore, if the man is not
compelled to divorce his wife, then interpretation 1 also seems very
inconsistent. God would want the man who divorces his wife not to remarry, at
great cost to himself, so as not to commit adultery. Yet He would be content
for this man to divorce his wife, even though that will lead to her committing
adultery when she remarries. Why would God want the man to sacrifice so greatly
so as not to commit adultery himself, yet to be so casual about whether his
wife commits adultery?
Instead, the fact that God is content
for the man to divorce his wife (still assuming a scenario in which he is not
compelled to divorce her in line with Jewish law) suggests that she does not in fact commit adultery when she
remarries, because there has been a real divorce in God’s sight, as in
interpretation 2.
If, then, the man of v. 32a is not
being viewed as compelled to divorce his wife in line with Jewish law,
interpretation 1 looks very difficult and inconsistent.
In conclusion to this section, therefore,
interpretation 1 looks improbable. It seems more than a little doubtful that
the man should be viewed as being compelled to divorce his wife in line with
Jewish law. But if we don’t view him as being compelled to do this, then what
God wants under interpretation 1 looks very strange and inconsistent.
Summing up
Interpretation
2 states that in Matt. 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 weight. The first is probably the
weakest, the second a bit stronger, and the third 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 more
impressive than the combined weight of the arguments supporting interpretation
1.
The overall conclusion to our investigation is therefore
that Matt. 5:32a fits better with the majority evangelical view on divorce than
with the minority view.
Given the very concise nature of Jesus’ saying
in this text, it isn’t a surprise that I haven’t been able to use it to
conclusively prove the majority view. But it does seem to fit better with this
view than with the minority one.
This means that Matt. 5:32a 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 my articles:
