MWOP Hill Divorce & Remarriage

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage?
By Phil Hill Mary’s Well Occasional Papers are published by Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

Director of Publications and Editor: Duane Alexander Miller Assisting Editor: Stephen Louy

Citation: Hill, Phil. ‘Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage?’ in Mary’s Well Occasional Papers, 1:5, November (Nazareth, Israel: Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary 2012). Key Words: Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Covenant, Evangelicals,

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

1. The Reason for this Research
This paper was originally written in less detail as a contribution to discussions about establishing an agreed evangelical policy on marriage, divorce and remarriage among the Arab evangelical churches in Israel. Their need for an agreed policy arises from the prospect of having to establish an ecclesiastical court to deal with these matters if the application they made together in 2011 is successful to become an officially recognised Christian body by the government of Israel. In Western countries these issues are dealt with by the secular courts, but in Israel they are reserved to religious ones representing each officially recognised religious body. Evangelicals have, until now, either had to marry according to the rites of other denominations, mainly the Orthodox or Catholic communions, or through an informal and uncertain arrangement with officialdom. Official recognition will remove this disability, but a definite policy of their own is now needed to inform the decisions of the court that would be created. It has been decided by them that a policy should be worked out from first principles rather than by whatever views are most popularly assumed to be correct.

2. Introduction
There is no single evangelical position concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage, although all Christians agree that separation ‘from bed and board’ may be a lesser evil than remaining in a marriage that is damaging of the moral and spiritual wellbeing of family members. However, in contrast with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, who hold that marriage is a sacrament of the Church (which in Catholic, but not Orthodox, teaching precludes divorce and remarriage), evangelicals are united in believing that biblically, marriage is not a sacrament offered by the Church but a covenant offered to each other before God by its partners. However, there are at least four views of what Scripture teaches about divorce and remarriage in relation to that covenant. Some, especially in the Anglican Church, hold that marriage is indissoluble, so that neither divorce nor remarriage is allowed. Others hold that divorce is exceptionally permitted in response to cases of adultery or desertion, but not remarriage. A third view is to include in that the right to remarry for the innocent party. This approach was first proposed by the great Christian humanist Erasmus and became the predominant view of the Reformed Churches. Finally, there are those who argue that both divorce and remarriage are permissible for a wider variety of reasons. Some find this position 1

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

in Scripture while others argue for it on more general grounds, such as pastoral generosity in the spirit of Jesus’ emphasis on forgiveness.1 However, in recent years greater attention has been paid to the Jewish roots of the NT and I wish here to explore that in relation to divorce and remarriage. Three biblical sources exist for material concerning these issues: the teaching of the OT, of Jesus, and of Paul. There are not that many biblical passages to consider, but unfortunately, almost all of them contain textual or interpretive difficulties. It is unavoidable that in dealing with these, some technical information must be considered as well as some ancient rabbinic traditions which shed light on what both Jesus and Paul had to say. As my essential purpose is to discuss a variety of biblical passages rather than a body of literature, I shall not, on the whole, make references to other writers. However, I shall sometimes mention alternative views and in the bibliography I have indicated to which school of thought most of the listed books belong. I must pay special tribute to some of them here, however. I was asked in 1993 to review, for the European Journal of Evangelical Theology, Andrew Corne’s masterly exposition of the indissolubilist position, Divorce and Remarriage: biblical principles and pastoral practice. Although I concluded that he was wrong, his very thorough biblical exegesis led me to take the cultural setting of the biblical passages concerned more seriously. Two evangelical lawyers deserve mention for some fresh perspectives they have brought from their profession to the logic of the OT law and its interpretation in the NT, and to developing an integrated theological and pastoral policy. These are Ken Crispin, a South African Anglican writer (with whom I largely agree), and Stephen Clarke, a British lawyer who is now a Free Evangelical pastor (with whom I sometimes agree). However, I must single out above all, the remarkable biblical and rabbinic scholarship of the British Baptist theologian David Instone-Brewer. He brought into the daylight what I had only groped after until I read his work, concerning the importance of reading Jesus and Paul alongside ancient Jewish and rabbinic thought about divorce and remarriage. I have no doubt unconsciously absorbed a number of points originally made by him while working far less impressively on similar lines. Stephen Clarke and David InstoneBrewer some years ago occasionally discussed with me their views and mine, and I am grateful for their kindness in doing so. Bryson Arthur, my colleague at Nazareth Evangelical

1

See House (ed) for a collection of papers presenting each of the four variations on the covenant view.

2

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

Theological Seminary where he is President, has also helped me think about marriage from his perspective that it is a new ontological reality by virtue of God’s action in joining together a man and woman in marriage.

3. The Old Testament Material
Marriage as a covenant relationship
Marriage in the OT is based on a man and a woman entering into a covenant. A covenant might celebrate a variety of relationships, but typically involved three things: the public declaration, usually in the form of a covenanting meal2 of a legal agreement as the framework for a personal union3 in relationship between a ‘covenant head’ who offered the relationship and a ‘covenant recipient’ who accepted its terms and was then bound to maintain ‘covenant faithfulness’ to him. The covenant might take any form which offered a binding agreement within a relationship, including a friendship (as in 1 Sa.20:16-17, between David and Jonathan), a business partnership, or more grandly, a treaty between nations. Common to each form, however, is the concept of a covenant union in a relationship, with a binding agreement setting out its boundaries. Such covenants were typically sworn before a deity ‘forever’ but in practice the ‘covenant head’ who offered the relationship could withdraw it at will. It is not possible for historians to trace the ancient origins of covenantmaking because it predates writing itself. By the time the Book of Genesis was compiled, covenanting was well-established in ancient Near Eastern cultures, including Israel. In fact, the relationship of God with Israel is portrayed as a covenant one. The most recent edition of the NIV Study Bible, while not a work of academic scholarship, nevertheless contains useful

The covenant meal typically involved a ceremony which expressed the forming of the personal relationship involved in the covenant. At least one known ritual was for an animal to be cut into two or three pieces, part of which would be sacrificed to a god, and the rest eaten in the feast. It is probable that in ancient Hebrew tradition, two parts of the animal would be laid out on a path and the covenant partners would walk between them together as a sign and symbol of their covenant union. That would explain why an OT expression for making a covenant agreement is to ‘cut a covenant’. In marriage covenants, however, the ‘covenant sign’ was the sexual union of the couple. For further information on covenants, see ‘Covenants’ in the New Bible Dictionary (Leicester: IVP, Third Edition, 1996). 3 All covenant unions were relational but only the marriage covenant was sexual.
2

3

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

and accurate notes on the nature and importance of covenants in the Bible, enabling readers to learn the essential state of modern biblical scholarship on this subject.4

The three stages of the marriage covenant
The covenant-making procedure of marriage is described in Genesis Chapter 2. Having recorded the origin of human life, male and female, and the marital union in which Adam and Eve lived, the writer provides a general principle: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gn.2:24).5 Three stages of making the marriage covenant are here described. First, it is the man who offers the covenant by becoming qualified to establish his own household –a man shall leave his father and mother. He is now able to be a ‘covenant head’ in his own right whereas previously he was under his father’s legal authority. The second stage of the marriage covenant was to become legally bound together by betrothal – united to his wife. Betrothal had the legal status of a marriage contract, after which a divorce had to be issued to break it even though the marriage had not been consummated – as we see in the NT with the consideration by Joseph of divorcing Mary when she became pregnant before they married (Mt.1:19). The third and final stage of the marriage covenant is (implicitly the marriage celebration itself followed by) beginning the sexual union – they shall become one flesh. There are some important issues to unpack from this description of the covenant. Under OT law, only a man was legally competent to offer a marriage covenant. Furthermore, his competence extended to making more than one, leading to the doubtful OT practice of polygamy. Not only that. As ‘covenant head’ he could revoke his covenant of marriage contract at will.6 To prevent this, the practice developed of the wife’s family making a valuable betrothal gift that had to be returned in the event of a divorce. It is important to realise the very different legal position of a wife in comparison with her husband. Her obligation was to be faithful to the covenant, which above all meant being exclusively
NIV Study Bible, 2008 Update, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008). See the note on ‘Major Covenants in the Old Testament’ connected with Gn.9; and ‘Covenant’ in the Topic Index and the Notes Index. While the NIV Study Notes are obviously written in a non-scholarly style, they are provided by established and reputable scholars. 5 Biblical references throughout, unless otherwise stated, are from the New International Version of the Bible (copyright 1975, 1978, 1984, held by the International Bible Society) 6 With certain exceptions in which he had dishonoured an innocent woman either before or after marriage: see the New Bible Dictionary article on marriage for further information.
4

4

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

faithful to the sexual union. By contrast, a husband could enter, without becoming a covenant-breaker, additional sexual relationships with concubines or further wives (or even a casual sexual encounter7). If the wife had another sexual relationship, both she and the man involved were guilty of betraying her marriage covenant and both of them were punishable by death (Lev.20:10). Note that if the ‘other man’ was married, he was not betraying his wife but his adulterous partner’s husband. Everything focused on the rights of the husband. There were, nevertheless, some minimal rights for a wife. Rabbinic tradition identified these in Ex.21:7-11, which dealt with the obligations of a husband who took a slave as his wife and then took a second wife. He was not to deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. What the husband owed his wife, therefore, was basic material security and sexual relations with him so that she could bear children and elsewhere in the OT it is made clear that such children were to share any inheritance. Two further principles were identified in the Exodus passage. First, the refusal of sex within the marriage betrayed the covenant relationship just as effectively as adultery by the wife. The second principle was that divorce was a woman’s right should the husband fail in his duties. That a woman could not issue a divorce did not prevent her from demanding through the courts that the husband must do so. This became an established practice with which Jesus would have been familiar. A further point needs to be appreciated about the limited rights of women under OT law. A woman could not make legal agreements in her own name. If she wanted to do so it had to be by permission from the head of her household – her father until her marriage and then her husband (Nu.30:1-15). An important exception to this rule concerned widows and divorcees, who were given legal authority of their own in the absence of a male head (v.9). We shall return to this separate category of women when we discuss Paul’s teaching in 1 Co.7.

Divorce and remarriage in the Old Testament
It is unnecessary to discuss in detail the question of remarriage for two simple reasons. A man could marry more than one wife quite legally, and a divorced wife was explicitly released from her marital faithfulness so that remarriage was entirely in order for her. While there is no specific statement of God’s approval for this, nor is there one of His

7

Though he was then guilty of fornication

5

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

disapproval in a legal system that typically expressed moral absolutes by what was forbidden. That silence is the significant one. It is important to begin a consideration of divorce with two clarifications. First, adultery was not a reason for divorce under OT law, as the OT law stipulated that, when proved, it was punishable by death. Second, the OT does not discuss whether or not a divorce was ever ineffective except to describe the proper process for issuing a get, or certificate of divorce, in Dt.24:1-4. What was proper came to be accepted as legally required (or perhaps was already so when Dt.24:1-4 was written), and to this we now turn. It is in two parts, the first comprising vv.1-3 and the second v.4 alone. With regard to vv.1-3, we are presented with a complex hypothetical situation: if… What follows is a chain of events. It begins when a husband is displeased because he finds something indecent in his wife (the Hebrew term, debat ‘erwah means literally ‘a matter of nakedness’ but it is used only on one other occasion in Scripture, of excrement left lying on the ground in Dt.23:14. This suggests that in Dt.24 it is similarly metaphorical rather than literally involving nakedness: something other than adultery that the husband personally finds incompatible with his wife being a faithful covenant-keeper. The subjectivity of the decision must not be overlooked. This is not simply the discovery of some definite betrayal, but something that destroys the husband’s ability to regard his wife as a genuine covenantkeeper. In response to this disgraceful matter, the husband therefore issues her with a get. Being now free from the requirement to be faithful, she can and does accept a new marriage covenant. However, she might again be released from it either by another divorce or by being widowed. Can she then return to her original marriage? This question is answered negatively in v.4, to which we will come in a moment. First we have to settle a difficult question. Do we have here biblical approval for divorce as well as disapproval of the first marriage being resumed? Grammatically, vv.1-3 is a description and not an instruction. However, it came to be regarded as a model with the force of a rule, and is so understood by the OT leader Ezra in connection with a divinely approved mass divorce movement described in Ez.9-10. This was commanded as the righteous response of the Jews who repented of their marriages to pagans in the realisation that such marriages were not condoned by God. Ezra demands that it should be done according to the law (Ez.9:3). As there is only one law concerning divorce, Dt. 24 must be accepted as the intended reference. Something indecent has already been identified – 6

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

paganism (which confirms that its application was understood to be wider than to specifically sexual sins8). Therefore, the focus of Ez.9:3 can only be on the issuing of a divorce certificate in accordance with Dt.24:1-3, which means that despite the grammar it is treated within the OT itself as a proper course of action. That also makes Dt.24:1-3 a limitation of the grounds for a morally acceptable divorce to something indecent rather than the husband’s bare legal ability. Indissolubilists argue that, as the passage is only descriptive it cannot be used to justify divorce in principle; but that is to miss (as Ezra did not, nor any Jewish teacher since) the force of such a description in its own ancient culture. Those who limit the grounds for divorce to adultery sometimes argue that Jesus interpreted something indecent as that in Mt.5:31-32. We will consider this when we come to the teaching of Jesus. Turning now to the second part of the law (Dt.24:4), we reach what grammatically is certainly a rule, concerning the status of the divorced and remarried wife. Until the remarriage, the original covenant has not been fatally compromised so that the first husband can repent of his decision and invite her back as still a faithful covenant-keeper still. However, by remarriage she has been defiled in such a way that doing so would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. The remarriage disqualifies her from the original one, 9 probably because by resuming the first marriage, the second one becomes in effect (but only then) an extra marital affair. Those who oppose remarriage find here a somewhat larger lesson, that remarriage is viewed in the law as something shameful. However, that is to draw the opposite lesson from what is stated in the passage, which locates the problem in resuming the first marriage, not entering the second one. In summary, Dt.24:1-4 acknowledges that divorces happen and are effective in ending the marriage covenant. It also acknowledges that some are justifiable. A (good) man’s confidence in his wife may be destroyed because he has discovered something in her other than adultery which so disgusts him that he finds it impossible to regard her any more as a ‘covenant-keeping’ wife. Divorce is his permitted and morally acceptable response. We may wish to object that this was an inadequate law because the very same thing might be true of the wife with regard to an unworthy husband and for that, no remedy is provided. However,
Some indissolubilists argue that paganism might have involved sexual immorality, but this would require at least demonstrating that pagan worship generally involved women in immorality, and for that there is no evidence. 9 This is how the passage is understood in modern Judaism, as can be seen in modern Jewish translations of the OT.
8

7

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

such a view of equality simply did not then exist. We shall see, however, that Jesus introduced something very like that in his own interpretation of the OT teaching on marriage and divorce. I have shown thus far that the OT law not only recognised divorce (and therefore the right to remarry), but according to Ezra 9-10 approved it under certain circumstances. This may come as a surprise to some, who are convinced beforehand that this could not possibly be the case. Those who oppose divorce often refer to the fact that the high priest, as a model of righteousness, was not allowed to marry a divorced woman, and that this represents a higher principle for all marriages. In fact, he was not allowed to marry a widow (or a prostitute) either. It is probable that the high priest was required to fulfil the ideal of the original marriage, but to claim that it undermines the status of remarriage after divorce requires also that it undermines the status of remarriage after widowhood. For that, there is no biblical evidence at all. Against this apparently plain representation of OT law some have countered that, however much of it may be true, God’s final word on divorce in the OT is provided by Malachi: I hate divorce, says the Lord (Ml.2:16). It is therefore necessary to consider Malachi 2:10-16 in more detail. The passage concerns two quite different scenarios of divorce, addressed to the generation that followed upon the mass divorce movement commanded by God in Ezra 9-10. The first one (vv.11-12) deals with Judah breaking faith with God by marrying the daughter of a foreign god (2:11). This is precisely the issue addressed in Ezra and evidently it has continued or has been resumed. It is bluntly condemned as bringing judgement on Judah from God (v.12). The second scenario (vv.13-16) is then introduced – another thing you do (v.13). This is the opposite situation. Malachi accuses Jewish men of divorcing the wives of your youth (v.14), rendering men guilty of covenant-breaking, an idea apparently in conflict with the terms of the marriage covenant. In fact, the covenant-breaking was twofold. The unjust divorce would certainly be followed the husband remarrying, as marriage was (and is) fundamental to the Jewish concept of a righteous life. Malachi holds, in effect, that legal ability to divorce does not amount to moral justification. Furthermore, he says there is more to the marriage covenant than its human dimension. It includes a divine action of making them one (v.15), so that such unjustified divorces are not only an offence against wives but against God Himself. However, the 8

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill Hebrew of vv.15-16 is rather mangled, making it difficult to be confident about its meaning.10 This becomes more problematic as we reach v.16. The NIV should be consulted for an alternative rendering which changes the bald statement I hate divorce says the Lord to God’s recognition that the wronged wives with whom this passage is concerned hate divorce. Similarly, the rest of v. 16 is uncertain. The verse could mean, not that God hates men covering themselves with violence but rather that God hates, or wives hate, men who cover their wives with violence.11 It does make more sense of the text but it is impossible to reach a definite conclusion and other interpretations are possible. At the least, therefore, it is not wise on the basis of this one text to declare as an absolute truth that God hates all divorce. Unless, of course, we mean to say that He hates it in the same way that many divorced people do themselves – because of the dreadful pain caused by their broken homes, their broken hopes, and their sense of rejection and failure as human beings.

Developments during the intertestamental period
In order to bridge the historical gap between Malachi and the time of Jesus, a few points need to be made about Jewish attitudes and practices in relation to marriage and divorce during the long period between the close of the OT and the opening of the NT era. The first point to be made is that during that period of ‘revelatory silence’ the OT legal framework that empowered men but not women was developed into a common view that women were spiritually, morally and intellectually inferior to men by nature. They became something of a second class body in Jewish society – unworthy of education, forbidden to participate in synagogue worship on the same terms as men, suspected of being too weak to resist their sexual instincts and so a dangerous temptation to ‘righteous’ Jewish mankind. A divorced and remarried woman was doubly suspect to her former husband because she might tempt him to become guilty with her of adultery against her present husband. In the Mishnah, compiled of course much later than the lifetime of Jesus but from established rabbinic traditions, he was advised even to avoid acknowledging her if he met her by accident on a street. In short, women came to be regarded as belonging to a lower and less

A likely reason is that copyists had difficulty reconciling the passage with Dt. 24 and Ez.9-10. Yet another interpretation of the Hebrew is offered in the English Standard Version of the Bble: For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts.
10 11

9

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

honourable order of life than men and were too often treated as chattel to be possessed or passed on. Secondly, the practice of divorce-to-remarry, although implicitly condemned by Malachi, became culturally acceptable. By the time of Jesus, a ‘righteous divorce’ required conforming to two aspects of Dt.24:1-3. The primary one was its legality, achieved by it being properly issued. The secondary one was its morality, which concerned the meaning of something indecent in the wife. It must be understood that whatever the moral justification, a correct certificate of divorce effectively ended the marriage and enabled remarriage. However, a righteous man would be concerned to make a righteous judgement, and this caused a famous rabbinic debate about the meaning of something indecent. The Mishnah provides a summary of that, centering upon the literalness or otherwise of erwat debar – a matter of nakedness. The school of Shammai understood nakedness literally as implying sexual impropriety (though that might include more than adultery in its modern sense). The school of Hillel understood it metaphorically as behavior more generally contradictory of the wife’s role as a covenant-keeper. However, the subjective judgement of the husband was acknowledged and radically reinforced by Hillel including as an example, that a wife had burned her husband’s dinner!). The Mishnah also records the opinion of the later school of Akiba took as the defining statement in Dt.24:1 that the husband is displeased with his wife, and so made it something entirely subjective, allowing that a legitimate ground for divorce might only be that the husband had come to desire some other woman more.12 The combination of a growing practice of divorce in order to remarry with the low view of women explained above was catastrophic for divorced women. They were assumed to be guilty of something and were in any case ‘damaged goods’ as prospective wives having lost their virginity. If such a woman was fortunate enough to find a new husband, the couple had then to exist in a ‘state’ of defilement while the divorcing husband was exonerated from any blame.

4. The Teaching of Jesus
The key issue here is how to explain the apparently higher standard of Jesus regarding divorce and remarriage than the OT law, especially in view of his claim absolutely to uphold
Midrash, Gittin, 9.10. Akiba died in 135C.E. but he could perhaps have been endorsing a view already current in the lifetime of Jesus as he himself had been trained in a rabbinic tradition.
12

11

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

its true meaning (Mt.5:17ff). One way of doing it, taken both by those who hold that marriage is a sacrament and those who claim that Jesus taught the indissolubility of the marriage covenant, is to say that Jesus does indeed set a higher standard than the OT law. Some argue that this higher standard distinguishes life in the new kingdom of Christ from the old kingdom of Israel. Others claim that the OT law only acknowledged, rather than approved, divorce and remarriage, so that Jesus does not actually contradict it by introducing a new teaching. However, a view is to be preferred that takes Jesus’ affirmation of the OT law more seriously and this will now be proposed in an examination of his teaching in its Jewish context of the time and its affinities to rabbinic methods

Matthew 5:31, 32
The rabbinic tradition was, Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. Jesus’ corrective to this was, But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Several points must be made to clarify exactly what Jesus said, especially in view of the fact that he spoke in Aramaic (a few scholars believe it was in Hebrew), yet his sayings have been handed down to us by the gospel writers in Greek. First, the exception for ‘marital unfaithfulness’ does not translate the word for adultery (Gk. moicheia) but porneia, a word signifying immorality but with a broader reference than only sexual intercourse. Some think it refers only to sexually wrong behaviour, while others widen its reference to something like ‘moral decadence.’13 It would seem to be wider in meaning than sexual sin but narrower in meaning than anything at all of a decadent nature. Perhaps in this context it is safest to think of it primarily as other ways than adultery of betraying the marriage covenant, including perhaps the refusal to maintain a sexual union and possibly physical violence in view of Ml.2:16. In view of the repeated and confusing practice of translating porneia as adultery, I shall generally keep to the Greek word itself rather than find a misleading or inadequate English one.

It is often assumed that porneia refers to ‘fornication’ – that is, sexual intercourse that does not involve adultery. In that case, Jesus permits divorce if a husband discovers after marriage, that his wife had a sexual relationship beforehand. However, this is too narrow a reference. Further information can be found by consulting standard Greek lexicons such as Abbott-Smith.
13

11

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

One more point to notice with regard to porneia is that, in explaining Dt.24:1-4 Matthew departs from his usual practice of quoting from the LXX, or at least using its rather creative ‘Hebraic Greek.’14 Something indecent in the LXX is ascheemon pragma, meaning ‘a thing unbecoming’ and not porneia. Matthew’s term is narrower in scope and apparently deliberately so. That being the case, he reports Jesus as contradicting Shammai’s interpretation of something indecent for being too narrow, and Hillel’s for being too broad. It appears that Jesus regarded something indecent as less than unfaithful sexual activity but only something fundamentally contradictory of faithfulness to the marriage. Second, when Jesus is recorded by Matthew as stating that the woman unjustly divorced is caused to become an adulteress he uses a clumsy form of Greek for such a purpose, the passive infinitive. This verb form is sometimes found in LXX to describe a ‘state’ as opposed to an ‘act,’ an important distinction in OT law because ‘defilement’ could arise either from a guilty action or in consequence of something beyond the defiled person’s control, so that a ‘defiled state’ did not necessarily mean that personal guilt was involved. Matthew shows that he is very familiar with the LXX and therefore of its unusual use of Greek. It is probable, therefore, that as Matthew translates Jesus’ Aramaic he finds the accepted way in this ‘Hebraic Greek to indicate that Jesus is stating his (authoritative) understanding of defiled in Dt.24:4: a woman who is divorced by her husband and remarries is in a ‘state’ of adultery, not that she is guilty of the act of adultery. 15 Similarly, the Greek word used of the adulterous position of man who marries her is passive. He also is placed in a ‘state’ of adultery though he is not guilty of the act. The whole saying addresses the true meaning of Dt.24:1-4. One question remains concerning Jesus’ provision for remarriage. Was this also limited by the exception for porneia? In Dt.24 it is clear that the remarriage was accepted despite the fact that the wife was justly divorced by her husband. That should therefore be understood here in the absence of Jesus saying otherwise. The exceptive clause limits the grounds for divorce, not the permission to remarry. We may further note that a just divorce for porneia does not involve guilt for the divorcing husband. Jesus only condemns the divorcing husband who has no proper grounds
The essence of which was to express Hebrew thought forms in Greek that imitated Hebrew. See Dt.22 for various laws concerning the requirement of virginity in a bride and the treatment of the victims of rape. Together, their effect is neither to blame the innocent victim nor to regard her any longer as equivalent to a virgin when entering marriage.
14 15

12

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

but proclaims himself righteous because he has issued properly a certificate of divorce and in the process causes two innocent people to be brought into a degree of suspicion, if not disgrace, purely because they did what was entirely legitimate by entering a remarriage. A dynamic translation would therefore be:

A man who divorces his wife without the serious grounds mentioned in Dt.24 victimises not only the woman unjustly divorced but also the man she then legitimately marries because he places them in the position of being regarded as adulterous even though they have done nothing wrong. They are not guilty before God, but the original husband certainly is.

Such an interpretation: (a). makes sense of the shocking attack, to his contemporaries, on a man who ‘righteously’ divorces his wife in accordance with the procedure set out in Dt.24; (b). declares Jesus’ stance in relation to the debate between Hillel and Shammai concerning the proper grounds for divorce; (c). clarifies what Dt.24 means by the remarried wife being defiled; (d). reconciles this saying with the general pattern of Jesus correcting rabbinic misinterpretations of the law. It should finally be noted that in Mt.5 Jesus discusses a woman wrongly divorced, but without indicating that such a divorce is ineffective and therefore that the remarriage is wrong, either for the divorcing husband or the divorced wife. This was not in dispute by any rabbinic school. What was under discussion was how righteous or otherwise a husband was in his personal interpretation of something indecent. If he was wrong in that, the divorce itself (with permission to remarry) was still valid under OT law. The OT law knows nothing of the concept held by some who oppose divorce and remarriage, that divorce is ‘a legal fiction’ which neither ends a marriage nor permits remarriage. Had Jesus stated this, Matthew would have been at pains to find unambiguous words to express it in view of its startling departure from the OT law.

Matthew 19:1-9
The first question posed by the Pharisees was: is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason? (19:3). The Pharisees seem to realise that Jesus holds a more liberal view about Dt.24 than Shammai, so they ask, in effect, whether or not he supports Hillel. Jesus’ answers

13

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill Have you not read…that in the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. Therefore what God has joined together let not man put asunder (19:4-6). Here he clearly rejects the liberal view that for any casual reason a husband can divorce his wife. He does so by reiterating the original meaning of marriage as a lifelong covenant. However, he also introduces Malachi’s statement that God himself makes a husband and wife one: the union of marriage is one that God has joined together. Jesus rejects divorce as a fundamental right of the husband: what God has joined together let not man separate. The Pharisees then pose a second question: ‘Why then did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ Jesus answered, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another woman commits adultery.’ In his reply, Jesus brings in a wider biblical perspective to correct the narrow rabbinic focus on the proper meaning of Dt.24:1-4. He points out that Moses did not command divorce but permitted you to divorce because your hearts were hard. This might refer to Dt.24, but if so, it implies that the permission given there was actually wrong, since to use it would be sinful behavior. That Jesus would place himself so bluntly against Moses seems unlikely in view of the storm it would have caused for him as a rabbinic teacher, especially when he claimed to uphold the law and rebuked rabbis who did not.16 Nor is it consistent with Jesus approving Dt.24 in virtually the next sentence when he accepts something indecent in the sense of porneia as an exception to his condemnation of divorce. It is consistent, however, with Jesus correcting the Pharisees’ narrow focus on Dt.24 by pointing them to the more general truth that Moses permitted you to divorce in the sense that the right to divorce is assumed in the OT law as a whole. Then the force of because your hearts were hard is to trace that to the loss in the Fall, of original righteousness in marriage to which Jesus has already referred. Having established the moral and spiritual principle he finds in the OT teaching, Jesus returns to Malachi, this time his denunciation of divorcing ageing wives in order to remarry.
He was often addressed as a rabbi (Teacher), but it is not implied here that Jesus was no more than another rabbi.
16

14

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

This Jesus condemns as breaking covenant with the original wife, except in response to porneia. The Greek construction may be the epexigetical use of and (Gk. kai): anyone who divorces his wife…and marries another woman commits adultery. This would mean that divorces…and remarries should be understood as one event with two parts, rather than two separate events in time. If that is so, the meaning is even stronger: the husband has decided to remarry and so he first divorces his existing wife. Either way, this man commits adultery because he has broken faith with his wife by divorcing her unjustly with a view to remarriage. Mark, in his slightly different account of the same teaching, actually specifies that the husband who divorces to remarry commits active adultery against her (Mk.10:11). Although this is the implicit message of Malachi, Jesus’ use of him in this way would appear to be an original contribution to the rabbinic discussion of divorce. There is considerable irony here. Dt. 24 was used by husbands to regard the remarried wives they had divorced as adulterous against them in some uncertain but damaging way. Now Jesus turns Dt.24 on the men and declares that an unjustified divorce followed by remarriage is not simply adulterous in state but adulterous in act. It is important, however, to understand that Jesus has already acknowledged that Moses permits divorce and remarriage. Had he effectively said that Moses was wrong, the debate would not have led to the confusion of his disciples about marriage and divorce, but to their horror at such unquestionable blasphemy. His teaching is that the original marriage has been betrayed because it should still exist, not because it does still exist. Note also that, as in Mt.5, Jesus shifts the focus of blame from divorced women to their divorcing husbands. His consistent view is that husbands who unjustly divorce their wives are the perpetrators of evil and that the wronged wives are victims, not sinners.

Mark 10:1-12
Mk. 10 is a slightly different form of the teaching found in Mt.19.17 Essentially, the differences are that Mark: (a). records a shorter question about the permission in Dt.24 to divorce; (b). places the condemnation of divorce-to-remarry not in the open with the Pharisees but in Jesus’ private discussion with the disciples, though he does not mention the discussion of remaining celibate found in Matthew’s account of it; (c). does not include the
Various explanations have been offered for the differences between Matthew and Mark, including that on different occasions Jesus was confronted by the same questions, or that in private the disciples returned to the Jesus’ condemnation of men who divorced to remarry, or that either Matthew or Mark (or both) simply followed the literary conventions of Graeco-Roman biographers, who were not overly concerned about secondary historical details when they recorded events, especially speeches.
17

15

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

exception for justified divorce on the grounds of porneia; (d). makes clear that the adultery of the divorcing-to-remarry husband is against his original wife; (e). reports that Jesus not only condemned men divorcing-to-remarry but also women who did so. This last point has led to most controversy. It is argued that Jesus could not have said that women could divorce their husbands because only the husband could issue a divorce. In fact, that is not the case. First of all, women could use the Roman rather than the Jewish courts, where it was possible for them to obtain a divorce themselves. Second, even in the Jewish courts, a woman could obtain a divorce on the evidence of witnesses to certain acts by their husbands unacceptable under Jewish law. Technically, the court decision was then to compel the husband to issue a divorce but the fact remains that a wife could effectively initiate the process. The important point to note is that Jesus here affirms a greater mutuality of the partners in marriage concerning their privileges and responsibilities. He is once again undermining the idea that men were inherently superior to women.

Luke 16:18
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Luke’s concise summary of Jesus’ teaching follows his record of Jesus upholding the law absolutely. It is therefore a position he probably associates consciously with the law of divorce. Its Greek has affinities with Mt.5:31,32 but the first case considered, of divorce-toremarry, is clearly that of Mt.19. Luke then adds a second case which at first appears to be found in Mt.5 – that of the man who marries a divorced woman. However, we have to take account of another problem with the Greek. The verbal form used for divorced could either be passive or middle. The NIV translation, in common with all others I have seen, renders it as passive – making it describe a woman who has been divorced by her husband. However, in the middle voice it would mean a woman who has obtained a divorce. This would then include the Markan reference to divorcing-to-remarry women, making it complete as a terse summary of Jesus’ whole teaching.

Summary of Jesus’ teaching
Those who maintain that the traditional Christian disapproval of divorce and remarriage is biblically correct, usually understand Jesus’ teaching in the following way (with some variations). Jesus alters the OT law of divorce and remarriage in Dt.24 by consistently 16

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

teaching that remarriage is adultery in the sense of being an extra-marital sexual relationship because the original marriage still exists despite the divorce. The remarried victims of unjust divorce and their new husbands commit adultery even though they may not realise it (Mt.5), the husband or wife who issues a divorce and then remarries commits adultery (Mt.19/Mk.10), and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Lk. 16). Every possible partner in remarriage, it is claimed, is clearly committing adultery. Divorce, therefore, is a ‘legal fiction’ that in God’s sight does not end a marriage (except, some would allow, for the innocent party in cases of betrayal through porneia, which in this scheme is usually interpreted as adultery as well). The greatest problem with this view is that it places Jesus in direct opposition to his own affirmation of the OT law and to the events described in Ez.9-10. The alternative view proposed in this paper is that Jesus does not alter the provisions of Dt. 24:1-4 at all, nor the OT’s perhaps reluctant acceptance of divorce and remarriage. Rather, he corrects both rabbinic and popular misconceptions of their significance. Jesus upholds the ideal of lifelong marriage and corrects the assumption in Jewish culture of his time, that the law of God provided a lesser commitment to marriage for men than women. However, he knew very well that the law provided two exceptions to lifelong faithfulness, both of which ended the marriage and set its surviving members free to remarry. One he does not discuss (death for adultery)18 but the other he does (divorce in response to other kinds of behaviour that amounted to destroying the integrity of the marriage so that the husband found it impossible to regard his wife as faithful to the covenant). Dt.24:4 recognises the remarried status even of a justly divorced woman. Jesus also protects the woman wrongly divorced and remarried in Mt.5 by addressing the meaning of her being defiled. Even here, his teaching is not a new standard which alters the rule, but his understanding of its original intention. His basic rule for marriage is that no-one should betray the trust required of them, either by unfaithful behaviour or by using divorce to escape it to enter another marriage; while those who are betrayed are victims, not perpetrators, of evil. In a few sentences we may summarise Jesus’ teaching as follows: (a). it is sinful to initiate the end of a marriage, except for porneia, which means behaviour fundamentally
If he had condemned it he would have been in opposition to the law. However, he treats the woman caught in adultery sympathetically by telling her to ‘go and sin no more’. Perhaps the combination of his action and his silence indicates that he regarded that law as defunct in the spiritual kingdom he proclaimed, encompassed that is, in ‘until all be fulfilled.’
18

17

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

contradictory of the marriage covenant: (b). it is not sinful in itself to be divorced; (c). divorcing for no other reason than as a prelude to remarriage, whether as only an intention or as part of a definite plan, betrays the sexual union of the original marriage because it destroys what should still exist; (c). whatever the reason for a divorce, remarriage both for the guilty and the innocent is as morally valid as they are faithful to each other; it is not an ‘act’ of adultery because the original marriage is over, but it is always a ‘state’ of adultery in terms of the OT law, both for the innocent and the guilty in a previous marriage breakdown.

5. The Teaching of Paul in 1 Cor.7
To complete a survey of biblical teaching it is necessary to examine Paul’s teaching in 1 Co.7. It will be argued that Paul is consistent, indeed is only consistent, with the interpretation offered above of Jesus’ teaching; and that like his Master, Paul is completely committed to the moral principles of the OT law. If, as commonly believed, Paul trained as a rabbi under the Gamaliel who was the grandson and representative in his day of the school of Hillel, then Paul would appear to have had to think through his own position by moving from the minimalist view of proper obedience to the law held by Hillel, to the stricter position of Shammai in being ‘a Pharisee of the Pharisees’ (unless he was content with Hillel’s interpretation and made that his measure for being ‘faultless concerning the law’); and then to being a disciple of Jesus. His advice here is certainly the result of profound reflection. Paul wrote this chapter in reply to a question from the Corinthian Church about whether it is good for a man not to marry (7:1). The Greek literally states it is good for a man not to have a woman. The words man and woman were used in ancient Greek both to indicate gender and marital status, and so the question might not be about the value of marriage but of sexual intercourse. His fundamental answer is that, because immorality is so strong a temptation, the marital relationship must be sexually active (7:2-3). Immediately we are introduced to an important element of this chapter. Paul repeatedly takes the OT law as his basis for discussing marriage and divorce. In this instance, it is the requirement of a sexual relationship in marriage. In what follows it is exhibited in his consideration of various OT categories of females in relation to marriage. It should be remembered that the Corinthian Church contained a significant number of Jewish believers (Ac.18:1-17), so that Paul’s use of OT categories and expressions were far from obscure to his readers. 18

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

The unmarried and the widows (7:8-9)
We must begin with the Greek word used here by Paul for unmarried (agamois). It is a plural with a masculine ending, which has led some to argue that Paul has in mind men who have not yet married, in contrast with the not yet married virgins he later discusses (vv.27ff.) The ESV goes further by way of interpretation and renders the phrase widows and their suitors. However, such masculine endings may indicate a category, whether consisting of males or females. When agamois is coupled with the certainly female widowed, it is more natural to understand that they are two categories of unmarried women in the same position, the OT group consisting of the ‘divorced and widowed,’ especially as that would then conform to the general pattern in Paul’s discussion of considering various OT categories of women with only secondary references to the situations of men. To the unqualified inclusion of divorced women in Paul’s permission to remarry (v.9), holders of the more conservative traditional positions on divorce and remarriage are bound to object, of course. Usually, if the reference to men is excluded by them, they regard the unmarried and widowed as describing those women who are qualified to marry, taking it to mean the virgins and widows. However, Paul distinguishes between virgins and the agamois himself in vv.27-28. The simplicity and rabbinic precision of discussing a particular OT category is to be preferred, and is compatible with the interpretation of Jesus I have put forward.

Women married to fellow believers (7:10-11)
That Paul now has in mind women who are married to fellow believers is indicated by his statement to the rest in the next section of his discussion (vv.12-23). Paul, citing the authority of Jesus, gives advice mainly to wives but adds one phrase about husbands: a wife must not separate from her husband and if she does she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife (v.10-11). One way to read this is that Paul is addressing both wives and husbands who have chosen celibacy within marriage. They have gone some distance towards causing the breakdown of their marriages and Paul appeals to the teaching of Jesus against unjustified divorce to prevent them ending them. Under Roman law, permanent separation was equivalent to divorce, so that it is possible that Paul simply states in two different ways the same rule for men and women. Alternatively, Paul might be addressing offending wives and their offended husbands, using language that reflects OT law as clarified by Jesus. Jesus opposed divorce without just 19

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

cause, and celibate wives had no cause. They must not go to the next stage of leaving the home to renounce the marriage. If they do, they must remain unmarried or return. Dt. 24:4 would be in view here, which holds that remarrying would preclude any reconciliation. Meanwhile, the offended husbands must not avail themselves of their right to divorce their wives for refusing sex, following the principle of Ex.21:7ff. and perhaps Dt. 24:1-4 since the Exodus passage only clearly stipulates a woman’s right to divorce for the refusal by her husband of sexual union.

Men and women married to unbelievers (7:12-23)
Paul gives much greater attention to this situation, which indicates that it was common. He does not have a saying of Jesus (v.12), but he does depend on the principles found both in the OT and in Jesus’ teaching. The believer should not initiate a divorce if the unbeliever is willing to stay in the marriage (vv.12-13). This conforms to Jesus’ call for marital faithfulness according to God’s original intention, and his general disapproval of initiating a divorce. However, if the unbeliever leaves, the believer is no longer bound to the marriage (v.13). The expression may reflect Paul’s Jewish thinking, since it was precisely the freedom given through a certificate of divorce. However, in Greek usage also, ‘not bound’ to a marriage refers to being divorced. Paul certainly means that the believer may accept the divorce without blame. He is sometimes understood to provide here an extra concession for remarriage by those who interpret Jesus as permitting divorce and remarriage only for the innocent party betrayed by porneia. A simpler explanation is that Paul follows Jesus rather than contradicts him, which is possible as I have explained Jesus’ teaching, by distinguishing between initiating an unjust divorce and being the subject of divorce whether innocent or not. There are two further and major points to make. In Jewish tradition, marriage to a non-Jew or to an apostate from Judaism rendered the whole family ‘defiled’ and therefore unable to attend worship in the synagogue and Temple. Paul totally reverses this rule. If the unbeliever is willing to remain in the marriage it should not be ended by the believer (v.12). In the Church, all the unbelieving family members are sanctified by the believing marriage partner (vv.13-14) and are welcome to participate in its life.19
This does not mean that Paul thought they were effectively believers deserving baptism, but only that the worship and fellowship of the church became inclusive rather than following the exclusive way of the synagogue.
19

21

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill The second point is about the ending of a ‘mixed marriage’ by the unbeliever leaving it (v.15). In Corinth, of course, Roman law applied so that the OT law and the teaching of Jesus were alike irrelevant as far as unbelieving gentiles were concerned. Roman law regarded marriage as made by agreeing to live together in a sexual union and ended by separation from each other. Richer people might agree more complex arrangements but this was the basic legal rule. Consequently, v.15 refers to an unbeliever ending the marriage. However, it was natural, then as now, that believers would regard themselves as still married and would pray for their partners to be converted and return. Paul regards such a hope as too uncertain of fulfilment. So he advises the believer to live in peace rather than in such distress. The blunt truth was that no-one could be sure their unbelieving partner would in fact be saved (vv.14-16). However, Paul is cautious in case he is thought to be encouraging people to desire the end of a mixed marriage. In a long passage (vv.16-23) he first compares such marriages to being Jewish by birth and then to being born a slave. He rules that people should accept their circumstances at conversion as providentially arranged by God (v.24 especially). Paul’s teaching is an embarrassment both to the view that marriage is indissoluble and that it is indissoluble except on the grounds of porneia. Indissolubilists usually answer that in Jesus’ and Paul’s understanding of it, divorce does not include the right to remarry, thus changing the provisions of the OT law. Those who believe Jesus permitted remarriage only for the innocent party in a case of porneia but who also find another one here, usually argue that Paul (inexplicably, surely) adds his own further exception for desertion (or mores epcifically, desertion by an unbeliever of a believer). However, such difficult solutions are not necessary. My proposal is that Jesus focuses on the person who issues a divorce while Paul discusses the person who receives it, and neither of them rejects the effectiveness of the divorce or the morality of a subsequent remarriage. Paul simply allows it for the divorced as for the widowed, while Jesus exposes the guilt before God of those who divorce without proper grounds.

Women who have yet to be married (vv.25-38)
Paul only now considers the never yet married women, the virgins. Once again, he has no teaching of Jesus on which to depend, so he gives his own advice (v.25). There is a present crisis (v.26) which leads Paul to advise against getting married. This may have been a perceived threat of severe persecution, or the expectation of Jesus’s imminent return (v.29). Similarly, the married should not use this as a reason for divorce nor the once-married 21

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

(agamois) follow too swiftly his advice to remarry rather than burn with passion (v.27). However, it would not be a sin for them to do so, nor would it be for virgins to marry (v.28). We may pass over the expansion of Paul’s thought about the value of remaining single in vv.29-35, save to note his profound concern for believers to make their first priority the service of Christ (v.35). The final part of his advice regarding virgins concerns the case of those who have already agreed to marry. Should they break off the relationship? A man who has made a promise of marriage and feels that it would be improper to break it should proceed with the marriage (v.36). Those, however, who think it right to end the relationship should feel free to do so, with one important exception. They are not under compulsion (v.37). The reference here can hardly be to a woman who is dominating her partner or to a family who pressurises him not to end the relationship. Rather, the compulsion in view is almost certainly of a contractual nature, such as at least Jews in the church would have likely made in the form of a betrothal. Finally, we come to consider vv.39-40. Paul returns to his use of OT law and practice to state the marriage covenant principle: a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone else she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord (v.39). This verse cannot be used to refute the possibility of divorce and remarriage because it is only a statement of the OT marriage covenant principle for which there were exceptions covered in Dt. 24:1-4, and as argued earlier, by Jesus himself.

6. Conclusions
The biblical survey conducted above is proposed as faithful to the actual texts found in the OT and NT and, as far as can presently be known, to the meaning they originally carried. What is found there is that the OT law provides an ideal of lifelong marriage as not only a social contract but also a moral and spiritual union made by God. Nevertheless, the covenant of marriage required faithfulness and both men and women were capable of betraying it, either by adultery or some other profound contradiction of their calling. Divorce was permitted in response to such failures while adultery was punishable by death. Both death and divorce ended the marriage covenant leaving those who remained free to remarry. Various abuses grew around the provisions of the law, especially against women, who were vulnerable because of both their legal inequality and their economic dependence on either a father or a husband. The abuse of divorce arose from the exclusive rights and legal 22

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

powers of the husband, and the national cultural trauma described in Ez.9-10 led to divorce becoming even more acceptable. Against this Malachi protested and defended wives from casual divorce by establishing the divine dimension of marriage. Despite this, Jewish attitudes continued to approve divorce and remarriage, and particularly divorce as a conscious prelude to replacing one wife with another. By the time of Jesus, rabbinic opinion had come to justify not only casual divorce leading to remarriage, but also the abuse of women as grossly unequal, and indeed as chattel. The example of the first marriage had been relegated to an unlikely ideal. Jesus restored the original meaning of the law with teaching so lofty that even his own followers questioned the advisability of getting married if divorce was so seldom right. However, Jesus was a realist about the implications of fallen human nature for marital faithfulness, and alongside that ideal he reaffirmed the OT detestation of adultery, its provision for divorce under extreme circumstances, and the recognition that divorce in principle and effect always ended a marriage and so allowed the honourable remarriage even of the guilty. Paul addresses various issues concerning divorce and remarriage in the context of a peculiarly un-Jewish proposition from the Corinthian Church. Greek asceticism (probably) had led to the teaching there that sex was inherently unspiritual. In reply, Paul sets out a series of principles he finds either in the OT or in the words of Jesus. He affirms the OT nature of marriage as a lifelong covenant and a spiritual union in which sexual intercourse is a necessity and a righteous duty rather than an unspiritual weakness. On this basis, he considers various situations, drawing mainly on OT categories of women: the divorced and widowed (whom he advises to marry rather than burn with passion); women espousing celibacy within marriage to fellow believers who (for whom he has Jesus’ ruling that it is never right to initiate divorce and his advice both to the wives and husbands to seek reconciliation rather than divorce; believers married to unbelievers (for whom he reverses the rabbinic rule that this constituted a reason for divorce, but allows that if they are unwillingly divorced they are free to remarry); and the virgins, (whom he advises, along with the agamois, not to marry but does not condemn as sinful if they do). In all this, Paul assumes the OT law to be correct, and finds no difficulty with reconciling that with the teaching of Jesus.

23

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

7. Implications for the Convention of Evangelical Churches in Israel
One important issue for the Evangelical Convention is that a court policy must also be applicable to a pastoral one. The decisions that are reached will inevitably affect not only guidance for those who might thereby be compelled to remain in a marriage against their consciences, but also how divorced and remarried people are regarded in the church. This may seem difficult but principled with regard to those within the church who are refused a divorce, but other cases must also be considered, such as those who are unwillingly divorced and those who come to evangelical faith after divorce and perhaps remarriage. Further, in independent congregations allowance will be needed for the possibility that whatever policy is adopted, individual congregations may decide to ignore it in respect especially of accepting or retaining people as church members. Another complication will be what response should be offered to the repentant. Should they be restored to good standing after a remarriage contrary to the law devised, or should they be permanently excluded from the church? It will therefore be necessary first to decide the biblical and theological principles and then to provide guidance for its pastoral application.

24

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill

Bibliography

Adams, Jay, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, (Phillipsburgh, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1980) [supports divorce with limited remarriage] Barker, Kenneth, Stek, John H., Strauss, Mark L., Youngblood, Ronald (eds), NIV Study Bible, 2008 Update, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008) Boettner, Loraine, Divorce, (Phillipsburgh, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1960) [supports divorce with limited remarriage] Brown, Ralph, Marriage Annulment in the Catholic Church, (Leigh-on-Sea: Kevin Mayhew Ltd., 1977) [a Catholic study which presupposes the sacramental view of marriage] Clarke, Stephen, Putting Asunder: divorce and remarriage in biblical and pastoral perspective, (Bridgend: Bryntirion Press, 1999) [supports divorce with limited remarriage] Cornes, Andrew, Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical principles and pastoral practice, (Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton, 1993) [takes an indissolubilist view] Crispin, Ken, Divorce: The Forgivable Sin? (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989) [regards Jesus’ sayings as primarily against divorce with the intention of remarrying] House, H. Wayne (ed), Divorce and Remarrriage: Four Christian Views, (Downers Grove IL:InterVarsity Press, 1990) Kelly, Kevin, Divorce & Second Marriage, (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1996) [takes a more liberal than biblicist view] Kinskern, Joseph Warren, When The Vow Breaks, (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1993) [takes a more generous evangelical view than many] Kirk, Mary, Divorce: Living Through The Agony, (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1998) Instone-Brewer, David, Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible: the social and literary context, (New York: Eerdmans, 2002) [an expert study of the rabbinic and Jewish context of Jesus’ teaching] Instone-Brewer, David, Divorce & Remarriage in the Church, (Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2003) [a more popular version of the major study]

25

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012

Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage? Phil Hill Madsen, Keith, Fallen Images: Experiencing Divorce in the Ministry, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1985) Marshall, I. Howard, Millard, A.R., Packer, J.I., Wiseman, D.J. (eds), New Bible Dictionary, 3rd Edition, (Leicester: IVP, 1996) Mears, C., Bishop of Bangor, Marriage & Divorce: some moral anomalies, (Swansea, Wales: Ty John Penry, 1992) [a more liberal Anglican analysis] Murray, John, Divorce, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1961) [supports divorce with limited remarriage] Richards, Neil, Divorce, (Bridgend: Evangelical Movement of Wales, nd) [supports divorce with limited remarriage] Smoke, Jim, Growing Through Divorce, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995) [supports a wide range of reasons for divorce] Wegner, Judith Romney, Chattel or Person? The status of women in the Mishnah, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) [a fine Jewish exploration of the issue] Wenham, Gordon, & Heth, William, Jesus and Divorce, (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002) [supports the indissolubility of marriage]

26

Mary’s Well Occasional Papers

Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary

1:5

Nazareth, Israel

Nov 2012