Share this Post to Facebook

What does the Bible teach about divorce? 

One of the difficulties surrounding the issues of divorce and remarriage in the church is the wide array of differing interpretations of the relevant biblical passages. As I’ve written before, the disparity in interpretations turns “ask your pastor” into a theological Forest Gump chocolate box; God only knows the opinion you’re going to get. Interpretations land anywhere between “divorce is never excused and remarriage is perpetual adultery” and “divorce is never wrong and neither is remarriage.” We as Christians are as polarized on this issue as liberals and conservatives are in American politics. 

Putting Away vs. Divorce

One interesting theory that has been suggested over the years, and being circulated regularly, mostly on the internet, is that in both the Old Testament and the New Testament there is a distinction made between divorce and “putting away.” In this theory “putting away” means seeking a divorce without issuing the biblically required divorce certificate, or else a legal separation of Jewish couples during betrothal. The latter type of separation is tantamount to divorce since the betrothal was legally binding, although still not marriage. This would be exemplified by Joseph’s wishing to “put away” Mary when she became pregnant. 

One reason for this suggestion is that in the Gospel texts in which Jesus teaches on this issue the Greek word usually translated as “divorce,” ἀπολύω (apoluō), does not properly mean “divorce,” but means to “put away.” Particularly relevant to this theory is Matthew 5:31-32. 

“And it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for a matter of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”  (LEB)

The argument works like this. The Greek word for “certificate of divorce,” ἀποστάσιον apostasion, means exactly that, a certificate of divorce. However, the verb “divorces,”  ἀπολύω apoluō, means to “put away” and is not the Greek word for divorce. In the traditional interpretation, Jesus teaches that the only justification for remarriage following divorce is if adultery/fornication/sexual immorality is the grounds for divorce. For all other divorces, remarriage is not permitted. That would be at least a variation of the traditional understanding. 

But what if Jesus meant something else? In the “putting away” theory, Jesus does not say “whoever divorces his wife” in verse 32, but “whoever puts away his wife.” The interpretation, therefore, is that if a person does not issue his wife a certificate of divorce, then they are not actually divorced but the wife is merely “put away,” or separated. This teaching (5:32) then is a redirection of people back to the Law of Moses that said a certificate of divorce must be issued, evidently due to some current problem in first-century Judaism where people were separating but neglecting to issue a certificate of divorce to make it proper. 

To make the theory more interesting, it’s also pointed out that none of the other New Testament passages use the proper word for divorce either. In 1Corinthians 7 Paul uses the word ἀφίημι aphiēmi several times, which is a synonym of ἀπολύω apoluō and means to dismiss to send away. Moreover, you will find the same phenomenon in the Old Testament; the words used for divorce really just mean “put away.” God, therefore, does not hate divorce, but hates the wrongful putting away of a wife for selfish reasons without the issuance of a divorce certificate.

So does the New Testament not actually address divorce then? Are the majority of Bible translators and translation committees mistranslating these texts as some claim? Should we surmise that legal divorce is therefore permissible as long as a certificate of divorce is issued and therefore remarriage is always permitted? It seems a bit odd that as little and indirectly as “putting away” is addressed in the New Testament, that divorce would be addressed more scarcely and indirectly, or not at all.

Where the “Putting Away” Theory Falls Short

There are four reasons I’ll discuss here why this theory fails to convince, which are (1) an anachronistic misunderstanding of the Hebrew and Greek words in question, (2) a lack of historical or rabbinic evidence for the situation described, (3) ignoring (or misunderstanding) the context of the “Six Antitheses” of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:21-47, and (4) that the mentality which argues that divorce and “putting away” are different things is precisely the mentality Jesus is dispelling in Matthew 5:32. 

Word Studies, #1

While the biblical discussion of divorce and remarriage is historically and exegetically complicated, the linguistic explanation for why the “putting away” theory fails to convince is actually quite simple. The reason none of the Greek words in the New Testament in question is the actual word for divorce is that Koine Greek does not have a normative word for it. We have one in English (although it has other meanings as well), but neither Biblical Hebrew nor Koine Greek has one word that just means “divorce.” So any word used for divorce is going to mean something like send away, put away, dismiss, etc.

**As a side note, I do recognize that one of the words to be considered here, כְּרִיתוּתkĕrîtût, in the Hebrew Bible is only used to refer to divorce. As will be discussed, however, since the word is a nominal derivative of the verb כָרַת kārat, meaning “to cut/cut off,” and because 3 of its 4 uses refer specifically to the divorce certificate, it is not necessary to consider it Hebrew’s dedicated word for “divorce” in the same way “divorce” is to English. 

The way ancient, so-called “dead” languages work is that everything we know about their vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, is descriptive, not prescriptive. What that means is that rather than looking to an authoritative book that tells us about the language the way we would a modern language we wish to learn, scholars read the texts and make note of how certain words are used in order to determine their meaning. We don’t have ancient dictionaries for Koine Greek so we have to base word meaning on word usage. 

So when we come across, for example, the Hebrew verb שׁלח šālaḥ, and see it used to refer to people, letters, and tributes being sent someplace, and we see this word used to describe Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden, and we see this word being used to describe slaves being released from service, and then see the same word used in a law text about a man finding indecency in his wife, writing her a “de-covenanting” certificate and “šālaḥ-ing” her, in a language where there is no verb for divorce, what conclusion would be more fitting than to assume divorce is in view here? That’s just a small peek into the translation process. 

While basing meaning on usage sounds imprecise, it’s actually not much different from how modern languages work. Our own dictionaries have to be continually updated to keep up with the evolution of our modern languages. Word usage still determines word meaning. For example, words that are not proper words end up included in the dictionary due to common use, such as—Lord help me—“irregardless.” Irregardless is an informal mishmash of “regardless” and “irrespective,” but due to its common usage, it is considered a word in English dictionaries. As much as it highly annoys me to see irregardless included in the dictionary (even my Mac’s spell-check doesn’t recognize it), I have to admit this is simply how language works. Usage determines meaning. 

So let’s take a look at the different words that our Bible versions translate as “divorce,” and see why they are translated as they are, and you should be able to see clearly that these passages do in fact refer to divorce, and that “putting away” is simply how Hebrew and Greek conceptualize divorce. Then we’ll return to the argument from Matthew 5 to consider the historical and contextual problems with the theory and gain a clearer understanding of what Jesus was most likely talking about. 

There are six words used in the Bible which are normally translated as divorce. Three in Hebrew, שׁלח šālaḥ, גרשׁ gāraš, כְּרִיתוּת kĕrîtût, and three in Greek, ἀπολύω apoluō, ἀποστάσιον apostasion, and ἀφίημι aphiēmi. There is actually a fourth Hebrew word, סֵ֫פֶר sepher, and although this is the word for “book,” “scroll” or “writing,” in one verse in Isaiah 50 it is used to refer to a certificate of divorce, although most translators do not render it this way since kĕrîtût is also used in the verse so it could be considered redundant (“Where is this divorce document of your mother’s divorce…”). In any case, every time “divorce” is used in an English version of the Bible it is translating one of these six words. 

The following definitions and descriptions are synthesized from standard scholarly sources, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament by Koehler and Baumgartner (HALOT), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed.(BDAG), and Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). Again, the information in these sources is descriptive, that is, it describes how the words are used, which is the basic method of ancient language study. 

The Hebrew Words

שׁלח šālaḥ- This word means to send away, spread/stretch out, release, extend, or let loose, among a few other less common meanings in the Old Testament. This word is used to refer to sending (either by a person or by God) a man someplace or sending a letter or tribute. This is the word used in Genesis 3:23 of God sending Adam and Eve from the garden. (גרשׁ, the next word considered, is the word used for this in 3:24).  Of the 15 times divorce is mentioned in the Old Testament šālaḥ is used about 1/3 of the time. This is the word used in Deuteronomy 22:19 that says a man who sexually assaults a woman must take her as a wife and is prohibited from ever divorcing her; he is made responsible for her wellbeing to make restitution, not to be seen as a punishment on her as some would say. It is used in Jeremiah 3 using a man who divorces his wife as an example of something God was doing with Israel, and is the word in Malachi 2:16 normally translated as saying God hates divorce. 

גרשׁ gāraš- This word refers to forcible removal or expulsion. This is what the Israelites were to do to the people of Canaan (expel, dispossess), and what Pharaoh’s bodyguards did to remove the Israelites from his presence in Exodus 10:11. This is also the word used in Genesis 3:24 (alongside šālaḥ in verse 23) for God expelling Adam and Eve from the garden. Implied in the word is some sort of physical force. When referring to divorce (Lev. 21:7, 14, Lev. 22:13, Nu. 30:9 and Eze. 44:22) it usually refers to “a widow or divorced woman.” Why this is the word chosen for divorce in conjunction with that particular phrase is unknown. Similar to šālaḥ, this word is used about 1/3 of the time the English Old Testament translates “divorce.” 

כְּרִיתוּת kĕrîtût– This might be the most interesting of the three primary Old Testament words for divorce because this word has a direct connection to the concept of covenant. Kĕrîtût means “to cut off” most basically. “Cut off” metaphorically describes rooting out, excommunication, elimination, etc. In Exodus 12:14-20 when God establishes the Feast of Unleavened Bread the warning is that those who eat leaven when it is forbidden will be “cut off” from Israel, that is, removed from fellowship and the benefits of their covenant.

That brings us to a very important use of this word. Kĕrîtût is a nominal (noun) derivative of the verb כָרַת kārat “to cut.” The most theologically significant use of this verb is “to cut” a covenant. When a Hebrew speaker or writer depicts the making of a covenant, they say a covenant is “cut” because the killing of animals was part of the ceremony in which the covenant was enacted. Animals would be killed, cut in half and laid in a row, and the two parties to the contract would walk between the animal parts as if to say “so shall it be to me if I violate the agreement.” Kĕrîtût may, therefore, be thought of as “de-covenanting,” to be removed from the benefits of a covenant or from the covenant itself. Like the previous two words, this represents about 1/3 of the mentions of “divorce” in the Old Testament, and most commonly refers to the divorce certificate. It is worth acknowledging that there are some actions that remove a person from a covenant, or contract, and it turns out there’s a word to describe it: kĕrîtût.

**A word about covenants is in order here. In Hebrew, there is no distinction between a covenant and a contract, since they are the same word in Hebrew, בְּרִית b^erît. Contract, covenant, agreement, obligation, are all the same word and concept. Any potential differences between them would be determined from context. Basically understood, a covenant and a contract are different words to describe the same thing, a formal agreement between two parties. There are differences between the concepts of covenant and contract as we understand them in English, mostly due to modern connotations, which we cannot import back into a 3500-year-old document. The concepts are only different in the Hebrew Bible if the words’ contextual uses suggest they are. Let’s turn now to the Greek words of the New Testament

The Greek Words

ἀπολύω apoluō– This is the word under the most scrutiny (this and the Hebrew šālaḥ), the word most often claimed as not meaning “divorce” in any context because it means “put away.” This is the most common word our English Bibles translate as Divorce. In looking at the Lexham English Bible, of the 20 times “divorce” appears, 14 of those times it is translated from apoluō (12 of the 18 times in both ESV and NIV). As far as its semantic range is concerned, apoluō means to acquit, to release or free, to allow or cause someone to leave (dismiss). This is the word used to describe the Jewish tradition of releasing a prisoner each year on the Passover. This is what Pilate wanted to do to Jesus (“release him”), and what the Jewish authorities did to the apostles after commanding them not to speak in the name of Jesus. In Luke 13:12 Jesus used this word to describe someone being “freed” from a disability. This is also the word used for dismissing a crowd or assembly. This word’s root is λυω lyo̅, which means untie, loose, release. The prefix ἀπο, apo, (a preposition meaning “from” when standing alone) carries the meaning of removal or separation, thus the sense of the word becomes release to enable subject to go someplace else. Hence the semantic range of send away, do away with, dismissal, release, etc. 

ἀποστάσιον apostasion-  This word refers specifically to a certificate of divorce. The word appears 3 times in the New Testament and only refers to the divorce certificate. This would be the Greek equivalent of kĕrîtût. It comes from the root ιστημι  iste̅mi, “stand.” With the prefix ἀπο, apo, the sense of the word could be understood as a thing that removes ones standing, which is similar to the “cutting off” idea of kĕrîtût as discussed above. 

ἀφίημι aphiēmi- This word has a very wide semantic range, evidenced by the fact that it appears 143 times in the New Testament, and only 3 of those times is it translated “divorce.” Although notably, nearly every translation renders it “divorce.” Most commonly aphiēmi means to send away, leave alone, permit, but can also mean abandon, forgive, permit, neglect, tolerate, and a few other more rare senses. This is the word Paul uses in texts regarding divorce (1 Cor. 7:11, 12, 13). This will be explored in more depth in the next section, but it is important to note that the reason this word means “divorce” in 1 Corinthians 7 is that Paul contrasts aphiēmi with non-divorce separation. 

Thus far we’ve established that usage determines meaning. To expand on this idea, it is more correct to say that usage determines the semantic range of word, that is, its range of meanings, and then context determines which specific sense within the semantic range should be assigned to a particular word in translation. None of these words mean just one thing (with the exception of kĕrîtût and apostasion). These words have a variety of senses that must be determined from the context. To observe that a Greek lexicon says apoluō means “put away” does not suffice for contextually determining its use in a given passage, as if the simple gloss “put away” adequately expresses in English what the Greek author had in mind by using the word in that specific instance.

For an English equivalent of this, consider how many different ways there are to say someone lost their job. “Fired,” “terminated,” “laid off,” “dismissed,” “canned,” “sacked,” all mean the same thing. To argue that apoluō only means “put away” and not “divorce” in all these passages is like arguing that “The employee was terminated” does not mean the employee lost his job because it says he was “terminated.” Usage and context determine meaning. 

Historical and Rabbinic Considerations: Lack of Evidence, #2

The “putting away” theory maintains that Matthew 5:32 depicts Jesus offering a legal correction in the form of redirecting people back to the Law of Moses which requires the issuing of a divorce certificate for a divorce to be considered valid. If this is so, it is reasoned, then there must have been a problem in first-century Judaism where this was a common occurrence. An examination of the social landscape of marriage and divorce in first-century Judaism shows that there was a lot of debate happening at the time regarding divorce, but it wasn’t anything to do with divorce without a certificate. 

The major debate happening in Jesus’ time is a debate between the two dominant rabbinic schools, Shammai, which was more conservative, and Hillel, which was more liberal. The primary debate was whether divorce could be obtained for “any matter” or for restricted reasons. The focus of the argument was the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. 

Verse 1 says “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house…” 

The disagreement regarding this passage had to do with the phrase translated in the NASB and ESV as “some indecency.” A more literal, and admittedly wooden, translation would be “nakedness of a thing.” The word “nakedness” is an interesting word. In the garden of Eden Adam and Eve were naked and were without shame (Gen. 2:25), yet after the Fall their eyes were opened and they realized they were naked and were then ashamed (Gen. 3:7, 10). From there on in the Hebrew Bible nakedness implies something distasteful. In fact it became a euphemism for sexual intercourse or the genitals. For example, in Leviticus 18 wrongful sexual relations is referred to as “uncovering the nakedness” of another. 

In Deuteronomy 24:1-4 a woman is said to find no favor in her husband’s eyes due to a “matter of nakedness,” or a “matter of indecency.” It is unclear what exactly Moses has in mind, but it seems clear from the context that the husband has detected a legitimate moral problem (most likely sexual immorality of some kind) with his wife and divorces her. But that is not how the Jewish teachers had read the text.

The following is how the debate was briefly mentioned in the Mishnah, a record of rabbinic interpretations of the Hebrew Bible:

“The School of Shammai says: A man should not divorce his wife unless he found in her a matter of indecency, as it is said: For he finds in her an indecent matter. And the School of Hillel says, Even if she spoiled his dish, since it says For he finds in her an indecent matter.” (m. Git. 9.10; cf. y. Sifre’ Deut. 269; y. Sota 1.2, 16b.)

This is the debate Jesus is dragged into when the Pharisees approached him and asked “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason” (Matt. 19:4). Jesus, the crowd surrounding Him, and the original first century reader would have heard or read this and known this particular debate was in view. 

According to David Instone-Brewer’s very comprehensive study, the “any matter” divorce was invented by the Hillelites, although this became a dominant view because it doesn’t appear the Shammaites had much influence in society. According to Instone-Brwer, the Hillelites,

 “…concluded that the two words [“indecency” and “a matter”] referred to two different grounds for divorce…which meant one could base a divorce on an act of “indecency” or on “a matter,” which meant “any matter.” Because “any matter” encompassed all other grounds for divorce, this single ground could be used by anyone seeking a divorce.”

(Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Kindle Locations 1211-1212)

The Shammaites, on the other hand, took the phrase to mean “adultery.” It should be noted that rabbis in the first century had reached a consensus on grounds for divorce being childlessness, material and emotional neglect, and unfaithfulness. The Shammaite position on “a matter of indecency” should be understood in the context of the debate, not comprehensively as to their position on divorce. 

Why did they ask the question? Often the Jewish leaders tried to bait Jesus into saying something blasphemous, and He always refused to answer in the way they hoped, refusing to come down on either side of their political or theological debates. Jesus tends to remain doing this today I believe. Most of our own political and theological debates are nowhere in the same sphere as what Jesus is actually up to. Attempts for any side of a debate to claim to be on God’s side use Him as a weapon for their own agenda, which is an insult to the freedom and sovereignty of the Almighty. Like the Angel of the Lord (a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ) Joshua challenged outside Jericho with the question “Are you on our side or the side of our enemies?,” Jesus is still answering “No.” 

Although space prohibits a full discussion, there was a secondary debate occurring within Judaism in the first century, which centered on the details of the process of issuing a certificate of divorce. It’s worth pointing this out considering one of the claims of the “putting away” theory is that there must have been a problem in Jesus’ day of people seeking divorce without issuing a divorce certificate. This secondary debate, again between Hillel and Shammai, however, was about whether the certificate could be prepared at anytime (beforehand), or if it must be prepared at the time the divorce was being sought. This suggests it was still very much common practice to issue a certificate of divorce in first-century Judaism. The “putting away” theory fails to take this into consideration and relies instead on conjecture. 

Admittedly the issue becomes complicated when you consider that in Greco-Roman society it actually was common practice to divorce without issuing a certificate. Under Greco-Roman law physical separation was the only requirement for a divorce, which is likely what Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians 7. However, even though it was a situation in Greco-Roman society, it does not follow that it also was a problem among the Jews, especially considering two factors, (1) that the ongoing debate at the time was the timing of when a certificate of divorce must be written which indicates issuing the certificate was still common practice, and (2) because the word Paul used for a spouse separating without seeking divorce in the context of his letter was χωρίζω, cho̅rizo̅, meaning “separate” or “leave.” He uses this word in contrast to aphiēmi, which does refer to divorce. In 7:10 Paul commands to the married that “a wife must not separate from her husband.” Then in 7:15, referring to abandonment by an unbeliever, he says “if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. The brother or the sister is not bound in such cases.” In this instance, the text specifically says if a spouse is abandoned by their unbelieving spouse, they are not bound (not still married). There are three relevant observations regarding this passage: (1) obviously no divorce certificate is in view in either of these types of separation, (2) one of these two cho̅rizo̅ separations suffices for divorce, and (3) neither are ἀπολύω apoluō. 

A more complete description of the social background of first century Judaism is beyond the scope here, but it is obvious the “any matter” divorce debate is relevant to understanding the teachings of Jesus when he discusses divorce in the Gospels. It’s noteworthy that the two phrases that are different between Matthew and Mark’s recording of the debate are the phrases “for any matter” and “except for (a matter of) indecency,” the same phrases that summarized the two contrary positions discussed above. This is clearly what Jesus is speaking about. But before returning to the issue of Matthew 5:32, let’s turn first to the third reason the “putting away” theory falls short, which has to do with the context of the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.

“You Have Heard it Said…But I Say to You” #3

Jesus frames short passages of his Sermon on the Mount with this phrase six times, calling attention to passages in the Law of Moses with a focus on the dominant rabbinic understandings of those passages. These six teachings are referred to as “Six Antitheses” in that he counters the common teaching of the day in reference to the Law. 

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1-7:27) is probably the most important—and certainly the longest—single teaching of Jesus we have recorded. There are a number of themes that characterize and unify the Sermon. One is Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law. In 5:17 He says “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Lest anyone thinks as he proceeds that he is doing away with the Law, his aim is to establish the Law’s reality and importance, and with his life fulfill it. However, He is going to point out the Jews’ misapprehension of the “spirit” of the Law, and direct people to focus on hidden places of self and life where real truth lies. God sees what is in secret, God sees the heart, and what we do for good or for evil is not determined by exterior appearances but by inner reality (nearly the entirety of Chapter 6). 

So with that in view, he says “You have heard it said…”

• “You shall not murder…”
• “You shall not commit adultery…”
• “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce…”
• “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn…”
• “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth…”
• “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy…”

And then six times he says“But I say to you..”

• “Whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…”
• “Everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart…”
• “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery…”
• “Do not take an oath at all…let what you say simply by ‘Yes’ or ‘No…'”
• “Do not resist the one who is evil…”
• “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”

When you lay all six out like this it becomes clear Jesus’ aim is showing the higher moral and ethical demands of the New Covenant, which fulfills the Old (under Moses). Jesus is the one who fulfills the Old and ushers in the New, so it is not to be seen as a new higher law that must be followed, making life much more difficult for true New Covenant disciples, but certainly demonstrates that the moral demands of the Mosaic Law were, in reality, vastly higher than the current understanding. The center of moral responsibility is internal motivations and thoughts rather than external conformity. In other words, obedience happens in the heart. The point is to draw the listener’s attention away from the literal demands of the law to the heart motivations and attitudes that describe the true disciple, primarily exemplified by Jesus Himself. 

Consider the first Antithesis, 5:21-26. The Law of Moses, in fact right in the 10 Commandments, says not to commit murder. Jesus’ teaching transcends the literal demands of the law and suggests murder is not what needs to be kept in check at all, but anger. He puts angry, hateful attitudes in the place of murder and suggests they are deserving of the punishments murder called for, beginning with lesser degrees of murder which deserve judgment in a court, and increasing to worse levels deserving of eternal punishment. According to Charles Quarles’ commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, severe, enduring anger that seeks revenge is the type of anger in view here, not minor frustrations (pg. 108-111). The emphasis is on dealing with and diffusing anger at the soonest opportunity, particularly due to how it interferes with one’s relationship with God. “Thus, this text is a straightforward legal illustration that urges disciples to seek reconciliation with offended parties as soon as possible.” (Quarles, p. 115)

In the second Antithesis, 5:27-30, Jesus reminds his listeners of another one of the 10 Commandments, “Do not commit adultery.” How is adultery defined? The universal consensus is adultery is sexual relations with someone other than one’s spouse. But does that include emotional adultery or only physical? Does that include pornography use or again only physical indiscretions? Does it include physical contact that is inappropriate (hugging, kissing, oral sex) or only intercourse? Does this command forbid premarital sex because technically that person is not one’s spouse either? All of that is completely beside the point because Jesus’ teaching is that adultery happens in the heart and with the eyes. The teaching again transcends the literal demands of the Law and shows a higher righteousness, one that exists in the secret places of the heart. External conformity to the written code falls short of righteousness because purity is a heart condition and not a matter of physical obedience. 

“Whoever Apoluō His Wife“

So then we turn to 5:31. “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 grounds of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” If Jesus’ teaching is raising our eyes above the literal demands of the law to the realm of inner motive and attitude, how should we look at this statement?

As previously stated, the reason these are called “Antitheses” is not because Jesus is countering the Law itself, but the common interpretations and applications of the Law by the Jewish teachers. The law Jesus is referring to in 5:31 is the Deuteronomy 24 passage, which has been mentioned previously but not explained. Many look to Dt. 24 and see this as the law that establishes the process for seeking a divorce. Their reading is that if a husband finds indecency in his wife and wishes to divorce her he must issue her a certificate of divorce. But that is not what the passage is actually about, and all one must do is simply read verses 1-4 and pay attention to the what is being said and not assume anything. I’ve supplied it below, from the LEB. 

“ ¹When a man takes a wife and he marries her _⌊and then_⌋⌊she does not please him_⌋, because he found _⌊something objectionable_⌋ and writes her a letter of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house, ² and she goes from his house, and she goes out and becomes a wife _⌊for another man_⌋, ³ and then the second man dislikes her and he writes her a letter of divorce and places it into her hand and sends her from his house, or if the second man dies who took her _⌊to himself_⌋ as a wife, ⁴ her first husband who sent her away is not allowed _⌊to take her again_⌋ to become a wife to him after she has _⌊been defiled_⌋, for that is a detestable thing _⌊before_⌋ Yahweh, and so you shall not mislead into sin the land that Yahweh your God is giving to you as an inheritance. 

What you have to notice in reading this passage is that these 4 verses are one long conditional sentence (if-then, or protasis-apodosis), and the sentence begins with the particle כִּי ki’, which means “if,” “when,” “because,” “for.” In this context it means “when” or “if,” probably more “when” than “if” considering there is no “then,” although it would be implied at the beginning of verse 4. If you remove verses 2 and 3 it’s easy to see the flow and logic of the sentence, and the point of the passage. See below:

“When a man takes a wife and he marries her and then she does not please him, because he found something objectionable and writes her a letter of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away from his house….her first husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to become a wife to him after she has been defiled, for that is a detestable thing before Yahweh…”

I’ve also charted the structure of the text below, showing the conditional elements and terms: 

To paraphrase, if a man divorces his wife because he found fault with her, she cannot be remarried to him again. Now, verses 2 and 3 are still important to the picture, but when they are removed it helps the reader see the logic and purpose of the passage. The details provided by verses 2 and 3 are that the wife remarries and her second husband divorces her, apparently without valid grounds, and that then she cannot be remarried to her original husband. David Instone-Brewer explains that this likely has to do with forbidding the first husband from remarrying his ex-wife for financial gain. In all Ancient Near Eastern societies, including ancient Israel, a wife divorced for valid grounds would forfeit her dowry, and her parents would have paid a new dowry for her second marriage, and if her second husband divorced her without valid grounds then she would leave with her dowry, which would give the original husband financial motive to remarry her. 

Whether the dowry issue is in view or not, what I’m pointing out is that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not establish a process for obtaining a divorce. It is not a statute, but case law, explaining what should happen in this particular scenario. The process of obtaining a divorce is not established anywhere in Mosaic Law, but is assumed to have followed the process of what was already common at the time. The same goes for the marriage ceremony itself. The initiation of marriage and divorce are not legislated by God. The common interpretation from the Jewish teachers held that Deuteronomy 24 is where the divorce process was legislated, which why they insisted a certificate of divorce must be issued in accordance with the law, but the law never commands the issuance of a divorce certificate. That wasn’t the purpose of Deuteronomy 24. 

When Jesus began the third Antithesis, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce,’ He was not quoting Scripture. He was quoting the common Jewish teaching which is based on a misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 24. The Scripture nowhere says “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” It says if a man divorces his wife for cause, and her second husband divorces her without cause, she can’t remarry her first husband. We have to allow Scripture to say what it says. 

Eugene Merrill, in his commentary on Deuteronomy says the same of this passage: 

The legislation here neither commands nor condones divorce in general but only regulates its practice for ancient Israel. Jesus, in fact, cited this text and restricted its application to divorce only for reasons of “marital unfaithfulness” (Gr. porneia; Matt 5:31–32; 19:7–9). It is important to note also that the “exception clause” in Matt 19 follows Jesus’ teaching that the ideal is no divorce at all, for “what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matt 19:6).

(Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 316–318.)

 

Keil and Delitzsch explain the same interpretation as Merill: 

Vv. 1–5 contain two laws concerning the relation of a man to his wife. The first (vv. 1–4) has reference to divorce. In these verses, however, divorce is not established as a right; all that is done is, that in case of a divorce a reunion with the divorced wife is forbidden, if in the meantime she had married another man, even though the second husband had also put her away, or had died. The four verses form a period, in which vv. 1–3 are the clauses of the protasis [the “if” conditions of a conditional sentence], which describe the matter treated about; and v. 4 contains the apodosis [the consequent clause], with the law concerning the point in question. If a man married a wife, and he put her away with a letter of divorce, because she did not please him any longer, and the divorced woman married another man, and he either put her away in the same manner or died, the first husband could not take her as his wife again. The putting away (divorce) of a wife with a letter of divorce, which the husband gave to the wife whom he put away, is assumed as a custom founded upon tradition.

(Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 950.)

 

In Jesus’ teaching regarding the divorce legislation, as in the previous two Antitheses, we should see the focus on raising our sights above the literal demands of the law. Rather than maintaining conformity with a written code, just as in the first Antithesis wherein Jesus changed the focus from murderous action to murderous attitudes and retributive anger, here Jesus changes the focus from legal requirements of the divorce process to a higher level of righteousness that says legal procedures do not separate marriage covenant partners; only a sexually immoral violation of the marriage covenant can sever a marriage union. “What God has joined together let not man separate.” 

Given the purpose of this section of the Sermon on the Mount, how likely is it that what Jesus is offering here is simply a technical clarification on a bit of Mosaic legislation? Considering that is not what Jesus does in any of the other 5 Antitheses, it’s highly unlikely He is doing so here. The “putting away” theory rests in part on the assumption that Jesus is calling Jews back to obey the Law of Moses. The belief is that the law in Deuteronomy 24 was given because Israelites were dismissing their wives to remarry and not issuing divorce certificates, which is the same problem reiterated in Malachi 2, and therefore the same problem that must have been occurring in Jesus’ day (which we’ve seen was not the case), which is why He gave this particular teaching. This leads directly into reason 4 why the “putting away” theory falls short; it is precisely what Jesus is arguing against in the third Antithesis. 

“Putting Away” Theory Misses the Point of the Sermon on the Mount, #4

The basis of the “putting away” theory is the reason for the third Antithesis; it is in fact the very idea that Jesus finds “antithetical” to the Kingdom mentality of the New Covenant. Not only does this view make anachronistically misguided claims regarding the biblical languages, and misses (or ignores) important details about the historical and social contexts, but misses the entire point of the passages in question, both the Sermon on the Mount passage as well as the Deuteronomy passage it refers to. 

Since the Jewish teachers had taken the case law passage from Deuteronomy 24 and made it into a statute that outlines the legal procedure for obtaining a divorce (when it was never intended to), it makes no sense to interpret Jesus’ teaching as simply calling the people back to obey Deuteronomy 24 as a statute that requires a certificate of divorce. That would be completely out of character for all other 5 Antitheses, and requires an erroneous interpretation of Deuteronomy 24. Why would Jesus insist the people obey as a statute a passage that is not a statute? Why would Jesus urge people to obey a law according to a faulty interpretation? And more than that, why would Jesus simply offer a technical clarification on a piece of legislation when with every other breath of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus undermines the shallow conception the Jews had of what constituted obedience to the Law, and furthermore was in the process of describing the Kingdom ethic that was replacing the status quo? Is Jesus perpetually locking the Jews into the Old Covenant while ushering in the New? Why speak of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets Himself if he is merely telling people to obey them like all the other prophets? Surely Jesus’ message was different.  

Summary:

The proposed interpretation of the “putting away” position is faulty on logical, historical, and exegetical grounds. First, proponents of this view fail to grasp the fact that Koine Greek, and for the most part Hebrew as well, does not have a normative word for divorce, which explains why the words normally translated “divorce” are one of three Hebrew and three Greek words that mean “put away,” “dismiss” or “expel.” This is simply how Greek and Hebrew conceptualize divorce. Second, the historical and social context of first century Judaism suggest the problem of Jews seeking divorce without written divorce certificates did not exist; on the contrary, the timing of when divorce certificates could be written was a common debate at the time suggesting it was still common practice. Third, proponents of this view fail to properly place the Antithesis regarding divorce in Matthew 5 within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, a passage where literal obedience to the Law is contrasted with Jesus’ New Covenant ethic of obedience by attitude, motivation, and mentality. And finally, the very theory in question is specifically the view Jesus is arguing against in the third Antithesis. Therefore, for these reasons, Divorce and “Putting Away” are not two separate acts; “putting away” is simply how the biblical writers describe divorce.