The Sunday gospel lectionary reading for Trinity 19 in this Year B is Mark 10.2–16. I think it is impossible to preach on this passage without dealing with the question of the consequences of Jesus’ teaching for our own attitude to and the Church’s practice in relation to divorce and remarriage, and this will make it an unusual Sunday.
The passage raises some big questions. What was the context of debate into which Jesus is speaking? Why are there differences between Mark 10 and the parallel passage in Matthew 19? How has this passage been read in the past? How does it engage with pastoral as well as theological issues today?
Come and join Ian and James as they explore these questions!
Full written commentary behind the discussion can be found in the next article.
What did Jesus say?
Anyone who divorces his wife and [kai] marries another woman commits adultery against [ep] her. And if a woman who divorces her husband marries another man, she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
Anyone who divorces his wife and [kai] marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Luke 16:18).
Anyone who divorces his wife, not for porneia, and marries another woman commits adultery [and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery – in some Greek manuscripts] (Matthew 19:9).
So Jesus is clear – remarriage after divorce (during the lifetime of the ‘ex’) constitutes adultery, with a possible rider relating to porneia in Matthew 19:9.
What about that rider?
Jesus never contradicts himself. In two of the gospels there is no exception, and each gospel writer has no certainty that his readers are going to read any other account. So there is no exception. But what then does Matthew 19:9 mean?
It means that Jesus is declining to discuss the particular situation in which a man divorces for porneia and then remarries. He is discussing only situations in which the divorce is for something other than porneia. He says in Matthew 19 that remarriage after such a divorce is adulterous, and he says nothing in that conversation about remarriage after a divorce for porneia.
Why did Jesus do that? The Pharisees come to give Jesus a hostile workout, as often. They ask him if divorce is acceptable and whether (as Rabbi Hillel’s school asserted) any reason will do. Matthew and Mark then edit the incident differently, since Mark wrote for gentiles and Matthew for Jews. (The differing punchlines, Matthew about remarriage and Mark about divorce, reflect the different target readership.) Jesus always responds primarily to the questioner rather than the question. What was the Pharisees’ custom? Rabbi Shammai’s school held that divorce must be for something serious but Hillel’s liberal school, accepted by the Pharisees, said that divorce might be merely for mispreparing food; this school dominated after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD70. (This rabbinic dispute is set out in a Midrash, or ancient Jewish commentary on scripture, denoted Sifré Deuteronomy, part 269; see also the compendium known as the Mishnah, tractate Gittin 9:10.) The Pharisees talking to Jesus would have known that God mentioned no reason in Deuteronomy 24:3 why the woman’s second husband divorced her; they are likely to have been ‘serial monogamists.’ Jesus is not engaging in a scripture study with these Pharisees; he is in a heated discussion with them about their routine use of excuses in order to divorce unwanted wives. To preclude diversion, he narrows the discussion down at its beginning.
A further point: the Greek rendered as “if a man divorces, and marries another woman…” can equally well mean “if a man divorces in order to marry another woman…” But the latter meaning is excluded because the woman’s adultery in Mark 10:12 takes no account of whether she instituted the divorce in order to marry another man or not.
‘each gospel writer has no certainty that his readers are going to read any other account’
I think the evidence is otherwise. First, it is clear that the gospels were quickly widely circulated and read by all.
Secondly, there is specific evidence that eg the writer of the Fourth Gospel actually assumes that his readers have already read the others, especially Mark.
By “each gospel writer has no certainty that his readers are going to read any other account” I was referring to the three gospels that I’d quoted from immediately before. I’d hoped that context was reasonably clear but, for the avoidance of misunderstanding, I meant only the synoptics. I agree about John. But Luke wrote to one named individual.
Many thanks for this contribution Anton; particularly with the contextualisation of the subject matter. Much of Jesus teaching is of an ad hominem nature. As you rightly point out, “Jesus is not engaging in a scripture study with these Pharisees.” His approach is to undermine hypocrisy and self- justification.
I wonder if Luke particularly was not widely read as it was addressed to an individual as you say, which would explain why, for example, Papias writing in the early 2nd century made no mention of it?
Slight correction: the writer of John assumes his readers have read Mark. Not only is there little evidence that he assumes they have read the other two, it remains to be shown that he even knew them…
or even preceded them…
or that they did not precede him (which is in fact the way the evidence points [see Cribbs for Luke]: John’s head rears up several times in the Sermon on the Mount and at the Johannine thunderbolt; Matt’s events are Mark plus John; Luke’s passion is Mark plus John). Plus – in my experience most who argue or assume otherwise have never made nor read an argument that Matt or Luke used John. However in the present discussion this is a side issue, except that everything about the Historical Jesus depends totally on the particular Synoptic Problem solution being relied on.
I think Ian’s explanation fits better, that Mark is more a summary of the discussion and Matthew provides more details. Therefore adultery is a legitimate reason for divorce. My view is because from God’s pov, the joining has been broken and the adulterous partner has literally joined with another. In such circumstances the remaining partner who was sinned against is free to divorce their husband/wife and remarry another as they see fit. Of course the question of whether the relevant word interpreted as ‘adultery’ means only that is debatable.
Do you mean any sexual immorality by the wife is a legitimate reason for the husband to divorce her? That is what Jesus said. The Greek is clear. There really is no ambiguity in it.
That guilt or innocence impacts the right of a divorced person to remarry is a fiction of reception history — I believe it was first advocated by Erasmus.
If a divorce happens on legitimate grounds, ie adultery or sexual immorality, logically as far as God is concerned surely that marriage has now ended. Why would he demand that the partner sinned against should not marry again, if the marriage has legitimately ended?
Precisely – no problems with remarraige after a legitamate divorce.
Many excellent points in the video.
In particular the point about remarriage — people divorced in order to remarry — so we have to be careful about reading into the ‘and marries another’ comments in Jesus’s teaching a twentieth century understanding of marriage and divorce.
One thing David Instone-Brewer missed (he was external examiner to my PhD) is that the husbandly provision in the Judaean Desert marriage contracts (you quoted from one) were just that —the obligation of the husband only. And it was a contractual obligation if not fulfilled meant that the wife could divorce. Such husbandly provision was difficult to precisely delineate. In effect, a wife had an ‘any cause’ divorce — which the Hillelites were looking to grant the husbands.
Instead, as you point out, Jesus reaffirmed the Deuteronomy 24:1–4 teaching (as Matthew 5:31–32 makes clear) — and the very purpose of Deuteronomy 24 (as you say) was to allow remarriage. It is ironic that we have used Jesus’s affirmation of it to forbid remarriage.
And by affirming the asymmetrical status quo Jesus was protecting wives — they could escape an abusive husband but were secure in the marriage unless they were sexually immoral — something that was in their control.
So—no change to OT teaching! Can anybody think of where Jesus radically changed any OT teaching? The language instead is of ‘fulfilment’ of OT laws and prophecies. And while the new covenant is certainly ‘new’ and ‘not like’ the old MC —it is a fulfilment of the Abrahamic promise — not a radical department departure from OT teaching.
And a good point about ‘what God has put together’ — I would add that this surely refers to the institution of marriage, not each individual marriage.
I thought there was a bit of a muddle about Mark 10:11–12 — the understanding of adultery is clear in Scripture — it is when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband. Both the woman and the man involved (whether he was married or single) in that case are guilty of adultery and liable to the death penalty. I think it is problematic to see that Jesus with this rather oblique comment was redefining the historical understanding held for millennia across the whole ANE .
Colin – are you saying a married man cannot commit adultery in God’s eyes because the word only applies to the woman doing the deed?
Hello PC1,
No! Read what I wrote again?
‘Both the woman and the man involved (whether he was married or single) in that case are guilty of adultery and liable to the death penalty.’
Re Adultery: The difference between a modern Western understanding and the Hebrew/ANE understanding is that if a married man had sexual intercourse with a single woman it would be sexual immorality — not adultery. And a wife could divorce her husband for that (or a second wife) as Exodus 21:10-11 implies.
That is what I was referring to, not the ‘other’ man. Im still not convinced of what you are saying, that the married husband who sleeps with another woman who is not his wife is not committing adultery but rather ‘sexual immorality’.
How does that fit with Jesus saying that if you even look at another woman with lust in your heart, you (the man) have committed adultery? It doesnt make sense to argue Jesus is only referring to a single man lusting after a married woman, and that married men are not committing adultery despite doing exactly the same.
You can get a good idea of what the man’s minimum obligations to provide were from Exodus 21:10, although ‘onathah’ appears nowhere else in the OT.
Jesus is not changing the law; he is saying, as he often did, that his followers must have higher standards.
Hi Anton,
Perhaps you are thinking of: ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’ (Matthew 19:8) — the beginning was Eden. NT teaching, nor conversion, takes us back to that state (1 John 1:8).
To a state in which divorce was permitted, or to a state in which it never entered anybody’s head?
Anton,
In Eden, if there was no sin, there would be no divorce? Note that divorce in itself is not a sin.
In Malachi 2:16, God says either that he hates divorce or that he who hates, divorces – the Hebrew is ambiguous, I understand. Is either situation plausible pre-Fall?
Anton,
I am replying to the discussion about the concept of divorce in Eden and your reference to Malachi.
I suggest it is not divorce that is a sin, but wrongful divorce is.
I hate going to the dentist, but it does not mean that dentistry is sinful?
Anton,
And – regarding Malachi – I am persuaded by the academic literature that suggests God’s hatred of divorce relates to his own upcoming divorce of Judah.
Malachi concludes the ‘book of the 12’ that begins with Hosea that is laden with marital imagery. Note Malachi 1:2 which I suggest sets the tone of the book.
Colin,
What leads to divorce and could it exist in any human relationship before the Fall?
‘the understanding of adultery is clear in Scripture — it is when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband’
You’re ignoring the fact that according to Jesus you dont have to have actual sex to be committing adultery, so you’re simply wrong on that statement. So Jesus has already changed the correct understanding.
PC1,
I am of course talking about literal, not metaphorical, or rhetorical adultery – just as Jesus did not redefine murder (1 John 3:15)?
Dear Colin – Matthew 5:28 :- “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already *committed* adultery with her in his heart.” How then is an intention, a desire of the heart *not* literal? And what therefore is meant in this context by “metaphorical” or even “rhetorical”? In which case, are we saying that the metaphorical language of vv 29 and 30 has no *literal* significance in relation to the issues of murder and adultery?
So how does Pauls’ teaching on marriage fit into all this?
Hi Chris,
I suggest Paul’s teaching is fully consonant with that of Jesus — there is no ‘Pauline exception’ — he simply outlined the situation for the church age.
Thus, a ‘mixed marriage’ was not about ethnicity any more, but faith — Ezra’s command to separate from a mixed marriage did not apply — a mixed faith marriage was a valid marriage (1 Cor 7:12-13).
Thanks Colin,
I guess that the contention here is that if the unbelieving spouse leaves, then the believing spouse is ‘not bound in such circumstances’ i.e they are free to divorce and remarry?
Chris,
Yes. But perhaps more controversially I would suggest that such applies to believing couples as well. I think that Paul is replying to the specific question – not suggesting that there were different rules for believers and unbelievers – although expectations would be different?
Colin, from my experience of dealing with couples that are divorcing then l have found that it is generally due to one of the parties behaving badly and that this is true even if one of the badly behaving parties professes faith.
I think there is much to be said for marriage counselling before the marriage is embarked upon
Chris – you should be very careful here. If you really do have people telling you all about their difficulties-of-married-life (for example ‘my wife squeezes the toothpaste from the middle of the tube’ or ‘my wife doesn’t leave any space in the refrigerator for my cold beer’ or any other distressing marriage problems that one can think of), you really should tell them to go and boil their heads; allowing yourself to be used in this way should not be any part of the job of a pastor/minister/vicar/priest. If people claim to be ‘Christian’, then simply tell them that 1 John 2:26-27 applies; they don’t need advice from you.
I’d say that any marriage that actually needs a marriage counsellor is in such an awful state that the couple would be best advised to split (simply by virtue of having seen the need to involve a third party – the counsellor – in a relationship that is supposed to be between two people).
The idea of marriage counselling before marriage is a non-starter – even more job creation for those interfering busy-bodies who make a living out of telling other people what to do. You might find some spineless and contemptible couples who are prepared to submit to this.
Jock.
I am not thinking about the trivial things that you mention, but if a wife say turned up in my church and who was being physically abused by her husband with a black eye and other obvious injuries and their children also, then I would consider myself bound to act for her own safety by involving the social services and consider advising her (sometimes its a him BTW), to separate . But as you say, such a ‘christian marriage’ would have to be in such a poor state as not being regarded as christian at all.
In the case of couple coming forward for marriage then I think there is a lot of value in pre-marriage counselling to ensure that both come to the marriage with the same expectations. This includes areas such as finance, children, sex, in-laws unspoken past baggage, behavioral problems, mutual responsibilities and all the other potential flash points that so many couples find out about after the event and then have to contend with, often with tragic consequences for all concerned.
I will have been married for 30 years this October and I am very grateful for the counsel given to both of us by the minister before he agreed to marry us.
Chris – if someone turns up at church with clear signs of grievous bodily harm, then surely this is a police matter pure and simple. The people who see the signs of GBH are obliged to turn that information
over to the police, who investigate it – and when there is sufficient proof, it is brought before the magistrate, who bangs the perpetrator up in chokey.
But it is unimaginable that such a situation could occur between Christians – I don’t see how dealing with such situations (other than turning the information over to the police) is the job of a Christian pastor/vicar/minister/priest.
Also – when two Christians are coming forward for marriage (e.g. your own situation 30 years ago) – the Christian mind-set is one of openness and transparency, so I’m not at all sure that you needed (or indeed any Christian couple needs) someone to act as counsellor going through these issues with them. I’m prepared to be that you did discuss these things between yourselves – even without the help of a counsellor.
On the other hand, I’ve just seen the end of a disastrous marriage – one of my son’s teachers, who unwittingly ended up in what she described as a ‘fake marriage’. I think that the internet may have had a lot to do with this (I surmise that the woman found someone whose internet profile looked decent – and it later turned out that he was only in it for the citizenship). The situation may have been avoided if both parties had been forced to sit down together in the same room with a third party asking the questions, they listen to each others answers – with the ‘counsellor’ trying to detect signs of trouble.
Again, though, this looks like a problem with ‘the way of the world’ (where nowadays surprisingly large numbers of people get their social life via the internet) – and not something that should affect Christians (who tend to avoid social media).
Jock,
‘But it is unimaginable that such a situation could occur between Christians
‘
Actually Jock, it does happen and spousal abuse among Christians and even among those who are outwardly respected church leaders, is more prevalent than you may think.
From your previous writings, I get the impression that you do not attend a church of any kind and have not done so for very many years as generally you find them too toxic in one way or the other, so you may not have seen this at first hand. Is this correct?
As for pre-marriage counseling. then I think your example makes my point well. I have seen too many christian marriages that have broken up after a few years when the couple discover they are not in fact very compatible with each other after all. Often the worst cases are marriages that begin with ‘God told me to marry him/her’ or they get some kind of ‘word or ‘leading’ or in other cases it is a passing infatuation. Many prospective couples particularly if they are young, simply lack spiritual maturity to make the kind of judgements necessary before deciding to marry, and to think through all its implications.
Also many are afraid or ashamed to ask for help.
And yes- a lot of Christians do use social media.
Marriage is never something that should be embarked upon lightly.
Goodness…if Christians tend to avoid social media does it mean none of those writing here are Christians?
Andrew – I’ll try to put this gently. I’m very sorry to disappoint you, but (a) I’m happily married and (b) in any case, you’re just not my type.
In general, though, social media should absolutely not be the way that single people meet with a view to establishing a relationship that could lead to marriage – and anybody who has been transformed by the renewing of their minds understands this.
I’d also say that if people are resorting to social media for this, then people like you (i.e. those involved in church leadership) have a lot of responsibility; you’re not creating the conditions where Christian singles can meet in ‘real life’; there aren’t appropriate vehicles for social fellowship at the church.
In general, social media is useful, but second best. For example, nowadays if you want a decent game of chess, you can always find a suitably matched opponent via the internet and play a good game in the comfort of your own living room. But then you miss the opportunity to repair to a local hostelry over a quiet pint after the game (so the ‘social’ aspect gets knocked on the head).
But when meeting a prospective life-partner is in view, I’d say that social media is pure poison.