| Related sites: daviscru.com | campuscrusadeforchrist.com | psw.org | ccci.org | |||
|
|
|
||
|
Limitations on Divorce in Light of Matthew 19 Research Paper for Gospels Class Submitted by Dave Lowe
It is widely reported that nearly 50% of all marriages end in
divorce. [1] Surprisingly, the frequency of
divorce among Christians is the same as that of non-Christians.[2]
Because divorce is such a common occurrence in the Christian community,
the question of whether or not the Bible allows divorce is also common.
With that in mind, this paper will examine one passage in the study of
this question. Specifically, this paper will look at the limitations of
divorce from Matthew 19:1-9. HISTORICAL
CONTEXT
There were two different views concerning divorce at the time of
Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees. The existence of these two groups
emerged from two differing interpretations of a specific phrase in the Old
Testament Law concerning divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1, Moses indicates
that a man may write a certificate of divorce if "she finds no favor
in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her."[3]
One group, led by Rabbi Shammai, believed that divorce was allowed only
for indecency, that being defined as adultery. However, another group, led
by Rabbi Hillel, taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason
that might cause him to find disfavor in her. Such a liberal
interpretation often led to divorces for very petty reasons, such as if
she "burned his soup…or spoiled a dish for him."[4] QUESTION
#1
Verse 1 indicates that Jesus entered the region of Judea beyond the
Jordan. This area might include Perea, which was part of Herod Antipas'
territory.[5] Herod had divorced his wife in order
to marry Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. The Pharisees approach
Jesus in order to put him to the test. In verse 3, they pose the question,
"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at
all?"[6] Essentially, the question Jesus is
being asked is "Do you agree with the Hillel interpretation of
Deuteronomy 24 or do you agree with the Shammai interpretation?" In
other words, are there limitations in one's reasons for divorce (Shammai)
or are there no limitations (Hillel)? If Jesus were stringent in his
response, he would offend the Hillelites and possibly Herod as well. If
his response seems lenient, he would offend the followers of Shammai, who
would accuse him of being too lax in his views. DIGRESSION
#1
Interestingly, Jesus does not immediately answer the question.
Instead, Jesus avoids the trap by giving a synopsis of God's original
design for marriage, which is a lifelong monogamous relationship. Jesus'
response here is important because in the Jewish culture of the time,
polygamy was still an accepted practice. In fact, there was no Old
Testament prohibition that outlawed polygamy. Therefore, in order to
answer the question Jesus needed to demonstrate that monogamy was God's
standard for marriage and that polygamy was wrong. This was crucial
because, as Brewer points out, "polygamy would legally allow a man to
marry any number of wives, even if his divorce was invalid."[7]
Jesus demonstrated God's ideal for monogamy in three ways. First,
in verse 4 Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 to show that God's original design
was one man for one woman. "Have you not read, that He who created them
from the beginning made them male and female".[8]
In the perfect Garden of Eden, Adam was given only one wife. He needed no
other. As a pastor once said, "There were no spares".
Secondly, Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24. However, in his quote, Jesus
adds the word "two", which is omitted in the Old Testament
verse. Jesus adds it in verse 5, "‘For this cause a man shall leave
his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall
become one flesh’?"[9] By adding the word
"two" it is clear that Jesus is emphasizing that God's original
plan was that marriage would be between two people only. As if to put an
exclamation point on his argument in verse 6, Jesus says,
"Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh."[10]
Finally, Jesus points out the seriousness of breaking up the
marriage union. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man
separate."[11] The man and the woman are
united together (cleave). The greek word for "cleave" is proskollao
which carries the meaning " to glue upon, glue to."[12]
The bond was so tight that it was never intended to be separated. Brewer
illustrates that God's will is for marriage to be for life. "The
language which Jesus used is as solemn as any Jew could use. Jews very
rarely referred to God directly, and even Jesus used 'Father' or the
common Jewish circumlocutions such as 'heaven'. Jesus here, not only
referred directly to God, but also to something which God does, so that
divorce becomes an act which is in direct opposition to the will of
God."[13]
In addition, the phrase "let no man separate" indicates
that only man can separate the bond. This places the blame for separation
entirely on people rather than God. Hence, God's desire is that separation
(divorce) would never occur. QUESTION
#2
To the Pharisees, Jesus still hasn't answered the question. As if
to redirect Jesus back to the original question, they ask the follow-up
question in verse 7. "Why then did Moses command to give her a
certificate of divorce and send her away?"[14]
With this question, the Pharisees referred directly to the central divorce
text of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This is the only text that refers to a
certificate of divorce. Obviously, the Pharisees were intent on Jesus
taking a stance with either the Hillel group or the Shammai group. DIGRESSION
#2
Jesus uses the follow-up question to correct another
misunderstanding. By using the word "command" in their question,
the Pharisees indicated that they believed that divorce was compulsory in
situations of adultery. This may be why Joseph, suspecting Mary's
infidelity in Matthew 1:19 is said to be righteous when he desired to put
her away (divorce her). Jesus corrects their understanding by stating that
divorce wasn't commanded by Moses but was instead permitted because of the
hardness of the peoples' hearts. "Because of your hardness of heart,
Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has
not been this way." [15]
The word that Jesus used for hard-hearted is an
interesting word (skleµrokardia)
, which incorporates the ideas of stubbornness and the breaking of
promises. In the Greek Septuagint, it was used to refer to being
stiff-necked (Deut. 10:16) and uncircumcision of the heart (Jer. 4:4).[16]
Brewer explains that the term "indicated an unwillingness to bend
(e.g. Ezekiel 3.7: "they refuse to listen to me ... for they have
hard hearts"). The term was also used especially for those who broke
their covenant with God in their hearts."[17]
The fact that divorce is not commanded is an indication that even
in circumstances of adultery, it is possible to save the marriage. By
using the words "permit" and "hardness of heart",
Jesus seems to be teaching that the offended party should forgive the
repentant offender and every effort should be made to save the marriage.
This is consistent with Jesus' teaching on forgiveness in the previous
chapter (Matthew 18) where Jesus tells Peter that if a person comes to you
seeking forgiveness, then forgiveness should be given, even if they come
to you seventy times seven times (490 times). This understanding is also
consistent with the Old Testament picture of Israel, who was said to be
married to God, but continually playing the harlot by worshipping other
gods. God, being faithful and forgiving, repeatedly forgave the Israelites
for their idolatry and sinfulness.
However, for forgiveness to be rendered and for the marriage to be
saved, there has to be repentance on the part of the offender. If the
offending party is unrepentant (hard-hearted), then divorce was a valid
option. This is why Moses permitted divorce, even though it was not God's
original design. As Brewer states, "The innocent partner could
forgive the faithless one, and decide not to divorce them. Jesus appears
to imply that the divorce law should only be used if the guilty partner is
stubbornly refusing to repent and give up their adulterous behaviour, as
in the case of Israel in Jeremiah [4:4]."[18]
[inserts added]
Hence this understanding is consistent with Jesus' earlier teaching
that God's intent for marriage is that it would be a life-long commitment.
"Both partners should do all they could to make sure that their
marriage survived. This meant that both partners should take care to
fulfil their marriage vows, but also that they should be ready to forgive
a partner who breaks their marriage vows and subsequently repents.
However, divorce is 'allowed' if one partner is stubbornly continuing to
break their vows, like Israel did when God divorced her." [19] JESUS
ANSWERS THE QUESTION
After laying the groundwork and correcting the Pharisees'
misunderstanding, Jesus finally answers the question in verse 9. In doing
so, he essentially adopts the Shammaite position. "And I say to you,
whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another
woman commits adultery."[20]
The interpretation of this verse has far-reaching implications on
one's view of divorce and remarriage. The possibilities hinge on the
interpretation of the word "immorality" and also whether Jesus'
exception allows for remarriage.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary outlines four possibilities for the
meaning of the word "immorality" (Greek porneia):
The second
scenario doesn't make sense in this context. To the Jews of the first
century, the betrothal period was considered equivalent to marriage. This
is why a certificate of divorce was necessary. In addition, the sin of
adultery always meant sexual relations with a married person. If the
person was not considered married during the betrothal period then the sin
of illegitimate sex would be fornication rather than adultery. Hence, it
seems inconsistent that divorce would be permitted in cases of adultery
during the betrothal period but not after the marriage had been
consummated. The third
scenario doesn't make sense either given the fact that incestuous
marriages were already considered to be void. Brewer comments, "…in
the case of incest, there is no need for a divorce certificate, because
the marriage would be considered invalid from the start. The rabbis did
not consider that any marriage had taken place."[22] The fourth
scenario also seems unlikely since it not only seems too narrow of an
interpretation, but it would also be too subjective to determine when one
had developed an unrepentant "lifestyle". In addition, one could
argue that if the offending party was unrepentant after the first offense,
they have already entered into the unrepentant lifestyle.
The first scenario then seems the most likely. The Greek word
"porneia" is translated by Strong's as "illicit sexual
intercourse" of every kind, including homosexuality, adultery, and
sex with close relatives.[23] Additionally, the
Greek Lexicon of the New Testament defines it as "the sexual
unfaithfulness of a married woman."[24]
Therefore, sexual immorality by either partner would be a valid reason for
divorce. DOES
JESUS EXCEPTION ALLOW FOR REMARRIAGE?
Some have argued that Jesus' statement teaches that remarriage
leads to adultery even in the event of a legal divorce proceeding from the
exception of adultery. There are several reasons for rejecting this view.
First, the language of Jesus' statement is best understood to mean
that "whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits
adultery, except for immorality." This is because "an
exceptive clause grammatically applies to the whole sentence, whether it
appears at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end."[25]
In other words, the only valid reason for divorce is adultery. Remarriage
after a valid divorce is not adultery, whereas remarriage after an invalid
divorce would constitute adultery.
Secondly, the Jews in Jesus' audience, whether followers of Shammai
or Hillel, all believed that legally divorced people could remarry. There
were no Jewish teachers who taught otherwise. The New Bible Dictionary
concurs. "It is difficult to exclude permission to remarry from Mt.
19:9; and among the Jews there was no such custom as separation without
permission to remarry."[26]
Thirdly, the whole purpose in the Old Testament for giving a
certificate of divorce was to allow the person to remarry. In fact, the
certificate of divorce explicitly stated that the person was now allowed
to remarry. Brewer, on his website, demonstrates this from a picture of a
divorce certificate from the 1st century. The caption under the
picture says, "... You are free to become the wife of any Jewish man
you may wish."[27]
Given these facts, it seems clear that remarriage is allowed in
cases where a valid divorce has been executed. CONCLUSION
This paper has examined Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:1-9 in order
to answer the question of whether divorce is ever allowed or whether it is
limited to some specific circumstances. The Hillel school taught that
divorce was acceptable for almost any reason, while the Shammai school
taught that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery. In answering
the question of whether or not it's permissible to divorce a wife for any
reason, Jesus called attention to God's original intent for marriage -
that it was a sacred, life-long, monogamous union between one man and one
woman. In the process, Jesus demonstrated that polygamy was not God's
standard. Jesus also stated that Moses did not command divorce, but
permitted it because of the hardness of peoples' hearts. Lastly, Jesus
explicitly allows for divorce in the case of marital infidelity. Thus,
adultery is the only valid reason though it need not obligate the offended
party to seek a divorce. In the event of a valid divorce, the offended
party is free to remarry. ENDNOTES
|