Divorce and Remarriage
An Exegetical Study
A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
November 1987
Part I.
Scripture quotations in this publication are from the Revised
Standard Version of the Bible copyrighted 1946,1952, 1971,
1973. Used by permission.
Contents
Introduction
I. Divorce and Remarriage in the Old Testament
A. The Institution of Marriage
1. The Creation of Male and Female
a. A Helper Fit for Him
b. Flesh of My Flesh
2. Marriage
a. Mutual Commitment
b. one Flesh
B. Divorce and Remarriage
II. The Teaching of Jesus
A. Jesus and Old Testament Teaching
1. The Sixth Commandment
2. Genesis 1 and 2 and the Institution of Marriage
B. Jesus' Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage
1. Matthew 5:31-32
2. Matthew 19:9
3. Mark 10:11-12
4. Luke 16:18
III. The Teaching of Paul (1 Cor. 7:10-16)
Summary Statements
Excursus I: Remarriage of Persons Divorced for Unscriptural
Reasons
Excursus II: Clergy Divorce
INTRODUCTION
Although God intended marriage to be a lifelong relationship,
the tragic fact is that divorce has become commonplace in our
society. l Sadly, the dramatic rise in divorce rates in
recent years has also affected the Christian community.
Pastors and others providing counsel have become increasingly
burdened with problems of divorce and remarriage, even among
those regarded as active members of their congregations.
Complicating the task of pastoral care and the exercise of
Christian discipline in this area is not only the case with
which divorce can be obtained and remarriage arranged within
this highly mobile society of ours; there are also among
Christians conflicting views as to precisely what are the
Biblical principles which should guide Christians regarding
divorce and remarriage.
In response to a request for a Scriptural study of divorce
and remarriage, the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations placed this matter on its agenda. In its 1981
report on "Human Sexuality: A Theological Perspective" the
Commission discussed the problem of divorce and remarriage in
a preliminary way, indicating that it intended to present a
more detailed study of the pertinent Scriptural passages in
an upcoming report on divorce and remarriage. The Commission
has now completed this study and offers it to the members of
the Synod for study and guidance as they deal with problems
in this area in their ministry of spiritual care.
In carrying out this assignment, the Commission has not
understood its task to be the preparation of specific
guidelines for Christian counseling, but rather the
delineation of Scriptural principles which determine the kind
of guidance that should be given regarding God's intention
for marriage. In formulating these principles, the Commission
is aware of the dangers which reside in interpreting the
Biblical texts as a legalistic code that may encourage a
casuistry that has as its primary aim the determination of
"innocent" and "guilty" parties. It is also cognizant of the
opposite hazard whereby the pertinent texts are not regarded
as providing specific ethical guidance according to the third
use of the law, but are viewed only as a vehicle for
pronouncing judgment on all involved in marriage failure,
even those whose marriage may have been destroyed at the
initiative of another.
In the delicate administration of Law and Gospel to those
experiencing marriage crises, the church must be ever mindful
of the reality that the will to obey God's commandments is
born not of the law but of the Gospel of forgiveness. The
Christ who stands in judgment over the evil of divorce is the
same Christ who died for all sins, including those which lead
to the broken marriage. He is also the Christ who gives
specific directions to those who wish to order their lives in
accordance with the will of the Creator for this estate.
Before proceeding with a study of this report the reader
should note the method being employed in the treatment of the
pertinent Biblical texts. An attempt is made to deal with
each of the texts in its particular context and to discuss
their unique contribution to the composite picture of what
the Scriptures have to say on the subject of divorce and
remarriage. That composite picture is then presented in a
series of summary statements. Moreover, the reader should
remember that the focus of this report is on divorce and
remarriage, and that the texts dealing with marriage in
general are discussed chiefly from this perspective.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Old Testament
The Christian response to the problem of divorce and
remarriage must begin where Christ Himself began, with the
institution of marriage. The weight of Jesus' response to
contemporary questions concerning divorce and remarriage
rested not on what may or may not be justifiable reasons for
dissolving the marital union, but on the origin of marriage
in creation. The principle "What God has joined together let
not man put asunder" holds true according to the Scriptures
"from the beginning," when the Creator "made them male and
female" (Gen. 1:27) and said, "For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh" (Gun. 2:24). At a time when
divorce was commonplace and legitimized even on Biblical
grounds (Deuteronomy 24), Jesus taught "but from the
beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:8). Christians, therefore,
look first to God's original intent for the estate of
marriage and seek to know why it is that God wills this u!
nion to remain permanently inviolate.
A. The Institution of Marriage
1. The Creation of Male and Female. The creation of mankind
(Luther's "Menschen," Gen. 1:2S27) as male and female, and
more particularly the manner in which the creation took place
(Gen. 2:1822), not only explains why people become married
but also lays the foundation for the moral requirements that
surround marriage. This is evident from the way in which the
author of Genesis by divine revelation speaks of the
institution of marriage in Gen. 2:2S 24. Gen. 2:22 reports
that "the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he
made (literally, "built") into a woman and brought her to the
man." 2 In words "expressive of joyous astonishment" the man
responds by saying, "This is at last bone of my bone and
flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of man" (Gen. 2:23). It is only at this point that
the inspired writer proceeds to establish the implications of
what God has said and done, and is doing: "Therefore ('al
ken), a man leaves his father and! his mother and cleaves to
his wife, and they become one flesh
a. A Helper Fit for Him. Because it was not good that man
should be alone, God created from man a woman, a "helper fit
for him." This expression denotes two aspects of the
relationship between the man and the woman: helpfulness and
correspondence. The Hebrew word ezer means support or help.
The man was created by God as one who needs a partner, not
only for the propagation of offspring, but to fulfill the
need for mutual support. What is true of the human community
in general is true especially of the most intimate of human
relationships: "For if they fall, one will lift up his
fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not
another to lift him up" (Eccl. 4:10). But the helper whom God
made for man is "fit for him," that is, "corresponds to" or
"is the counterpart to" him. Woman is "a partner over against
man, turned in his direction and fit for him to encounter." 4
It is particularly this latter point which Adam immediately
recognizes when the living God brings to him the gift that He
had made from the rib of Adam. He first declares that the
companion or partner God created is "bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh," and that "she was taken out of man
('ish)." For this reason Adam calls her woman ('ishshah).
Thus, when we speak of "companionship" as a purpose for
marriage, more is designated than a partnership of mutual
assistance and support to the spouse. As the Commission
stated in its 1981 report on "Human Sexuality" with reference
to the relational purpose of marriage, "rather, the woman is
'a helping being, in which, as soon as he sees it, he may
recognize himself.' She is the mirror in which the man will
come to know himself as man. The man and woman have been
created toward fellowship and neither can come to know the
self rightly apart from the other. The woman is given to the
man in order that neither of them may be alone, that together
they may know themselves in relation to one who is other than
self." 5 Divorce, therefore, must be viewed as the refusal to
accept in thanksgiving and honor the gift which God has given
as the answer to the "aloneness" of man and woman.
b. Flesh of My Flesh. Man's affirmation that woman is "bone
of my bone and flesh of my flesh," while appearing to be a
mere biological statement describing a blood relationship, is
an assertion about the original unity of man and woman as
whole persons. The term "flesh" here has reference to the
entire human being, 6 requiring that marriage be regarded as
the union of two individuals in both their physical and
psychological dimensions. It is therefore not something in
man or something in the woman that is united; the man himself
and the woman herself become one. Hence man's exclamation
about the gift which God brings to him describes the coming
together of male and female into a profoundly personal union:
"that which was basar 'echadh (one flesh) before the creation
of the 'ishshah, 'woman' (Gen. 2:21f.), is again united into
basar 'echadh through the consummation of marriage (Gen.
2:24) and the basar 'echadh attested thereby bears
undeniable witness to its complete unity." 7
Jesus deduces from the creation of man as male and female,
whose original unity is manifested and restored when they
come together in the one flesh union of marriage, that the
Creator made no provision for divorce in the beginning. What
was complete is also indissoluble. "The creation of sex, and
the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man
and woman, laid down in Genesis, interdict separation." 8
2. Marriage. In a simple, straightforward manner the writer
of Genesis 9 speaks of the nature of the marital union
designed by God in the creation of male and female: "For this
reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24).
When two people marry they enter into an estate whose
structure God Himself has established. The structure of
marriage is unlike other human associations which for
solidarity and permanence depend merely on the mutual
agreements of the partners, associations which are entered
into by mutual consent and may be dissolved by mutual
consent. In marriage we have a "divine joining together"
which requires obedience to God and His will that the union
remain lifelong.
a. Mutual Commitment. When a man and a woman desire to come
together in the one flesh union of marriage, they must be
fully cognizant of the permanence and undivided loyalty which
constitute the mutual commitment required of them by God.
They must be prepared to consent, freely and without
constraint, to live with one another in a lasting community
of life. This is evident from the terminology employed by the
inspired writer in Gen. 2:24.
The man (and by implication the woman) is to leave ('azav)
his father and his mother and cleave (davaq) to his wife. 10
Several observations must be made regarding especially the
term davaq in this passage. The term means to cling, cleave,
or keep close." In a literal sense it can refer to physical
things sticking together. For example, Job speaks of his bone
cleaving to his skin (19:20; cf. Ps. 102:5) or of the tongue
cleaving to the roof of the mouth (Job 29:10). But davaq also
refers to the clinging of someone to another with affection
and faithfulness (Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam. 20:2; Gen. 34:3; 1 Kings
11:2). Significantly, the word is a covenant term in the Old
Testament, denoting the affection and loyalty with which the
Israelites are to cleave to the Lord (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;
13:4; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). It signifies an exclusive
relationship, shutting out all other partners and entailing
the jealousy of the covenant partner. Joshua summons Israel
to "cleave (davaq) to the! Lord your God as you have done to
this day" (Josh. 23:8) and to "Take heed . . . to love the
Lord your God" (v. 11). Just as permanence and undivided
loyalty are essential elements in the covenant relation-ship
between God and His people, so must the covenant of marriage
be entered only by those ready to pledge their permanent
fidelity to one another.' Foreign to, and even in conflict
with, the Biblical understanding of marriage as a covenantal
relationship is the cur-rent emphasis in modern culture on
compatibility as the all-important constitutive element of
the marital union. When compatibility supplants fidelity, and
the interests and needs of the individual are made to count
for more than commitment to the welfare of another, the
likelihood of divorce and its attendant tragedies is greatly
increased.
b. One Flesh. Of the union of man and woman in marriage Jesus
said: "So that they are no longer two but one flesh.'' l3 In
the coming together of man and woman a new entity is created:
"It signifies the coming into being of a unitary existence, a
complete partnership of man and woman which cannot be broken
up without damage to the partner in it.'' l4 Whenever a
couple unites in the act of intercourse something happens
that reaches down to the very core of their being. The union
brings into existence a oneness which ex-tends beyond the
physical to include the whole man and the whole woman.
Subsequent acts of intercourse are expressions of this new
reality created by God.
That this is the significance of the one flesh union in
marriage is shown by Paul's discussion in 1 Cor. 6:12-20, as
well as in Eph. 5:2143. In 1 Corinthians 6 the apostle,
arguing against those who regard sexual intercourse as merely
a physical encounter, concludes: "Do you not know that he who
unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For
it is said, the two will become one flesh' ''(6:16).5 A
merely physical or bodily, and therefore transient,
relationship is an impossibility. Only man himself as total
self can be joined with another, not man as a partial being
(i.e., as one who functions sexually). Accordingly, "he who
loves his own wife, loves himself" (Eph. 5:28). This is
because the one flesh relationship makes husband and wife,
despite their sexual differentiation, one-as indeed also
Christ and the church are one (Eph. 5:31-43). Thus, by its
very nature the one flesh union cannot tolerate the intrusion
of a third party. In ways that we will proba! bly never fully
understand, casual sexual relationships are destructive of
the human being, and more critically, are completely
incompatible with one's relationship to the Lord. Thus,
sexual intercourse outside of marriage is something from
which the Christian must flee. (1 Cor. 6:18)
B. Divorce and Remarriage
The creation of marriage as a permanent union of husband and
wife in the one flesh relationship remains the normative
principle in the Old Testament. l6 Although the breaking of
marriage through divorce is assumed as a present reality of
the fallen world, never is divorce and subsequent remarriage
sanctioned nor the inviolability of the marriage relationship
compromised. Both in the legal code given to Israel for the
ordering of its communal and religious life, as well as in
later prophetic pronouncements, divorce is judged to be
contrary to the will of God.
Deuteronomic law at first glance appears to approve of the
practice of divorce, and subsequent remarriage. In Deut.
24:14, the text to which Jesus' opponents appealed (Matthew
19 and Mark 10), Moses wrote: When a man takes a wife and
marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because
he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill
of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his
house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and
becomes another man's wife, and the latter husband dies, who
took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent
her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she
has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord,
and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord
God gives you for an inheritance. " However, as has often
been noted, the structure of this lengthy sentence in Hebrew
is crucial. If a divorce should occur, Moses prescribes,
then the woman cannot return to her ! first husband should
her second husband divorce her or die. Moses does not here
institute divorce and the right of subsequent remarriage, but
tolerates the behavior because of the refusal of people to
conform to the original pattern in creation ("for the
hardness of your heart," Matt. 19:8). The union of the
divorced woman brings moral defilement and is equal to
adultery (Lev. 18-20; Num. 5:14, 20). Nevertheless, Moses
does not prohibit the remarriage of a divorced woman. He
legislates to mitigate the social evils that accompany this
practice by limiting divorce and precluding its abuse. 17
Here, as elsewhere, l8 the Biblical intention is to control,
not to sanction. This is precisely the point of Jesus'
response to those who argued that Moses "commanded" divorce:
"For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your
wife, but from the beginning it was not so." What is "legal"
is not necessarily morally right in God's sight. 19
Indeed, Deuteronomic law attests that the sanctity of the
marriage must be carefully guarded. The severity of the law
regarding adultery (as well as the vigorous protests against
it by the prophets e.g., Jer. 7:9; 23:10; Ex. 16:32; 18:6,
11, 15; 22:11; 33:26) is a poignant reminder of the disfavor
with which the Lord looks upon intrusion into the sacred
union of husband and wife. The prohibition against adultery
in the sixth commandment (Deut. 5:18) is written into civil
legislation that to the modern ear sounds unreasonably
severe, if not cruel. 20 The penalty for one caught in the
act of adultery was death (Deut. 22:22-24; cf. Lev.
20:10).21 There is little evidence to show that this
provision was ever actually enforced to any degree. However,
it stands as a reminder of the gravity of marital
unfaithfulness, and more importantly for those who have
learned to know the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the enormity
of God's grace that He should pardon those who come to him
wi! th penitent hearts (John 8).
Prophetic commentary on the sacredness of the divinely
established covenant of marriage takes the form of a call for
a return to marital faithfulness. In the context of Israel's
own unfaithfulness to God and her profanation of the
covenant, the prophets of God l denounce the practice of
divorce (Mal. 2:13-16; cf. Hos. 2-4; Ezekiel 16 and 23; Jer.
3:1; Is. 50:1). Malachi, for instance, who reminded the
husband in Judah that his wife is his "companion and . . .
wife by covenant," prophesies: "For I hate divorce, says the
Lord of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be
faithless." (Mal. 2:16)
What are we to conclude from the Old Testament's treatment of
the subject of divorce and remarriage? In keeping with the
principle that the union of husband and wife brings into
existence some-thing not present prior to the union, viz.,
oneness, divorce is regarded as something fundamentally
aberrant. Though Deuteronomic civil law assumes the practice
and attempts to control it, there are no declensions from the
primal will of God given in Genesis 1 and 2 that marriage
remain a permanent union of one man and one woman. Important
for the New Testament's evaluation is the nature of the union
established when man and woman enter marriage. The union is
described as a oneness of two persons (a biunity), created
not by individual human choice but by divine institution.
This is true of all marriages according to God's created
order, entered by Christians and non-Christians alike.
Christian partners in marriage, we would have reason to hope,
will especially recognize that they are not bound merely in a
horizontal relationship with one another by their pledge of
faithfulness, but by their mutual pledge to God to remain
faithful. Moreover, they will recognize that no legal
restraint, no matter how stringently applied, can guarantee
their fidelity to one another. Only reverence for the Creator
and love for His good ordinance can assure permanence of
marriage. The Christian's fidelity in marriage derives from
and rests in a faithful relationship with God in both His law
and His promises.
II. The Teaching of Jesus
A. Jesus and Old Testament Teaching
Jesus' instruction concerning divorce and remarriage was
occasioned by a discussion about what the Old Testament
Scriptures permitted in this realm. Jesus' contemporaries had
shifted the discussion on marriage and its dissolution from
an exposition of Genesis 1 and 2, where the primal will of
the Creator is given, to a debate about external legalities
aimed at interpreting Deuteronomy 24. In response to the
prevailing laxity that ensued, our Lord took issue with His
interlocutors and instructed His disciples at two levels: 1)
the meaning of the sixth commandment; and 2) the implications
of the divine institution of marriage. All three of the
synoptic Gospels provide us with information which
constitutes the Creator's own commentary (cf. Col. 1:16) on
His will for the marriage relationship: Matt. 5:31-32;
19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; and Luke 16:18
1. The Sixth Commandment. Jesus' treatment of divorce in the
Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:31-32) follows immediately upon
His explication of the meaning of the Old Testament
prohibition "You shall not commit adultery" (Matt. 5:27-30).
What are we to conclude from this? Our Lord is making the
point that the sanctity of marriage requires not only
external acts of faithfulness to one's spouse, but
faithfulness also within the heart (cf. 1 Thess. 4:3-6). "In
Jesus," Martin Franzmann stated, "God's original creation
intent breaks through into the fallen world." He continued:
He makes the bond between man and woman absolute, established
in the heart and kept or broken there. Man is called on to
renounce all that impedes his assent to the will of God for
his marriage: the eye that looks and lusts must be plucked
out, the hand that reaches for what the evil heart desires
must be cut off. Jesus is not, of course, suggesting
self-mutilation .... (But this is) a drastic expression of
the imperative to quell the evil will which becomes incarnate
in the look of the eye and the reach of the hand. 22
This revelation of the divine will stands in sharp contrast
to every attempt to solve marital problems by changing the
law to accommodate sinful human behavior. In Jesus' day the
application of the sixth commandment to the question of
divorce and remarriage had given rise to a large body of
legislation that distorted God's original intention for
marriage. Despite an occasional lament, 23 scribal
interpretations sought to legitimize, and thereby sanction,
an evil for which no provision was made in the beginning.
Modern divorce law has accomplished the same effect and the
impression is wrongly gained, even in the Christian
community, that what has legal justification in the civil
sphere also has divine approval.
But Jesus taught that what takes place in the sphere of a
person's thought and willnot just overt behavioris subject to
the limitations of God's will for marriage. The sixth
commandment, as well as the tenth which forbids coveting the
wife of one's neighbor, is broken not only when adultery
takes place in the act of unfaithfulness to one's spouse, but
also when it takes place in the heart ("the center of the
inner life of man"). (Matt. 15:19) 24
2. Genesis 1 and 2 and the Institution of Marriage. The
Lord's response to current attitudes toward divorce and
remarriage was grounded not only in the commandment "You
shall not commit adultery," but also in the will of the
Creator that those who are joined in the one flesh union of
marriage must not separate what God has joined together. His
appeal to the divine institution of marriage takes place
within the context of an interchange with the Pharisees in
Matthew 19:3-9 (also Mark 10:2-9), who were interested in
putting Jesus to the test.
The Pharisees came to Jesus with the question, "Is it lawful
to divorce one's wife for any cause?" Most commentators agree
that the Pharisees were here trying to draw Jesus into taking
sides in a Rabbinic dispute. The phrase "for any cause" 25 in
Matt. 19:3 gives us reason to suspect that their test had
something to do with the well-known debate between the
Rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai on the question of
divorce. 26 At the time of Jesus the right of divorce was
presupposed as self-evident, since according to Deuteronomy,
it was said, Moses had arranged for the letter of divorce.
The only uncertainty concerning this matter was the ground
which entitled the man to the dissolution of the marriage. 27
The debate hinged on the meaning of the expression "some
indecency" in Deut. 24:1. Those who followed Hillel's
teaching extended the grounds for justifiable divorce beyond
marital unfaithfulness to include a number of trivial causes
which gave the husband the right! to put away his wife and
hand her a "bill of divorce," 28 which conferred on her the
freedom to marry again. 29 Rabbi Akiba (ca. 50-135 AD), for
instance, considered divorce justified in the case where the
inclination of the man turns toward a woman who pleases him
more than his present wife. 30 The followers of Shammai, on
the other hand, adhered to a more conservative position; only
sexual immorality or adultery was regarded as a ground for
divorced .31
Lifting "the whole issue to the high region of the strong
claims of the kingdom of God on each person's life," 32 Jesus
opposed this distortion of what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 24
by affirming on the basis of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 the primal
will of the Creator that a man and a woman who have become
one flesh in marriage are not to be "put asunder" 33. "So
they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6).34 The
Pharisees counter by asking, "Why did Moses command one to
give a certificate of divorce and put her away?" Their point
seems to have been this: the original will of the Creator has
been superseded by a later provision allowing that the
dissolution of marriage for sufficient cause was also
contemplated in the beginning. Jesus corrected their
misreading of the Scriptures. Man's hardness of heart, 36 his
rebellious will in conflict with the divine intent for
marriage, made it necessary for Moses! , not to approve of,
but to regulate divorce to avoid other and comparatively
greater evils. 37 It was made necessary by their refusal to
live within the restraints of God's high and holy will. Also
implied in Jesus' words is "a rebuke of those who, rather
than lamenting the state of the human heart which sometimes
made it necessary to allow divorce to take place, welcomed
such a permissive rule." 38
Within the framework of Law and Gospel, Jesus' radical call
for a return to the original norm according to which husband
and wife cling to each other all the days of their life in
mutual commitment and faithfulness functions to reveal the
sinfulness of divorce and to condemn every attempt to justify
wrongdoing before God. Any tendency to view the teaching of
Jesus as just another casuistic system in which obedience to
a set of rules is understood to earn favor before God must,
of course, be judged as a form of legalism. Repentance is the
truly God-pleasing response. To those seeking pardon, Christ
stands ready to forgive and to remedy the brokenness of human
life that stands in the way of the devotion God envisions for
those who enter the holy estate of marriage.
At the same time, Jesus' instruction provides moral guidance
for those who desire in faith to be His followers. In this
connection, the tendency to reject the specific words of
Jesus on divorce and remarriage as providing moral direction
must be regarded as a form of antinomianism. The discussion
to follow presupposes that the One through whom "all things
were created" (Col. 1:16) in-tended to provide counsel that
must always be regarded by the church as having prescriptive
force that may not be set aside.
B. Jesus' Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage
The passages which contain Jesus' specific instruction on
divorce and remarriage in the Gospels vary somewhat in
precise detail. However, we proceed in this report on the
assumption that as God's Word the Gospels do not present
contradictory views of what Jesus taught. Rather, the
pertinent texts complement one another and provide us with a
complete picture of where Jesus stood on this issue. After
examining the distinctive elements of Jesus' teaching
contained in each of the passages below, we wish to draw
together the principles which He has given His church.
1. Matthew 5:31-32. "It was also said, 'whoever divorces his
wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say
to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the
ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever
marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
In Matt. 5:31-32 Jesus formulates His directives concerning
divorce in such a way as to emphasize that the act of divorce
itself, apart from the question of remarriage, is contrary to
God's will, especially as it affects in this case the wife.
39 Jesus here condemns all self-seeking on the part of those
who put away their wives, while at the same time refusing to
offer divine sanction for the spouse who has violated the one
flesh union itself, thereby breaking the unity of the
marriage. 40
In this text Jesus puts the responsibility squarely on the
husband who initiates and executes the divorce of his wife.
The term divorce used in this passage (also in Matt. 19:3, 7,
8, 9; Mark 10:2, 4, 11, 12; Luke 16:18) refers to the act of
dismissing or "putting away" one's spouse, which in the New
Testament period involved placing into her hand a "bill of
divorce" and "sending her away' from one's house. 4l The text
underlines the husband's responsibility for the act. He
causes her to be and makes her an adulteress. At variance
with prescriptions that guarded the husband's general
immunity from guilt (except in those cases where he violated
an-other man's wife or betrothed [Deut. 22:22ff.; Lev.
20:10], he was allowed to divorce his wife at will for the
least of provocations, e.g., burned food), Jesus declares
that the act of putting away victimizes her. The verb
translated "makes her an adulteress" in dictates that the
stigma which she bears and the position into which she is
placed have been imposed on her by the sin of another. 42 The
moral tragedy here is that she is implicated in a wrong which
she did not commit, even if she does not remarry. (Jesus says
nothing explicitly about remarriage on her part.)
The presence of the so-called "exceptive clause" ("except on
the ground of unchastity"RSV; "except for marital
unfaithfulness"NIV) in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 introduces a new
element into Jesus' teaching, which has caused endless debate
among exegetes. 43 The discussion of this much disputed
clause has generally centered on three questions: the meaning
of the words grammatically; the authenticity of the clause as
the words of Jesus; and the meaning of "unchastity" (porneia
in Greek"fornication").
Grammatically, there is little doubt that the two exceptive
clauses in Matthew (parektos logou porneiasMatt. 5:32; me epi
porneia Matt. 19:9) comprise a genuine exception enunciated
by Jesus. 44 Even among scholars who deny the genuineness of
these words on the lips of Jesus (ipsissima verba) there is
widespread agreement that taken in their obvious sense they
denote an actual exception to Jesus' prohibition of divorce.
With respect to the authenticity of these words as Jesus'
own, the most widely held view is that they represent an
interpretive gloss inserted at a later time by the early
church through the pen of Matthew or another editor of the
Gospel, 45 and therefore constitute a historically
conditioned adaptation having questionable abiding normative
force for the church. 46 (Also significant is the fact that
those scholars who deny that Jesus spoke these words hold
that they are nevertheless a genuine part of Matthew's
gospel. 47) As we have noted, the conclusion ! often drawn
from this supposition is that Christ Himself, to whose
authority we must ultimately bow, allows no exceptions and
brands all divorce as contrary to the will of God. 48 The
absolute form of Jesus' prohibition in Mark 10:11-12, Luke
16:18, and Paul's exhortation in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, it is
alleged, supports this conclusion. However, such a view
cannot be sustained on the basis of the text itself. On the
one hand, since the manuscript support for Matthew's
exceptive clauses is firm, there is no reason to doubt their
trustworthiness as a genuine element in Christ's teaching.
49 Moreover, we must reject the notion that God's Word
presents us with conflicting views of what Jesus taught.
William F. Arndt has correctly stated in his commentary on
Luke 16:18, "Jesus here in Luke, as well as in Mark 10:11f.,
states the general principle and makes no exceptions. In the
passage found in Matthew's Gospel the presentation is
somewhat more complete and the exception which G! od allows
is included." 50
Finally, we must ask, what is the meaning of porneia in Matt.
5:32 (as in Matt. 19:9)? The Biblical writers employ this
term to refer in general to "unlawful sexual intercourse,"
whether involving a violation of the marriage of another or
not. Porneia is often distinguished from moicheia
("adultery") which denotes sexual intercourse as an act
whereby the marriage of another is violated 51 (cf. Matt.
15:19). Porneia, however, is the broader term; it refers to
sexual intercourse in general outside of marriage (Rom. 7:2).
Some argue that Jesus had in mind something as specific as
marriage in the prohibited degrees of consanguinity (Lev.
18), that is, incest (cf. Acts 15:20).52 But there is no way
of establishing this with certainty. New Testament usage
taken as a whole suggests that sexual intercourse apart from
the lawful union of husband and wife in marriage is meant.
In light of the above considerations, the force of the
exceptive clause is this: The spouse who divorces his/her
partner on the grounds of porneia does not by that act cause
the partner to become adulterous; the partner has already
committed an adulterous act and sundered at the deepest level
what God has joined together. In view of what porneia does to
the one flesh union itself, the spouse who suffers this form
of abandonment may (though certainly not must) put away the
partner guilty of porneia without forcing such a one into
adultery.
Thus, as marriage may be destroyed by the procurement of
divorce, so may unchastity on the part of a spouse lead to
the severance of the marital union. In either case, Jesus
"could not and did not champion and protect those who defiled
God's pure gift and defied God's will." 53
The status of the abandoned spouse who is not responsible for
the final breakdown of marriage caused by divorce for reasons
other than fornication, or by unchastity on the part of the
offending spouse, is not expressly mentioned by Jesus in
Matthew 5:32. Neither is there any direct prohibition of the
remarriage of one who has not destroyed the union through
divorce and unchastity. That Jesus refrains from charging
with adultery the one who has been put away as victim of the
sinful act of another suggests that we, too, ought to
exercise considerable caution regarding judgments in such
cases, lest we "bind heavy burdens, hard to bear." 54
A rather technical grammatical point may have some bearing on
the above observation, though it is not possible to decide
with absolute certainty its ultimate import. The second half
of verse 32 reads, " . . . and whoever marries a divorced
woman commits adultery." At first glance these words appear
to prohibit categorically the remarriage of any divorced
woman, even one put away illegitimately at the initiative of
the husband. However, it should not be overlooked that the
text (cf. parallel in Luke 16:18) reads literally, " . . .
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." The
participle here does not have an article and therefore is
indefinite. 55 If the text read, "whoever marries the
divorced woman" it would be clear that the reference is to
the woman just mentioned, that is, the one wrongly put away.
The indefinite use of the participle, however, entails the
possibility that Jesus had in mind a woman who herself was
responsible for obtaining a divorce for r! easons other than
porneia. 55
2. Matthew 19:9. "And I say to you: whoever divorces his
wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits
adultery." The Lord succinctly enjoins that whoever divorces
his wife for any other reason than illicit sexual intercourse
and marries another, commits adultery. If we compare what
Jesus teaches in this passage with what He says in Matt. 5:32
we are able to add the following to the whole of what He
teaches. Not only is the act of divorce itself sinful, apart
from remarriage, but the act of remarriage after an
illegitimate divorce is judged contrary to the will of God.
Moreover, Jesus focuses on what the husband's act means for
him: he becomes an adulterer.
Once again the exceptive clause occurs, indicating that
porneia (in this case on the part of the wife, and by
inference on the part of the husband, as the case may be)
introduces the possibility that a divorce may be secured and
a second marriage entered without the commission of adultery.
Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz concludes in this
connection, "Therefore because Christ says: 'Whoever divorces
his wife, except for the cause of fornication, and marries
another commits adultery,' therefore, from the contrary
sense, whoever divorces his wife for the cause of fornication
and marries another does not commit adultery." 57 The
divinely given exception to the original pattern of creation
cannot be understood, however, as a recommendation that a
divorce should be sought. Nor does this exception function as
the main emphasis of Jesus' command in this passage. John
Murray's comment is appropriate:
What is of paramount importance is that however
significant is the exceptive clause as guarding
the innocence of the husband in dismissing for
sexual infidelity, it is not the exceptive
clause that bears the emphasis in the text. It
is rather that the husband may not put away for
any other cause. It is the one exception that
gives prominence to the illegitimacy of any
other reason. Preoccupation with the one
exception should never be permitted to obscure
the force of the negation of all others. 58
3. Mark 10: 12. "And He said to them [the disciples],
'whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits
adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and
marries another, she commits adultery."
Following an interchange between the Pharisees and Jesus
similar 59 to that which is reported in Matthew 19, Jesus'
disciples ask Him about His instruction privately. In His
response Jesus elevates the whole issue to a level higher
than even the disciples were accustomed to think about this
subject (Matt. 19:10). They themselves may not have fully
understood the distinction between God's primary intention
for marriage revealed in creation and the later provisions
given to mitigate the evil consequences of divorce. Once
again they are reminded of how their contemporaries had left
the commandment of God and held fast "the tradition of men."
(Mark 7:8)
In a way not immediately obvious to the modern reader, Jesus
corrects the tradition of the elders (Mark 7:3) at two
critical points. First, according to Jewish law only a man
could commit adultery against another man, but he does not
commit adultery against his wife. 60 However, "whoever
divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery
against her." 61 Husband and wife are placed on the same
level. 62 The husband's immunity has ceased. Secondly, Jesus
extends his prohibition against divorce to the wife: " . . .
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she
commits adultery." 63 The principle is now set forth that the
act of divorce and remarriage on the part of either spouse
must be called adulterous. Jesus does not mention the
exceptive clause here, perhaps because the Pharisees do not
raise the issue of what grounds are lawful for divorce. (v.2)
In Mark's account, therefore, Jesus underscores the absolute
nature of God's injunction that marriage remain permanently
intact. Those who marry and those who provide counsel to
those entering this holy estate are urged to dispel any
notion that marriage may be looked on as a contractual
arrangement which may be dissolved "if it does not work out,"
and are summoned to honor this "glorious institution and ...
object of God's serious concern." (Luther's Large Catechism,
I:208)
4. Lake 16:18. "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced
from her husband commits adultery."
In Luke's gospel our Lord's prohibition of divorce, an act
which evidently had as its object the removal of the wife to
make room for another one, 64 comes as a case in point to
illustrate the principle that "it is easier for heaven and
earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become
void" (16:17). G. B. Caird has summarized the situation well
by observing that for the pedantically conservative scribes
"it was easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for
[them] to surrender that scrupulosity which could not see the
Law for the letters." 65 It was this scrupulosity that
jealously guarded every letter of the law that at the same
time flagrantly violated the spirit of the Law. Within this
context Jesus spoke the words of Luke 16:18.
Again, no exceptions are noted. The principle that to divorce
one's spouse and remarry is to commit adultery is presented
by the Lord. In the second half of the verse, we hear again
(cf. Matt. 5:32) that for one to marry a divorced woman is to
commit adultery. We repeat here the grammatical point that
the participle, without the definite article, cannot be
pressed to refer with absolute certainty to every divorced
woman. 66 Nor does the passage address in express words the
case of the remarriage of the spouse put away unjustly at
another's initiative. These qualifiers, however, in no way
diminish the uncompromising character of the Lord's
requirement: divorce and remarriage are not in accordance
with God's will that marriage remain unbroken.
III. The Teaching of the Apostle Paul
The spread of the Gospel to the Gentile world and the
creation of new Christian congregations on Gentile soil gave
rise to questions calling for pastoral care and judgment that
were not specifically addressed by Jesus. The existence of
mixed marriages, in which a Christian had a non-Christian
spouse, was one of those questions. We are fortunate to have
in hand a specific pastoral application of the Lord's
principles on divorce and remarriage written by the apostle
Paul to the church at Corinth. While Paul addresses the
topic of marriage elsewhere, it is principally to 1
Cor.7:10-16 that we must look to learn what the apostle
taught regarding divorce and remarriage.
In 1 Cor. 7:10-16 the apostle states:
To the married I give charge, not I but the
Lord, that the wife should not separate from her
husband (but if she does, let her remain single
or else be reconciled to her husband) and that
the husband should not divorce his wife. To the
rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother
has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she
consents to live with him, he should not divorce
her. If any woman has a husband who is an
unbeliever, and he consents to live with her,
she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving
husband is consecrated through his wife.
Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but
as it is they are holy. But if the unbelieving
partner desires to separate, let it be so; in
such a case the brother or sister is not bound.
For God has called us to peace. Wife how do you
know whether you will save your husband ?
Husband how do you know whether you will save
your wife?
In 1 Cor. 7:1 Paul makes known his intention to respond to a
number of specific questions addressed to him by the
Corinthians in a letter. 67 While we can only conjecture
regarding the situation in Corinth that prompted these
inquiries, one gets the impression in this chapter that an
ascetic tendency may have deprecated marriage as belonging to
a lower spiritual estate and urged freedom from the
obligations of marriage, especially to the pagan spouses. 68
In any case, the apostle addresses those in Christian
marriage (10-11) and in mixed marriages (in which one spouse
has evidently been converted subsequent to the marriage)
(12-16) regarding the permanence of the marital bond. With
the authority of an apostle, 69 St. Paul presents to
Christian spouses an express word from the Lord prohibiting
divorce, and to Christians in mixed marriages his own
application of the Scriptural principle that marriage was
created to be a lifelong union.
"To the married" Christian spouses, the Lord says through the
apostle: "that the wife 70 should not separate from her
husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be
reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not
divorce his wife"(10-11). In keeping with the dominical
principle that there should be no divorce among those who
want to be Christians, the apostle charges that neither the
wife nor the husbands is to take action to dissolve their
marriage, whether that be some form of separation or actual
divorce. 72 If due to their fallen condition they have
parted, or in the event such a case should arisen the Lord
teaches that they should either remain unmarried or
reconcile. 74 The apostle discusses neither the matter of
fornication nor spousal abandonment in these verses, for
among Christians such conduct should not be found. (Eph. 5:3)
"To the rest," Christians in mixed marriages who had been
reached by the gospel preached to the Gentiles, the apostle
offers counsel not specifically treated by the Lord (vv.
12-16). Consistent with the principle that God wills marriage
to be an indissoluble union for life, Paul does not advise
Christians to initiate divorce in those cases where a
non-Christian Spouse 75 is willing 76 to maintain the
marriage. 77 To someone who would argue that a believer
cannot continue to cohabit with an unbeliever without in
some way incurring contamination and thus consenting to a
union less than sacred, the apostle responds that the mixed
marriage is in itself God-pleasing. If this were not true,
how does one explain the fact that the unbelieving spouse and
children of the union are brought into the sphere of holiness
by virtue of their relationship to the believer (though, of
course, by virtue of their relationship to the Lord). 78
What should the believer do, however, if the unbeliever
refuses to continue the marriage and departs? The apostle's
answer: "But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate,
let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not
bound. For God has called us to peace." The crux of
interpretation in this verse is this: In cases of definitive
abandonment, is the believer free to secure a legal divorce
and subsequently to remarry? Textually, the question is
posed, what does Paul mean by "is not bound?"
Commentators usually proceed in two directions in their
interpretation of this expression. Some hold that the apostle
frees the abandoned believer from the bond of marriage, and
thus for remarriages. 79 Others argue that he allows no more
than freedom from the obligation to seek restoration of the
broken relationship. 80
We note, first of all, that the apostle has in mind the
dissolution of the marriage and liberty to remarry another in
the expression he uses in Rom. 7:2 and 1 Cor. 7:27, 39. The
wife is bound (dedetai) in marriage to the husband while he
lives, but death brings freedom (eleuthera) to marry again.
In 1 Cor. 7:15 the apostle uses the verb which he uses
elsewhere to denote a state of slavery, not the weaker verb
deo, which is not his word to express what it means to be
under the ownership of someone else. The stronger expression
"is not bound" suggests that the believing spouse is no
longer tied to the obligation to preserve the marriage, since
the unbelieving party has already withdrawn consent to
maintain the union.
Admittedly, Paul does not expressly state that the Christian
may remarry. However, neither does he expressly forbid
remarriage as he did explicitly in verse 11 of the Christian
spouse who departs. The apostle recognizes that when one who
does not submit to Christ's teaching (particularly His
teaching regarding marriage) departs, the union is
terminated. 8l The believer is under no constraint of
conscience to preserve a union that has suffered dissolution
by one who does not recognize the authority of Christ's Word.
"God has called us to peace" 82 not to fight for a marriage
that has already been broken by one who has no desire or
intention of returning. The prospect of converting one's
spouse is not certain, 83 although of course Paul does desire
this. If, therefore, the Christian spouse is no longer bound,
such a one is free to secure a civil divorce and remarry. 84
The pastoral question as to what may realistically be
regarded as a definitive or final break and who may be the
deserter has given rise to extended discussions of casuistry.
While maintaining the principle that genuine cases of
desertion can and do occur also today (see considerations on
pages 28 and 29), and that the apostle's counsel applies,
caution should be exercised in pastoral care and in the
exercise of church discipline that the apostle's instruction
not be interpreted by believers as a license to put away
their spouses for any and every cause. 1 Cor. 7:15 must
indeed not be summoned to do service for those who wish to be
free of their spouse for reasons the Scriptures never
sanction. 85
_____________________________._____________________________
This text was converted to ascii format for Project
Wittenberg by Mark A. French and is in the public domain.
You may freely distribute, copy or print this text. Please
direct any comments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith
of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail: bobsmith@ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (219) 452-2123 Fax: (219) 452-2126
_______________________________._____________________________
----------------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod: divrem-1.txt
.