2 of 3

Note that again Jesus includes the "exception clause," which legitimizes divorces dissolved through unfaithfulness. The problem here has to do with Jewish laws that let men freely discharge their wives, often on spurious grounds. One great rabbi, Shammai, taught that the only basis for divorce was sexual unfaithfulness or adultery. But the Rabbi Hillel was more generous: "A man may divorce his wife even if she burned his soup … or spoiled a dish for him." Rabbi Akiba taught that divorce was acceptable "if he should find a woman fairer than his wife." Such divorces left women adrift in a male world, without hope of remarriage, and completely at a loss. Jesus is standing against such divorces of convenience.

He was also standing against the teaching that a man was required to dispense with his wife when he suspected unfaithfulness. (Consider Joseph's reaction when he learned of Mary's surprise pregnancy.) Jesus amends this, finding such behavior intolerable. Moses did not command his people to divorce wives, he permitted it. The springboard for right action should not be hard-heartedness, but charity. Jesus affirms once more that only if the woman has done something herself that irreparably ruptures the marriage can such a divorce be right. But it isn't a necessary response.

Many today have misread this particular passage to make two statements: (1) One cannot divorce his wife unless she has been unfaithful; (2) Whoever remarries commits adultery. But this is not the meaning. The active verb here is "commits adultery," and the entire sentence must be held together. It should be read, "Whoever does the following commits adultery: divorces his wife (except for immorality) and remarries another." Judgment is being placed not on someone remarrying but on someone remarrying after pursuing an illegitimate divorce. If the divorce is invalid, so is the remarriage. But the reverse is also true: if the divorce is valid, then re marriage must be acceptable, just as it was in commonplace Jewish custom.

"Not bound" to the marriage
A third important passage is found in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul discusses Christian marriage. He echoes the teaching of Jesus, saying that husbands and wives are not permitted to leave each other but should work toward reconciliation. Then Paul addresses a subject that was foreign to Jesus and the Gospels. What if a Christian man or woman had a pagan spouse? Could there be spiritual union between two people when one worshiped idols? Paul affirms that Christians should not initiate a divorce because of the spouse's spiritual deficiencies: "If any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her" (v. 12). The presence of a Christian in the marriage, Paul is saying, brings hope of salvation to the children and the family.

But then Paul makes one exception to Jesus' rule on divorce: If the unbelieving spouse deserts the marriage, the innocent spouse must work on reconciliation (vv. 10–11), but in the end "is not bound." This final phrase in verse 15 is crucial. The innocent party is not bound to the marriage, and this includes women or men equally. This language echoes words directly from Jewish divorce law: "not bound" means that the innocent person is free to remarry.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

October 4 1999, Vol. 43, No. 11