Content
This is a complex issue both in OT and NT times.
(the motive behind the temptation)
Jesus “cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again (他又照常教訓他們).” (v1) While Jesus was teaching the crowd, the Pharisees came to him and tempted him again with another tough question about divorce: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” (v2). Matt 19:3 thus says, “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?’ ” Jesus also briefly touched upon this topic of divorce in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:31-32). In Matt 5:31, he said, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement…” Matt 5:31 reflects that in the Jewish society of Jesus' days, it is believed that divorce was a common phenomenon. In this respect, perhaps the Pharisees challenged Jesus with the above question based on the popular saying in the Jewish society as stated in Matt 5:31. Their challenge was: Is divorcing a wife for any cause not breaking the law?
The Pharisees never gave up tempting Jesus until they succeeded. And they usually did it in front of the crowd. In Mark 2:24, seeing that the disciples of Jesus picked up the ears of corn on the field, they asked Jesus a question that seemed to contradict the law of Moses: “Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful?” In Mark 12:14, they asked Jesus another tough question in politics: “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” The question they posed to Jesus was getting tougher each time, giving him severe tests one after the other. And the questions they posed always seemed to either contradict the religious or political law.
The Pharisees abode by the law of Moses and their religious traditions tightly because their religious authority held on to them, and that’s how they earned their respect and honour from the people. Anyone who challenged the law of Moses or religious traditions was challenging their religious status and authority. It was for this very reason that they hated Jesus and found chance to tempt him with tough questions so as to “catch him in his words” (要就著他的話陷害他) (Mark 12:13). Without any fear, Jesus always rebuked them as hypocrites. For one thing, he pointed out that they disguised to be pious law performers and thus be commanders of the law of God over the illiterate people. On one hand, they showed to the people their respectable status as a teacher of God's law; on the other hand, they sometimes put religious burden on the people in order to gain some personal benefits. In Romans 2, Paul, who claimed himself a Pharisee and was very zealous to follow the Jewish law before his conversion (Phil 3:5-6), denounced the hypocrisy of the law performers harshly, “Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest (倚靠) in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law…An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege (自己還偷竊廟中之物嗎)? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?” (Rom 2:17-23)
(Moses' teaching)
Back to the issue of divorce. Jesus in turn asked the Pharisees, “What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away (摩西許人寫了休書便可以休妻).” (v3-4) Just that simple? Whoever wants to put away his wife, all he needs is to write her a bill of divorcement? Exactly where in the Bible states the law of Moses granting the Jews the right to divorce their wives? It is found in the Book of Deuteronomy, the last book of the Pentateuch (摩西五經). Deut 24:1-2 says, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her (見她有甚麼不合理的事): then let him write her a bill of divorcement (寫休書), and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.”
Deut 22:13-21 also mentions divorce, where the husband who just gets married hates his new wife and intends to put away his wife by suspecting her virginity. If his new wife can prove her virginity before the elders of the city, the husband will be charged with a fine and give to the wife’s father. Besides, he must not put her away in his lifetime. On the other hand, if she fails to prove her virginity, she will be stoned to death.
According to Deut 24:1-2, the law of Moses grants man the right to write his wife a bill of divorcement and then send her away, but with a condition—“because he hath found some uncleanness in her”. That his wife is disloyal to her husband is a very legitimate reason for the divorce. Jesus could simply answer “yes” and quote the supportive condition, thus avoiding being further tempted by the Pharisees. Why would he choose to challenge back? One possible reason is that it may have to do with how one interprets the phrase “some uncleanness in her” (NRSV, “something objectionable about her”; ASV “some unseemly (不體面) thing in her”).(See ‘Note’) In Jesus’ times, the interpretation for the word “uncleanness” could be quite broad and involve a bunch of reasons apart from being disloyal to her husband, giving the Jews other reasons to divorce their wives beyond the scope of infidelity—the so-called grey area in the law. It is quite shocking to see that the wife who was supposed to be found of being disloyal to her husband was still allowed to “be another man’s wife” instead of being stoned to death, like the case in Deut 22. It is quite obvious that the term "some uncleanness in her" meant something more than just infidelity. If the above saying is correct, answering “yes” to the Pharisees’ question on divorce might give the husbands the opportunity to abuse this law to some extent. That in turn would give the Pharisees chance to further challenge Jesus and put him in an embarrassing situation.
(Jesus' teaching)
Instead of just saying “yes”, Jesus said something that surprised everyone, “For the hardness of your heart he (Moses) wrote you this precept.” (v5) Then he quoted Gen 2:24 to explain the original intent of God as He created man and woman, telling them that they should not casually divorce their wives: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (人不可分開).” (v6-9) He claimed that God did not want to see any divorce case, nor did He agree to any spouse separating each other for any reason. Why would then Moses write the law of writing a bill of divorcement in Deuteronomy, as questioned by the Pharisees in Matt 19:7? Jesus has given the answer in verse 5: “because of the hardness of your hearts”. His answer in Matt 19:8 is pretty much the same: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” What did Jesus mean when he said “the hardness of your hearts”? Perhaps he meant that the Jews insisted on finding some logical reasons to divorce their wives, forcing Moses to set condition for writing a bill of divorcement. Suppose the wife is really disloyal to her husband, is there any other alternative besides divorce in case of fornication? I believe the answer is “yes”; at least, the husband may first try to understand the cause of her infidelity, and self-examine if he has to bear some responsibility for it. Or can he concede to give his disloyal wife a chance to repent and forgive her in order to mend their broken relationship, instead of casting her away immediately?
The disciples seemed still having interest in the topic of divorce and wanted to know more about it. Perhaps they felt that Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees was kind of vague. Is divorce disallowed under any circumstance at all? So, they came and further questioned Jesus about divorce. Jesus answered them, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” (v11-12) His answer in Matt 19:9 was a bit different: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” This verse was almost the same as his teaching about divorce in the Sermon on the Mount: “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matt 5:32) Here we can see that Matt 19:9 and 5:32 quite match the meaning of Deut 24:1, and both verses narrow down the scope of “some uncleanness in her” to “fornication”, meaning that any other reason is not valid for divorce except for fornication.
To summarize the above verses of Jesus’ saying, we can draw a brief conclusion. Everyone can commit adultery in case of divorce beyond fornication—the first husband who marries another woman, the divorced wife as well as her second husband! How about the second wife who marries the first husband? Does she commit adultery too? I guess so, in the sense that she knows the man had a wife before but divorced her not for reason of fornication, and now she still marries him. Her case is similar to the man who marries the divorced wife and is still considered committing adultery. Since she and the first husband marries each other with mutual consent, it is hard to accept that only the first husband commits adultery by marrying her and she is innocent.
That leads to another question: if the husband really divorces his wife due to her infidelity, do they both commit adultery if they marry another person? According to Matt 19:9, at least the husband is not considered committing adultery. As for the divorced wife, although Deut 24:2 says, “when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife”, we have analyzed before that "some uncleanness in her" as stated in Deut 24:1 does not necessarily mean her 'infidelity'. Moreover, Deut 24:2 was a law given to the Jews in the OT times. Can it really apply to today’s believers? It is better for us to make reference to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles in the NT. In my opinion, if a wife departs her husband due to her husband's fornication and remarries another man, she is not committing adultery, just like the husband who remarries due to his wife's fornication. In this respect, the wife who departs her husband and remarries because of her own fornication ought to be regarded as committing adultery. Otherwise, she would be encouraged to be disloyal to her husband. This situation also fits for the husband and has no conflict with Jesus' teaching on adultery.
(Paul's teaching)
After Jesus has explained the possibilities of committing adultery on the concerned parties, the disciples found that it was very easy for the married couple to fall into the trap of committing adultery. Therefore, they suggested, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” Jesus replied, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” (Matt 19:10-11) Of course, the decision to marry depends on the willingness of both parties as well as their mutual trust in the security of their marriage, just to name a few. Anyway, the disciples’ suggestion is close to the view of the apostle Paul. Paul in I Cor 7:1 expresses his personal opinion about marriage: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” But he holds another view for those who can easily fall into the trap of committing adultery: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (I Cor 7:2) The reason is that “if they cannot contain, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn (倘若自己禁止不住，就可以嫁娶。與其慾火攻心，倒不如嫁娶為妙。).” (I Cor 7:9) Notice that the fornication in Paul’s word here refers to the time before marrying, which is different from the time after marrying in Jesus’ word of discussing the topic of divorce.
Then Paul talks about separation or divorce of the spouse: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord. Let not the wife depart from her husband. But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.” (I Cor 7:10-11) This saying is in accordance with Jesus’ saying in Matt 10:8-12, as Jesus encourages the married couple not to divorce each other. Paul did not mention why the wife would choose to depart from the husband. Maybe the husband chooses to depart from her for some reason. One of the reasons is due to the conversion of one party, as stated in Cor 7:12-16. There he says, “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him…But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” If the unbelieving spouse departs, can the believing brother or sister remarry? Paul does not say anything about it. But judging from the last verse, it seems that he encourages the believing party to wait for the chance of restoring the broken marriage (unless the unbelieving party has married another person). Paul further says in I Cor. 7:39, “the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” Basically, Paul’s opinion is that the believing wife can remarry under one condition: the death of her husband, but the person that she intends to remarry should be a believer. Otherwise, the undesirable situation in Cor 7:15 may occur again: “the unbelieving depart”.
To conclude, the spouse can surely remarry under some special conditions, such as the spouse chooses to divorce because of the infidelity of the other party or the death of the other spouse. Casual divorce and remarrying may be considered committing adultery and is not encouraged under the principle of the Scripture.
Note
One Bible commentary states that “some uncleanness” should not be regarded as ‘fornication’ because the woman would have to be put to death. The term may mean the woman has some physiological problem such as inability to bear child.
(Source: “The Bible—CGST Study Edition” (First Edition). Compiler: China Graduate School of Theology. Publisher: Christian Communications Ltd. Nov., 2000, p. 288.)