The gospel of Matthew contains two verses that are used to support the idea that Jesus approved of divorce in cases of adultery. Jesus states in Matthew 5:32 that “everyone who divorces his wife makes her commit adultery, unless the reason is sexual immorality.” “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery,” according to Matthew 19:9.
First explanation
This can be read in three different ways. The first one is this one: “A adulterous person is one who divorces their spouse and marries someone else.” However, you don’t commit adultery when you are divorced and get married to someone else if she has already committed adultery. The most prevalent explanation among Protestant churches is this one. Several biblical scholars interpret this passage’s reference to “sexual immorality” as adultery. That may not be the greatest way to understand the text, though.
Second explanation
Here’s how to interpret this verse in a second way: “A adulterous person is one who divorces their spouse and marries someone else.” But leaving an unfaithful fiancee does not qualify as a divorce. This explanation of the passage looks less plausible at first glance. But for the following reasons, I’m now certain that it’s most likely the right one:
- The other gospels have a far more definitive tone. There are no exceptions made by them. For instance, Jesus states that “everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery” in Luke 16:18. Luke (and Mark) are unlikely to have overlooked a significant exception that does, in fact, permit divorce. Perhaps then, we ought to try to interpret Matthew in a way that makes sense in light of Luke.
- The passage refers to “sexual immorality” rather than “adultery” as a legitimate cause for divorce. This phrase is used to refer to incest (1 Corinthians 5:1) and premarital sex (e.g., John 8:41). In the same list of sins, Matthew employs both terms (Matthew 15:19). This implies that adultery and “sexual immorality” are not the same sin in Matthew’s eyes.
- Luke and Mark do not mention the exception, and Matthew has good cause to. He stated in the first chapter that Joseph, a devout man, believed Mary was pregnant by someone else and sought to divorce her. While Joseph and Mary were not yet married, this would still be considered sexual immorality rather than adultery. The Jewish custom of engagement was so strong that ending it was regarded as a divorce, even though they were engaged. Matthew adds in this chapter that this particular instance is exempt from the prohibition against divorce.
Third explanation
Here is a third interpretation of the verse: “A person commits adultery if they divorce their spouse and remarry someone else.” Nevertheless, when the initial marriage was void, it does not qualify as a divorce. The Roman Catholic church has interpreted this text in this way. When a marriage is used to refer to a living arrangement without being a formal marriage, it is considered “sexual immorality.” This is especially true when the marriage is incestuous (see Leviticus 18).
Divorce seems to be absolutely prohibited
It appears that the easiest approach to understand Jesus’ teachings is as a categorical ban on divorce. Husband and wife become one flesh after marriage. God unites them into a single entity (Mark 10:8–9). God views death as the only thing that may sever a marriage. In 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul states, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives,” confirming this.
Of course, there are instances in which one partner’s transgression makes it difficult for a married pair to continue their relationship. It may be required to separate, which is different from divorcing. However, the most plausible interpretation of Jesus’ teaching suggests that [divorce making a remarriage possible is not allowed]. Nonetheless, it would seem prudent for churches to permit members to reach a different decision on this matter, given the multitude of Bible scholars who maintain that Jesus made an exception for divorce following adultery.
