Update: Last post in the series – Part 8 Actual Final
Divorce is an extremely divisive topic in Christianity and for good measure. So I’m going to parse the Scriptures today based on some research that I found and looked up which presents an interesting case. FN had a post today on recourse in marriage and listed the adultery clause which is false, and I was already planning to write this anyway.
About a month or two ago, one of the commentors on I believe Donal’s blog post this in the comments on what “fornication” is before marriage. We recall that only Matthew has a fornication clause that permits putting away a wife whereas Mark and Luke do not. This article is 135 pages long.
I also came across another well researched article on divorce and mistranslation in divorce. I went back through the Greek and found it to be true. So given these two articles, I’m going to piece together what the Scriptures say on divorce given the context of what was being said when the Scriptures are written.
Passages on divorce in the Scriptures
To fully understand what Jesus is talking about we first have to analyze the OT Scriptures in which He is discussing. These are important in historical context because Jesus always refers back to the law, and then explicates His position on the fulfillment of the law.
Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement (sêpher kerı̂ythûth), and give it in her hand, and send (shâlach) her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Deuteronomy 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away (shâlach) all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
There are two parts of “divorce” required of the husband in the OT covenant:
- Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.
- Shalach — Sending her out of the house or away.
This is important to realize when we get to the New Testament where Jesus and Paul both discuss divorce in this context. Now, let’s look at the New Testmanet Scriptures.
Note: I’m specifically using the KJV because almost every English translation has the wrong wording of the text from the Greek. Even the KJV has one mistranslation of the word as well.
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion): 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (porneia), causeth her to commit adultery (moichaō): and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluō) committeth adultery (moichaō).
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos)? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away (apoluō) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Here are Strong’s words for each of the highlighted wording:
G630 — ἀπολύω — apoluō — ap-ol-oo’-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: – (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.G647 — ἀποστάσιον — apostasion — ap-os-tas’-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: – (writing of) divorcement.G4202 — πορνεία — porneia — por-ni’-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: – fornication.G3429 — μοιχάω — moichaō — moy-khah’-o
From G3432; (middle voice) to commit adultery: – commit adultery.
Now let’s look at the passages from Matthew in context starting with Matthew 19:
Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
You will note here that the Pharisees are intending to trick Jesus. When the Pharisees come to tempt Jesus, it is almost always about pitting Roman law against Jewish law and the discrepancies that crop out of out it.
This is very similar to other tricks that the Pharisees try to play with Jesus such as with stoning the adulteress woman. Roman law forbid the Jews from executing capital punishment; thus, if Jesus said not to stone the woman then He would be in violation of the Jewish law, but if Jesus said to stone the woman He would be in violation of Roman law. Jesus comes up with the elegant solution of let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.
Another example is when the Pharisees asked Jesus if they should pay taxes to Caesar. If Jesus said not to pay taxes to Caesar then He would be in violation of Roman law, but if He said that they should pay taxes to Caesar then he would be affirming Roman rule over the Jews. Hence, Jesus’ elegant solution of rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.
Thus, in this case, if you know your Roman history the Romans considered “divorce” just sending the wife away out of the house. However, compared to Jewish law which we see from Deuteronomy, the husband must provide a writing of divorcement and then send the wife away. If Jesus says that a writing of divorcement is required before sending away, then He is subverting Roman law and they could accuse Him to be sentenced to death. If Jesus says that it is lawful to put away a wife without a writing of divorcement, then Jesus would be in violation of Jewish law and could be disregarded and stoned. Jesus provides the elegant solution that was from the beginning: that there should be no divorce.
Matthew 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement (apostasion): 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (porneia), causeth her to commit adultery (moichaō): and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced (apoluō) committeth adultery (moichaō).
Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos)? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away (apoluō) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
First, you’ll notice that in Matthew 5 that the KJV translator(s) and even Strong’s dictionary put “divorce” in the context of apoluo. However, this appears to be false. You’ll note that the wording of Matthew 5:32 is the exact same wording in the Greek as Matthew 19:9 except in Matthew 19 it is translated as “putting away” instead of “divorced” as it has been the other time.
Additionally, of the 69 times that apoluo is used in the NT, this is the only time that it is used for divorced in the KJV. The other 68 times it is used in the context of putting away, or Jesus dismissing/sending away the crowds, or Pilate releasing Barabbas from prison instead of Jesus. Thus, this appears to be a mistranslation in the KJV, and a mistranslation in almost every other English Scripture text. Even my preferred NASB has fallen prey to it.
Second, in Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees see that Jesus has cleverly side-stepped their trap on pitting Roman law versus Jewish law. It follows then, given Jesus answer that there should be no divorce, that they question why Moses gave the law that they could divorce. Jesus responds that it is out of the hardness of their hearts which is clearly the case given what we see in the OT with Israel.
Third, Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 clearly state that husbands cannot put away their wives except in the cause of fornication, otherwise they commit adultery and she commits adultery. Fornication refers to pre-marital sex only. This case is built in the article I linked earlier, and Jesus is referring back to Deuteronomy 22 where the wife may be put away without a certificate of divorce if she was not a virgin (in the OT she would’ve been stoned).
This also agrees with Matthew 1:19 where Joseph was going to put Mary away.
Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
In this specific case, Joseph was not married to Mary (only betrothed), but Jesus is saying in this instance that if a husband did marry a woman who was not a virgin he could put her away without a bill of divorce.
Fourth, Israelite husbands could not claim a wife was not a virgin and then put her away if there was proof of their virginity. They could put her away if she was not a virgin though as per Jesus’ words because there was no blood spilled — the cloth with the blood being the proof of the binding covenant of marriage and of virginity.
Fifth, this means that divorced men and women who are remarried do not commit adultery. However, their prior divorce means they are going against God’s original design for marriage and sinning. The remarriage itself is not sinning. However, establishing a behavioral pattern of divorce and remarriage is quite questionable at best for a Christian.
We can see this in the disciples response to Jesus’ instruction that what God put together let man not separate that it is better not to marry. This is because Jesus is implicitly stating here that there should be no divorce ever. There is no exception clause for adultery or any other reasons. Jesus responds by saying that most men cannot receive what the disciples have said.
Sixth, this unifies what Jesus says in Mark and Luke about there being a no exception clause for divorce given that what God has joined together let no man separate:
Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos). 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery (moichaō) against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away (apoluō) her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (moichaō).
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. 14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away (apoluō) his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery (moichaō): and whosoever marrieth her that is put away (apoluō) from her husband committeth adultery (moichaō).
Mark uses time compression in this instance to get right to the point of the story rather than Matthew’s more long winded response. Lest you think this is a discrepancy in the gospels, Mike Licona explains the various rhetocal devices that authors from that historical period used. It wasn’t only writers of the Bible that used them but also other Roman and Greek writers.
Luke pairs Jesus’ comments on putting away with the parable of the unjust servant/steward. This is a direct analogy to, but different teaching than, to the trickery that the Pharisees tried to pull on Jesus in Matthew. The Pharisees loved their outward appearance and vain glory and obedience of the law. However, in their quest to be just and gain favor toward men, they were acting unjustly toward their Master which is God.
Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
We can see here that Romans 7 talks specifically about a woman having a husband. A woman cannot have 2 husbands or she commits adultery. That brings up two points.
- A woman that has been divorced does not have a husband and is free to remarry, albeit a man marrying her would best take heed because past behavior is indeed indicative of future behavior.
- A woman whose husband has died is free to remarry.
Obviously, a widow is often a better choice that to marry a woman that has been divorced.
1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart (chōrizō) from her husband: 11 But and if she depart (chōrizō), let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away (aphiēmi) his wife.
G5563 — χωρίζω — chōrizō — kho-rid’-zo
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: – depart, put asunder, separate.G863 — ἀφίημι — aphiēmi — af-ee’-ay-mee
From G575 and ἵημι hiēmi (to send; an intensive form of εἶμι eimi (to go)); to send forth, in various applications: – cry, forgive, forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up.G630 — ἀπολύω — apoluō — ap-ol-oo’-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: – (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.
Paul could’ve just made it easier on us and used the word apoluo like Jesus did in the gospels; however, you can see they are pretty much synonyms here. This is consistent with what Jesus has said in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and what Paul has already stated in Romans. Don’t be conformed to the law of the Romans/world and put away your spouse and marry another. However, if they do separate/leave the options you have are to remain unmarried or reconcile. This is also consistent with Jesus saying that there should be no divorce.
1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put away (aphiēmi autos). 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him (aphiēmi autos). 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart (chōrizō), let him depart (chōrizō). A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Note that Paul is referring to what He referred to earlier in 1 Corinthians 7: that the bondage that the spouse is under was putting away specifically and not divorce. This is the so-called exception clause. However, this seems to be only applicable in the times of the Romans since almost all countries, if I am not mistaken, require formalization of divorce.
The main question is then what if a believer is married and an unbeliever departs but there is no bill of divorce. Technically, given this Scripture the bondage is broken and that would allow the believer to remarry without a bill of divorce. Obviously, the in most cases the believer can file a no-fault divorce, but in the cases where they can’t that may be an issue. It would be best to follow the earthly laws if at all possible.
Malachi 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (shâlach): for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. 17 Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?
You will notice in Malachi 2 that it is referring to the same circumstances as was during Roman occupation. The law of Moses basically gave the Israelites the right to divorce if they wrote up a bill of divorce, handed it to her, and then sent her away. However, the Israelites were dealing treacherously by sending their wives away without a bill of divorce.
The reason behind this is because if a wife was divorced she would receive back the dowry and the bride price which may have also included land. The Israelite husbands were sending away their wives without the bill of divorcement which allowed them to keep the dowry and bride price but also left the wife destitute and on the street.
Additionally, with a bill of divorce the wife would now be single and able to be remarried. However, as Jesus discussed with putting away without the bill of divorce the woman would be unable to be remarried without committing adultery which is a grievous sin before God. Since the wife was left destitute without the bride price and dowry back and unable to be married again to support herself, the Israelite husbands were basically condemning the woman to poverty and begging in a treacherous manner.
Jeremiah 3:6 The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away (shâlach, and given her a bill of divorce (sêpher kerı̂ythûth); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord.
This is one of the reasons why Israel was not brought back out of Assyrian captivity, and why Samaritans were treated like garbage by the Jews. They were no longer Jews because they have been divorced by God. This passage in Jeremiah 3 shows that God Himself divorces the Israelites, gives her a bill of divorce, and sends/puts her away into Assyrian captivity.
However, the Lord speaking to Judah does not divorce her even though He puts her away:
Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement (sêpher ‘êm kerı̂ythûth), whom I have put away (shâlach)? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away (shâlach). 2 Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst. 3 I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering.
In the case of Judah, we know that Jesus comes from the lineage of Judah and David. Thus, even though the Lord puts away Judah into captivity for their transgressions, He brings her back out of captivity as read in Nehemiah and Ezra, and remakes the covenant with them through the rebuilding of His temple. Then He brings full redemption to them through sending His Son Jesus to die bring forth the New Covenant.
Conclusion
Judging from the understanding of the Scriptures it is clear that what they say on the topic of divorce is not actual common Christian — or perhaps specifically Protestant — thinking. A reading of Deuteronomy 22 and 24 in conjunction with Isaiah 50, Jeremiah 3, and Malachi 2 along with the NT Scripture references of Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7, and 1 Corinthians 7 paint this picture.
- Christians should not divorce at all. What God has put together let man not separate (Matt 19, Mark 10).
- There is no “adultery clause” for those who are married to divorce. (Matt 19, Mark 10).
- Reconciliation is the only option for those separated/put away. Remarriage constitutes adultery (Isaiah 50, 1 Cor 7).
- There was legalistic OT recourse for putting away if the spouse fornicated prior to marriage. This applies to zero Christians today as we do not live by the old law (Deut 22, Matt 5, Matt 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7).
- Abandonment by an unbeliever allows remarriage due to not being under bondage (1 Cor 7).
- Remarriage is not considered adultery and is thus not sinful. However, reconciliation is better than remarriage. We know this by similar analogy: Judah versus Israel. Given what we know, previous divorce — whether believer or unbeliever — should be a big red flag warning. All believers should be wary of this (Matt 5, Matt 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 7, 1 Cor 7).
Jesus’ reference to fornication and putting away is His answer to the OT law on putting away without a bill of divorce. Following this today is legalism and not walking in the grace to which He has called us. His NT statement on divorce for Christians is “What God has put together let no man separate” which is why the disciples were taken aback and said it was better not to marry. Jesus said you shouldn’t divorce period, and there is no way to do it without sinning.
I’ve read up a fair bit on the Catholic tradition regarding marriage as a sacrament and how they handle annulments/divorce and remarriage. I think this model is probably the best in terms of holding to #1 even though it doesn’t specifically talk about some of the cases in #2-6. The statistics on divorce also bear this out with Catholics having the least of any form of Christian, even though there are substantially more annulments in the US than anywhere else. However, I suppose from the Pharisaical angle you could argue that “it’s the tradition of men” but such a tradition appears to be honor God more than other traditions.
There is more evidence and historical background than what I have presented here in the two articles at the top if you think that what I’ve presented is not convincing. Thoughts and critique are welcome.
