Is adultery the only reason for divorce? Are other reasons permitted?

We find the parallel account for this teaching in Mark 10:2-12. We will look at the extended version in Matthew, while comparing and contrasting the differences.

(Mt. 19:3) Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”

The Pharisees are asking about a specific example, so Jesus gives a specific reply. We cannot expect him to address every reason for divorce.

This is the context for Jesus’ teaching on divorce: Is it okay to divorce for any reason? In Jesus’ day and age, rabbis had different answers to this question.

Only men could divorce women—not the other way around (m. Yebam. 14.1.). However, a woman could plead before a court of rabbis, and the rabbinical court could persuade the husband to divorce his wife. This was based on the man issuing the certificate of divorce—not the woman (Deut. 24:1). According to Josephus, Jewish men could divorce their wives, but wives could not divorce their husbands. Josephus writes, “[A wife sent a] bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away” (Antiquities, 15.259). However, Jesus does address the concept of a wife divorcing her husband (Mk. 10:12).

The religious leaders were trying to get Jesus to side with one rabbinical school or the other. Instead, Jesus took a radically different position, defending the rights of women and the sanctity of marriage.

(Mt. 19:4-5) And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ 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’?”

Jesus based his ethic for divorce on God’s original creation and design for marriage, citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Rather than interpreting Deuteronomy 24, Instone-Brewer rightly states, “[Jesus] was more concerned with reminding the Pharisees that marriage was meant to be monogamous and lifelong.”

Genesis 1:27 doesn’t explicitly mention marriage, but the following verse commands the couple to be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28).

What does it mean to become ‘one flesh’? This involves “both a commitment and a sexual consummation create a marriage.” Simply committing to a person doesn’t make you married, nor does sexual intercourse make one married. It is both “leaving and cleaving” that makes a person married.

Is married a cultural construct? No. Jesus attributed these words to what God himself “said.”

(Mt. 19:6) “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 

Because marriage is created by God, humans should not destroy it. Jesus doesn’t first enter into the exceptions for divorce. Instead, he begins with God’s design and plan for marriage.

What does it mean to “separate”? The term “separate” (chorizo) is used interchangeably with “divorce” (Mt. 19:3), having “almost exactly the same semantic field.” It is used by Paul to describe how no one can “separate” the believer from the love of God (Rom. 8:35, 39).

Is marriage indissoluble? R.T. France writes, “The ‘one flesh’ metaphor, if it is taken seriously, makes marriage indissoluble. To break it is like tearing apart a single body.” Other evangelical theologians agree with this view. However, we see several problems with this interpretation.

First, if indissolubility was true, then even death wouldn’t be able to undo it (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39), which is surely not the case (Mt. 22:23-30).

Second, it isn’t that humans cannot separate from one another (“no man can separate”), but that they shouldn’t separate (“let no man separate”). Keener writes, “There is little point in forbidding a separation that cannot occur in any case. Jesus forbids it because it can but should not occur.”

Third, Deuteronomy 24 bans the divorced woman from going back to her original husband, which makes no sense if that bond was indissoluble.

(Mt. 19:7) They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

The Pharisees viewed this statement as a “command” from God, citing Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus retorts that God allowed this, but he didn’t approve of this. God merely “permitted” (v.8) this as a concession—not a command.

The Pharisees were trying to supersede God’s creation with case law.

(Mt. 19:8) He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”

“Because of your hardness of heart…” This term “hardness of heart” (sklērokardia) is used in the Septuagint (LXX) for Pharaoh “hardening” his heart against God (cf. Ex. 7:13). It is also used in the context of “unbelief” (Mk. 16:14) and having an “unrepentant heart” (Rom. 2:5). Therefore, what was the cause of God inspiring the law for divorce in Deuteronomy 24? Was it that God was commanding divorce? Not at all. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16). This is why Jesus calls this law a concession—not a command. Many commentators on Matthew affirm this view:

David Turner: “[Deuteronomy 24] is not an apodictic law enjoining universal practice but a specific stipulation for the case of remarriage. Jesus views it as a concession to the hardness of human hearts. He interprets the original ‘one flesh’ implications of marriage (Gen. 2:24) as requiring its permanence… When Jesus says that divorce was not what God originally intended (Matt. 19:8), he tells his disciples that they are to recapitulate the harmonious relationships of humanity before the fall, when hard hearts began to pervert God’s original plan.”

D.A. Carson: “Both Matthew and Mark show that Jesus taught that Moses’ concession reflected not the true creation ordinance but the hardness of men’s hearts.”

R.T. France: “The Deuteronomic legislation is a response to human failure, an attempt to bring order to an already unideal situation caused by human ‘hardness of heart.’ …[Deuteronomy 24:1-4] was rather a mark of divine condescension. Even after his people had rejected his design for marriage, God gave them laws to enable them to make the best of a bad job. But the Mosaic ‘permission’ was not a statement of the way God intended things to be.”

Donald Hagner: “The Mosaic legislation in Deut 24:1–4 was thus not normative but only secondary and temporary, an allowance dependent on the sinfulness of the people.”

Craig Keener: “God sometimes allowed what was less than ideal because people’s hard hearts made the ideal unattainable.”

Bruce Milne: “Moses had made reluctant legislation to control its worst excesses.”

“…permitted…” In Hebrew, the grammar of Deuteronomy 24:1 is at the very least ambiguous (regarding whether it is an imperative or just permission). However, Jesus’ Greek term “permitted” (epitrepo) clearly means “to allow someone to do something, allow, permit” (BDAG). For more on this subject, see “Tips for Interpreting OT Law”.

“…but from the beginning it has not been this way.” Jesus viewed the original design of marriage as superseding the Mosaic Law, which was “not normative but only secondary and temporary, an allowance dependent on the sinfulness of the people… It served as a control against abuse and excess.”

Interpreters who deny remarriage argue that this shouldn’t be our focus. We shouldn’t take our ethics from hard-hearted, old covenant Jews, but from God’s new covenant law. But look at Jesus’ next statement: He allows for divorce in the case of sexual immorality.

(Mt. 19:9) And I say to you, whoever [singular] divorces his wife, except for immorality [porneia], and marries another woman commits adultery.

Some commentators argue that the exception clause modifies divorce, but not remarriage, because it is placed in the middle of the two clauses. However, there are multiple problems with this reading.

First, most Greek grammarians deny that this is the correct reading of the text.

Second, a righteous divorce implied a righteous remarriage, and remarriage is explicitly affirmed here—despite their best efforts to say otherwise based on Greek grammar.

Third, the Shammaites used the same grammatical “exception clause” that Jesus did in Matthew 19:9 (Sifré Deut. 269; y. Soṭa 1.2 [16b]; m. Gittin, 9.10), but even the school of Shammai allowed for divorce on the basis of Exodus 21:10-11.

Does porneia refer to incest? Some commentators have argued that “immorality” refers to incest based on its usage in 1 Corinthians 5:1, where a man “has his father’s wife.” However, this is altogether misguided. First, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul is not addressing incest itself, but an “incestuous affair.” Second, most commentators do not believe that this immorality was between a man and his biological mother, but a man and his step mother. Third, in the next chapter, Paul uses porneia to refer to prostitution (1 Cor. 6:13, 16).

Does porneia refer to adultery? Yes, but it also extends to all other types of illicit sexual behavior. Matthew uses the term “adultery” (moicheia) in addition to “fornications” (porneia) elsewhere (Mt. 15:19). But he doesn’t use it here.

Does porneia refer to premarital sex? Some commentators argue that the parallel is with priests who marry a woman who isn’t a virgin (Lev. 21:7). Non-virgin women would not be allowed to be married (!). Regardless, these ceremonial laws for OT priests do not apply to new covenant Christians. The debate was about adultery—not premarital sex. In fact, this “view would leave Jesus more concerned about faithfulness prior to marriage than during it!” Deuteronomy prescribed capital punishment for premarital sex during betrothal (Deut. 22:20-21), which would militate against Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In other words, the question was already answered in Deuteronomy 22.

What does porneia mean in this context? The term refers to “the larger category of sexual immorality” or to “any kind of sexual immorality.” “When left unqualified” it “includes any kind of sexual immorality.”

Why does Mark lack the exception clause? Mark 10:12 refers to wives divorcing their husbands, while Matthew contains husbands divorcing their wives. This could be explained by Mark’s Roman audience, where women divorced men more often—whereas Matthew’s Jewish audience didn’t see this as much. Moreover, Matthew mentioned both men and women earlier (Mt. 5:31-32).

(Mt. 19:10) The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”

(Mt. 19:11) But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.”

(Mt. 19:12) “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

Carson, France, and Hagner understand “this statement” to refer to the disciples’ statement about celibacy—not Jesus’ earlier teaching on divorce. After all, the disciple’s statement is the nearest antecedent. Moreover, Jesus’ later words about “eunuchs” refers to celibacy—not divorce.

Jesus commends celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, as does Paul (1 Cor. 7:7-9). This does not mean that celibate believers are in a higher caste of Christians. Marriage is good and should be honored (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Heb. 13:4), and even the highest level leaders are not discredited for being married (e.g. the majority of the apostles; Mt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

Jesus’ statement about becoming a “eunuch” is radical—not just to modern readers—but also to his first century culture. It was assumed that men should procreate (Gen. 1:28). In the first century, eunuchs “were the object of pity if not of horror.”

Of course, this does not refer to physical castration. The context refers to marriage—not self-mutilation (v.10). Thus, Jesus gives two options: marriage or celibacy.