Is Divorce allowed for Adultery by Jesus Christ?
Jesus when asked if divorce was allowed said that God's plan is strictly one man
and woman for life meaning that divorcing and remarrying is adultery. Only
in the Matthew gospel does he say that unfaithfulness or porniea is a separate
case, "except for unfaithfulness or porniea". Some read too much into this
and say divorce is permitted for adultery.
Some say except for unfaithfulness or porniea means that when a man marries a
woman and it is found that she had been unchaste with other men before the
wedding while claiming to be true to him and promising to be true to him forever
the man could divorce her for there was no real marriage and she did not mean
the vows.
This interpretation is the best for it fits the Bible better. Remember Jesus
said to the Pharisees and Scribes that fornication was a separate case. It is a
bit vague to us but it would not have been to them. He was speaking to them as
one person who knew the law speaking to another who knew it well too. The Law
permits a man to get rid of his wife and marry again if he finds she is not a
virgin on the wedding night. She married him on the basis that she was a virgin
and so the marriage was not real for based on a lie.
Some say that the unfaithfulness meant is not that of the woman before the
marriage but after. It’s adultery. The man can repudiate the marriage contract
if the woman commits adultery.
Jesus would not have dared to make divorce permissible over adultery because
that would be encouraging people to commit adultery to escape from unhappy
marriages. And battering the wife is worse than committing adultery and a better
reason for divorce.
If Jesus regarded divorce for remarriage over adultery as lawful when adultery
had taken place then this is no consolation to Christians. He was talking to
Jews about Jewish marriages. Nothing in the Bible says that a valid Christian
marriage can be dissolved. The Bible says that true Christians have been changed
by the power of God into holy people unlike the Jews and other outsiders. That
is why the marriage rules for true Christians could and would be different and
tougher for they are delivered from the sin nature.
Jesus said divorce was allowed by Moses because the people were so pig-headed. Some say the exception clause is like something that is in brackets. This makes Jesus say, “Divorce and remarriage are always wrong (adultery is another case) etc”. Adultery is another case could mean that he allows separation for adultery or divorce without remarriage which amounts to the same thing.
Matthew 5:32 gives light on this for it says that a man who puts his wife
away except for adultery makes her commit adultery and that whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery. Divorce would mean separation as well as
divorce for not all divorce was legal in whose days. The non-legal version would
be separation and the legally permitted one would be divorce. The man can make
his wife commit adultery by separating from her and whoever marries a separated
woman commits adultery (Question 880, Radio Replies 3). Bible scholars agree
that Matthew 5:32 implies that a marriage after divorce or separation is
forbidden (page 397, Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties).
Radio Replies 3 says of Matthew 5:32,
Question 880, “According to Matthew V., 32, Christ said, “Whomsoever shall put
away his wife, except for fornication, and marry another, maketh her commit
adultery”.
Christ allowed permanent separation without remarriage, if adultery has been
committed by one of the parties. What He meant was this: Whosoever shall put
away his wife (I am not now speaking of mere separation without remarriage, for
that is lawful in the case of infidelity,) but whosoever puts away his wife and
marries another commits adultery himself and by his adulterous union forces his
wife into adultery if she marries another. That is the only possible
interpretation in the light of the context and parallel passages. If the man who
marries the woman so put away commits adultery, she must still be the wife of
the one who dismissed her; and if she is still his wife, he must still be her
husband, and forbidden to take a new wife.”
The reasoning is perfectly right in so far that it is known that the verse does
not allow divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery considering that all of
the other teachings on marriage in the New Testament absolutely forbid divorce
for remarriage and enjoin celibacy on all whose marriages have broken down.
Incidentally, if a man is not making his wife commit adultery by dismissing her
the dismissal must be a separation or just a living apart not a divorce. If a
man puts away his wife because she committed adultery he would still be making
her commit adultery by telling her to go away. If a man puts away his wife
realising that the marriage was somehow invalid in the first place he would not
be making her commit adultery for if she remarries the marriage will be real.
Those who feel that we should take the word wife literally will have to go with
the interpretation that Jesus is simply only allowing a man and wife to live
apart without remarriage if adultery has taken place.
Page 54 of The Catholic Church has the Answer says that in Matthew 19:9 Jesus
doesn't allow divorce in the case of adultery but he allows separation. It says
that the fact that Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 have Jesus forbidding remarriage
for those who are separated proves this. It is true that Jesus never ever said
that remarriage was lawful. If he allowed divorce in the case of adultery or
fornication, he still never said that the parties could marry other people.
All divorce would involve adultery for it is intending to commit it or make the
partner commit it when the partner wishes. Jesus said that adultery in the heart
was as morally bad as real adultery so the apostles knew that all divorce was
adultery. Then, when the apostles said that it would be better not to marry at
all when they heard Jesus’ teaching on divorce it proves that they knew that
Jesus did not allow divorce and remarriage unless the first marriage was not
real and not because of adultery.
When Mark and Luke forbade divorce absolutely it proves that Matthew was
unlikely to allow it for the tradition was that divorce was wrong. Jesus
condemned Moses’ permitting of divorce and was hardly likely to contradict
himself later by permitting it for adultery. He opposed divorce and never said
it was wrong only when intended for remarriage but wrong all the time.
Liberals ignore Jesus’ divorce ban for they say he was not saying that divorce
is wrong all the time but saying that the ideal was life-long marriage. But he
was asked a legal question and so he gave a legal answer and not an idealistic
one.
It is possible that if Jesus meant divorce could only be possible if adultery
had happened that the words except for porniea were an addition. It could be
said that we can tell this from the context which does not fit the idea of any
exceptions for a valid marriage and from Mark which absolutely bans divorce. And
why do the same words pop up in both places where Jesus has a go at divorce?
Matthew 5:31, 32 has Jesus saying that whoever divorces his wife except for
porniea makes her commit adultery because her and his marriage cannot be
dissolved by divorce and she is contracting a new but fake marriage making her
an adulteress. But if he divorces her he is not making her do that unless her
second or new wedding has already been prepared for. Jesus could not have meant
that he was making her commit adultery when he knows she will contract an
illicit marriage. It’s not his fault if he does not know. It is her decision. In
that case, she would already have been an adulteress so her husband could not
make one of her. What Jesus might have meant by except for porniea or unchastity
was that whoever divorces his wife makes an adulteress of her unless she already
is one. Awkward expression but people do things like that.
But except for porniea does not mean adultery here for what Jesus meant was that
whoever divorces his wife except for the unchastity of an invalid marriage makes
her commit adultery. That is the most straightforward interpretation. The reason
he can’t make her commit adultery is because there never was a marriage.
Jesus did not allow divorce on the grounds of marital infidelity despite the
loose and prejudiced translations you have in Bibles like the New International
Version.
Conclusion
Matthew's gospel does not really say that if a couple are married and one
commits adultery that they can remarry following divorce. Matthew fits the
absolute ban on divorce in the rest of the New Testament.
WORKS CONSULTED
A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Catholic Truth Society, Westminster, 1985
Believing in God, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
Biblical Dictionary and Concordance of the New American Bible, Confraternity of
Christian Doctrine, Washington DC, 1971
Catholicism, Richard P McBrien, HarperSanFrancisco, New York, 1994
Divorce, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, 1946
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1982
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, Uta Ranke Heinmann, Penguin, London, 1991
Hard Sayings, Derek Kidner, Intervarsity Press, 1972
Hard Sayings, FF Bruce, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1984
Moral Philosophy, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
Moral Questions, Bishops Conference, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1971
New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic University of America and the
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
Preparing for a Mixed Marriage, Irish Episcopal Conference, Veritas, Dublin,
1984
Radio Replies Volume 3, Dr Leslie Rumble MSC, Rev Charles Carty, Radio Replies
Press, St Paul Minnesota, 1942
Rome has Spoken, A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements and How They Have Changed
Through the Centuries, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben (Editors), Crossroad
Publishing, New York, 1998
Shattered Vows, Exodus From the Priesthood, David Rice, Blackstaff Press,
Belfast, 1990
Sex & Marriage A Catholic Perspective, John M Hamrogue C SS R, Liguori,
Illinois, 1987
The Catholic Church has the Answer, Paul Whitcomb, TAN Publishers, Illinois,
1986
The Emancipation of a Freethinker, Herbert Ellsworth Cory, The Bruce Publishing
Company, Milwaukee, 1947
“The Lord Hateth Putting Away!” and Reflections on Marriage and Divorce The
Committee of the Christadelphian, Birmingham, 1985
When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992
The WWW
How to Fight the Religious Right, Brian Elroy McKinley
http://elroy.net/ehr/fighttheright.html
BIBLE VERSION USED
The Amplified Bible
