Biblical Evidence Against Divorce and Remarriage

10/22/05

[Editor's Note: Other recent articles on divorce and annulments are: Annulments and the Catholic Church and Marriage to Someone Divorced.]

.

Dear Catholic Exchange:

.

I was reading your article today on “Annulments and Eternal Salvation.” This is very timely. Thank you for your article. I am in a similar situation of being married to a man who was divorced. He was married in the Orthodox Church the first time and we married in the Orthodox Church. I recently came back to Catholicism and also found out that my marriage is not valid in the Catholic Church, therefore I am unable to receive the grace of the sacraments. My husband is not a practicing Christian, and this causes me great difficulty in trying to make him understand the implications this has on our both our salvations. In your article you mention that if we would like to have an extensive analysis of Matthew 19 or information on the practice of annulments in the early Church, to let you know. I would like to have that information; can you please send it to me or refer me to a website where I can read it?

.

Also do you have any advice for couples like us, in which there is one believer and one who isn’t? My husband does not approve of my conversion and is causing me great difficulty.

.

Thank you,

Angela H.

.

Dear Angela,

.

Regarding Matthew 19, the main source of controversy is the so-called exception clause in which divorce and remarriage are forbidden except in the case of porneia. In Matthew 19:9, Christ says, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” You asked for biblical and other historical evidence against the common non-Catholic position, i.e., that Christ sanctioned divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery and possibly for other reasons. In answering this question, you also asked for evidence that (1) the exception means separation from bed and board in the case of adultery (also known as the (civil) divorce-but-no-remarriage position) and (2) the exception refers to unlawful marriages, i.e., incestuous “unions” in which there never was nor could be a valid marriage. This view is known as the consanguinity position.

.

The position allowing for divorce and remarriage actually only dates to the 1500s and began with the Catholic theologian/philosopher Erasmus, who argued for divorce and remarriage for reasons of adultery alone. (1) Although Erasmus eventually disassociated himself from this view, the position has come to bear his name. God Himself notes that He hates divorce (Mal 2:16), let alone divorce and remarriage, and an examination of Scripture and historical evidence will show that Christ taught in Matthew 19 — and the Church continues to teach — that divorce and remarriage is morally wrong. (2) At the outset, we also note that the Church recognizes as legitimate interpretations of Matthew 19:9 both the consanguinity position and the view that there can be separation from bed and board in the case of adultery, but no remarriage, for such an action would itself also be adulterous.

.

Geographical Context: A Key in Understanding Matthew’s Exception Clause

.

In examining Matthew 19:1-12, some scholars don’t seem to recognize the importance of the geographical location of Jesus’s teaching and the Pharisees' corresponding “test” (Mt 19:1-3; cf. Mk 10:1-12). The Marcan and Matthean “tests” are historically important because they occur in King Herod’s territory (southern Transjordan — Perea). (3) Jesus is placed in an apparent “Catch-22” situation. Siding with the liberal Hillel school would cast Him as more permissive than the conservative Shammaites, with Jesus uncharacteristically falling short of their understanding of the law instead of strengthening or superseding it (cf. Mt 5:17-20). (4) But siding with the Shammaites would put Jesus in a politically dangerous situation, for Herod had recently divorced his wife to remarry his brother’s wife, Herodias, and opposing the union had cost John the Baptist his life (cf. Mt 14:1-12). Given Matthew’s Jewish audience and the Herodian geographical component, the test becomes much more compelling: “Your ministerial credibility or your life,” the Pharisees seem to be saying to Jesus, either choice effectively serving to “destroy” His threat to their authority and way of life, as they had earlier resolved to do (cf. Mt 12:1-14).

.

Jesus responds to the Pharisees’ test by citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 (Mt 19:4-6), and the Pharisees seem to understand Him as saying the passages collectively supersede any interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Mt 19:7). Jesus says that the Mosaic divorce decree was a concession to hard hearts, but such was not God’s original design.

.

The Pharisees argue against Jesus, pointing to the commandment of divorce (Mt 19:7; [cf. Mk 10:4]). He parries their objection by interpreting Deuteronomy 24:1ff. as a concession (Mt 19:8a [cf. Mk 10:4-5]) which is contrary to God’s original intention: “but from the beginning it was not so” (v. 8b). This alteration puts the Torah prescription on divorce into perspective against the wider-reaching order of creation: the commandment of divorce is only a concession which, as such, points back to the created order [i.e., Genesis 2’s provision on marriage] as the criterion by which it should be interpreted (emphasis original). (5)

.

Background to Christ’s Comments in Matthew 19: The Biblical Foundations of Marriage in Genesis

.

There is ample biblical evidence to support the permanence of marriage in Genesis. The word-pair of "flesh" (bâsâr) and "bone" (étsem) in Genesis 2:23a has indissoluble, covenant implications in Old Testament usage (cf. Gn 29:14; Jgs 9:2; 2 Sm 5:1 [1 Chr 11:1]; and 2 Sm 19:13ff.). The terms can perhaps best be rendered in English as “flesh-frailty” and “bone-power”:

.

• In our verse (Gn 2:23), the poles of “flesh-frailty” and “bone-power” mean to express the entire range of intermediate possibilities from the extreme of frailty to power. Thus the relationship affirmed is one which is affirmed for every possible contingency in the relationship, as we affirm in the marriage formula, “in sickness and in health, in plenty and in want.” (6)

.

While the word-pair can refer to blood ties, “brother” and “bone and flesh” more likely refer to the sharing of covenant oaths.

.

We affirm that the formula of 23a [“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”] is a covenant formula as in its other uses we have examined. The formula is intensified by the double use of bâsâr and étsem to express the profound loyalty and solidarity of purpose which is now expressed. They are bound by oath now to share in their common cause in every circumstance of weakness and every circumstance of strength. (7)

.

The covenant argument is further strengthened by the words used in Genesis 24. Dabaq (to cleave) “carries the sense of clinging to someone in affection and loyalty.” (8) Another scholar agrees, noting that

.

• the first part of v. 24 has the language of covenant relations, to abandon (ázav) and to cleave (dabaq). The latter term, when used of interpersonal relations, as in any context, is clearly a covenant term. It is especially used in Deuteronomic contexts in clusters of covenant words to speak about loyalty to covenant partners (Dt 11:22; 10:20; 13:5; Jos 23:8; and 1 Kgs 11:2). In the speech of Joshua 23, for example, the term suggests an exclusive relationship which asserts the jealousy of the covenant partners and excludes all other relationships. Conversely, the term (ázav) refers to abandoning one covenant commitment for the sake of another [non-binding union] (cf. Jer 1:16, Hos 4:10). The two terms in Genesis 2:24 also speak of [legitimately] terminating [or diminishing one’s commitment to] one loyalty and the embrace of a new one. Thus it substantiates the covenant formula of 2:23a.

.

Finally, in 2:24b the term “one flesh” can of course be taken to refer to kinship and blood relations, but in light of our understanding of v. 23, it can refer to all those who have a mutuality of concern and loyalty. (9)

.

Divorce and Remarriage: A Legitimate Exception?

.

The timeless nature of Genesis 2 and the time-conditioned nature of Deuteronomy 24 are affirmed by Christ’s own words in Matthew 19:4-8. In addition, from a grammatical perspective, the divorce-and-remarriage understanding of Matthew 19:9 does not fit with the disciples’ response to Jesus’s teaching that it is better not to marry: “If Jesus gives an interpretation already current, the horror of the disciples in v. 10 is unmotivated.” (10) Furthermore, some scholars argue that Matthew 5:32 teaches that divorce is generally adulterous but that “some divorces are not adulterous,” e.g., ones in which a spouse has committed adultery. From this perspective, remarriage after divorce in light of Matthew 5:32 is also adulterous (cf. 1 Tm 5:8). In Matthew 19:9, these scholars argue that Jesus repeats His statement only after positing the “fundamental reason” why divorce is not allowed: that man cannot sunder what God has joined together.

.

It is only after explaining His reason for not permitting divorce that Jesus repeats His statement in 5:32, that divorce is, in most cases, adulterous.... Matthew 5:32 is dealing with divorce simply as an example of adultery, whereas Matthew 19:9 is involved with the larger question as to the fundamental reason why divorce is not allowed. (11)

.

That divorce can be adulterous only seems to make sense when “it is assumed that a woman would be forced by the exigencies of life to remarry,” says another scholar. “Perhaps it is a warning — aimed primarily at the husband — that to abandon a woman is to force her into sin.” (12) Some scholars argue that the exception qualifies or applies to not only divorce but also remarriage, meaning that remarriage is allowed in some cases. But, as indicated earlier, if that is true then the Matthean account is rendered nonsensical, because the responses of the Pharisees and Christ’s disciples convey that they understand that Jesus is making no exceptions for remarriage, and Jesus says nothing to disabuse them of their understanding.

.

Indeed, both the Pharisees and His disciples understand that Jesus is teaching against divorce and remarriage, and Jesus only affirms their understanding, much to their discomfort. Jesus also uses the introductory “I say to you” in Matthew 19:9, a device He uses here and elsewhere to distinguish himself from prevailing Jewish views on the law (cf. Mt 5:21-48). Finally, an increasing number of scholars relate Matthew 19:11, like 19:10, back to Jesus’s teaching on divorce and remarriage, that some can accept Christ’s decree on divorce but others cannot; yet, implicitly, all are called to do so. (13) Verse 12 evidently speaks of a voluntary state of life, and therefore most commentators see it as a call to celibacy — as lived by Jesus, Paul, and John the Baptist — as opposed to a further encouragement to the separated to refrain from remarriage. (14)

.

In light of all the evidence, interpreting the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 as allowing any type of divorce and remarriage would contradict the creation norm of Genesis, as well as the practice of the early Church.

.

It is clear, however, that what was involved was mere separation from bed and board and not “dissolution” of the marital relationship in the modern sense, with the possibility of remarriage thereafter. The lack of evidence for divorce (in this modern sense) and remarriage in the first five centuries is the more striking in view of the fact that throughout this period both Jewish and pagan law did permit divorce and remarriage. (15)

.

If Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage and the Catholic Church amended His teaching in a more restrictive manner, why is there no evidence of such a controversy, as there are for other disputes throughout the Church’s history?:

.

• Such a theory is no more plausible than a theory that the “Lord’s day” was originally a Friday and that it changed to Sunday without leaving any trace of the change and without any controversy over the change. Those who have been involved in church leadership know that beliefs can change gradually and subtly; changes in practice are much harder to bring about. (16)

.

Understanding the Exception: The Meaning of Porneia

.

Why then does Matthew include the exception clause, if not for sanctioning divorce and remarriage under any conditions? The key word in the passage is “unchastity.” The Greek word used is porneia, which can mean adultery (cf. Sir 23:23) or fornication (Mt 15:19). However, proponents of the consanguinity position argue that Matthew uses moichea, the typical biblical term for adultery in 15:19, but chooses porneia in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32, which can also mean incest. According to this position, Christ sets aside the Mosaic provision of Deuteronomy 24 while reaffirming the Levitical provision against marrying one’s parent or brother or sister (cf. Lv 18:6-11). In other words, some Old Covenant provisions are timeless, but the creation norm of Genesis remains foundational. The consanguinity position fits because, even though the law against incestuous unions was well-known, people can benefit from reminders and this exception would also be instructive to Christ’s non-Jewish followers.

.

Many early Church Fathers believed that Christ’s exception meant divorce in the case of adultery but no remarriage. This position has been construed as allowing for separation from bed and board for an individual case of adultery, but Jesus seems to be talking about significantly worse moral conduct.

.

The answer appears to lie in the surrounding narrative context of Matthew 18, which many scholars do not consider. In chapter 18, Jesus teaches His disciples that they should always seek reconciliation like the Good Shepherd (18:12-14) and forgive limitlessly, as the use of the number seven (denoting “completeness”) and its being multiplied by 70 (18:21-22) for emphasis conveys. (17) If a Christian is going to separate from his spouse, Jesus seems to be teaching, it had better be for especially scandalous conduct, porneia, which etymologically means “prostitution, harlotry, whoredom,” being an abstract noun related to porne, “harlot,” and to the verb porneuein, “to act as a harlot” (18).... In the first instance porneia is mostly “harlotry,” [and] “extra-marital intercourse,”... [although] materially...it often means “adultery.” (19)
.
In the event of ongoing sexual misconduct that would cause public scandal and/or jeopardize the faith and general well-being of a faithful spouse, separation from bed and board is admissible but not remarriage, with the faithful spouse always forgiving and seeking restoration of the relationship (like the Good Shepherd) or at least praying for the conversion of the unfaithful spouse. (20) Those who don't forgive will be dealt with harshly (18:23-35). Christ is calling His disciples to the type of love He has for them.

.

St. Augustine espoused a third position regarding the exception clause, specifically that there is no exception. According to Augustine, Jesus is focusing on the basic issue of divorce and remarriage and conveying to the Pharisees and His disciples that the issue of porneia is a non-issue and thus has no relevance to the discussion. In other words, even gross sexual misconduct does not warrant divorce and remarriage.

.

In summary, it is clear from biblical and other historical evidence that God established marriage as an indissoluble covenant, and that Jesus recovered and restored this teaching for the kingdom of God. There is much textual evidence in and related to Matthew 19:1-12 that points to this conclusion: the nature of the test in Matthew 19:1-3; Jesus’s use of Genesis 1-2 in interacting with the Pharisees and their response to Him in Matthew 19:4-8; the nature of the exception clauses in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9; including the use of porneia (particularly in light of the context of Mt. 18); and the disciples’ response to Christ in Matthew 19:10 and His response to them in Matthew 19:11-12. The Church, having received and appropriated this teaching of Mt. 19, then made unequivocally clear via its definitive, Spirit-guided teaching (cf. Jn 16:13; 1 Tm 3:15) that divorce but no remarriage could occur.

.

Divorce and remarriage is a widespread and painful pastoral problem among Christians today. Yet Christ has only given His Catholic Church the power to determine whether a particular marriage is binding (cf. Mt 16:18-19; Mt 18:15-18). We must encourage divorced and invalidly remarried Christians to be faithful to Christ and His Church, either separating from their civilly married spouses or at least living as brothers and sisters with them. Christ tells us to confidently seek Him first (Mt 6:33) and that His truth will set us free (Jn 8:32), enabling us to handle any temptation that we encounter (1 Cor 10:13).

.

United in the Faith,

.

Sarah Rozman

Information Specialist

Catholics United for the Faith

827 North Fourth Street

Steubenville, OH 43952

800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)

.
Editor's Note: To submit a faith question to Catholic Exchange, email faithquestions@catholicexchange.com. Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange becomes the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.

Endnotes:

1. J. Carl Laney, “No Divorce and No Remarriage,” Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, ed. H. Wayne House. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990), p. 38.
2. The Church may declare that a marriage never existed (declaration of nullity or annulment) or, in rare circumstances, dissolve a valid marriage. A valid and consummated sacramental marriage (i.e., between two Christians) may never be dissolved. See our FAITH FACT on “The Annulment Process” and “Divorce and Remarriage: The Church's Perspective” for more information.
3. Cf. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 377.
4. In some instances, Jesus appears to propose a lax view of the law (cf. Mt. 12:1-14), but even in those cases He is showing his transcendent authority in fulfilling the law, setting aside disciplines that were not meant for all times.
5. Paul Hoffman, “Jesus’ Saying About Divorce and its Interpretation in the New Testament Tradition,” Concilium: The Future of Marriage as Institution, vol. 55. ed. Franz Bockle (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), p. 57.
6. Walter Brueggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gen. 2:23a),” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 533-35.
7. Ibid. 539.
8. E. S. Kalland, “Dabaq,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1., ed. R.L. Harris (Chicago: Moody, 1980), p. 178
9. Brueggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gen. 2:23a),” 540.Henry Wansbrough, O.S.B., “St. Matthew,” A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, eds. Fuller, Rev. Reginald C; Johnston, Rev. Leonard; and Kearns, Conleth (Nashville: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1975), p. 937.
10. John J. Kilgallen, “To What are the Matthean Exception-Texts (5:32 and 19:9) an Exception?” Biblica 61 (1980): 102-05.
11. Richard N. Soulen, “Marriage and Divorce: A Problem in New Testament Interpretation.” Interpretation 23 (Oct. 1969): 445.
12. Quentin J. Quesnell, “‘Made Themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 19:12)’” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968): 340-58; cf. Wansbrough, “St. Matthew,” p. 938.
13. Wansbrough, “St. Matthew,” p. 938.
14. John J. Hughes, review of L’eglise Primitive Face au divorce du Premier au Cinquieme Siecle (Theologie Historique, 13) Paris: Beauchesne, 1971, in Journal
15. Tony Lane, “Till When Us Do Part? Divorce Part I,” Today, Sept. 1986, p. 37; as cited in Heth, “Divorce, But No Remarriage,” pp. 97-98.
16. Wansbrough, “St. Matthew,” pp. 936-37.
17. Fitzmyer, S.J., “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some Palestinian Evidence,” 208.
18. Hauck and Shulz, “Porneia,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Friedrich, Gerhard, and Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968) p. 587.
19. Cf. G. Fitzer, “Porneia,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Balz, Horst and Schneider, Gerhard. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), p. 138.